UKC

Exercise in nature is one of the most effective ways to maintain good mental health. Why, then, do we tolerate such restrictive access to the countryside in England and Wales? If we want a happier, healthier society, let's tackle the access issue, says Feargus Cooney.

Read more

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Thanks for writing that. It chimes with me in many ways. 

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Great article, thank you Feargus. I'm in vehement agreement with your views on access. I value the freedom I have to run on local trails, though I'm far from any wilderness (probably more restrictive than Cornwall even).

The most emotionally positive experiences are when I find myself alone and at least perceptually "in the middle of nowhere", where I feel few others have been or, more importantly, nobody will show up whilst I'm there. For reasons I'm not entirely sure of, I feel even better in high, open places, or deep in a forest (doesn't have to be remote but I need to feel I'm unlikely to see anyone else!)

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Car-dependency, chauvinism and political faddism.  Actual inclusive mental health comes from folk being able to walk almost directly from their doors into green space.  That is rare in Scotland because there are few delineated paths through farmland, with associated gates and stiles.  That was my greatest frustration when I lived in Scotland.  Knowing that I could drive and then saunter over The Duke of Atholl's place was pretty irrelevant.  By contrast my relatives in Nottinghamshire had a spiders web of paths within a few minutes walk of their homes.  The benefit to their mental health and socialisation was evident.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

I'm extremely fortunate in that I can walk out of my door across a park and onto the path to the top of Kinder. 

Almost everyone though has to travel to get to hills or even countryside. The Peak District is close by (I guess <2hr drive) for 18M people. But the public transport and parking situation is appalling. Since covid, many more people have discovered that they like the outdoors. That is great and IMO should be enthusiastically encouraged. Instead almost nothing has been done to accommodate increased visitor numbers.

A couple of weekends ago, in Millers Dale all the (expensive) car parks were full. Laybys were full of cars and those got parking fines. That is a regular situation at bank holidays now, but this was just a normal November weekend.

I don't see why parts of some fields couldn't be converted into the type of car park I saw in Pembroke that has grass growing between small concrete blocks that allow cars to drive across. Providing ample public transport would also be awesome.

The Kinder trespassers fought for Peak District access. We should live up to their ideals.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles: two hours does  not qualify as close in this context, for the mental relief daily access to the outdoors provides. 

The article doesn't altogether resonate with me... there seems an element of wishing things are other than what they are.. for example , being angry that Cornwall isn't the same as Scotland. All beaches, no big mountains.   But that may be a symptom of frustration at life,  depression? 

Access is tricky.  I live in a country with very strong access rights.  I also lived for many years in Surrey (!) and greatly enjoyed access to the countryside there vi's footpaths, bridleways.  I think it would be naive, and would likely reduce actual access if Norwegian allmansrett were applied there as many footpaths would disappear.  Access can be improved and some private landowners are a p.i.t.a., but simple solutions may not be best

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

I don't want to argue for one second that there aren't people who need proper unspoilt wilderness to keep themselves mentally healthy.

But many people can get a huge boost to their physical and mental health from using very local very accessible green spaces and path networks. The kind of quick blast of nature that many of us can fit in for an hour or so a few times a week inbetween the mundane demands of everyday life.

And these facilities are there for pretty much all of us in the UK, in theory. Parks, publicly-owned woodlands, commons, canal towpaths, public rights of way etc. The problem is, the maintenance and management of these facilities is woefully underfunded which can make trying to access and use them difficult and stressful. No wonder so many people would rather drive to the gym than go for a walk from their doorstep.

In reply to Sam Beaton:

I was lucky enough to have a web of local paths available when we were all locked down. I found being able to walk through the relatively 'ordinary' countryside just as important as being on the hills. I found a nice spot under a big old ash tree to sit and contemplate life and watch the cows grazing. The downside was the upsurge in path blockages by the privileged 'defending' their country piles (illegally) from the great unwashed.

In reply to wbo2:

As a long-term resident of Surrey... I agree, access is not an issue here. I can walk out of my door and be on a network of footpaths and bridleways which can take you to practically anywhere you'd really want to go in the county (and the neighbouring areas in Hampshire and Sussex). All the more "wild" areas of heathland and woodland may not theoretically have completely open access but in practice there are so many paths they may as well do. I don't particularly want to stomp across a nature reserve anyway. 

All the interesting countryside is accessible. That more people don't take advantage of what we have is surprising, but entirely their own choice.

​​​​​​This is not the case everywhere (parts of Dorset for example are quite poorly connected with footpaths), but I think in a lot of the country where nowhere is truly that remote, you'd struggle to get a better outcome than we have.

In reply to Lankyman:

I live just 15 minutes' drive from a national park but walking and running through suburban woods and parks when time is tight is just as big a boost to my all round well-being as visiting proper countryside 

In reply to Lankyman:

I am pretty radical on countryside access and think it an important issue, however I do not think conflating it with Mental Health is helpful.
During the lock down, we too explored our local area more, which I thought I knew well, but discovered many gems unknown to me. Perhaps following the example of Alastair Humphreys https://alastairhumphreys.com/product/local/ and spending a few months just exploring our own local area, rather than zooming off too, wherever, could be productive.
I am sure many of us have read Paulo Cohelos The Alchemist, and one of the lessons is that what we are travelling in search of, is near to home, if only we could see it.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

While I see where the author is coming from (his own viewpoint) it is rather "me, me, me". 

Firstly they include the right to roam with the right to camp wherever they wish, this is a divisive issue, I support increased access to some parts of the countryside but not carte-blanche to camp anywhere.

Secondly the author only looks at their benefits of the right to go where they wish but never mention the downsides, an apolyptic farmer shouting " get off my land" is clearly under more mental stress than he is. Like it or not it IS his property, his family may have looked after it for generations and he sees trespassers as a threat. An unbalanced view perhaps but no less legitimate than the of the author.

Thirdly it ignores the rights of others to enjoy the countryside, there are a large number of groups interested in using the countryside, that angler calmly fishing when a bunch of paddlers come past, those motorcyclists enjoying an afternoons ride on historic roads and so on.

Is their mental health worth less consideration?

In reply to rogerhill12:

I think you might have been slightly limited by your own perspective there. Growing up in Scotland I roamed directly from the village into green space daily - there was no need for a network of paths, i just had to remember which fields might have a bull in them (stick near the fence for a quick getaway), take a considerate path through fields with crops, and be sensible when there was shooting going on.

If you're mobile enough to use a stile, you're probably mobile enough to climb over a fence or gate.

I'm lucky where I'm living in Newcastle just now, in that I have the town moors and golf course on my doorstep, where we are free to roam around, but in general in England I've found a network of paths is a poor substitute for the right to walk where you like, as long as you are doing so responsibly.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

I can attest to the direct benefits of walking on my own mental health over the last two months. I have suffered a mental health crisis and a relapse into drinking. I am emerging from it now and without my daily walk(s) exploring my familiar, comforting paths I would have suffered far more.

In reply to Ciro:

But CROW Access rights have shown us that most of us want an actual path and almost no one wants to walk through knee deep heather or through bogs

In reply to Ciro:

Is climbing over fences and gates deemed as acceptable behaviour in Scotland?

In reply to David Alcock:

Thanks for letting me know that David. It's nice to know some people can relate

In reply to mountainbagger:

Thanks for the response. It sounds like we have a similar response to being in nature. Knowing that nobody will show up if I need time alone is sometimes a big factor, depending on the day.

All the best.

In reply to Sam Beaton:

Each to their own I suppose.

In reply to Sam Beaton:

Sounds like an OMM, or a yomp across Dartmoor (replace Heather with pincushion sharp gorse?). Both heavenly.

In reply to Wainers44:

But in spite of the CROW Act access feels like it's got less of an assumption,  even if that was access by custom, and is far more resented by landowners?

Maybe that's a paranoid ageing thing, having grown up in countryside with almost no footpaths knowing that we could roam anywhere openly without upsetting the farmers. Now, signs, fences, and reasonably regularly hassle or angst from land "managers" seems the norm?

In reply to FactorXXX:

Aye, if the gate's locked climbing over at the hinge side (to avoid putting too much torque on the hinges) is perfectly acceptable.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Well said Feargus. During covid I was the mental health first aider for our NEPTS team and as the lockdown rules relaxed slightly I organised a walk up a local peak. It wasn't particularly well attended, maybe some pride at play, maybe a little stigma, but I like to think that *the option* of going helped keep us all mindful and healthy. It would be a struggle to name anything quite as therapeutic as nature.

In reply to Ciro:

and clambering over fences?

In reply to Wainers44:

I think that's down to 2 things:

1. People in general have become more selfish and entitled.

2. The PROW network is now as badly under-resourced as it was in the 1980s. Landowners who don't see a PROW Officer from one year to the next know they can get away with locking gates and putting up private signs for long enough that people will give up trying to use the path. I used to regularly drive past a farm in a remote part of Devon where a whole bunch of roadside footpath signs that had been illegally removed by the farmer were casually leant up in the yard in full view of anyone walking or driving past.

In reply to jimtitt:

"it is rather "me, me, me""

This article series ('Walking for mental Health') is almost entirely first-person accounts of how the outdoors have helped people. That's how it was pitched, with some facts and figures and wider opinions thrown in. I didn't choose the title, though I don't have an issue with it. If you don't agree with the points made or are not interested in personal stories you don't have to read it, and certainly don't have to make harsh comments about it.

"an apolyptic farmer shouting " get off my land" is clearly under more mental stress than he is"

A little presumptuous don't you think?

"Like it or not it IS his property, his family may have looked after it for generations"

True... but I've done a lot of research in this area and it's clear that most large areas of land which are privately owned were stolen from others - who were less powerful/wealthy than them - at some point in the past by force... and the current structure of distribution is a holdover of the feudal era. Why does it have to stay so exclusive? Also, Scottish and Irish farmers/landowners in my experience don't get so agitated. Why is that? I'm advocating for a more relaxed attitude/rules. If someone is doing no harm then shouting at them is only going to send both parties cortisol into the stratosphere.

"Thirdly it ignores the rights of others to enjoy the countryside"

No it doesn't. I never implied that others have less right to it.

"Is their mental health worth less consideration?"

Absolutely not, and taking such a harsh tone and reading things into what I wrote which presumes a great deal only reinforces the stigma around being open about mental health struggles. 

In reply to FeargusCooney:

If you don't want to read comments on your articles then don't publish on a platform that allows them or don't read them.

In reply to jimtitt:

For a start... Where does the author say he doesn't want to read comments? You made that bit up. He's reasonably responded to every statement you made. You're entirely out of order jimtitt and you've made yourself look crass. You're immaturely goading.

Do you enjoy taking pot-shots at folk who've overcome trauma?

That's verging on the sadistic that is. I suggest you get out into the crisp winter air, take a good long walk and report back when you've come to your senses and apologise.

In reply to While E. Coyote:

It was a direct response to his "If you don't agree with the points made or are not interested in personal stories you don't have to read it, and certainly don't have to make harsh comments about it."

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

This may be of further interest: 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/21/call-for-east-of-englan...

A number of posters here have made a point that they live in areas with well-connected networks of pubic rights of way, and hence there is less need for improved access rights. That may be the case where such networks exist and can be managed, but as the attached article makes clear, such networks do not exist equally across England and Wales, and the current restrictive arrangements make access difficult, if not impossible (if one sticks to the letter of the law). Relying on cash-strapped local authorities to deal with unprecedented backlogs of applications for rights of way does not seem to me to be a route to successful access availability. 

Better access arrangements would mean that some, if not all, the 41,000 miles of historical but unrecorded public rights of way would be opened and available to all. 

In reply to Harry Jarvis:

I was about to post a link to the same article, shame it doesn't give a link to the original reports/data.

edit to add - I suspect the article is based on https://www.ukonward.com/reports/walk-on-the-wild-side/ & the linked report

In reply to jimtitt:

"clearly under more mental stress than he is" - pure assumption and narrative building. 

Oddly enough the ludicrous exclusive access system in England empowers aggression and enhances stress for land owners/occupiers. When any stranger on YOUR LAND has little or no right to be there then it is much more likely that any stranger will be viewed as a problem. Once you have a more open access system then the person walking along the edge of the field is just someone else who you might meet in other aspects of your life and not an invader.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Interesting article.

Some aspects resonate although I would say, as a resident of Lowland Scotland, that even with a decent Access system the populated south gives a very constrained access to land once farming, forestry and habitations are taken into account.

Lockdown in Edinburgh felt very similar to your description of your Cornwall experience despite paths and parks. I still haven't recovered my previous enjoyment of being out in Lothian even 4 years on as it felt so constrained compared to the Highlands.

Personally I find a world of difference getting out into rather emptier, less managed areas of the country that isn't replicated by being out in busier green spaces. I hadn't realised how much I took that for granted until 2020 and it wasn't an enjoyable epiphany.

In reply to kinley2:

I wholeheartedly agree. I find it difficult to fathom how some (many!) people find pleasure in places which, to my eyes, are really busy.

I don't judge - I slightly envy them.

I currently live next to the Caldbeck and Uldale fells and usually find a morning here is better for the head than a day in the 'proper' hills twenty minutes further South. Even if it's all grass and clouds.

In reply to SpaceCaptainTheodore:

Disagree. Nothing of interest in that area at all. I'd suggest everyone should stick to the proper Lake District…

In reply to Ridge:

Sorry. Did I mention the grass and clouds?

In reply to Lankyman:

I’ve enjoyed walking on the local paths wherever I’ve lived; that’s some of my earliest memories.  These days Jr and I walk locally; we almost always meet dog walkers and there’s the occasional twitcher, but beyond that we almost never meet anyone walking for walking’s sakes alone.