When the statistics were taken without the white people, being included the number of people who toured in the parks drastically dropped. This is evidenced in table 2 where the white people, such as English, Northern Irish, Scottish, British and the Welsh. The inclusion of the Blacks and other races in the statistics presented the change in the population of people who visited the parks. Generally, Blacks were associated with poor attachment ort low levels of attachment to the parks.
There is a difference in the tables where the accumulation of the people who visited was done in one table and the contrary was done in the other table. The total number of people who visited the parks was evaluated and summed up in Table 1. This showed a lot of commitment and attachment of the white people to the parks. This is contrary in table 2 where the statistics did not cover on the cumulative populations of the people. In table 2, it is therefore very difficult to analyze the table based on the cumulative aspect of the data in the table. This creates the differences in the two tables.
In table 1 the range between the highest ethnic group of people who visited the parks most and those who visited the parks at minimal levels was higher than in table 2. Higher range implies that there was a certain group of people who were very committed to the parks so much as compared to the others. This may also mean that there was certain groups of people were ethnically attracted to the parks. While on the table with close ranges it implies that there was relatively and moderately spread interests in visiting the parks across the ethnic groups. This may also indicate the absence of the most influential ethnic group to increase the numbers who were able to visit the parks.
One of the major anomalies in the tables is expressed in the table 2 where the number of people who visited the parks increased