Hiking Statistics Updated November 2026

Human Written & Fact Checked · Updated

100 Children's Hiking Statistics for 2026

A walk in a park, a visit to woodland and an organised bushwalking activity are different experiences. Children's outdoor statistics often measure only one of them. Before using a number to describe hiking, check the activity wording, age range and whether informal family outings were included.

This collection combines Norway's child walking-frequency table, England's research on natural-place visits and access, and Australia's organised bushwalking estimates. The English findings describe opportunities and experiences around nature, not verified hiking participation. The Australian child measure excludes informal family walks and school-time activity. No global child-hiker total is implied.

Headline figures

  • New South Wales, all children: estimated organised bushwalking participants outside school hours, 18,184. (Australian Sports Commission, Oct 2026)
  • Queensland, all children: estimated organised bushwalking participants outside school hours, 12,597. (Australian Sports Commission, Oct 2026)
  • Victoria, all children: estimated organised bushwalking participants outside school hours, 10,568. (Australian Sports Commission, Oct 2026)
  • Norway, girls aged 6–11: once weekly forest/mountain/park walks, 26.6%. (Statistics Norway, Jan 2025)
  • Norway, boys aged 12–15: never forest/mountain/park walks, 11.7%. (Statistics Norway, Jan 2025)
  • Norway, girls aged 6–15: several times weekly forest/mountain/park walks, 13.4%. (Statistics Norway, Jan 2025)
  • England children who visited woods or forest in the past week: 26%. (Natural England, Jul 2026)
  • England children who visited hills, mountains or moorland in the past week: 12%. (Natural England, Jul 2026)
  • England children reporting easy walking access from home to woods or forest: 31%. (Natural England, Jul 2026)
  • England children, local natural spaces and easy access by walking: agree, 86%. (Natural England, Jul 2026)
  • Australia, all children: estimated organised bushwalking participants outside school hours, 52,234. (Australian Sports Commission, Oct 2026)
  • Australia, all children: organised bushwalking outside school hours, 1.1%. (Australian Sports Commission, Oct 2026)

How often did Norwegian children walk in natural settings?

Frequency adds useful detail to a simple participation headline. Statistics Norway's category includes walks in forests, mountains and parks, so it should not be narrowed to strenuous hikes or remote terrain.

What did the full child age range report?

  • Norway, ages 6–15: never forest/mountain/park walks, 5.8%. (Statistics Norway, Jan 2025)
  • Norway, ages 6–15: less than monthly forest/mountain/park walks, 21.6%. (Statistics Norway, Jan 2025)
  • Norway, ages 6–15: one to three times monthly forest/mountain/park walks, 39.5%. (Statistics Norway, Jan 2025)
  • Norway, ages 6–15: several times weekly forest/mountain/park walks, 12%. (Statistics Norway, Jan 2025)
  • Norway, ages 6–15: once weekly forest/mountain/park walks, 21.1%. (Statistics Norway, Jan 2025)

The frequency categories describe how often children in the full survey age range engaged in the activity. The full set of categories is retained below. These categories use a broad walking definition and do not measure distance, elevation or time spent on each outing. A child can participate infrequently without never participating. The categories are mutually exclusive within the specified group, while rounding can prevent an exact total. This table is a description of reported frequency instead of a record from trail counters or an assessment of physical ability.

How did the younger age band participate?

  • Norway, ages 6–11: never forest/mountain/park walks, 2.5%. (Statistics Norway, Jan 2025)
  • Norway, ages 6–11: less than monthly forest/mountain/park walks, 17.9%. (Statistics Norway, Jan 2025)
  • Norway, ages 6–11: one to three times monthly forest/mountain/park walks, 42.1%. (Statistics Norway, Jan 2025)
  • Norway, ages 6–11: once weekly forest/mountain/park walks, 24.9%. (Statistics Norway, Jan 2025)
  • Norway, ages 6–11: several times weekly forest/mountain/park walks, 12.6%. (Statistics Norway, Jan 2025)

The younger band has its own frequency distribution. Its denominator differs from the full child population. Age-specific percentages should not be interpreted as shares of all walkers. The survey table does not identify whether the child walked with family, friends, a school or another group. It also cannot establish why frequency differed between age bands. A comparison describes different groups in the same survey year, not the same children followed as they grew older. Keeping that distinction prevents a cross-sectional pattern from becoming an unsupported claim about individual development.

What did the older child age band report?

  • Norway, ages 12–15: never forest/mountain/park walks, 10.3%. (Statistics Norway, Jan 2025)
  • Norway, ages 12–15: less than monthly forest/mountain/park walks, 26.7%. (Statistics Norway, Jan 2025)
  • Norway, ages 12–15: one to three times monthly forest/mountain/park walks, 35.9%. (Statistics Norway, Jan 2025)
  • Norway, ages 12–15: once weekly forest/mountain/park walks, 16%. (Statistics Norway, Jan 2025)
  • Norway, ages 12–15: several times weekly forest/mountain/park walks, 11.2%. (Statistics Norway, Jan 2025)

The older band also includes both occasional and frequent walking. Its categories distinguish nonparticipation from different levels of involvement. A lower frequency category does not show that a child dislikes nature or lacks nearby places to walk. The table does not isolate competing activities, household circumstances or accessibility as causes. It also does not measure the intensity of the walks that did occur. These qualifications make the frequency distribution useful without treating it as a judgment about individual children or families.

How did the Norwegian age and sex groups compare?

Subgroup results can reveal patterns hidden by a single average, but they still require the right denominator. Each percentage here describes children within the stated age and sex group, not the composition of all child walkers.

What did the younger boys and girls report?

  • Norway, boys aged 6–11: never forest/mountain/park walks, 3.5%. (Statistics Norway, Jan 2025)
  • Norway, boys aged 6–11: less than monthly forest/mountain/park walks, 19.1%. (Statistics Norway, Jan 2025)
  • Norway, boys aged 6–11: one to three times monthly forest/mountain/park walks, 43.1%. (Statistics Norway, Jan 2025)
  • Norway, boys aged 6–11: once weekly forest/mountain/park walks, 23.2%. (Statistics Norway, Jan 2025)
  • Norway, boys aged 6–11: several times weekly forest/mountain/park walks, 11.1%. (Statistics Norway, Jan 2025)
  • Norway, girls aged 6–11: never forest/mountain/park walks, 1.4%. (Statistics Norway, Jan 2025)
  • Norway, girls aged 6–11: less than monthly forest/mountain/park walks, 16.6%. (Statistics Norway, Jan 2025)
  • Norway, girls aged 6–11: one to three times monthly forest/mountain/park walks, 41.1%. (Statistics Norway, Jan 2025)
  • Norway, girls aged 6–11: several times weekly forest/mountain/park walks, 14.2%. (Statistics Norway, Jan 2025)

The younger subgroup distributions use the same broad forest, mountain and park-walking question. The selected girls' weekly result is already showed above. These comparisons do not establish why patterns differ. The activity can involve different settings and companions, which this table does not separately identify.

How did older boys and girls compare?

  • Norway, boys aged 12–15: less than monthly forest/mountain/park walks, 26.5%. (Statistics Norway, Jan 2025)
  • Norway, boys aged 12–15: one to three times monthly forest/mountain/park walks, 36.2%. (Statistics Norway, Jan 2025)
  • Norway, boys aged 12–15: once weekly forest/mountain/park walks, 15.5%. (Statistics Norway, Jan 2025)
  • Norway, boys aged 12–15: several times weekly forest/mountain/park walks, 10.1%. (Statistics Norway, Jan 2025)
  • Norway, girls aged 12–15: never forest/mountain/park walks, 9%. (Statistics Norway, Jan 2025)
  • Norway, girls aged 12–15: less than monthly forest/mountain/park walks, 26.8%. (Statistics Norway, Jan 2025)
  • Norway, girls aged 12–15: one to three times monthly forest/mountain/park walks, 35.5%. (Statistics Norway, Jan 2025)
  • Norway, girls aged 12–15: once weekly forest/mountain/park walks, 16.5%. (Statistics Norway, Jan 2025)
  • Norway, girls aged 12–15: several times weekly forest/mountain/park walks, 12.3%. (Statistics Norway, Jan 2025)

The older subgroup distributions retain separate frequency categories. The showed boys' nonparticipation figure is not repeated in the body. The table measures reported activity frequency, not motivation, skill or access. Small differences need sampling context and should not become claims about fixed preferences or capabilities.

What did the full-age weekly comparisons add?

  • Norway, boys aged 6–15: once weekly forest/mountain/park walks, 20.1%. (Statistics Norway, Jan 2025)
  • Norway, boys aged 6–15: several times weekly forest/mountain/park walks, 10.7%. (Statistics Norway, Jan 2025)
  • Norway, girls aged 6–15: once weekly forest/mountain/park walks, 22.3%. (Statistics Norway, Jan 2025)

The full-age weekly observations combine the younger and older children within each sex group. They answer a broader question than the age-specific comparisons above. A combined figure can reflect the age mix as well as differences within age bands. These percentages therefore should not be used to infer that every age group follows the same pattern. Once-weekly and several-times-weekly responses are separate frequency categories; the latter is not included in the former. The selected girls' more-frequent observation appears in the takeaways. None of these measures records how many kilometres children walked or whether an outing met a particular definition of a sporting hike.

Which natural places did children in England visit?

Opportunities for walking extend beyond destination trails. Natural England's child survey describes visits to a range of natural places, which provides context for hiking access while remaining a broader measure of outdoor engagement.

Which nearby and managed spaces were visited?

  • England children who visited gardens in the past week: 68%. (Natural England, Jul 2026)
  • England children who visited parks, playing fields or playgrounds in the past week: 63%. (Natural England, Jul 2026)
  • England children who visited nearby street grass in the past week: 43%. (Natural England, Jul 2026)
  • England children who visited paid-entry grassy spaces in the past week: 20%. (Natural England, Jul 2026)
  • England children who visited other places in the past week: 1%. (Natural England, Jul 2026)
  • England children reporting no listed natural-place visits in the past week: 3%. (Natural England, Jul 2026)

Children reported using several kinds of nearby or managed natural space during the preceding week. Visits could involve play or social time alongside walking. The survey allowed more than one place type, so the percentages cannot be added into a unique-participant total. Gardens include a child's own or someone else's, while paid-entry spaces cover a different type of opportunity. No listed visits does not mean no physical activity. The measure concerns specified natural settings.

How did countryside and waterside visits compare?

  • England children who visited beach or seaside in the past week: 26%. (Natural England, Jul 2026)
  • England children who visited rivers, lakes or canals in the past week: 18%. (Natural England, Jul 2026)
  • England children who visited fields, farmland or countryside in the past week: 16%. (Natural England, Jul 2026)
  • England children without a disability: visited fields, farmland or countryside in the past week, 16%. (Natural England, Jul 2026)
  • England children with a disability: visited fields, farmland or countryside in the past week, 13%. (Natural England, Jul 2026)

Countryside and waterside observations complement the woodland and upland findings in the takeaways. Disability comparisons use subgroup denominators. A countryside visit does not prove that a child completed a hike or followed a marked trail. The survey records places, not route difficulty. Disability-group differences also do not isolate a single barrier or explain each child's circumstances. These are weighted reports across the combined holiday and term-time sample, and the past-week recall should not be relabelled as annual participation. The findings do not judge experience quality.

Which places could children reach on foot from home?

Potential access is distinct from a completed visit. The walking-access question asks what children could reach easily, either alone or accompanied, instead of whether they had already gone there.

What nearby places were within easy walking reach?

  • England children reporting easy walking access from home to gardens: 71%. (Natural England, Jul 2026)
  • England children reporting easy walking access from home to parks, playing fields or playgrounds: 67%. (Natural England, Jul 2026)
  • England children reporting easy walking access from home to nearby street grass: 54%. (Natural England, Jul 2026)
  • England children reporting easy walking access from home to paid-entry grassy spaces: 17%. (Natural England, Jul 2026)
  • England children reporting easy walking access from home to other places: 0%. (Natural England, Jul 2026)
  • England children reporting no listed natural places within easy walking reach: 2%. (Natural England, Jul 2026)

Children identified several kinds of nearby space they could reach easily on foot. The question allowed accompaniment, so it is not a measure of independent mobility or permission to travel alone. Multiple selections were possible. Gardens and street-side grass differ from trails, but belong to this broader natural-space question. Responses do not verify route safety or destination quality. These are reported opportunities, not route audits.

How accessible were waterside and countryside settings?

  • England children reporting easy walking access from home to rivers, lakes or canals: 23%. (Natural England, Jul 2026)
  • England children reporting easy walking access from home to fields, farmland or countryside: 21%. (Natural England, Jul 2026)
  • England children reporting easy walking access from home to beach or seaside: 12%. (Natural England, Jul 2026)
  • England children reporting easy walking access from home to hills, mountains or moorland: 11%. (Natural England, Jul 2026)

The selected settings extend the comparison beyond immediate neighbourhood spaces. Woodland access is showed in the takeaways and should remain distinct from the woodland-visit measure. Being able to walk somewhere easily does not establish that a child visited it during the recall period. Nor does the question specify an identical walking distance for every respondent. Perceptions can depend on accompaniment and local circumstances, which should not be erased by treating the percentages as a fixed-distance map. The survey's activity and age definitions also differ from Norway's frequency table, so the two sources cannot be combined to calculate how often accessible destinations were used.

How did children judge their local natural spaces?

A reachable place is not automatically a welcoming or well-kept place. The quality questions provide children's own judgments across several dimensions, without substituting those perceptions for an objective trail inspection.

How did children rate habitat and play opportunities?

  • England children, local natural spaces and habitat for animals and birds: agree, 78%. (Natural England, Jul 2026)
  • England children, local natural spaces and habitat for animals and birds: neutral, 16%. (Natural England, Jul 2026)
  • England children, local natural spaces and habitat for animals and birds: disagree, 5%. (Natural England, Jul 2026)
  • England children, local natural spaces and good places to play: agree, 80%. (Natural England, Jul 2026)
  • England children, local natural spaces and good places to play: neutral, 14%. (Natural England, Jul 2026)
  • England children, local natural spaces and good places to play: disagree, 5%. (Natural England, Jul 2026)

The survey separately asked about places for wildlife and places to play. Agreement, neutrality and disagreement describe responses to each statement, instead of mutually exclusive groups across all statements. Categories group numerical ratings. Rounded percentages and excluded unknown or refusal responses can prevent exact totals. A favourable wildlife rating does not measure biodiversity directly, and a play rating does not establish suitability for a particular hiking activity. These are perceptions, not site inspections.

How did children rate upkeep, welcome and walking access?

  • England children, local natural spaces and clean and well cared for: agree, 72%. (Natural England, Jul 2026)
  • England children, local natural spaces and clean and well cared for: neutral, 17%. (Natural England, Jul 2026)
  • England children, local natural spaces and clean and well cared for: disagree, 10%. (Natural England, Jul 2026)
  • England children, local natural spaces and feeling welcome: agree, 82%. (Natural England, Jul 2026)
  • England children, local natural spaces and feeling welcome: neutral, 13%. (Natural England, Jul 2026)
  • England children, local natural spaces and feeling welcome: disagree, 4%. (Natural England, Jul 2026)
  • England children, local natural spaces and easy access by walking: neutral, 11%. (Natural England, Jul 2026)
  • England children, local natural spaces and easy access by walking: disagree, 3%. (Natural England, Jul 2026)

Upkeep, welcome and walking access were distinct dimensions of perceived quality. The selected positive walking-access observation is already showed above. Neutrality differs from disagreement. These distinct dimensions should not become a single dissatisfaction rate. The survey does not link ratings causally to hiking frequency.

What does Australian organised bushwalking measure?

The Australian child series has a deliberately narrower scope than family walking. It measures organised participation outside school hours, so low values cannot be presented as evidence that children rarely walk outdoors with their families.

How did the national gender estimates compare?

National gender estimates describe participation within the child population under the organised-activity definition. The national overall observations appear in the takeaways. The rate and estimated participant count answer different questions: prevalence within a group and population scale. The counts are weighted estimates rounded to whole people, not a census of attendance records. AusPlay's child scope differs from its broader adult activity measure, so comparing the two without that qualification would be misleading. Informal family outings and school-time activities fall outside this selected measure. Participation also does not reveal how often the activity occurred or how far children walked.

What did the selected school-age bands show?

The selected school-age bands use the same organised, outside-school-hours definition. Their age boundaries differ from those in the Norwegian and English studies. Rates describe participation within each band, while counts also depend on the size of the population. They cannot be used to infer an individual child's progression through the age groups. The broader national child total also includes younger children, so the displayed school-age estimates are not intended to sum to that total. No informal family-walking prevalence is inferred from these figures.

What did the selected state estimates show?

The state estimates describe residents, not where organised activities took place. Selected smaller estimates carry the source's high-uncertainty qualification. High uncertainty means a relative margin of error between half and the full estimate. Those observations require caution; estimates beyond the source's usability threshold are excluded. The figures cannot support precise state rankings.

Glossary

Methodology and sources

Every figure on this page comes from the organisation that produced it: regulators, statistics offices, public bodies, research institutes, and companies reporting their own data or surveys. Each one links to the original report or dataset and carries its release date. Survey results keep their population and fieldwork period, and financial figures keep the measure the producer used. Figures from different producers are not added together or ranked against each other. The page is reviewed monthly and updated when a producer releases newer data.