Hiking Statistics Updated November 2026

Human Written & Fact Checked · Updated

100 Denmark Hiking Statistics for 2026

If you want to measure hiking in Denmark, start with the activity definition. The original surveys often combine walking and hiking, while nature-visit research covers an even wider range of outings.

This page keeps those boundaries visible. It brings together original sports-participation research, university evidence on weekly leisure activity and a historical study of nature visits, with each observation tied to its own period and denominator.

Headline figures

  • All adults reporting walking and hiking in 2024: 61%. (Idan, Apr 2025)
  • All children aged 7–15 reporting walking and hiking in 2024: 31%. (Idan, Apr 2025)
  • Adults reporting self-organised walking and hiking in 2024: 58%. (Idan, Apr 2025)
  • Adults walking or hiking at least weekly in 2025: 68.8%. (SDU, Apr 2026)
  • Women walking or hiking at least weekly in 2025: 73.2%. (SDU, Apr 2026)
  • Adults walking at moderate pace without a dog at least weekly in self-organised settings, 2025: 43.3%. (SDU, Apr 2026)
  • Adults reporting outdoor-life activities at least weekly in 2025: 5.4%. (SDU, Apr 2026)
  • Residents reporting a nature visit within the past year, 2024 survey: 97.2%. (University of Copenhagen, Nov 2025)
  • Residents reporting a nature visit within the past week, 2024 survey: 71.4%. (University of Copenhagen, Nov 2025)
  • Latest nature visits made alone, 2024 survey: 34.4%. (University of Copenhagen, Nov 2025)
  • Respondents saying more wild nature would encourage more local nature visits: 30.5% (2024 survey). (University of Copenhagen, Nov 2025)
  • Respondents saying more circular walking or cycling routes would encourage more local nature visits: 18.5% (2024 survey). (University of Copenhagen, Nov 2025)

How common is regular walking and hiking in Denmark?

Walking and hiking share a category in the national sports survey. Treating the result as trail-only hiking would overstate what the questionnaire establishes.

What do the adult totals and sex comparisons measure?

  • Men reporting walking and hiking in 2024: 53%. (Idan, Apr 2025)
  • Women reporting walking and hiking in 2024: 68%. (Idan, Apr 2025)

The survey measures regular participation during the preceding year among residents in its adult age range. The combined category covers walking as well as hiking, so it cannot identify a separate population of long-distance trekkers. Sex-specific percentages use all respondents in the relevant group as their denominator, instead of describing the composition of participants. Self-organised activity is a setting measure within the same survey; it is not a count of club departures or guided trips. People can use several activity settings. These distinctions matter when comparing the report with a survey asking about weekly exercise: similar labels do not guarantee the same recall period or participation threshold. The observations therefore retain the original category throughout.

How does regular participation differ across adult ages?

  • Adults aged 16–19 reporting walking and hiking in 2024: 48%. (Idan, Apr 2025)
  • Adults aged 20–29 reporting walking and hiking in 2024: 54%. (Idan, Apr 2025)
  • Adults aged 30–39 reporting walking and hiking in 2024: 59%. (Idan, Apr 2025)
  • Adults aged 40–49 reporting walking and hiking in 2024: 58%. (Idan, Apr 2025)
  • Adults aged 50–59 reporting walking and hiking in 2024: 65%. (Idan, Apr 2025)
  • Adults aged 60–69 reporting walking and hiking in 2024: 70%. (Idan, Apr 2025)
  • Adults aged 70–79 reporting walking and hiking in 2024: 71%. (Idan, Apr 2025)
  • Adults aged 80+ reporting walking and hiking in 2024: 58%. (Idan, Apr 2025)

Each age estimate concerns regular walking or hiking within that age group. The pattern describes reported participation, not distance covered or physical capability. Age differences alone cannot explain why residents choose a particular activity or establish an effect of retirement.

What do the children's results and historical series show?

  • Boys reporting walking and hiking in 2024: 29%. (Idan, Apr 2025)
  • Girls reporting walking and hiking in 2024: 32%. (Idan, Apr 2025)
  • Children aged 7–9 reporting walking and hiking in 2024: 30%. (Idan, Apr 2025)
  • Children aged 10–12 reporting walking and hiking in 2024: 29%. (Idan, Apr 2025)
  • Children aged 13–15 reporting walking and hiking in 2024: 32%. (Idan, Apr 2025)
  • Children aged 7–15 reporting walking and hiking in 2007: 19%. (Idan, Apr 2025)
  • Children aged 7–15 reporting walking and hiking in 2011: 10%. (Idan, Apr 2025)
  • Children aged 7–15 reporting walking and hiking in 2016: 6%. (Idan, Apr 2025)
  • Children aged 7–15 reporting walking and hiking in 2020: 29%. (Idan, Apr 2025)

The children's series combines walking and hiking. Historical comparisons need caution: the pandemic-era questionnaire removed "regularly" and used a frequency follow-up, while the latest questionnaire restored that wording. Changes should not be presented as a perfectly consistent trend.

Who walks or hikes weekly in the leisure survey?

A weekly threshold answers a different question from regular activity during the previous year. The leisure survey also includes a slightly younger adult population than the sports survey.

How do weekly totals compare by sex and survey wave?

  • Adults walking or hiking at least weekly in 2020: 70.9%. (SDU, Apr 2026)
  • Women walking or hiking at least weekly in 2020: 75.7%. (SDU, Apr 2026)
  • Men walking or hiking at least weekly in 2020: 65.9%. (SDU, Apr 2026)
  • Men walking or hiking at least weekly in 2025: 64.3%. (SDU, Apr 2026)

The university survey asks about leisure-time movement and combines forms of walking and hiking. The latest wave was collected in autumn, and its comparisons retain the earlier survey's reported values. These are population participation percentages, not the share of all walking occasions completed by women or men. A person who walks repeatedly still counts as one participant for this measure. The figures do not identify terrain, route length or whether a walk took place on a marked trail. They should therefore support discussion of walking habits, while hiking-specific route use remains a separate evidence need. Differences between waves are descriptive and do not establish a cause for any change.

What does the detailed weekly age breakdown show?

  • Adults aged 15–19 walking or hiking at least weekly in 2025: 58.1%. (SDU, Apr 2026)
  • Adults aged 20–29 walking or hiking at least weekly in 2025: 63.9%. (SDU, Apr 2026)
  • Adults aged 30–39 walking or hiking at least weekly in 2025: 64.9%. (SDU, Apr 2026)
  • Adults aged 40–49 walking or hiking at least weekly in 2025: 69.5%. (SDU, Apr 2026)
  • Adults aged 50–59 walking or hiking at least weekly in 2025: 74%. (SDU, Apr 2026)
  • Adults aged 60–69 walking or hiking at least weekly in 2025: 75.7%. (SDU, Apr 2026)
  • Adults aged 70–79 walking or hiking at least weekly in 2025: 73.9%. (SDU, Apr 2026)
  • Adults aged 80+ walking or hiking at least weekly in 2025: 60.3%. (SDU, Apr 2026)

The age-specific estimates show the proportion in each group reporting walking or hiking at least weekly. They do not describe the age distribution of walkers. Older and younger groups may undertake different forms of walking, but this table does not identify those differences or isolate trail use.

How should the broader age bands be interpreted?

  • Adults aged 15–29 reporting any form of walking at least weekly in 2025: 62.1%. (SDU, Apr 2026)
  • Adults aged 30–59 reporting any form of walking at least weekly in 2025: 69.5%. (SDU, Apr 2026)
  • Adults aged 60+ reporting any form of walking at least weekly in 2025: 72.3%. (SDU, Apr 2026)

The report also publishes broader age bands for any form of weekly walking. These are overlapping aggregations of the same population used in the more detailed age table, not additional groups that can be added to it. They are useful when a comparison requires larger life-stage categories, but they should not be counted as separate participants. The estimates concern reported weekly activity in leisure time and do not measure travel to work. A broad age band can conceal variation among its constituent ages, so its average should not replace a more specific estimate when the latter is relevant. Neither presentation determines whether a respondent walked in a town, a forest or on a long-distance trail.

How do pace, organisation and outdoor-life categories differ?

Walking is not a single behaviour, and outdoor life is not another name for all walking. Keeping the survey's categories intact prevents several plausible but misleading comparisons.

Which walking forms are reported at least weekly?

  • Adults reporting moderate-paced walking without a dog at least weekly in 2020: 57%. (SDU, Apr 2026)
  • Adults reporting moderate-paced walking without a dog at least weekly in 2025: 53.1%. (SDU, Apr 2026)
  • Adults reporting walking with a dog at least weekly in 2020: 23.3%. (SDU, Apr 2026)
  • Adults reporting walking with a dog at least weekly in 2025: 23.4%. (SDU, Apr 2026)
  • Adults reporting fast-paced walking at least weekly in 2020: 17.2%. (SDU, Apr 2026)
  • Adults reporting fast-paced walking at least weekly in 2025: 11.8%. (SDU, Apr 2026)

The activity list distinguishes moderate-paced walking without a dog, walking with a dog and fast-paced walking. Respondents can report more than one form, so these percentages should not be summed into a total. Pace is the survey category, not a measured speed or an assessment of fitness. Dog walking also does not imply that the outing took place on a hiking trail. The comparison shows the reported prevalence of each form across survey waves, while leaving journey duration, distance and terrain unspecified.

Where does moderate-paced walking take place organisationally?

  • Adults walking at moderate pace without a dog at least weekly in a club, 2020: 1.5%. (SDU, Apr 2026)
  • Adults walking at moderate pace without a dog at least weekly in a club, 2025: 1.7%. (SDU, Apr 2026)
  • Adults walking at moderate pace without a dog at least weekly in a commercial setting, 2020: 0.7%. (SDU, Apr 2026)
  • Adults walking at moderate pace without a dog at least weekly in a commercial setting, 2025: 1.1%. (SDU, Apr 2026)
  • Adults walking at moderate pace without a dog at least weekly in self-organised settings, 2020: 48%. (SDU, Apr 2026)

These setting measures concern weekly moderate-paced walking without a dog. Their denominator is the adult population, both people who already walk at that pace. A club percentage therefore does not show the proportion of walkers belonging to a club. Commercial and self-organised settings are reported separately, and participants may use more than one. The figures describe organisation, not the walk's location. They cannot be translated into revenue, membership totals or demand for guided hiking without additional information.

What does the separate outdoor-life category include?

  • Adults reporting outdoor-life activities at least weekly in 2020: 3.2%. (SDU, Apr 2026)
  • Adults aged 15–19 reporting outdoor-life activities at least weekly in 2025: 5.9%. (SDU, Apr 2026)
  • Adults aged 20–29 reporting outdoor-life activities at least weekly in 2025: 5%. (SDU, Apr 2026)
  • Adults aged 30–39 reporting outdoor-life activities at least weekly in 2025: 5.1%. (SDU, Apr 2026)
  • Adults aged 40–49 reporting outdoor-life activities at least weekly in 2025: 5.2%. (SDU, Apr 2026)
  • Adults aged 50–59 reporting outdoor-life activities at least weekly in 2025: 5.1%. (SDU, Apr 2026)
  • Adults aged 60–69 reporting outdoor-life activities at least weekly in 2025: 6.8%. (SDU, Apr 2026)
  • Adults aged 70–79 reporting outdoor-life activities at least weekly in 2025: 6.1%. (SDU, Apr 2026)
  • Adults aged 80+ reporting outdoor-life activities at least weekly in 2025: 3.6%. (SDU, Apr 2026)

Outdoor-life activities include hunting, fishing, scouting and foraging in this questionnaire. This category is separate from walking and hiking. Its age estimates describe participation within each group; they are not hiking participation rates or shares of trail visitors.

How have nature visits changed across the Danish surveys?

Nature visits provide context for hiking, but their coverage is broader. The long-running study measures residents' reported visits and latest-trip characteristics, not a trail-counter census.

How recently had residents visited nature?

Comparisons use a harmonised resident age range. Annual participation and a visit within the past week are different recall thresholds, so they must remain separate. The survey labels represent fieldwork spanning parts of adjoining calendar years instead of observations collected on a single date. Recent participation does not show how many visits a person made, and annual participation is not a count of hiking trips. The latest wave used digital invitations, unlike the earlier paper-based collection, which also warrants care when interpreting trends. The report notes that the annual estimates are not corrected for a possible nonresponse effect. These are reported nature visits, encompassing more than recreational walking.

What do duration, access time and travel distance show?

  • Latest nature visits lasting more than an hour, 1994 survey: 61.7%. (University of Copenhagen, Nov 2025)
  • Latest nature visits lasting more than an hour, 2024 survey: 46.1%. (University of Copenhagen, Nov 2025)
  • Latest nature visits reached within ten minutes, 1994 survey: 31.8%. (University of Copenhagen, Nov 2025)
  • Latest nature visits reached within ten minutes, 2024 survey: 43.5%. (University of Copenhagen, Nov 2025)
  • Mean distance travelled to the main nature destination, excluding trips over 500km, 1994 survey: 17.1 km. (University of Copenhagen, Nov 2025)
  • Mean distance travelled to the main nature destination, excluding trips over 500km, 2008 survey: 14.5 km. (University of Copenhagen, Nov 2025)
  • Mean distance travelled to the main nature destination, excluding trips over 500km, 2024 survey: 13.5 km. (University of Copenhagen, Nov 2025)

These describe the latest visit. Travel distance means the journey to the main destination, not the length walked there. The distance series excludes journeys beyond the report's upper limit. Duration and access-time thresholds describe different parts of the outing and should not be combined into a reconstructed itinerary.

What changes appear in walking access and party size?

The walking-access distance series uses a different exclusion threshold from the all-transport distance series. It concerns people reaching nature on foot and should not be interpreted as the distance they subsequently hiked. Party size describes the group on the latest visit, while the solo-visit measure identifies a particular group-size category. Large parties can influence the mean. These responses are attached to each respondent's most recent outing; they do not form a trip-weighted census of every visit in the country. The study therefore supports comparison of reported outing characteristics without establishing the total number of solitary walkers or organised walking groups.

Which changes might encourage more local nature visits?

Preferences can inform planning without proving an intervention will increase visits. The survey asks what respondents believe would make them visit nearby nature more frequently and allows multiple answers.

Which market and wildlife changes attract support?

  • Respondents saying more natural areas would encourage more local nature visits: 29.5% (2024 survey). (University of Copenhagen, Nov 2025)
  • Respondents saying more forests would encourage more local nature visits: 28.7% (2024 survey). (University of Copenhagen, Nov 2025)
  • Respondents saying more untouched forest would encourage more local nature visits: 26.7% (2024 survey). (University of Copenhagen, Nov 2025)
  • Respondents saying more wildlife and chances to see it would encourage more local nature visits: 16.6% (2024 survey). (University of Copenhagen, Nov 2025)
  • Respondents saying more meandering streams would encourage more local nature visits: 14.3% (2024 survey). (University of Copenhagen, Nov 2025)
  • Respondents saying more meadow areas would encourage more local nature visits: 9.1% (2024 survey). (University of Copenhagen, Nov 2025)

These choices describe desired changes around the respondent's home area. Several market improvements can appeal to the same person, so the answers are not mutually exclusive market segments. The findings express stated preferences instead of observed behavioural responses to completed projects.

How do paths, access and transport feature in preferences?

  • Respondents saying more paths leading to natural areas would encourage more local nature visits: 18.8% (2024 survey). (University of Copenhagen, Nov 2025)
  • Respondents saying more paths within natural areas would encourage more local nature visits: 17% (2024 survey). (University of Copenhagen, Nov 2025)
  • Respondents saying better public transport would encourage more local nature visits: 10.1% (2024 survey). (University of Copenhagen, Nov 2025)
  • Respondents saying fewer no-access signs would encourage more local nature visits: 8.4% (2024 survey). (University of Copenhagen, Nov 2025)
  • Respondents saying better access along streams would encourage more local nature visits: 6.6% (2024 survey). (University of Copenhagen, Nov 2025)
  • Respondents saying better access along hedges and boundaries would encourage more local nature visits: 6.4% (2024 survey). (University of Copenhagen, Nov 2025)

Access preferences include reaching natural areas, moving within them and making circular outings. The circular-route option explicitly includes cycling as well as walking. Support for an access change does not identify the legal status of any particular path or demonstrate that a new route would be used.

What do facilities, information and cleanliness contribute?

  • Respondents saying more toilets would encourage more local nature visits: 15.1% (2024 survey). (University of Copenhagen, Nov 2025)
  • Respondents saying better information about local opportunities would encourage more local nature visits: 11.7% (2024 survey). (University of Copenhagen, Nov 2025)
  • Respondents saying cleaner lakes would encourage more local nature visits: 11.5% (2024 survey). (University of Copenhagen, Nov 2025)
  • Respondents saying cleaner beaches would encourage more local nature visits: 11.2% (2024 survey). (University of Copenhagen, Nov 2025)
  • Respondents saying more shelter sites would encourage more local nature visits: 8% (2024 survey). (University of Copenhagen, Nov 2025)
  • Respondents saying more areas permitting off-leash dogs would encourage more local nature visits: 7.4% (2024 survey). (University of Copenhagen, Nov 2025)
  • Respondents saying more basic campsites would encourage more local nature visits: 6.7% (2024 survey). (University of Copenhagen, Nov 2025)

Facilities and cleanliness are options in the same multiple-answer question. Respondents could also choose market or access improvements. These findings describe local nature-visit preferences, not demand for paid hiking products, and do not estimate construction priorities or investment returns.

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.