Hiking Statistics Updated November 2026

Human Written & Fact Checked · Updated

100 Finland Hiking Statistics for 2026

If you are measuring hiking in Finland, decide whether you mean people, outings or visits to a destination. Those measures answer different questions, and none can silently stand in for the others.

This hub combines a national outdoor-recreation study, official destination monitoring and an original enthusiast survey. Historical survey findings retain their observation periods, while newer visit estimates are checked for carried-forward data.

Headline figures

  • Annual day-hiking participation, 2020 study: 36.9%. (Luke, May 2022)
  • Annual overnight hiking or wilderness-trekking participation, 2020 study: 11.6%. (Luke, May 2022)
  • Mean annual day-hiking occasions among participating hikers, 2020 study: 16.5 occasions. (Luke, May 2022)
  • Self-assessed hiking skills in the 2020 study: 89.4% (2020 study). (Luke, May 2022)
  • Nature-trip respondents rating beautiful natural scenery fairly or very important: 90.3% (2020 study). (Luke, May 2022)
  • Residents reporting a domestic national-park visit in the prior year: 40.1% (2020 study). (Luke, May 2022)
  • Pallas–Yllästunturi National Park: 586,800 estimated visits in 2025. (Metsähallitus, Jan 2026)
  • Urho Kekkonen National Park: 424,900 estimated visits in 2025. (Metsähallitus, Jan 2026)
  • Arctic Circle Hiking Area: 130,100 estimated visits in 2025. (Metsähallitus, Jan 2026)
  • Enthusiast-survey respondents who had visited Lapland: 88%. (Suomen Latu, Sep 2022)
  • Enthusiast respondents using a smartphone map application for navigation: 82%. (Suomen Latu, Sep 2022)
  • Overnight-trip enthusiasts who had slept in a hammock: 41%. (Suomen Latu, Sep 2022)

How common are day hiking and overnight trekking in Finland?

The national study separates short outings from trips involving an overnight stay. That distinction counts more than treating every walk, park visit and wilderness trip as the same activity.

How has reported participation changed across survey waves?

  • Annual day-hiking participation, 2000 study: 23.3%. (Luke, May 2022)
  • Annual day-hiking participation, 2010 study: 26.6%. (Luke, May 2022)
  • Annual overnight hiking or wilderness-trekking participation, 2000 study: 7.5%. (Luke, May 2022)
  • Annual overnight hiking or wilderness-trekking participation, 2010 study: 10.1%. (Luke, May 2022)

The original survey series reports participation in each activity during the preceding year. Day hiking and overnight trekking can overlap for the same person, so their percentages must not be added to produce a total hiking population. The latest wave also widened the age coverage: it includes older residents beyond the upper age limit used in the earlier studies. That change should remain visible when discussing trends. Fieldwork for the latest study spanned several years around the pandemic, instead of describing a single present-day season. The results provide a historical population baseline; they are not estimates of participation in the year this page was updated.

How frequently do participating hikers undertake the activity?

  • Mean annual day-hiking occasions among participating hikers, 2000 study: 25.6 occasions. (Luke, May 2022)
  • Mean annual day-hiking occasions among participating hikers, 2010 study: 15.4 occasions. (Luke, May 2022)
  • Mean annual overnight hiking activity days among participants, 2000 study: 9.1 days. (Luke, May 2022)
  • Mean annual overnight hiking activity days among participants, 2010 study: 7.4 days. (Luke, May 2022)
  • Mean annual overnight hiking activity days among participants, 2020 study: 9.5 days. (Luke, May 2022)

These averages use people who participated in the relevant activity as their denominator. They are not averages across every resident, including those who did not hike. The day-hiking measure counts occasions, while the overnight measure counts activity days; treating them as identical trip counts would change the meaning. A mean also does not describe the experience of a typical individual as a median would. The values should therefore be read as separate indicators of activity intensity within each participant group. They do not show how many nights were booked in paid accommodation or how far people walked.

What do residents say about their hiking skills?

  • Self-assessed hiking skills in the 2000 study: 79.5% (2000 study). (Luke, May 2022)
  • Men self-reporting hiking skills: 94.9% (2020 study). (Luke, May 2022)
  • Women self-reporting hiking skills: 84% (2020 study). (Luke, May 2022)
  • People aged 15–24 self-reporting hiking skills: 87% (2020 study). (Luke, May 2022)
  • People aged 25–44 self-reporting hiking skills: 90% (2020 study). (Luke, May 2022)
  • People aged 45–64 self-reporting hiking skills: 90% (2020 study). (Luke, May 2022)
  • People aged 65–74 self-reporting hiking skills: 90% (2020 study). (Luke, May 2022)
  • People aged 75–80 self-reporting hiking skills: 87% (2020 study). (Luke, May 2022)

These skill figures are self-assessments from the national study, not results from a hands-on test. The age and sex comparisons describe the stated ability of the relevant population groups instead of their share of all skilled hikers. The historical comparison also retains each survey wave's age coverage. Confidence can be relevant to outdoor education, but these estimates cannot establish competence in a specific emergency or prove that one demographic group hikes more safely.

What motivates nature trips and national-park visits?

Nature tourism supplies useful context for hiking, provided the broader activity coverage stays explicit. The survey describes people's reported experiences and motives, not a counter-based census of visits.

Which market and personal benefits matter to nature-trip respondents?

  • Nature-trip respondents rating peace and quiet in nature fairly or very important: 89.5% (2020 study). (Luke, May 2022)
  • Nature-trip respondents rating time with family and friends fairly or very important: 85.4% (2020 study). (Luke, May 2022)
  • Nature-trip respondents rating relaxation and recovery from stress fairly or very important: 84.8% (2020 study). (Luke, May 2022)
  • Nature-trip respondents rating nature experiences fairly or very important: 84.1% (2020 study). (Luke, May 2022)
  • Nature-trip respondents rating personal time and tranquillity fairly or very important: 80.8% (2020 study). (Luke, May 2022)

The motive question concerns the respondent's most recent overnight nature trip. It asks whether each reason was fairly or very important in choosing that trip, allowing several motives to matter to the same person. They also do not measure benefits actually achieved after the trip. Nature trips can involve activities other than hiking, including visits to a holiday home. This broader denominator should remain attached whenever the findings are quoted. The answers indicate what respondents valued, without demonstrating that a particular destination feature caused the journey.

How do exercise, discovery and learning feature in trip choices?

  • Nature-trip respondents rating maintaining physical fitness fairly or very important: 70.7% (2020 study). (Luke, May 2022)
  • Nature-trip respondents rating new experiences and adventure fairly or very important: 51.5% (2020 study). (Luke, May 2022)
  • Nature-trip respondents rating learning and developing skills fairly or very important: 36.5% (2020 study). (Luke, May 2022)
  • Nature-trip respondents rating natural products fairly or very important: 31.5% (2020 study). (Luke, May 2022)
  • Residents reporting an overnight nature trip in the prior year: 45.8% (2020 study). (Luke, May 2022)

The remaining motives extend beyond scenery and relaxation to physical activity, new experiences and learning. They use the same importance scale and most-recent-trip frame as the other motive observations. The overall nature-trip participation estimate answers a different question: whether a resident took an overnight nature trip during the prior year. It should not be multiplied by a motive percentage to manufacture an exact count of hikers. Keeping the two denominators separate allows the evidence to inform travel research without overstating hiking-specific demand.

Who reports visiting a domestic national park?

  • Men reporting a domestic national-park visit: 40.1% (2020 study). (Luke, May 2022)
  • Women reporting a domestic national-park visit: 40.3% (2020 study). (Luke, May 2022)
  • People aged 15–24 reporting a domestic national-park visit: 41.8% (2020 study). (Luke, May 2022)
  • People aged 25–44 reporting a domestic national-park visit: 48.8% (2020 study). (Luke, May 2022)
  • People aged 65–74 reporting a domestic national-park visit: 29.6% (2020 study). (Luke, May 2022)
  • People aged 75–80 reporting a domestic national-park visit: 16.8% (2020 study). (Luke, May 2022)

The national-park question records whether residents reported any domestic park visit during the preceding year. It counts participation at the person level, not how often someone visited. The demographic percentages use the population of each group as their denominator. They are not the demographic composition of park visitors, and visits need not have been hiking trips. These distinctions explain why the survey and destination counters should not be expected to produce interchangeable totals.

How many visits do selected Finnish national parks receive?

Destination monitoring measures use of places instead of the size of Finland's hiking population. The selected rows below exclude locations that the publisher explicitly carried forward from the previous year.

What do the first selected park rows report?

  • Hiidenportti National Park: 9,700 estimated visits in 2025. (Metsähallitus, Jan 2026)
  • Hossa National Park: 79,200 estimated visits in 2025. (Metsähallitus, Jan 2026)
  • Isojärvi National Park: 24,600 estimated visits in 2025. (Metsähallitus, Jan 2026)
  • Kauhaneva–Pohjankangas National Park: 26,000 estimated visits in 2025. (Metsähallitus, Jan 2026)
  • Koli National Park: 224,000 estimated visits in 2025. (Metsähallitus, Jan 2026)
  • Kurjenrahka National Park: 69,200 estimated visits in 2025. (Metsähallitus, Jan 2026)
  • Leivonmäki National Park: 31,500 estimated visits in 2025. (Metsähallitus, Jan 2026)
  • Lemmenjoki National Park: 22,700 estimated visits in 2025. (Metsähallitus, Jan 2026)
  • Liesjärvi National Park: 58,600 estimated visits in 2025. (Metsähallitus, Jan 2026)
  • Nuuksio National Park: 298,700 estimated visits in 2025. (Metsähallitus, Jan 2026)

These updated park estimates follow the source's alphabetical order instead of a ranking of popularity. Counters and correction factors support the estimates; they do not identify unique visitors or establish that every visit involved hiking. The reported year remains the reference period, and the values should not be presented as live footfall or expected crowding on a particular trail.

What do the middle selected park rows report?

  • Oulanka National Park: 170,400 estimated visits in 2025. (Metsähallitus, Jan 2026)
  • Patvinsuo National Park: 15,600 estimated visits in 2025. (Metsähallitus, Jan 2026)
  • Petkeljärvi National Park: 16,800 estimated visits in 2025. (Metsähallitus, Jan 2026)
  • Puurijärvi and Isosuo National Park: 20,600 estimated visits in 2025. (Metsähallitus, Jan 2026)
  • Pyhä-Häkki National Park: 23,000 estimated visits in 2025. (Metsähallitus, Jan 2026)
  • Pyhä–Luosto National Park: 199,000 estimated visits in 2025. (Metsähallitus, Jan 2026)
  • Repovesi National Park: 104,400 estimated visits in 2025. (Metsähallitus, Jan 2026)
  • Riisitunturi National Park: 60,500 estimated visits in 2025. (Metsähallitus, Jan 2026)
  • Rokua National Park: 48,800 estimated visits in 2025. (Metsähallitus, Jan 2026)

The same visit concept applies to these destinations. One person returning on several occasions can contribute several visits, while a park visit need not correspond to completion of a named route. The source's own monitoring notice identifies places without updated data; those carried-forward rows are not counted among this article's observations. These remaining values provide a dated measure of destination use without becoming estimates of distinct hikers.

What do the remaining selected park rows report?

  • Salamajärvi National Park: 22,500 estimated visits in 2025. (Metsähallitus, Jan 2026)
  • Salla National Park: 48,300 estimated visits in 2025. (Metsähallitus, Jan 2026)
  • Sipoonkorpi National Park: 164,400 estimated visits in 2025. (Metsähallitus, Jan 2026)
  • Southern Konnevesi National Park: 33,200 estimated visits in 2025. (Metsähallitus, Jan 2026)
  • Syöte National Park: 89,400 estimated visits in 2025. (Metsähallitus, Jan 2026)
  • Teijo National Park: 96,900 estimated visits in 2025. (Metsähallitus, Jan 2026)
  • Tiilikkajärvi National Park: 24,500 estimated visits in 2025. (Metsähallitus, Jan 2026)
  • Torronsuo National Park: 53,200 estimated visits in 2025. (Metsähallitus, Jan 2026)
  • Valkmusa National Park: 20,000 estimated visits in 2025. (Metsähallitus, Jan 2026)

These rows complete the selected updated park observations. Counts describe entire destinations and cannot identify the busiest section of a trail or the number of overnight visitors. They are useful for discussing the scale of recorded park use, provided that questions about visitor characteristics and activity type are left to surveys with the appropriate scope.

How are hiking areas and other nature destinations used?

Recreation extends beyond national-park boundaries. Keeping official hiking areas separate from other monitored destinations avoids presenting every site as the same administrative category.

What do updated national hiking-area estimates show?

  • Evo Hiking Area: 69,900 estimated visits in 2025. (Metsähallitus, Jan 2026)
  • Oulujärvi Hiking Area: 51,500 estimated visits in 2025. (Metsähallitus, Jan 2026)
  • Ruunaa Hiking Area: 56,400 estimated visits in 2025. (Metsähallitus, Jan 2026)

These observations retain the official national hiking-area category used in the report. The source table also contains destinations whose latest values were carried forward; they remain visible in the reproduced evidence but are excluded from the textual observations. The updated estimates measure visits instead of individual hikers, nights outdoors or completed routes. They do not reveal whether the same visitor used several areas during the year. Comparisons should therefore focus on the reported scale of site use, not the size of a separate participant population for each destination. The geographic label identifies the monitored area, instead of the home region of the people visiting.

What do other monitored outdoor destinations add?

  • Inari Hiking Area: 165,800 estimated visits in 2025. (Metsähallitus, Jan 2026)
  • Kilpisjärvi–Käsivarsi Area: 118,300 estimated visits in 2025. (Metsähallitus, Jan 2026)
  • Korouoma: 66,300 estimated visits in 2025. (Metsähallitus, Jan 2026)
  • Sanginjoki Nature Reserve: 58,800 estimated visits in 2025. (Metsähallitus, Jan 2026)
  • Valtavaara and Pyhävaara Nature Reserve: 117,000 estimated visits in 2025. (Metsähallitus, Jan 2026)

The source places these destinations in its other-areas category. Their names and administrative status are preserved instead of relabelling them as national parks. As with the park and hiking-area series, the unit is an estimated visit, so repeat visits can contribute repeatedly. The records do not separate hiking from every other permitted recreational activity. They also cannot establish a nationwide total by simple addition to an unrelated survey. These named destinations broaden the geographic picture while keeping the monitoring system's unit and reporting period intact. For route-specific analysis, an appropriate counter location or visitor study would still be required.

What does the enthusiast survey reveal about hiking habits?

A self-selected enthusiast sample can describe equipment and experiences in useful detail. It cannot replace a representative national participation estimate, especially when recruitment concentrates on outdoor social channels.

Where have enthusiasts been and what landscapes do they prefer?

  • Enthusiast-survey respondents who had visited their nearest national park: 91%. (Suomen Latu, Sep 2022)
  • Enthusiast-survey respondents who had visited Karhunkierros: 58%. (Suomen Latu, Sep 2022)
  • Enthusiast-survey respondents who had visited Urho Kekkonen National Park: 58%. (Suomen Latu, Sep 2022)
  • Enthusiast-survey respondents who had visited Hetta–Pallas route: 40%. (Suomen Latu, Sep 2022)
  • Enthusiast-survey respondents who had visited Halti summit: 18%. (Suomen Latu, Sep 2022)
  • Enthusiast respondents preferring forest for outdoor trips: 49%. (Suomen Latu, Sep 2022)
  • Enthusiast respondents preferring fells for outdoor trips: 38%. (Suomen Latu, Sep 2022)
  • Enthusiast respondents preferring water environments for outdoor trips: 8%. (Suomen Latu, Sep 2022)
  • Enthusiast respondents preferring mountains for outdoor trips: 3%. (Suomen Latu, Sep 2022)

The visited-place question asks about previous experience, instead of visits during a defined recent year. Market preferences describe where respondents most like to go outdoors. Neither set of results should be treated as annual destination market share. Recruitment through outdoor channels favours engaged enthusiasts, so the observations describe this voluntary sample instead of all Finnish residents.

What skills and navigation equipment do enthusiasts report?

  • Enthusiast respondents self-reporting ability in making a fire: 95%. (Suomen Latu, Sep 2022)
  • Enthusiast respondents self-reporting ability in pitching a tent: 92%. (Suomen Latu, Sep 2022)
  • Enthusiast respondents self-reporting ability in assembling a Trangia stove: 82%. (Suomen Latu, Sep 2022)
  • Enthusiast respondents self-reporting ability in taking a compass bearing: 74%. (Suomen Latu, Sep 2022)
  • Enthusiast respondents using a map and compass for navigation: 67%. (Suomen Latu, Sep 2022)
  • Enthusiast respondents using a GPS device for navigation: 20%. (Suomen Latu, Sep 2022)
  • Enthusiast respondents using a wrist device for navigation: 8%. (Suomen Latu, Sep 2022)

Ability answers are self-reported, and navigation tools can be used together. Smartphone use therefore does not imply abandonment of a map and compass, nor does a claimed skill demonstrate performance in difficult conditions. These observations concern the whole enthusiast sample instead of only overnight trekkers. The source shows a strongly uneven respondent sex composition, another reason to avoid treating the sample as a demographic portrait of Finland. Its value lies in describing the practices reported by engaged respondents.

Which overnight accommodation types have respondents used?

  • Overnight-trip enthusiasts who had slept in a tent: 98%. (Suomen Latu, Sep 2022)
  • Overnight-trip enthusiasts who had slept in an open wilderness hut: 70%. (Suomen Latu, Sep 2022)
  • Overnight-trip enthusiasts who had slept in a fixed lean-to shelter: 56%. (Suomen Latu, Sep 2022)

This question applies to respondents who undertake overnight trips or treks. It has a narrower denominator than the general enthusiast questions, and people can have used several accommodation types. The responses concern past experience instead of the distribution of nights in the most recent year. A tent, hut and hammock percentage therefore cannot be added to estimate a total number of trips or travellers. The distinction between a fixed lean-to shelter and an open wilderness hut is retained from the source. These findings illustrate the variety of overnight experiences within the voluntary sample, while leaving national accommodation demand to other evidence.

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.