Hiking Statistics Updated November 2026

Human Written & Fact Checked · Updated

100 France Hiking Statistics for 2026

Are you counting hikers, leisure walkers or recorded GPS traces? France's original sources measure different things, and the distinction changes what you can responsibly say about the audience.

This guide separates a national hiking survey from regional walking-panel records and historical Compostelle research. Every observation retains its source and date. The regional coverage includes every metropolitan region, while the national survey excludes overseas France and the pilgrimage findings describe a specialised historical audience.

Headline figures

  • Hiking participation, including people who also took leisure walks, was 35% of metropolitan French adults. (Union Sport & Cycle, Jun 2025)
  • Itinerant hiking was reported by 27% of hiking participants. (Union Sport & Cycle, Jun 2025)
  • GR long-distance trail awareness among metropolitan adults: 72%. (Union Sport & Cycle, Jun 2025)
  • Hiking-app use was reported by 47% of hiking participants. (Union Sport & Cycle, Jun 2025)
  • Hiking-app use among hikers aged 18–24: 69%. (Union Sport & Cycle, Jun 2025)
  • During hiking, app users selected map/GPS navigation: 64%. (Union Sport & Cycle, Jun 2025)
  • Bretagne, 2024: 189,254 walking traces in the Outdoorvision panel. (Outdoorvision, Apr 2026)
  • Île-de-France, 2024: 154,726 walking traces in the Outdoorvision panel. (Outdoorvision, Apr 2026)
  • Occitanie, 2024: 366,057 walking traces in the Outdoorvision panel. (Outdoorvision, Apr 2026)
  • Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, 2024: 548,639 walking traces in the Outdoorvision panel. (Outdoorvision, Apr 2026)
  • Historical Compostelle journey motive, recentring, recharging or disconnecting: 51%. (AFCC / 4V, May 2022)
  • Historical Compostelle planning media, printed guides, brochures or documentation: 72%. (AFCC / 4V, May 2022)

Who hikes in metropolitan France?

Hiking needs its own definition. Counting everyone who takes a leisure walk would inflate the audience for an article about hiking, while a hiking-only profile excludes people who do both.

How does the hiking-only group differ from the wider audience?

The national study distinguishes hiking, leisure walking and participation in both. The overall hiking estimate appears in the takeaways; the demographic figures below describe only the hiking-only subgroup. These are shares of that subgroup, not the percentage of each demographic group that hikes. The distinction counts when interpreting a gender or age profile. The original chart also displays leisure walkers and combined participants, making its narrower denominator visible.

How common is itinerant hiking across ages?

The survey finds different levels of itinerant hiking within age groups. Its overall result is in the takeaways, while the age-specific estimates below retain the denominator of hiking participants. Itinerancy describes travelling along a route instead of returning to a single base. The question does not establish how many nights respondents spent away, whether they camped, or whether they completed a particular long-distance trail. Younger participants' greater reported involvement should therefore not be converted into a claim about accommodation demand or spending. These figures are participation responses from the fieldwork period, not bookings for a future season.

How familiar are adults with long-distance trails and guidebooks?

The study measures recognition of the GR trail network, individual named routes and topoguides. General network awareness appears in the takeaways; the other findings are listed below. Awareness is not evidence of having walked a route. For the named trails, the reported total combines people who have heard of a route with those who say they know its location or meaning. A well-known trail may attract attention from people who never intend to walk it. Similarly, knowing what a guidebook is does not establish ownership or use. These measures help distinguish the visibility of hiking infrastructure from the participation measures elsewhere in the study. They cannot be used as estimates of visits or route completions.

How do French hikers use applications?

An app adoption percentage and an app task percentage have different denominators. Keeping them separate prevents a useful navigation finding from turning into an exaggerated claim about every hiker.

How does application use vary with age?

The overall application-use estimate and the youngest group's result appear in the takeaways. The remaining age groups show the same question within hiking participants of each age. These estimates describe reported use while hiking. They are not market shares for particular products, subscription rates or measures of offline-map availability. Age differences also do not prove that age itself causes adoption; experience, outing type and access to devices may differ across respondents. The study does not test those explanations. Retain the fieldwork date when reusing the figures because application behaviour can change faster than the underlying geography of a trail network. No particular application is endorsed by this comparison.

What do app users do before leaving?

Before a hike, surveyed application users selected several planning tasks. Route discovery, maps and reviews are overlapping tasks. These conditional percentages apply to people already using hiking apps. They should not be described as preparation habits of every French adult or every hiker. A respondent can perform several tasks before the same outing, so adding these shares would not produce a meaningful total.

What happens during and after the outing?

  • During hiking, app users selected live progress tracking: 53%. (Union Sport & Cycle, Jun 2025)
  • During hiking, app users selected photos or saved points of interest: 33%. (Union Sport & Cycle, Jun 2025)
  • During hiking, app users selected discovering nearby points of interest: 35%. (Union Sport & Cycle, Jun 2025)
  • After hiking, app users selected recording the hike and its statistics: 43%. (Union Sport & Cycle, Jun 2025)
  • After hiking, app users selected sharing routes or performance: 25%. (Union Sport & Cycle, Jun 2025)
  • After hiking, app users selected reviewing outing statistics: 30%. (Union Sport & Cycle, Jun 2025)
  • After hiking, app users selected rating or reviewing an itinerary: 26%. (Union Sport & Cycle, Jun 2025)

The chart separates navigation during an outing from review and recording activities after it. Navigation appears in the takeaways; the remaining activities follow the source's timing categories below. The source places recording the hike and its statistics in its after-hike group. That timing label is preserved. Task selection does not establish continuous use or a safety outcome.

What do northern and western regional walking records show?

Outdoorvision provides geographically detailed evidence from consenting GPS contributors. Its traces are not physical trail-counter readings, population participation rates or a census of hiking trips.

What was recorded in Brittany and Pays de la Loire?

  • Bretagne, 2024: 46,756 walking contributors. (Outdoorvision, Apr 2026)
  • Bretagne, 2023: 148,547 walking traces. (Outdoorvision, Apr 2026)
  • Pays de la Loire, 2024: 121,338 walking traces. (Outdoorvision, Apr 2026)
  • Pays de la Loire, 2024: 27,223 walking contributors. (Outdoorvision, Apr 2026)
  • Pays de la Loire, 2023: 94,618 walking traces. (Outdoorvision, Apr 2026)

The regional dataset records walking traces wholly or partly within each territory and contributors who shared them. Brittany's latest trace count appears in the takeaways; related observations follow below. A contributor can create several traces and appear in more than one region. Regional values must therefore remain separate instead of being summed into a unique national audience. The earlier year supplies context for the dataset, but changing panel coverage prevents treating the difference as a measured change in all walking activity.

What was recorded in Normandy and Hauts-de-France?

  • Normandie, 2024: 91,571 walking traces. (Outdoorvision, Apr 2026)
  • Normandie, 2024: 23,207 walking contributors. (Outdoorvision, Apr 2026)
  • Normandie, 2023: 72,714 walking traces. (Outdoorvision, Apr 2026)
  • Hauts-de-France, 2024: 87,443 walking traces. (Outdoorvision, Apr 2026)
  • Hauts-de-France, 2024: 20,705 walking contributors. (Outdoorvision, Apr 2026)
  • Hauts-de-France, 2023: 69,734 walking traces. (Outdoorvision, Apr 2026)

Outdoorvision supplies the same annual walking indicators for Normandy and Hauts-de-France. The observations below refer to the platform's participating contributors and their recorded traces. A trace can cross a regional boundary, and the same individual can contribute in several places. These figures do not locate that person's residence or distinguish a tourist from a local walker. They also do not isolate mountain hiking from other activities included in the walking category. Those limits remain essential when comparing regions with different landscapes or settlement patterns.

What was recorded around the Loire and Paris region?

  • Centre-Val de Loire, 2024: 64,118 walking traces. (Outdoorvision, Apr 2026)
  • Centre-Val de Loire, 2024: 13,685 walking contributors. (Outdoorvision, Apr 2026)
  • Centre-Val de Loire, 2023: 51,853 walking traces. (Outdoorvision, Apr 2026)
  • Île-de-France, 2024: 33,104 walking contributors. (Outdoorvision, Apr 2026)
  • Île-de-France, 2023: 130,518 walking traces. (Outdoorvision, Apr 2026)

The dataset includes Centre-Val de Loire and Île-de-France using the same walking classification. The Paris-region latest trace count appears in the takeaways; the complementary observations follow below. Regional aggregation does not identify which individual route was busiest. It also cannot show how much walking occurred outside the contributing apps and devices. Use the recorded values to describe this panel's geographic coverage, then seek local trail counters or visitor surveys for questions about a particular site. Differences across years may reflect changes in contributor recruitment and data supply as well as activity.

What do southern and eastern regional walking records show?

Mountain destinations are visible in the panel, but visibility is not a population estimate. The same definitions also cover coastal, inland and island regions, allowing consistent description without pretending the panel is a census.

What was recorded in Occitanie and Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur?

  • Occitanie, 2024: 103,643 walking contributors. (Outdoorvision, Apr 2026)
  • Occitanie, 2023: 275,179 walking traces. (Outdoorvision, Apr 2026)
  • Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur, 2024: 297,008 walking traces. (Outdoorvision, Apr 2026)
  • Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur, 2024: 92,305 walking contributors. (Outdoorvision, Apr 2026)
  • Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur, 2023: 231,121 walking traces. (Outdoorvision, Apr 2026)

Outdoorvision reports annual walking traces and contributors for both southern regions. Occitanie's latest trace count is showed in the takeaways; the remaining observations are below. The regional names do not restrict the records to mountain paths or famous long-distance routes. A trace qualifies when wholly or partly located in the territory. The figures therefore cannot be assigned to a particular park, mountain range or trail without finer geographic evidence. The earlier trace counts are retained as historical panel observations, with no adjustment for a changing contributor base.

What was recorded in Nouvelle-Aquitaine and Corsica?

  • Nouvelle-Aquitaine, 2024: 227,412 walking traces. (Outdoorvision, Apr 2026)
  • Nouvelle-Aquitaine, 2024: 59,850 walking contributors. (Outdoorvision, Apr 2026)
  • Nouvelle-Aquitaine, 2023: 175,254 walking traces. (Outdoorvision, Apr 2026)
  • Corse, 2024: 33,315 walking traces. (Outdoorvision, Apr 2026)
  • Corse, 2024: 15,650 walking contributors. (Outdoorvision, Apr 2026)
  • Corse, 2023: 25,678 walking traces. (Outdoorvision, Apr 2026)

The same dataset includes mainland Nouvelle-Aquitaine and the island region of Corsica. Their recorded walking observations are listed below using the source's regional boundaries. These values do not establish the share of a region's residents who hike. Contributors can be visitors, and the data do not provide a representative population denominator for either place. It would also be misleading to compare raw totals as if the regions had identical areas, access conditions or platform coverage. The annual records describe participation in the data-sharing panel, not a ranking of destination quality.

What was recorded in the eastern and Alpine regions?

  • Bourgogne-Franche-Comté, 2024: 164,645 walking traces. (Outdoorvision, Apr 2026)
  • Bourgogne-Franche-Comté, 2024: 42,107 walking contributors. (Outdoorvision, Apr 2026)
  • Bourgogne-Franche-Comté, 2023: 128,889 walking traces. (Outdoorvision, Apr 2026)
  • Grand Est, 2024: 248,825 walking traces. (Outdoorvision, Apr 2026)
  • Grand Est, 2024: 56,793 walking contributors. (Outdoorvision, Apr 2026)
  • Grand Est, 2023: 198,310 walking traces. (Outdoorvision, Apr 2026)
  • Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, 2024: 145,210 walking contributors. (Outdoorvision, Apr 2026)
  • Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, 2023: 431,836 walking traces. (Outdoorvision, Apr 2026)

The remaining metropolitan regions have the following panel observations. Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes' latest trace count appears in the takeaways. Contributor counts identify data contributors, while trace counts identify recordings; neither is an estimate of all hikers. Regional boundaries also differ from individual mountain ranges, so these totals cannot be reassigned to a named Alpine trail.

What did historical Compostelle walkers report?

Long-distance pilgrimage adds a different perspective from a national participation survey. The following historical study describes journeys made before and during the pandemic, with its age and recruitment limits kept visible.

Who answered the historical pilgrimage survey?

AFCC commissioned 4V Consultants to survey walkers on French Compostelle routes. These demographic findings describe the respondents, not all French hikers or everyone using the routes today. The study combined online and field recruitment and covered journeys in the stated historical period. It is not a representative national sample. Employment status and age are separate questions, and rounding affects the displayed category totals. The not-in-work category is retained without treating it as a formal labour-market unemployment measure. These distinctions matter when comparing this specialised walking audience with the national hiking survey above.

Why did respondents walk and how far did they travel daily?

  • Walking, itinerancy or hiking: 45%. (AFCC / 4V, May 2022)
  • Sharing and meeting others: 41%. (AFCC / 4V, May 2022)
  • Spiritual character of the route: 39%. (AFCC / 4V, May 2022)
  • Historical Compostelle respondents reported an average daily walking distance of 25.7 km. (AFCC / 4V, May 2022)

The historical survey records several motives and a mean daily walking distance. Recharging and disconnecting appears in the takeaways; related motives and the distance measure follow below. Respondents could name several motivations, so spiritual interest, meeting people and walking are not exclusive categories. The average distance describes these particular reported journeys and is not a suggested daily target. It cannot identify a suitable itinerary for a reader, because route conditions, preparation and individual circumstances are not captured by the mean. The evidence is useful for understanding the character of this surveyed audience while keeping its historical setting separate from current participation or travel advice.

How did walkers prepare and find information?

  • No external help: 55%. (AFCC / 4V, May 2022)
  • Pilgrim associations: 17%. (AFCC / 4V, May 2022)
  • Other walkers: 13%. (AFCC / 4V, May 2022)
  • ACIR/Compostelle agency: 10%. (AFCC / 4V, May 2022)
  • Accommodation or route-based providers: 9%. (AFCC / 4V, May 2022)
  • Websites: 68%. (AFCC / 4V, May 2022)
  • Social networks: 12%. (AFCC / 4V, May 2022)
  • Blogs or forums: 10%. (AFCC / 4V, May 2022)
  • YouTube: 8%. (AFCC / 4V, May 2022)

The historical preparation question separates help from people or organisations from information media. Printed information appears in the takeaways; the other responses show that independent preparation could coexist with several information channels. These are overlapping selections, not exclusive market shares. They describe the historical survey period instead of current platform use.

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.