Hiking Statistics Updated November 2026

Human Written & Fact Checked · Updated

100 Ireland Hiking Statistics for 2026

Before you quote an Irish hiking figure, check whether it measures walking, hillwalking, club membership or outdoor activity. Those categories describe different populations and should not be collapsed into a single headline.

This page brings together original CSO tables, Sport Ireland research and Mountaineering Ireland's annual review. It keeps the Republic's population surveys separate from the organisation's all-island membership and programme measures.

Headline figures

  • All adults aged 15–74: 42.3% reported walking/hiking in Q3 2025. (CSO, Sep 2026)
  • Women: 49.8% reported walking/hiking in Q3 2025. (CSO, Sep 2026)
  • National total: 1,731,000 people reported walking/hiking in Q3 2025. (CSO, Sep 2026)
  • Mid-West residents, all adults: 46.2% reported walking/hiking in Q3 2025. (CSO, Sep 2026)
  • Weekly recreational walking participation in 2025: 67%. (Sport Ireland, May 2026)
  • Adults with a disability, weekly recreational walking in 2025: 59%. (Sport Ireland, May 2026)
  • ABC1 socio-economic group, weekly recreational walking in 2025: 74%. (Sport Ireland, May 2026)
  • Took a step to make sure safety: 85% of all surveyed outdoor participants in the 2025 outdoor module. (Sport Ireland, May 2026)
  • Took an environmental-impact step: 46% of all surveyed outdoor participants in the 2025 outdoor module. (Sport Ireland, May 2026)
  • Witnessed unsafe or against-rules behaviour: 30% of all surveyed outdoor participants in the 2025 outdoor module. (Sport Ireland, May 2026)
  • Total membership: 16,522 (31 October 2025). (Mountaineering Ireland, May 2026)
  • Happy Hiking participants: 219 (2025). (Mountaineering Ireland, May 2026)

Who walks or hikes in the Republic of Ireland?

The combined walking/hiking category is useful evidence of participation, but it cannot tell you how many residents climb mountains. Keep the survey's activity definition attached to every demographic comparison.

How do sex and labour-force patterns compare?

  • Men: 34.6% reported walking/hiking in Q3 2025. (CSO, Sep 2026)
  • Adults in the labour force: 40.9% reported walking/hiking in Q3 2025. (CSO, Sep 2026)
  • Adults outside the labour force: 46.0% reported walking/hiking in Q3 2025. (CSO, Sep 2026)

Women report higher participation in the combined activity than men, while the labour-force comparison uses a different grouping. Each percentage describes the relevant population subgroup instead of its share of all walkers. The national headcount appears in the takeaways and is an estimate of people, not outings. People outside the labour force include several different circumstances, so the difference cannot be attributed to retirement alone. Nor does the survey establish that working arrangements caused a participation gap. For an editor comparing sources, the important distinction is between this activity category and the separate weekly recreational-walking measure used later. They have different questionnaires and population coverage; treating them as interchangeable would manufacture a contradiction.

How does reported participation vary by age?

  • Men aged 15–24: 19.0% reported walking/hiking in Q3 2025. (CSO, Sep 2026)
  • Women aged 15–24: 35.7% reported walking/hiking in Q3 2025. (CSO, Sep 2026)
  • All adults aged 15–24: 27.0% reported walking/hiking in Q3 2025. (CSO, Sep 2026)
  • Men aged 25–44: 29.1% reported walking/hiking in Q3 2025. (CSO, Sep 2026)
  • Women aged 25–44: 44.9% reported walking/hiking in Q3 2025. (CSO, Sep 2026)
  • All adults aged 25–44: 37.1% reported walking/hiking in Q3 2025. (CSO, Sep 2026)
  • Men aged 45–74: 45.1% reported walking/hiking in Q3 2025. (CSO, Sep 2026)
  • Women aged 45–74: 58.7% reported walking/hiking in Q3 2025. (CSO, Sep 2026)
  • All adults aged 45–74: 52.0% reported walking/hiking in Q3 2025. (CSO, Sep 2026)

The older age band has higher reported walking/hiking participation than the youngest band in the combined-sex comparison. These are rates within age and sex groups, not the demographic composition of hikers. They also do not identify distance, terrain, frequency or whether a walk was undertaken alone. Comparisons should retain the original combined activity label.

How does walking and hiking participation vary by region?

Residence is not destination demand. Regional participation estimates tell local planners about their populations, while trail congestion requires counts at the actual walking locations.

What do Border, West and Mid-West residents report?

  • Border residents, men: 34.6% reported walking/hiking in Q3 2025. (CSO, Sep 2026)
  • Border residents, women: 53.7% reported walking/hiking in Q3 2025. (CSO, Sep 2026)
  • Border residents, all adults: 44.1% reported walking/hiking in Q3 2025. (CSO, Sep 2026)
  • West residents, men: 33.2% reported walking/hiking in Q3 2025. (CSO, Sep 2026)
  • West residents, women: 51.9% reported walking/hiking in Q3 2025. (CSO, Sep 2026)
  • West residents, all adults: 42.4% reported walking/hiking in Q3 2025. (CSO, Sep 2026)
  • Mid-West residents, men: 37.7% reported walking/hiking in Q3 2025. (CSO, Sep 2026)
  • Mid-West residents, women: 54.6% reported walking/hiking in Q3 2025. (CSO, Sep 2026)

The regional percentages use residents of each named area as their denominator. They do not measure the share of national walking trips occurring there. A resident can participate outside the region, and repeated outings do not create additional participants in this measure. Sex-specific comparisons retain the same activity category and age coverage.

What do South-East and South-West residents report?

  • South-East residents, men: 29.2% reported walking/hiking in Q3 2025. (CSO, Sep 2026)
  • South-East residents, women: 49.6% reported walking/hiking in Q3 2025. (CSO, Sep 2026)
  • South-East residents, all adults: 39.6% reported walking/hiking in Q3 2025. (CSO, Sep 2026)
  • South-West residents, men: 35.6% reported walking/hiking in Q3 2025. (CSO, Sep 2026)
  • South-West residents, women: 51.3% reported walking/hiking in Q3 2025. (CSO, Sep 2026)
  • South-West residents, all adults: 43.5% reported walking/hiking in Q3 2025. (CSO, Sep 2026)

The southern-region estimates preserve the distinction between male, female and combined-sex rates. The combined figure is population weighted, so averaging the displayed sex-specific percentages is not an appropriate way to reproduce it. These are survey estimates instead of complete counts of residents. A regional difference can reflect population composition as well as access to outdoor opportunities. The table alone does not establish which explanation counts most, nor whether a small observed gap is statistically significant. Keep the geographic classification used by the publisher; county boundaries and tourism regions do not necessarily match these areas.

What do Dublin, Mid-East and Midland residents report?

  • Dublin residents, men: 35.3% reported walking/hiking in Q3 2025. (CSO, Sep 2026)
  • Dublin residents, women: 47.5% reported walking/hiking in Q3 2025. (CSO, Sep 2026)
  • Dublin residents, all adults: 41.5% reported walking/hiking in Q3 2025. (CSO, Sep 2026)
  • Mid-East residents, men: 33.1% reported walking/hiking in Q3 2025. (CSO, Sep 2026)
  • Mid-East residents, women: 47.4% reported walking/hiking in Q3 2025. (CSO, Sep 2026)
  • Mid-East residents, all adults: 40.3% reported walking/hiking in Q3 2025. (CSO, Sep 2026)
  • Midland residents, men: 38.3% reported walking/hiking in Q3 2025. (CSO, Sep 2026)
  • Midland residents, women: 48.0% reported walking/hiking in Q3 2025. (CSO, Sep 2026)
  • Midland residents, all adults: 43.2% reported walking/hiking in Q3 2025. (CSO, Sep 2026)

The eastern and central regions use the same residence-based classification. Dublin's result is not a count of mountain visitors, and the surrounding regions should not be treated as a single destination market. Comparisons concern participation within the stated population, with no inference about route difficulty or spending. Trail managers need more local evidence for capacity decisions.

How common is weekly recreational walking?

Weekly recreational walking captures a broader everyday activity than hillwalking. Its repeated survey series offers useful context, provided annual observations and within-year quarters remain separate.

What does the annual and quarterly series show?

  • Weekly recreational walking participation in 2017: 66%. (Sport Ireland, May 2026)
  • Weekly recreational walking participation in 2019: 66%. (Sport Ireland, May 2026)
  • Weekly recreational walking participation in 2021: 74%. (Sport Ireland, May 2026)
  • Weekly recreational walking participation in 2022: 68%. (Sport Ireland, May 2026)
  • Weekly recreational walking participation in 2023: 69%. (Sport Ireland, May 2026)
  • Weekly recreational walking participation in 2024: 71%. (Sport Ireland, May 2026)
  • Weekly recreational walking in Q1 2025: 65%. (Sport Ireland, May 2026)
  • Weekly recreational walking in Q2 2025: 68%. (Sport Ireland, May 2026)
  • Weekly recreational walking in Q3 2025: 67%. (Sport Ireland, May 2026)
  • Weekly recreational walking in Q4 2025: 68%. (Sport Ireland, May 2026)

The Irish Sports Monitor asks about participation during the previous week. Its annual estimates combine observations throughout the year, whereas quarterly figures describe shorter collection periods. They are not cumulative counts and should not be added together. The chart retains the original distinction between participation percentages and estimated population counts.

How do gender, disability and socio-economic groups compare?

  • Men, weekly recreational walking in 2025: 63%. (Sport Ireland, May 2026)
  • Women, weekly recreational walking in 2025: 71%. (Sport Ireland, May 2026)
  • Adults without a disability, weekly recreational walking in 2025: 69%. (Sport Ireland, May 2026)
  • C2DE socio-economic group, weekly recreational walking in 2025: 60%. (Sport Ireland, May 2026)

The survey reports unequal participation across these population groups. Each percentage uses the relevant group as its denominator, instead of all recreational walkers. Disability status and socio-economic classification identify different dimensions of the sample; the figures cannot be combined to describe an intersectional subgroup. The results are descriptive and do not establish why a gap exists. Differences in accessibility, time, health or opportunity require further evidence before assigning a cause. These observations concern recreational walking in general, so they cannot establish whether a group is underrepresented on technical mountain routes. The takeaway block shows selected results while the remaining estimates below preserve the comparison context.

How do age and urban-rural patterns compare?

  • Ages 16–24, weekly recreational walking in 2025: 64%. (Sport Ireland, May 2026)
  • Ages 25–44, weekly recreational walking in 2025: 69%. (Sport Ireland, May 2026)
  • Ages 45–64, weekly recreational walking in 2025: 69%. (Sport Ireland, May 2026)
  • Ages 65+, weekly recreational walking in 2025: 62%. (Sport Ireland, May 2026)
  • Urban residents, weekly recreational walking in 2025: 68%. (Sport Ireland, May 2026)
  • Rural residents, weekly recreational walking in 2025: 65%. (Sport Ireland, May 2026)

The age pattern for weekly recreational walking is not identical to the CSO's combined walking/hiking pattern. Different age bands and survey definitions matter before any comparison is attempted. Urban and rural results identify where respondents live, not where they completed their walk. Nor do these percentages describe walk duration or the quality of available paths. The source notes demographic differences between urban and rural populations, which complicate explanations based on access alone. These figures are useful for describing participation across communities, but they do not evaluate a particular walking investment or identify a causal effect of residence.

What do outdoor participants report about safety and the environment?

Conditional percentages are easy to misquote. The outdoor module separates whether people took any action from the particular actions mentioned by those who did, and its respondents include several activities beyond hiking.

Which safety and environmental actions were mentioned?

  • Brought a mobile phone: 48% of outdoor participants who took a safety step in the 2025 outdoor module. (Sport Ireland, May 2026)
  • Wore appropriate clothing: 40% of outdoor participants who took a safety step in the 2025 outdoor module. (Sport Ireland, May 2026)
  • Told someone where they were going: 26% of outdoor participants who took a safety step in the 2025 outdoor module. (Sport Ireland, May 2026)
  • Disposed of waste correctly: 74% of outdoor participants who took an environmental-impact step in the 2025 outdoor module. (Sport Ireland, May 2026)
  • Respected farm animals and wildlife: 16% of outdoor participants who took an environmental-impact step in the 2025 outdoor module. (Sport Ireland, May 2026)
  • Used sustainable travel: 8% of outdoor participants who took an environmental-impact step in the 2025 outdoor module. (Sport Ireland, May 2026)

Safety steps were reported more widely than environmental steps. Specific actions below use conditional denominators: people who took the relevant kind of step. Unprompted answers do not prove others omitted the behaviour. Multiple answers prevent a complete distribution.

What unsafe behaviour did participants encounter?

  • Saw dangerous behaviour: 32% of outdoor participants who witnessed negative behaviour in the 2025 outdoor module. (Sport Ireland, May 2026)
  • Saw antisocial behaviour such as loitering: 26% of outdoor participants who witnessed negative behaviour in the 2025 outdoor module. (Sport Ireland, May 2026)
  • Saw speeding: 19% of outdoor participants who witnessed negative behaviour in the 2025 outdoor module. (Sport Ireland, May 2026)

The module distinguishes encountering negative behaviour from the types of behaviour encountered. The overall result appears in the takeaways; the detailed percentages below apply only to people who witnessed such behaviour. They are not percentages of all outdoor participants, and they do not establish the prevalence of offending among all users of a route. A respondent can observe several types of behaviour, while several respondents can report the same event. These answers therefore cannot be converted into incident counts. The module was fielded during summer and asks about recent outdoor activity, so it should not be treated as an annual accident register or evidence of risk on a named trail.

What did participants report about litter and dogs?

  • Aware of Leave No Trace: 39% of all surveyed outdoor participants in the 2025 outdoor module. (Sport Ireland, May 2026)
  • Saw a dog off its lead: 49% of all surveyed outdoor participants in the 2025 outdoor module. (Sport Ireland, May 2026)
  • Saw someone littering: 58% of all surveyed outdoor participants in the 2025 outdoor module. (Sport Ireland, May 2026)
  • Saw dog waste: 51% of all surveyed outdoor participants in the 2025 outdoor module. (Sport Ireland, May 2026)

Seeing a dog off its lead is a reported observation, not by itself evidence that a legal rule was broken. Likewise, awareness of a campaign does not establish compliance with its principles. The detailed report frames litter and dog observations around recent outdoor activity. Its summary uses looser wording for litter frequency, so this article preserves the underlying recent-activity context instead of claiming a habitual exposure rate. These measures cover outdoor recreation more broadly than hiking, including activities such as running and cycling. They do not identify which locations generated the observations or how many separate incidents occurred.

What does organised hillwalking and climbing participation look like?

Club membership and programme attendance show the reach of organised provision. Mountaineering Ireland operates across the island and includes climbing as well as hillwalking, so its totals cannot be divided by the Republic's population to create a hiking rate.

What does the membership snapshot contain?

The membership snapshot separates club-affiliated and individual members. It also publishes gender counts, which are reproduced as reported. The full gender breakdown does not reconcile exactly with the stated total; this article neither repairs the discrepancy nor calculates new gender percentages from it. Membership demonstrates organisational affiliation, not a completed hike during the survey week. Members may participate in climbing, hillwalking or several activities, and the organisation includes members outside the island. Club counts are organisational units instead of people and should never be added to membership counts. The snapshot therefore complements the population surveys without measuring the same thing.

How far did leadership and club-support programmes reach?

The annual review reports training completion, club involvement and event participation as separate operational measures. A club can appear in several programmes, and a member can attend more than one event, so these figures do not form a deduplicated audience total. The training-completion figure is approximate and the gathering total is a lower bound, as stated in the source. Regional meetings measure support activity instead of mountain outings. Summit Steps describes a pathway into club participation, but its club count alone does not measure subsequent retention. These distinctions make the results useful for understanding provision while preventing programme activity from being mistaken for national participation growth.

What did introductory and women-focused programmes deliver?

The programme figures describe different units: sessions, counties, participants and full-day activities. They cannot be summed into a single participation total. Happy Hiking distinguishes non-members, while Summit Sisters focuses on teenage girls. HER Outdoors and Women With Altitude include activities beyond walking alone. These are delivery outputs, not estimates of all women or beginners who hike.

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.