Hiking Statistics Updated November 2026

Human Written & Fact Checked · Updated

100 Sweden Hiking Statistics for 2026

If you want to know how Sweden hikes, start by separating occasional trail walking from all outdoor recreation. A population survey, a confidence question and an accommodation booking measure different things.

This hub brings together original SCB tables, Novus survey research and STF records. It keeps historical participation observations distinct from newer outdoor-life and organisational evidence.

Headline figures

  • Adults reporting lowland-trail hiking 1–5 times in the prior year: 26% (2021 survey). (SCB, May 2025)
  • Adults reporting mountain hiking 1–5 times in the prior year: 14% (2021 survey). (SCB, May 2025)
  • Adults aged 30–49 reporting lowland hiking 1–5 times: 32% (2021 survey, prior year). (SCB, May 2025)
  • Västra Götaland residents reporting lowland-trail hiking 1–5 times: 32% (2021 survey, prior year). (SCB, May 2025)
  • Outdoor participants reporting recreation in nature very often on weekends/holidays: 22%. (Novus, Jun 2025)
  • Outdoor participants' preferred recreation arrangement, with family/partner: 73%. (Novus, Jun 2025)
  • Adults rating access to nearby natural areas very good: 54%. (Novus, Jun 2025)
  • Adults self-rating definitely able for unplanned overnight stay: 38%. (Novus, Jun 2025)
  • Adults rating the existence of the right of public access very important: 79%. (Novus, Jun 2025)
  • STF year-end membership in 2025: 184,579. (STF, Feb 2026)
  • Guided activities on STF's Hiking Day in 2025: 233. (STF, Feb 2026)
  • STF owned and affiliated accommodation guestnights in 2025: 937,366. (STF, Feb 2026)

How frequently do people in Sweden hike?

A useful participation statistic must name the activity and its frequency band. SCB's original tables distinguish mountain hiking from hiking on lowland trails, preserving differences that a single headline would hide.

What do the national frequency bands measure?

  • Adults reporting lowland-trail hiking 6–20 times in the prior year: 11% (2021 survey). (SCB, May 2025)
  • Adults reporting lowland-trail hiking 21–60 times in the prior year: 4% (2021 survey). (SCB, May 2025)
  • Adults reporting lowland-trail hiking more than 60 times in the prior year: 3% (2021 survey). (SCB, May 2025)
  • Adults reporting mountain hiking 6–20 times in the prior year: 3% (2021 survey). (SCB, May 2025)

These estimates describe reported activity during the year preceding the survey. They are individual frequency categories, so an occasional-hiking percentage is not the percentage who hiked at least once. Mountain and lowland hiking are separate questions and can overlap for the same person. The underlying fieldwork took place during the pandemic; the later appendix publication does not make the observations contemporary participation figures. The source reports weighted population estimates instead of raw shares of an online convenience sample. Readers comparing another survey should first check the age range, activity wording and recall window. A broader question about walking outdoors may capture many activities outside either of these hiking categories.

How do the reported figures differ by sex?

  • Men reporting lowland hiking 1–5 times in the prior year: 27% (2021 survey). (SCB, May 2025)
  • Women reporting lowland hiking 1–5 times in the prior year: 25% (2021 survey). (SCB, May 2025)
  • Men reporting mountain hiking 1–5 times in the prior year: 15% (2021 survey). (SCB, May 2025)
  • Women reporting mountain hiking 1–5 times in the prior year: 13% (2021 survey). (SCB, May 2025)

The sex comparisons below retain the same occasional frequency band for both hiking forms. That consistency makes the estimates interpretable, but it does not establish a difference in total participation or time spent hiking. Someone in a more frequent band is outside these observations even if they hike extensively. The published tables also contain uncertainty intervals, which should accompany any attempt to compare groups formally. Small differences in point estimates are not proof of statistically meaningful differences. The results concern residents covered by the survey instead of everyone encountered on Swedish trails. International visitors and people outside the population frame should not be silently added to the denominator.

How does occasional hiking vary across age groups?

  • Adults aged 16–29 reporting lowland hiking 1–5 times: 31% (2021 survey, prior year). (SCB, May 2025)
  • Adults aged 50–64 reporting lowland hiking 1–5 times: 25% (2021 survey, prior year). (SCB, May 2025)
  • Adults aged 65+ reporting lowland hiking 1–5 times: 16% (2021 survey, prior year). (SCB, May 2025)
  • Adults aged 16–29 reporting mountain hiking 1–5 times: 17% (2021 survey, prior year). (SCB, May 2025)
  • Adults aged 30–49 reporting mountain hiking 1–5 times: 17% (2021 survey, prior year). (SCB, May 2025)
  • Adults aged 50–64 reporting mountain hiking 1–5 times: 13% (2021 survey, prior year). (SCB, May 2025)
  • Adults aged 65+ reporting mountain hiking 1–5 times: 7% (2021 survey, prior year). (SCB, May 2025)

The age rows apply the same prior-year recall window and occasional frequency category. They show population estimates for residents in each band, not the age composition of all hikers. A younger group's percentage therefore cannot be described as its share of Swedish trail visitors. Keeping mountain and lowland hiking distinct preserves the actual questions asked.

What do county-level hiking estimates show?

Residence-based statistics support local participation research, but they cannot rank destinations by visitor demand. All county observations below use the same lowland-trail frequency band and historical survey.

What do the eastern and southeastern county rows show?

  • Stockholm residents reporting lowland-trail hiking 1–5 times: 24% (2021 survey, prior year). (SCB, May 2025)
  • Uppsala residents reporting lowland-trail hiking 1–5 times: 23% (2021 survey, prior year). (SCB, May 2025)
  • Södermanland residents reporting lowland-trail hiking 1–5 times: 22% (2021 survey, prior year). (SCB, May 2025)
  • Östergötland residents reporting lowland-trail hiking 1–5 times: 27% (2021 survey, prior year). (SCB, May 2025)
  • Jönköping residents reporting lowland-trail hiking 1–5 times: 32% (2021 survey, prior year). (SCB, May 2025)
  • Kronoberg residents reporting lowland-trail hiking 1–5 times: 25% (2021 survey, prior year). (SCB, May 2025)
  • Kalmar residents reporting lowland-trail hiking 1–5 times: 27% (2021 survey, prior year). (SCB, May 2025)

These estimates concern residents reporting occasional lowland-trail hiking. A respondent may have walked in their home county, elsewhere in Sweden or abroad; the table does not locate the outing. The rows therefore answer a participation question about residents instead of a tourism question about arrivals. Sampling uncertainty counts for geographic groups. Differences between the point estimates should be treated as descriptive unless tested using the survey design.

What do southern and western county rows show?

  • Gotland residents reporting lowland-trail hiking 1–5 times: 25% (2021 survey, prior year). (SCB, May 2025)
  • Blekinge residents reporting lowland-trail hiking 1–5 times: 25% (2021 survey, prior year). (SCB, May 2025)
  • Skåne residents reporting lowland-trail hiking 1–5 times: 24% (2021 survey, prior year). (SCB, May 2025)
  • Halland residents reporting lowland-trail hiking 1–5 times: 29% (2021 survey, prior year). (SCB, May 2025)
  • Värmland residents reporting lowland-trail hiking 1–5 times: 25% (2021 survey, prior year). (SCB, May 2025)
  • Örebro residents reporting lowland-trail hiking 1–5 times: 24% (2021 survey, prior year). (SCB, May 2025)

The same definition applies across these southern and western counties. Each observation refers to the share of residents in the specified occasional frequency band, not the proportion using a named trail or the number of walking trips. These counties contain different populations and landscapes, but the table alone cannot explain what produced a difference. For local planning, the figures offer a dated participation baseline that should be read alongside newer local counts and their different denominators.

What do central and northern county rows show?

  • Västmanland residents reporting lowland-trail hiking 1–5 times: 17% (2021 survey, prior year). (SCB, May 2025)
  • Dalarna residents reporting lowland-trail hiking 1–5 times: 31% (2021 survey, prior year). (SCB, May 2025)
  • Gävleborg residents reporting lowland-trail hiking 1–5 times: 20% (2021 survey, prior year). (SCB, May 2025)
  • Västernorrland residents reporting lowland-trail hiking 1–5 times: 31% (2021 survey, prior year). (SCB, May 2025)
  • Jämtland residents reporting lowland-trail hiking 1–5 times: 29% (2021 survey, prior year). (SCB, May 2025)
  • Västerbotten residents reporting lowland-trail hiking 1–5 times: 27% (2021 survey, prior year). (SCB, May 2025)
  • Norrbotten residents reporting lowland-trail hiking 1–5 times: 25% (2021 survey, prior year). (SCB, May 2025)

These rows complete the county coverage without changing the question or denominator. The lowland-trail category must remain separate from the mountain-hiking table, even for counties linked to mountain tourism. A resident's home location does not reveal where their hiking occurred, and visitors from other counties are not allocated to the destination here. Their apparent ordering should therefore not be promoted as a definitive ranking of hiking enthusiasm.

How does broader outdoor recreation fit into daily life?

Outdoor recreation is wider than hiking. Novus's original Friluftsbarometern report adds context about routines, company and nearby nature without replacing the activity-specific SCB estimates.

When do outdoor participants report going into nature?

  • Outdoor participants reporting recreation in nature quite often on weekends/holidays: 46%. (Novus, Jun 2025)
  • Outdoor participants reporting recreation in nature rarely on weekends/holidays: 30%. (Novus, Jun 2025)
  • Outdoor participants reporting recreation in nature never on weekends/holidays: 3%. (Novus, Jun 2025)
  • Outdoor participants reporting recreation in nature very often on weekdays: 13%. (Novus, Jun 2025)
  • Outdoor participants reporting recreation in nature quite often on weekdays: 30%. (Novus, Jun 2025)
  • Outdoor participants reporting recreation in nature rarely on weekdays: 46%. (Novus, Jun 2025)
  • Outdoor participants reporting recreation in nature never on weekdays: 10%. (Novus, Jun 2025)

The timing question was asked of people classified as participating in outdoor recreation. Weekday and weekend answers concern separate situations, so they are not mutually exclusive segments of the population. The report's rounded category values can differ from a rounded combined total; this page preserves the individual cells instead of reconstructing totals. The wording covers recreation in nature broadly and does not identify the distance, terrain or duration of a hike.

Who do respondents prefer to go outdoors with?

  • Outdoor participants' preferred recreation arrangement, alone: 56%. (Novus, Jun 2025)
  • Outdoor participants' preferred recreation arrangement, with friends: 49%. (Novus, Jun 2025)
  • Outdoor participants' preferred recreation arrangement, through an outdoor organisation: 7%. (Novus, Jun 2025)
  • Outdoor participants' preferred recreation arrangement, another way: 1%. (Novus, Jun 2025)
  • Outdoor participants' preferred recreation arrangement, no outdoor participation: 1%. (Novus, Jun 2025)
  • Outdoor participants' preferred recreation arrangement, unsure: 1%. (Novus, Jun 2025)

Family, friends and time alone are overlapping preferences instead of exclusive types of participant. Respondents could choose more than one arrangement, so the percentages should not be added into a single distribution. The report also retains residual answers, including a no-participation response within the participant-base table. That wording is preserved instead of silently reassigned. These are preferences about broad outdoor recreation, not observed hiking-party sizes or counts of organised walks. They can inform questions about social experiences without establishing which arrangement produces more frequent activity.

How good is access to nearby natural areas?

  • Adults rating access to nearby natural areas fairly good: 30%. (Novus, Jun 2025)
  • Adults rating access to nearby natural areas neither good nor bad: 7%. (Novus, Jun 2025)
  • Adults rating access to nearby natural areas fairly poor: 7%. (Novus, Jun 2025)
  • Adults rating access to nearby natural areas very poor: 1%. (Novus, Jun 2025)
  • Adults rating access to nearby natural areas unsure: 1%. (Novus, Jun 2025)

The access question uses the full public sample instead of only outdoor participants. It records a subjective assessment of nearby natural areas, not a mapped distance to a trailhead or an audit of accessible facilities. A positive answer does not establish that every type of terrain or transport connection is available. Likewise, a negative answer does not identify the particular barrier. The distinction counts when discussing local provision: the survey records how respondents perceive access, while physical accessibility and actual usage require other evidence. These results should not be relabelled as satisfaction with hiking trails specifically.

What do people report about outdoor preparedness and access rights?

Confidence can guide questions for education, but it is not evidence of tested competence. The survey also measures attitudes to public access, which are different from assessments of legal knowledge.

Could respondents manage an unplanned night outdoors?

  • Adults self-rating possibly able for unplanned overnight stay: 36%. (Novus, Jun 2025)
  • Adults self-rating doubtful for unplanned overnight stay: 18%. (Novus, Jun 2025)
  • Adults self-rating unable for unplanned overnight stay: 7%. (Novus, Jun 2025)
  • Adults self-rating unsure for unplanned overnight stay: 2%. (Novus, Jun 2025)

The scenario specifies outdoor clothing, a daypack, food and water, but no tent. Answers therefore apply to that situation instead of to any unplanned overnight exposure. Respondents judge their own ability; no hands-on exercise verifies whether that judgement is accurate. Weather, location and individual circumstances could change the outcome, and the table does not estimate survival probabilities. The question is useful for understanding confidence and uncertainty in the public sample. It should not be used to certify readiness or to infer that confidence itself prevents incidents. The original chart is retained so readers can see the question as well as the response categories.

How confident are respondents about making a fire?

  • Adults self-rating definitely able for safely making a fire: 61%. (Novus, Jun 2025)
  • Adults self-rating possibly able for safely making a fire: 25%. (Novus, Jun 2025)
  • Adults self-rating doubtful for safely making a fire: 8%. (Novus, Jun 2025)
  • Adults self-rating unable for safely making a fire: 4%. (Novus, Jun 2025)
  • Adults self-rating unsure for safely making a fire: 2%. (Novus, Jun 2025)

The fire question supplies matches and asks respondents to judge their ability to make a fire safely. It measures perceived capability instead of observed technique, knowledge of local restrictions or performance in difficult conditions. The answer categories should therefore remain attached to the scenario instead of becoming a general claim that people possess verified outdoor skills. A respondent can be confident about this task and uncertain about an unplanned overnight stay; the questions are not interchangeable tests. These figures help identify how the public describes its preparedness. They do not establish whether lighting a fire is permitted or suitable in any particular place.

How do people rate their knowledge and value of public access?

  • Adults rating their right-of-public-access knowledge very good: 26%. (Novus, Jun 2025)
  • Adults rating their right-of-public-access knowledge fairly good: 57%. (Novus, Jun 2025)
  • Adults rating their right-of-public-access knowledge neither good nor bad: 14%. (Novus, Jun 2025)
  • Adults rating their right-of-public-access knowledge fairly poor: 2%. (Novus, Jun 2025)
  • Adults rating the existence of the right of public access fairly important: 17%. (Novus, Jun 2025)
  • Adults rating the existence of the right of public access neither important nor unimportant: 3%. (Novus, Jun 2025)
  • Adults rating the existence of the right of public access fairly unimportant: 1%. (Novus, Jun 2025)

Knowledge and importance are separate self-reported judgements. The former asks how well respondents believe they understand the right of public access; the latter asks how much they value its existence. Neither is a test of specific rules or a measure of compliance. The selected categories below preserve that distinction. A favourable attitude must not be interpreted as complete understanding, and this survey is not a source of instructions about a particular activity or location.

What does STF report about its members and services?

STF's own records describe an organisation and its accommodation network. They add operational evidence without turning membership, guestnights or volunteering into a count of all Swedish hikers.

How has STF membership changed?

  • STF year-end membership in 2021: 245,905. (STF, Feb 2026)
  • STF year-end membership in 2022: 228,013. (STF, Feb 2026)
  • STF year-end membership in 2023: 205,699. (STF, Feb 2026)
  • STF year-end membership in 2024: 194,756. (STF, Feb 2026)
  • STF membership renewal rate in 2024: 77.8%. (STF, Feb 2026)
  • STF membership renewal rate in 2025: 77.1%. (STF, Feb 2026)

The membership series comes from STF's annual report and uses its year-end organisational counts. Membership is not a prerequisite for hiking in Sweden, and a member need not have hiked during the reporting year. Changes should therefore be interpreted as changes in the organisation's membership instead of a national participation trend. Renewal rates answer a separate retention question and cannot be added to membership totals. The annual report explicitly records its approval date, which is the date used for attribution here; the later website upload path does not replace that documented date. The figures support analysis of STF's reach and continuity within its own reporting framework.

What do volunteer maintenance and Hiking Day records show?

  • STF volunteer maintenance assignments in 2025: 15. (STF, Feb 2026)
  • Applicants for STF volunteer maintenance assignments in 2025: more than 420. (STF, Feb 2026)
  • STF volunteer maintenance places offered in 2025: approximately 100. (STF, Feb 2026)
  • STF Hiking Day guided-activity growth in 2025: 15%. (STF, Feb 2026)

Volunteer assignments, applications and available places measure different stages of STF's maintenance programme. An application is not a completed volunteer placement, and an approximate number of places should not be converted into a precise acceptance rate. Hiking Day records concern guided activities instead of unique participants or walking distance. Their annual growth likewise describes the number of activities, not an increase in the national population of hikers. Together, these records show how the organisation provides opportunities to maintain facilities and take part in guided outdoor activity. They remain specific operational indicators and should not be added into a single measure of participation.

How large is STF's accommodation network?

  • STF owned and affiliated accommodation properties in 2025: 243. (STF, Feb 2026)
  • STF directly operated accommodation properties in 2025: 57. (STF, Feb 2026)
  • STF affiliated accommodation properties in 2025: 186. (STF, Feb 2026)
  • New accommodation affiliations with STF in 2025: 16. (STF, Feb 2026)
  • STF accommodation partnerships ended in 2025: 13. (STF, Feb 2026)
  • STF mountain-hut guestnight increase in 2025: 807 nights. (STF, Feb 2026)
  • STF mountain-hut guestnight growth in 2025: 1.4%. (STF, Feb 2026)
  • STF mountain-station guestnight increase in 2025: 12,771 nights. (STF, Feb 2026)
  • STF mountain-station guestnight growth in 2025: 10.7%. (STF, Feb 2026)

The accommodation network includes directly operated and affiliated properties. It serves urban and rural travel as well as mountain recreation, so guestnights are not exclusively hiking nights. New and ended affiliations are flows during the year instead of extra properties to add to the closing network total. Mountain huts and mountain stations have separate guestnight changes, preserved below without combining their percentages.

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.