PHED 1042 – PHYSICAL ACTIVITY TOWARDS HEALTH AND FITNESS

(Outdoor and Adventure Activities)

First Article

The complexity of adventure tourism and its related fields

Reidar J. Mykletun University of Stavanger, Norway

This issue of the Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism presents six

research articles that deal with various aspects of adventure tourism. Adventure
tourism is both a blurred concept and a multifaceted field where new activities
appear unceasingly. This complexity led Rantala, Rokenes, and Valkonen (2016)
to argue that adventure tourism is more like a category than a concept.

One may distinguish between adventure tourism as activities and as modes of

experience. In an attempt to depict adventure experience modes in tourism,
Jacobsen (2001) refers to Simmel (1971), who argued that an adventure has a
much more sharply delineated beginning and end than have other forms of
experiences. The most general form of adventure, according to Simmel, “is its
dropping out of the continuity of life” (Simmel, 1971, p. 187). Simmel’s
supposition thus underscores the common binary division between everyday life
as the ordinary and tourism as the extraordinary (Urry, 1990).

Most of what has been termed adventure tourism in present-day publications is

located in an intersection of outdoor recreation (friluftsliv), (extreme) sports, and
(serious) leisure, indicated in Figure 1. In particular, the articles in this issue
represent sport tourism; activ

e participation in some outdoor activities (e.g. Beedie, 2003; Cloutier, 2003;

Gammon & Robinson, 1997; Garms, Fredman, & Mose, 2017). However, also
tourism undergoes changes. One trend is the “performance turn” (Ek, Larsen,
Hornskov, & Mansfeldt, 2008), in which consumption by doing gradually is
replacing or adding to the “consumption” of “undisturbed natural beauty” by
a romantic gaze (Urry, 1990). Search for unique experiences through activities in
the nature seems to boosts adventure travel segments while also contributing to
growth in international leisure travel (Lee, Tseng, & Jan, 2015). Moreover, this
same trend may include a desire to design one’s own agenda to attain the sought
experiences (Ek et al., 2008). The latter change may lead to visitors that are
more demanding and an increase in self-organised activities. In this issue, such
changes are depicted in Rantala et al.’s (2018) article.

Figure 1. Adventure tourism as an intersection between tourism, serious leisure,

extreme sports, and friluftsliv, and related to the contextual dimensions of
commercialisation and remoteness.
Display full size

Adventure tourism as activities appear as more or less “soft” or “hard” (Beard,

Swarbrooke, Leckie, & Pomfret, 2012), differentiated by levels of potential risks,
skills and exertion. “Soft” adventure are activities suitable for almost everyone,
including families with kids. One example is glacier walks commodified for
tourists to avoid accidents in an otherwise extremely dangerous context (Furunes
& Mykletun, 2012). In turn, “hard” adventures ask for a certain physical and moral
courage, as well as skills and competences, because such tours imply higher
levels of potential risks, and often overlaps with extreme sports activities (Figure
1). (Brymer & Gray, 2009, p. 136) define extreme sport as “outdoor leisure
activities where the most likely outcome of a mismanaged mistake or accident is
death” In this issue, Berbeka’s (2018) article describes activities that qualifies as
extreme sports, while “hard” and “soft” adventures are an important aspect of
Rantala et al.’s (2018) contribution in this issue.

Adventure tourism that overlaps with (extreme) sports call for specialised
competence, often available by attending training programmes, which in turn
requires the participant to invest time, effort, and money. This may be conceived
as serious leisure (Figure 1), a “systematic pursuit of an amateur, hobbyist, or
volunteer activity that is sufficiently substantial and interesting for the participant
to find a career there in the acquisition and expression of its special skills and
knowledge” (Stebbins, 1992, p. 3). Ski tourism as skilled serious leisure (cf.
Jacobsen, Denstadli, & Rideng, 2009) is evident in the articles of Berbeka
(2018), and of Demiroglu, Dannevig, and Aall (2018) in this issue. However, as
illustrated in the article by Rantala et al. (2018) in this issue, adventure tourist
guides may have to change their ways of working because an increasing number
of their tour participants lacks competence for the planned activities. This
probably reflects that an increasing number of participants approach adventure
activities as a more casual leisure undertaking, characterised as an “immediately,
intrinsically rewarding, relatively short-lived pleasurable activity requiring little or
no special training to enjoy it” (Stebbins, 1997, p. 18).

Moreover, the Nordic traditions and practices of friluftsliv (Figure 1) overlap in

part the field of adventure tourism, in particular the concept of slow adventure.
Varley and Semple (2015) defines slow adventures as “explorations of and
reconnections with this ground: feeling, sensing and investing in place,
community, belonging, sociality, and tradition over time and in nature”. The
“ground” refers here to a lost contact with the past due to an accelerated pace of
development, leading to a sense of nostalgia. The term “slow” with the term
“adventure” maybe appear “odd” in present-day as adventure is typically
associated with speed, rush and thrill (Buckley, 2012; Cater, 2006), however, it
fits well as a reaction to the dominant borderline experience logic of the
commodified “fast adventures” (Varley & Semple, 2015). Friluftsliv is a blurred
concept that may include sports, households’ food supply,
recreation/holidaymaking, and various experiences of nature (Emmelin,
Fredman, Sandell, Jensen, & Eriksson, 2005; Tordsson, 2005).
However, friluftsliv, in contrast to “fast adventure”, also refers to a philosophy and
a lifestyle based on experiences of the freedom in our original home – the nature
– and the spiritual connectedness with the landscape, creating involvement and
engagement with nature (Gelter, 2000). It may be conceived of as overskuddsliv
i naturen, a self-expression in nature with or without survival activities to cover
basic needs (food, clothing, etc.). Friluftsliv is in this context defined as
experiences of and interactions with eco-systems, and togetherness and quality
time with fellow humans surrounded by nature. The participants undertake
activities with simple tools and equipment, and few technical means of transport.
The equipment that is used is not supposed to take human engagement out of
the experience but to enhance the experience through the opportunity to be
closer to nature. Guidance enhances the novice participants’ experiences
(Faarlund, 2003; Mathisen, 2017), which may become richer with increased
distances from the urban ways of life. “Friluftsliv could be a trans-modern way to
reconnect with nature and provide basic experiences of interconnectedness with
a more-than-human world” (Gelter, 2000, p. 1). Thus, Beery (2013) report
associations between being an active participant in friluftsliv and reporting higher
levels of stronger environmental connectedness. However, the association did
not apply for the young age group, and Beery interpret this as an effect of
urbanised lifestyle in contrast to being socialised to friluftsliv through activities in
nature. According Brymer and Gray (2009), this close connectedness to nature is
frequently found among extreme sport athletes. Instead of struggling or fighting
with nature, extreme sports is more like dancing with nature as a challenging
partner. In this issue, the Andersen and Rolland's article (2018) deals
with friluftsliv and training of guides for such activities, and they emphasise the
value of having guides increasing the visitors’ insight (Walle, 1997) in their
tutoring.

Furthermore, operators may run adventure tourism for commercial purposes and
market them as “experience” or “activity” products (Keskitalo & Schilar, 2017).
According to Varley and Semple (2015), these are mainly “fast adventures”
where they promise exciting experiences and adrenaline kicks. Alternatively, the
tourists may go on their own, being self-managed, which fits nicely into the “slow
adventure” philosophy. However, the self-managed tour may also be exciting and
create a rush feeling, and a guided tour may serve as “slow adventure”. The
adventure activity may take place anywhere in natural areas from being close to
the urban surroundings to remote and thinly populated areas where the
participants are on their own. Again, these variabilities underscore the complexity
of the adventure tourism concept. In the present issue, all articles deal with
commercialised adventure activities, except the article by Andersen and Rolland
who researched training guides for friluftsliv. The article by Large and Schilar
(2018) combines data from both a commercial and a non-commercial setting and
discusses the similarities between them. Berbeka’s (2018); Large and Schilar’s
(2018); and Andersen and Rolland’s (2018) articles report research conducted in
remote areas, while the others have their data more related to more or less
populated areas.

Defining adventure tourism

Having discussed how adventure tourism relates to its overlapping fields, we will
now turn to defining the category of adventure tourism itself. Taken from the
Adventure Travel Trade Association (ATTA), adventure tourism is seen as “a trip
(travelling outside a person’s normal environment for more than 24 h and not
more than one consecutive year) that includes at least two of the following three
elements: physical activity, natural environment, and cultural immersion”
(Adventure tourism development index, 2016). The report lists 34 different types
of activities, ranging from demanding out-door activities in wild nature to visiting
friends and family, visiting a historical site, and participating in a volunteer
tourism programme. Based on this definition it claims that adventure tourism is
growing faster than the growth in tourism in general and faster than cruise
tourism, another fast expanding business. According to its statistics, the ten most
popular adventure tourism countries are Iceland, Germany, New Zealand,
Norway, Switzerland, Canada, Australia, Finland, Austria, and Denmark. ATTA
assumes that the growth will continue, especially because of increased demands
for adventures from the Asian population. However, political changes will cause
some shifts in the flow of tourists, and decline in democracies around the world
may increase the risk of unfair treatment and lack of home country support in
certain cases of trouble (20 Adventure Travel Trends to Watch in, 2018).

The above documented growth of the business and ranking of countries reflects
ATTA’s measurement methods as well as its wide definition of adventure
tourism. By including cultural immersion in the definition, the field is wider than
when applying a traditional definition. No doubt the cultural features of a place
will somehow influence the performance and experience of adventure tourism
activities. For instance, cultural contexts are clearly implicit in the contributions of
Sigurðardóttir and of Andersen and Rolland in this issue. However, one may ask
if the combination of activity and culture alone qualifies as adventure tourism,
which the ATTA definition implies. Sung, Morrison, and O’Leary (1997) propose a
narrower definition with emphasis on active participation in nature. To them,
adventure tourism is “A trip or travel with the specific purpose of activity
participation to explore a new experience, often involving perceived risk or
controlled danger associated with personal challenges, in a natural environment
or exotic outdoor setting”. They further underline that concepts such as activity,
motivation, risk, performance, experience, and environment applies when
defining adventure travel. Activity close to nature is also underlined by Addison
(1999), while Carter (2000) argues that adventure is fundamentally about active
recreation participation and it demands new metaphors based more on “being,
doing, touching and seeing” rather than just seeing. Interestingly, ATTA
concludes its trend study by stating that adventure tourism providers should “ … 
maintain focus on delivering the experiences with heart, which truly connect
travellers to nature and people in the destinations they visit” (20 Adventure Travel
Trends to Watch in, 2018, p. 40), thus reminding us that nature and people
should be in the centre of the adventure tourism. Activities in nature and
relationship to the environment are the empirical setting for all six articles
included in this issue.

Beard et al. (2012, p. 9) argue that the core of adventure includes several
important and inter-related components: “uncertain outcomes, danger and risk,
challenge, anticipated rewards, novelty, stimulation and excitement, escapism
and separation, exploration and discovery, absorption and focus as well as
contrasting emotions”. Carpenter and Priest (1989) underscored uncertainty as a
specific feature of the adventure experience paradigm, underlining its central
position within adventure activities. Any of these elements separately will not be
an adventure, while adventure is highly likely if all elements present. The
components match with “fast adventure” (Varley & Semple, 2015). Although
activity is required, Beard et al. (2012) also argue that an adventure as such is
mainly a “state of mind” and “approach” of the participant. This may be
considered as one cornerstone of understanding the increasing popularity of
adventure tourism – adventure is about engaging, exciting, and testing
participant abilities. It is pushing personal boundaries, which is a part of
discovering one’s true self. After following adventure activities for a long time,
Buckley (2012) concludes that the experience of “rush feeling” is the ultimate
benefit of an adventure tourist. The concept of rush refers to “the simultaneous
experience of thrill and flow associated with the successful performance of an
adventure activity at a high level of skill” (Buckley, 2012, p. 963). Here the
concept of “thrill” is understood as “a purely adrenalin based physiological
response”, and the concept of “flow” applies to “any form of skilled activity where
the exponent’s mental focus coincides fully with their physical practice, so that
they are ‘intensely absorbed’” (Buckley, 2012, p. 963). In this issue, the article by
Large and Schilar (2018) mainly focuses on adventure as a state of mind, and
their research includes the experience of the subjects involved. Perceptions and
experiences are also a central part of Andersen and Rolland’s contribution
(2018), and Berbeka’s (2018) article in this issue deals with tourists’ experiences,
motives and values.

Drivers for adventure tourism

Motivation has been a central topic in the adventure tourism research since the
1980ies. Rantala et al. (2016) reviewed adventure tourism literature and found
640 articles especially relevant to the topic. They report that the most frequently
studied themes were novelty, emotion and thrill, and that recent research has
focused on the idea of an inner journey as a central perspective. Cheng,
Edwards, Darcy, and Redfern (2016) reviewed adventure tourism literature and
found 114 publications based on five different theoretical frameworks, including
the risk paradigm, the insight paradigm, the notion of flow, the notion of play, and
finally the feeling of rush, while tourists’ experience were one of three major
research areas.

The classical discourse has been between the claims of Ewert (1989) that the
concept of risk-taking is the essential motivation for adventure travel activities,
that performance in adventure travel is associated with skill level (Ewert, 1987;
Ewert & Hollenhorst, 1994) and linked to the accomplishment of self-imposed
and more abstract personal goals (Ewert, 1989). Contrary to this, Walle (1997)
argues that the search for insight is a leading motivation for participation in
outdoor adventures and that personal self-actualization through outdoor
adventures does not layin risk and risk-taking, but is an outcome of getting an
insight; hence, an adventurer gets fulfilment from the process of getting such
insight. However, hard evidence supports the risk arguments: Comparing register
data across Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Finland, Slovenia, Belgium,
Luxembourg, and The Netherlands; Weber et al. (2018) show that extreme
sports creates fatal or serious injuries. Airborne sports had the highest injury
severity, followed by climbing, skating, and contact sports. Especially high falls
resulted in a significant rate of spinal injuries in airborne activities and in climbing
accidents. A comprehensive overview of accidents and risks in adventure and
extreme sports edited by Mei-Dan and Carmont (2013) mainly support these
findings.

Other research has concluded differently. Thus, Mu and Nepal (2016), p. 501)
suggest that:

“ … when competence is high and the risk is low, the activity moves
toward a condition of exploration and experimentation. Participants
generally experience emotional arousal positively. But when risk is
viewed as much higher than competence, people feel anxiety and fear
turning positive arousal to a negative experience”.

A parallel explanation may be based on the reversal theory. Gyimothy and

Mykletun (2004) show how meta-motivations change during the adventure
activities, where para-telic motivations and playful moods dominated most of the
time, but shifts to telic motivations occurred as responses to threats in the
wellbeing and safety of the participants, and when situational demands required
it. They conclude that risk, insight seeking, and play were main drivers of
adventure travel. “Adult play” in adventure activities correlates with risk and the
control of risks to get “an optimum balance between anxiety and boredom”
(Gyimothy & Mykletun, 2004, p. 873).

Commercial adventure tourism contains a paradoxical relationship between risk

and safety. The tourism industry in general aims at reducing risk perceptions
among tourists to increase sales. However, adventure tourism seems to work the
opposite way, as risk and uncertainty of outcomes are core components of the
adventure that tourists are actively seeking (Dickson & Dolnicar, 2004). It creates
a certain paradox for tour operators who should deliver two contradictory
perceptions: risk and safety. Fletcher (2010) refers to three ways for overcoming
this paradox. First, adventure tourism succeeds by creating the illusion of risk,
while hiding “real” security from tourists. Second, tour operators hide the “real”
risk and clients falsely believe that their adventure is without any risk. Third,
adventure tourism rests on a public secrecy, implying that risk and safety exist
simultaneously, and tour providers and customers do not acknowledge this
contradictory impression related to the concept of adventure.
Stranger (1999) offers a new explanation, suggesting that risk-taking and
aesthetics can correlate, for example, in surfing activities, and may be an
important motivation for its participants. Thus, “aestheticization facilitates risk-
taking in the pursuit of an ecstatic, transcendent experience” and, “the surfing
aesthetic involves a postmodern incarnation of the sublime that distorts rational
risk assessment” (Stranger, 1999, p. 265). In addition, wilderness can provide
feeling of aesthetical satisfaction (Ewert & Hollenhorst, 1990), and wilderness
can imply risk (Mykletun & Mazza, 2016). Reviewing research on motivation for
adventure tourism, Buckley (2012) found 50 publications about this subject,
which identified at least 14 different categories of motivation for adventure
activities. Buckley summarised these motivations into three main groups: 1)
performance of activity (internal); 2) place in nature (internal/external); and 3)
social position (external). In this issue, motivation as a theme appears in the
articles of Andersen and Rolland (2018); Demiroglu et al. (2018); Berbeka
(2018); and finally Rantala et al. (2018) Risk and safety issues are present in the
articles in this issue. Risk is mentioned in Sigurðardóttir’s (2018) article,
Demiroglu et al (2018); and a very important concept in the contributions of
Berbeka (2018); Large and Schilar (2018); and of Rantala et al (2018). The
concept of safety is central in the article of Andersen and Rolland (2018),
important in Bereka’s (2018) contribution, and mentioned in the work of
Demiroglu et al (2018).

The six empirical contributions in this volume

The contributions within this volume are within the traditional conception of
adventure tourism and travel, as none of them focuses explicitly on cultural
aspects. Thus, they fit into the definition of Sung, Morrison, and Leary (1997). In
the first paper, “Understanding the meanings and interpretations of adventure
experiences: the perspectives of multiday hikers”, Joanna Large and Hannelene
Schilar (2018) argues for a more critical academic understanding of adventure as
a meaningful subjective experience bound up between the ordinary and the
extraordinary. They argue that adventure is only meaningful when understood
from the perspective of the individual experiencing it. Moreover, they also reflect
on relationships between the ordinary and the extraordinary, and how the former
is integrated in the latter and defines it during the adventure experience (see also
Goolaup & Mossberg, 2017). They also question the relevance of the commercial
and commodified versus non-commercial non-commodified adventure
discourses. Their discussion and conclusions are based on 26 interviews with
participants in commercial and non-commercial settings that may be referred to
as more on the soft side of the adventure tourism or travel.

Combining interview data and survey studies results in the article “The softening
of adventure tourism in Finnish Lapland”, Outi Rantala, Ville Hallikainen, Heli
Ilola, and Seija Tuulentie (2018) demonstrate a “softening” of adventure tourism
– a change in Finish adventure tourism practices. The context studied is
commercial adventure tourism in Finish Lapland. The survey respondents were
adventure tourists and interviewees were commercial tourism providers. Such
“softening” also includes a demand for more differentiation of activities due to
inadequate competencies and skills among the tourists, which in turn raised new
demands on the providers’ competencies and flexibility. The wider range of
competencies includes detection of participants’ skills and consequent
differentiation of activities before and during the activities. On top of the hard
adventure skills, tourists also expect more of the soft skills from their guides,
including interpretation of local nature and culture, ability to encourage reflection,
and talent for creating good social atmosphere. These change processes extend
beyond the guides and includes more or all providers and staff at the destination.
Consequently, according to the authors, the “soft” end of this artic adventure
tourism product might blurred and possibly impair the magic of the artic
adventures. On the other hand, such “softening” may be conceived of as
a democratisation of the commercial adventure tourism.

In the article “Friluftsliv: a way of enhancing experiences and learning in

adventure tourism?” the authors Sigmund Andersen and Carsten Gade Rolland
(2018) defend the role of the principles of friluftsliv in adventure experience
production. They researched the methods used by nature guides when they
escort tourists into an adventurous experiencescape and it represents a unique
integration of principles of friluftsliv with some aspects of tourism theories and
practices. From the field of friluftsliv, the nature guide in part applies the
pedagogic methods of experiential learning and the role of a “friluftsliv conveyer”,
while from the field of tourism, the nature guide acts in line with the methods and
theories of experience production, interpretation and transformative guiding. The
role of the nature guide has developed from being a safe pathfinder to a diverse
and complicated set of roles such as teacher, environmental ambassador,
psychologist, and entertainer. In addition, the professional nature guide displays
a broad understanding of how to enhance the guests’ experiences into learning
and a closer relationship with nature, thus adding a higher quality and value to
their commercial product. Key components in their work were safety and hard
skill learning, facilitation of a sense of social belonging, experience and learning,
and nature awareness. The study is informed by data from interviews with four
groups of nature guides after ski expeditions of six days with 4–5 guests on the
Svalbard glaciers.

Ingibjörg Sigurðardóttir (2018) provides an important and still somewhat rare

dimension in adventure tourism research in the article “Wellness and equestrian
tourism - New kind of an adventure?”. This contribution aims at revealing to what
extent operators in equestrian tourism in Iceland focus their product development
and marketing towards adventure or health and whether a combination of slow
adventure, wellness, and outdoor recreation is a realistic option for innovation
within equestrian tourism. The findings rest on content analysis of webpages and
open-ended interviews with equestrian tourism operators. The author concludes
that the adventure concept is important in equestrian tourism in Iceland and
mainly with a focus on hazardous adventures. The health and well-being
concepts are not frequently mentioned, but operators are aware of existing
resources that could be used for innovation of equestrian tourism businesses
towards slow adventures and wellness. The author concludes that opportunities
for combining equestrian tourism, slow adventures, wellness, and outdoor
activities in these products are present. However, use of these opportunities
requires a re-thinking of the connectivity of the wellness and adventure tourism
concepts and support of various kinds would facilitate such innovations.
Snow business and snow activities are natural adventure tourism activities in a
Nordic context. Two of the articles address such issues. Jadwiga Berbeka’s
(2018) article, “The value of remote arctic destinations for backcountry skiers”,
point to the fact that expeditions to remote areas of the Arctic for backcountry
skiing appear as an unexplored phenomenon. A survey to participants of
expeditions to East Greenland and the West Fjords in Iceland (purposive
sampling) and in-depth interviews with operators informed the empirical part of
the study. The author identifies three groups of benefits or values as perceived
by the participants: the beauty, wilderness, and remoteness of the area; ski
touring with focus on unspoiled powder and independent trails; and relationships
to other participants. Push factors such as challenge and internal locus of control
were important motivational dimensions. The participants are willing to pay a
300€ per day on average for this type of expedition. Good guides that are
professional, empathic, and oriented towards the experiences of their clients are
key elements in the success of a tour operator’s business. The group participants
should be as equal as possible regarding skills and motivations, making the
ability to select participants for a group and flexibility additional skill requirements
to the guides. Financial status and competence in relation to mountains and
skiing are crucial determinants of participation, and the market segment is
strongly involved in adventure ski tourism.

O. Cenk Demiroglu, Halvor Dannevig, and Carlo Aall (2018) contribute with yet
another dimension of adventure tourism and travel: that of climate change.
While climate change will interact with adventure tourism in many ways, the
article “Climate change acknowledgement and responses of summer (glacier) ski
visitors in Norway” focus on the interaction of climate change and the highly
weather-dependent ski tourism business. Climate changes will threaten the
sustainability of skiing areas, which has created some research attention towards
impact and adaptation studies regarding ski areas, resorts, and destinations,
whereas research on the demand side of the issue is relatively limited. This
article addresses the relationship of climate change to summer skiing, which is
one niche segment of ski tourism. To what extent are summer skiing tourists
aware of this threat to their favourite skiing activity, and how do they perceive the
present and expected future changes in the skiing conditions? Summer skiing in
Norway is possible at three downhill skiing centres providing nice slopes on snow
on the surface of glaciers, namely at Vesljuvbreen, Tystigbreen, and Botnabrea.
The operational seasons vary from May to July and as late as October. A
comprehensive survey to 224 subjects at these centres revealed a high climate
change awareness but limited climate friendliness. A strong emphasis on the
immediate climate impacts on summer skiing creates a tendency towards spatial
and temporal ski activity substitution within Norway, especially among the older
skiers. Glaciers are among the most warming exposed systems, and
consequently, summer skiers in Norway directly witnesses the impacts of climate
change, which in return contributes to their literacy and sensitivity on the issue.
The skiers did not favour artificially produced snow, which is an advantage for the
energy consumption of these skiing facilities. In spite of the ongoing changes, the
skiers tended to be loyal to their favourite resorts instead of travelling to remote
summer skiing areas.

Final comments
 The cases included in this volume present adventure tourism research from the
northern hemisphere, mainly the Nordic countries including Greenland. They are
all within the traditional definition of adventure tourism as stated by Sung et al
(1987), and they apply mainly theoretical frameworks as discussed above. Both
qualitative and quantitative data are applied, and some of the articles combines
these strategies to optimise their insight in the study area. The contexts of the
studies vary greatly as do the themes they focus on. Hence, it is difficult to draw
general conclusions about the learning outcomes of these articles. Each article
has unique contributions and together they enlighten some of the challenges,
successes and rich varieties of resources of adventure tourism in the Nordic
countries including Greenland.

Interestingly in this context, the English mountaineer Cecil Slingsby published

early in the twentieth century “Norway, the Northern Playground: Sketches of
climbing and mountain exploration in Norway between 1872 and 1903” (1904).
On this fabulous playground across Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and
Finland, the right of free non-motorised access to uncultivated land opens up for
extensive use of the nature for adventure travel and tourism purposes. Together,
these vast areas offer unique varieties in landscapes. They are used for various
types of adventure tourism, and researchers should respond by exploring the
inner journeys, the experiences and their relation to nature, the possible
interaction with locals, how operators and others treat them, and how
adventurers create their own journeys. In particular, there is a need for a better
understanding of the relationship between adventure tourism and benefits for
health and wellbeing that is gained through involvement with nature. Along
similar lines, the caring for the nature and the feeling of being at one with the
natural world or connected through a life enhancing energy, call for researchers’
attention. Complementary to this, research on operators’ challenges and
successes, ways of providing the good excursions should be researched, and in
particular, how the operators and the destinations adapt to customers’ demands
on individualised experiences and the “softening” of the adventures. Yet another
challenge come with “over-tourism” in some uncultivated Nordic landscapes
through increased use of privately owned land for commercial purposes other
than the land owners’. “The Northern playground” is thus an appropriate place for
research on a multitude of intriguing themes that remain to be explored.

References
 20 Adventure Travel Trends to Watch in. (2018). Retrieved
from https://cdn1.adventuretravel.biz/research/2018-Travel-Trends.pdf [Google Scholar]
 Addison, G. (1999). Adventure tourism and ecotourism. In J.
C. Miles & S. Priest (Eds.), Adventure programming (2nd ed. pp. 415–430). Regent
Court: Venture Publishing. [Google Scholar]
 Adventure tourism development index. (2016). Retrieved
from https://cdn.adventuretravel.biz/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/ATDI16-web.pdf [Goog
le Scholar]
 Beard, C., Swarbrooke, J., Leckie, S., & Pomfret, G. (2012). Adventure tourism:
The new frontier. UK: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
 Beedie, P. (2003). Adventure tourism. In S. Hudson (Ed.), Sport and adventure
tourism (pp. 203–239). New York and London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
 Beery, T. H. (2013). Nordic in nature: Friluftsliv and environmental
connectedness. Environmental Education Research, 2013, 19(1), 94–117.
doi: 10.1080/13504622.2012.688799 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar]
 Brymer, E., & Gray, T. (2009). Dancing with nature: Rhythm and harmony in
extreme sport participation. Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor
Learning, 9(2), 135–149. doi: 10.1080/14729670903116912 [Taylor & Francis
Online], [Google Scholar]
 Buckley, R. (2012). Rush as a key motivation in skilled adventure tourism:
Resolving the risk recreation paradox. Tourism Management, 33, 961–970.
doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2011.10.002 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
 Carpenter, G., & Priest, S. (1989). The adventure experience paradigm and non-
outdoor leisure pursuits. Leisure Studies, 8, 65–75.
doi: 10.1080/02614368900390061 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar]
 Carter, C. (2000). Can I play too? Inclusion and exclusion in adventure
tourism. The North West Geographer, 3, 49–59. [Google Scholar]
 Cater, C. I. (2006). Playing with risk? Participant perceptions of risk and
management implications in adventure tourism. Tourism Management, 27, 317–325.
doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2004.10.005 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
 Cheng, M., Edwards, D., Darcy, S., & Redfern, K. (2016). A thri-method
approach to a review of adventure tourism literature: Bibliometric analysis, content
analysis, and a qualitative systematic literature review. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Research, 1–24. Published online 2016. Downloaded 08.08.2018.
doi: 10.1177/1096348016640588 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
 Cloutier, R. (2003). The business of adventure tourism. In S. Hudson (Ed.), Sport
and adventure tourism (pp. 241–272). New York and London: Routledge. [Google
Scholar]
 Dickson, T., & Dolnicar, S. (2004). No risk, no fun - the role of perceived risk in
adventure tourism. CD Proceedings of the 13th International Research Conference of
the Council of Australian University Tourism and Hospitality Education (CAUTHE 2004).
RIS ID 10187. Retrieved from https://ro.uow.edu.au/commpapers/246/ [Google Scholar]
 Ek, R., Larsen, J., Hornskov, S. B., & Mansfeldt, O. K. (2008). A dynamic
framework of tourist experiences: Space-time and performances in the experience
economy. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 8(2), 122–140.
doi: 10.1080/15022250802110091 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science
®], [Google Scholar]
 Emmelin, L., Fredman, P., Sandell, K., with Jensen, E. L.,
& Eriksson, L. (2005). Planering och förvaltning för friluftsliv: En forskningsöversikt
(planning and management of outdoor recreation: A research
overview). Stockholm: Naturvårdsverket. [Google Scholar]
 Ewert, A. (1987). Recreation in the outdoor setting: A focus on adventure-based
recreational experiences. Leisure Information Quarterly, 14(1), 5–7. [Google Scholar]
 Ewert, A. (1989). Outdoor adventure pursuits: Foundation, models and
theories. Columbus, OH: Publishing Horizons. [Google Scholar]
 Ewert, A., & Hollenhorst, S. (1990). Resource allocation: Inequities in wildland
recreation. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 61(8), 32–36.
doi: 10.1080/07303084.1990.10604598 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar]
 Ewert, A., & Hollenhorst, S. (1994). Individual and setting attributes of the
adventure recreation experience. Leisure Sciences, 16, 177–191.
doi: 10.1080/01490409409513229 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science
®], [Google Scholar]
 Faarlund, N. (2003). Friluftsliv: Hva – hvorfor – hvordan. Retrieved
from www.naturliv.no/faarlund/hva20-20hvorfor20-2hvordan.pdf [Google Scholar]
 Fletcher, R. (2010). The emperor’s new adventure: Public secrecy and the
paradox of adventure tourism. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 39(11), 6–33.
doi: 10.1177/0891241609342179 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
 Furunes, T., & Mykletun, R. J. (2012). Frozen adventure at risk? A 7-year follow-
up study of Norwegian glacier tourism. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism, 12(4), 324–348. doi: 10.1080/15022250.2012.748507 [Taylor & Francis
Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
 Gammon, S., & Robinson, T. (1997). Sport and tourism: A conceptual
framework. Journal of Sport Tourism, 4(3), 11–18.
doi: 10.1080/10295399708718632 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar]
 Garms, M., Fredman, P., & Mose, I. (2017). Travel motives of German tourists in
the scandinavian mountains: The case of fulufjället national park. Scandinavian Journal
of Hospitality and Tourism, 17(3), 239–258.
doi: 10.1080/15022250.2016.1176598 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science
®], [Google Scholar]
 Gelter, H. (2000). Friluftsliv: The scandinavian philosophy of outdoor
life. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 5, 77–92. Retrieved
from http://cjee.lakeheadu.ca/article/view/302/803 [Google Scholar]
 Goolaup, S., & Mossberg, L. (2017). Exploring the concept of extraordinary
related to food tourists’ nature-based experience. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality
and Tourism, 17(1), 27–43. doi: 10.1080/15022250.2016.1218150 [Taylor & Francis
Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
 Gyimothy, S., & Mykletun, R. J. (2004). Play in adventure tourism: The case of
Arctic trekking. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(4), 855–878.
doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2004.03.005 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
 Jacobsen, J. K. S. (2001). Nomadic tourism and fleeting place encounters:
Exploring different aspects of sightseeing. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism, 1, 99–112. doi: 10.1080/150222501317244029 [Taylor & Francis
Online], [Google Scholar]
 Jacobsen, J. K. S., Denstadli, J. M., & Rideng, A. (2009). Skiers’ sense of snow:
Tourist skills and winter holiday attribute preferences. Tourism Analysis, 13(5–6), 605–
614. doi:10.3727/108354208788160478 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
 Keskitalo, E. C. H., & Schilar, H. (2017). Co-constructing “northern” tourism
representations among tourism companies, DMOs and tourists. An example from
jukkasjärvi, sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 17(4), 406–422.
doi: 10.1080/15022250.2016.1230517 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science
®], [Google Scholar]
 Lee, T. H., Tseng, C. H., & Jan, F. H. (2015). Risk-taking attitude and behavior of
adventure recreationists: A review. Journal of Tourism and Hospitality, 4(149), 1–3.
doi: 10.4172/2167-0269.1000149 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
 Mathisen, L. (2017). Storytelling: A way for winter adventure guides to manage
emotional labour. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 54, 1–16.
doi: 10.1080/15022250.2017.1411827 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar]
 Mei-Dan, O., & Carmont, M. R. (2013). Adventure and extreme sports
injuries. London, Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4471-
4363-5 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
 Mu, Y., & Nepal, S. (2016). High mountain adventure tourism: Trekkers’
perceptions of risk and death in Mt. Everest region, Nepal, Asia pacific. Journal of
Tourism Research, 21(5), 500–511. doi: 10.1080/10941665.2015.1062787 [Taylor &
Francis Online], [Google Scholar]
 Mykletun, R. J., & Mazza, L. (2016). Psychosocial benefits from participating in
an adventure expedition race. Journal of Sport, Business and Management, 6(5), 542–
564. doi: 10.1108/SBM-09-2016-0047 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
 Rantala, O., Rokenes, A., & Valkonen, J. (2016). Is adventure tourism a coherent
concept? A review of research approaches on adventure tourism. Annals of Leisure
Research. doi: 10.1080/11745398.2016.1250647 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Google
Scholar]
 Simmel, G. (1971). [1911]. The adventurer. In D. N. Levine (Ed.), On individuality
and social forms (pp. 187–198). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [Google
Scholar]
 Slingsby, W. C. (1904). Norway, the Northern playground: Sketches of climbing
and mountain exploration in Norway between 1872 and 1903. Edinburgh, UK: D.
Douglas. [Google Scholar]
 Stebbins, R. A. (1992). Amateurs, professionals, and serious leisure. Montreal
and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press. [Google Scholar]
 Stebbins, R. A. (1997). Casual leisure: A conceptual statement. Leisure
Studies, 16(1), 17–25. doi: 10.1080/026143697375485 [Taylor & Francis
Online], [Google Scholar]
 Stranger, M. (1999). The aesthetics of risk: A study of surfing. International
Review for the Sociology of Sport, 34(3), 265–276.
doi: 10.1177/101269099034003003 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
 Sung, H. H., Morrison, A. M., & O’Leary, J. T. (1997). Definition of adventure
travel: Conceptual framework for empirical application from the providers’
perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 1(2), 47–67. Retrieved
from https://www.hotel-online.com/Trends/AsiaPacificJournal/AdventureTravel.html doi: 
10.1080/10941669708721975 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar]
 Sung, H. H., Morrison, A. M., & O’Leary, J. T. (1997). Definition of adventure
travel: Conceptual framework for empirical application from the providers’
perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 1(2), 47–68. Retrieved
from https://www.hotel-online.com/Trends/AsiaPacificJournal/AdventureTravel.html.
doi: 10.1080/10941669708721975 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar]
 Tordsson, B. (2005). Hvad er friluftsliv godt for (what is the meaning of outdoor
life). In S. Andkjær (Ed.), Friluftsliv under forandring (changing outdoor life) (pp. 11–
31). Slagelse: Bavnebanke. [Google Scholar]
 Urry, J. (1990). The tourist gaze. London: Sage. [Google Scholar]
 Varley, P., & Semple, T. (2015). Nordic slow adventure: Explorations in time and
nature. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 15(1–2), 73–90.
doi: 10.1080/15022250.2015.1028142 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science
®], [Google Scholar]
 Walle, A. H. (1997). Pursuing risk or insight: Marketing adventures. Annals of
Tourism Research, 24(2), 265–282. doi: 10.1016/S0160-7383(97)80001-
1 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
 Weber, C. D., Horst, C., Nguyen, A. R., Lefering, R., Pape, H.-C.,
& Hildebrand, F. (2018). Evaluation of severe and fatal injuries in extreme and contact
sports: An international multicenter analysis. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma
Surgery, 138, 963–970. doi: 10.1007/s00402-018-2935-8 [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of
Science ®], [Google Scholar]