Friluftsgräset är grönare på andra sidan gränsen : en jämförelse av förutsättningarna för friluftslivsforskning i Sverige och Norge

Sammanfattning:   Aim The purpose of this study is to compare and highlight the scope for research into outdoor recreational pursuits in Sweden and Norway.   - What are the similarities and differences in the financing of research into outdoor recreational pursuits in Sweden and Norway? - What are the similarities and differences in forums for research into outdoor recreational pursuits in the two countries?     Method   The method that has been used in this study consists of qualitative interviews in conjunction with an examination of the published material on the subject. The qualitative interviews have been conducted with six key figures in the field of research into outdoor recreational pursuits in Sweden and Norway where the aim was to obtain a comprehensive overview of the research undertaken in both countries. The examination of the published material has been used to complement the interviews, primarily with information from propositions and reports from relevant organisations and authorities.     Results    Financing in Sweden is spread over several different research councils and authorities where no one organisation has an express responsibility for research into outdoor recreational pursuits. In Norway, however, The Research Council of Norway is the prime source of research funding. The institutions that maintain outdoor recreational pursuits as an academic subject offer alternative sources of funding. The forums for research into outdoor recreational pursuits in Sweden are dominated by the research programme Outdoor Recreation in Change together with smaller subprojects in other larger research projects. Norway has no similar larger project that focuses solely on outdoor recreational pursuits; instead research takes place primarily as subprojects in Miljø 2015 as well as at the academic institutions.     Conclusions   Whereas Swedish research into outdoor recreational pursuits has strong backing from the state, chiefly through Outdoor Recreation in Change, Norwegian research draws its strength at the local level from its established research structures. Both the Swedish and Norwegian researchers express envy as to their neighbours' circumstances and see advantages in the way they work. The benefits of conducting research into outdoor recreational pursuits through larger research projects versus academic research are continually being reevaluated. Both countries also recognise that a definition of what constitutes research into outdoor recreational pursuits is problematic. These factors make a documentation of the extent of the research in the field very difficult.