Mid Sweden University

Public access to land is a shared value in both the United States and Nordic countries. The U.S. system is characterized by a complex network of federal, state, and local lands, each governed by specific mandates (Manning et al., 2022). In contrast, Nordic countries - particularly Sweden – have the right of public access across public and private lands. It is the cornerstone of “friluftsliv”, a cultural concept that ties outdoor recreation to philosophical and lifestyle values (Beery, 2012).  There is some exchange of ideas between these systems. North American models (e.g. zoning) and visitor management are increasingly being adopted in Swedish land policy. Conversely, U.S. models like Maine’s “open land tradition” show similarities to the Swedish approach (Acheson & Acheson, 2010).

However, there is a trend toward increasing the privatization of land, either by converting former public recreational areas into private property (the U.S) or by limiting public access to traditionally open private lands (Sweden). In the U.S., the current executive administration is significantly downsizing the land management workforce and threatening to privatize lands (Schechter, 2025). Additionally, places with an open land tradition are seeing increased pushbacks from landowners regarding public access on their private lands (Acheson & Acheson 2010). In Sweden, the right of public access can sometimes conflict with private property rights. Proposed changes to shoreline protection (meant to secure public access) aim to support rural development by easing construction near shores. For landowners and farmers, public access may pose challenges. Some commercial businesses, like tourism or berry-picking companies, repeatedly use the same areas without informing landowners, which create tensions.

As attitudes toward private land evolve and pressures on recreational areas intensify, understanding the ongoing challenges to access is essential. Further research on international approaches to public access can offer valuable insights as a complement to designated areas (NPs and nature reserves) in supporting outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism (Sandell & Fredman, 2010). In our reflective study of two different governance models, we discuss the balance of individual property rights with collective access amid neoliberal land reforms but also increased use of recreational land. This also highlights implications for equity and social inclusion.

References

Acheson, J., & Acheson, J. (2010). Maine land: Private property and hunting commons. International Journal of the Commons, 4(1), 552–570. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.202

Beery, T. H. (2012). Nordic in nature: friluftsliv and environmental connectedness. Environmental Education Research, 19(1), 94–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2012.688799 

Manning, R. E., Anderson, L., Badruk, M., Goonan, K., Hallo, J., Laven, D., Lawson; S., & McCown Stansfield, R. (2022). Studies in Outdoor Recreation: Search and Research for Satisfaction. 4th ed. Oregon State University Press.  

Sandell, K., & Fredman, P. (2010). The right of public access–opportunity or obstacle for nature tourism in Sweden? Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 10(3), 291-309. https://doi.org/10.1080/15022250.2010.502366 

Schechter, A. (2025, March 13). How Trump Cuts Could Change Your Summer Hiking Trip - The New York Times. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/13/travel/trump-cuts-national-parks-summer-travel.html