The role of risk in nature sports

ABSTRACT

In this article, I will examine the role of risk in the risky nature sports. Risky nature sports are identified as nature sports where participants may reckon with the possibility of severe injury or death if things go wrong. The first part of the article identifies some evolutionary, historical, and conceptual characteristics of nature sports and risk. In the second part of the article, I discuss the concept of risk and its meaning in risky nature sports. Additionally, I address questions concerning the moral tone and context of risk-taking. In most academic disciplines, risk is typically understood as something negative that should always be avoided. But risk also includes positive possibilities, which may, such as in risk sports, outweigh the negative or can even be inherently positive and a value in itself. In the third part, I discuss how important risk is in nature sports. Is it a defining core or more peripheral? This leads to the question of the value. Does the risk element add to the value of the sport? I finally discuss how risk sports can be meaningful parts of the participants’ lives.

KEYWORDS:

• Nature sport
• risk sport
• risk-taking
• value
• meaning

Introduction

Nature sports may tentatively be defined as sports that take place in nature or natural environments. Many nature sports include risks, but not all. In this article, I will examine the role of risk in the risky nature sports. Risk is initially defined as physical risk. Risky nature sports are consequently identified as nature sports where participants may reckon with the possibility of severe injury or death if things go wrong. The paper will discuss the following issues.

The first part of the article will identify some evolutionary, historical, and conceptual characteristics of nature sports and risk. I then discuss how the traditional conception of sport fits the idea of nature sport and what the characteristics of such a sport best can be.

In the second part of the article, I turn to the concept of risk and its meaning in risky nature sports. On the one hand, risk is typically defined as the probability of some adverse event. On the other hand, risk is often used to identify the risky thing itself, such as an avalanche. Additionally, I address questions concerning moral tone and context of risk-taking. In most academic disciplines, risk is typically understood as something negative that should always be avoided. But risk also includes positive possibilities, and the positive aspects may outweigh the negative. I also ask if risk sometimes, such as in risk sports, can be inherently positive and a value in itself.

In the third part, I discuss how important risk is in nature sports. Is it a defining core of risky nature sports or more peripheral? This leads to the question of the value of risk in risky nature sports. Does the risk element add to the value of the sport? This is followed by the question about meaning. I discuss how risk sports can be meaningful and how they can be meaningful parts of the participants’ lives. I end by summing up my views.

The method in this article is a form of phenomenological exploration and description. While analytic approaches typically discuss aspects or consequences of a specific theory, phenomenological approaches try to illuminate a specific problem or phenomenon by many-sided description. A goal is to let a phenomenon reveal itself rather than impose an interpretation or framework on it. I here try to give a general account of risky nature sport and some of its central characteristics.

Part 1. The idea and the development of risky nature sports

Notes on the evolutionary and historical background of nature sports

Humans essentially belong in nature. From an evolutionary viewpoint, humans developed and survived by successful adaptation to various environments (Tuniz and Vipraio 2020). The adaptation included the development of a wide variety of physical and mental survival skills. In humans, as in other animals, relevant skills were prototypically developed by explorative play from early childhood and later tested in various survival situations when building shelters, finding food, fighting enemies, and hunting wild animals (Pellegrini 2009). The biologically based play factor was later developed culturally and socially to encompass a wide variety of play, games, and sports popular among children and adults (Kretchmar et al. 2017). On this anthropological and evolutionary background, we can point out that a) humans are essentially connected to nature and natural environments, b) our bodies and skills are developed to cope with natural surroundings, c) humans, like many other animals, are playful by nature, especially as young. Play is essential to develop necessary survival skills but is also joyful in itself. The evolutionary background and importance of play lays the groundwork for culturally designed sporting activities in nature, with or without risks. Nature sports may be the closest followers of the original forms of evolutionary play. They deserve special attention.

Present-day nature sports are part of the big wave of new non-traditional sports that developed from the 1970s onwards (Breivik 2010). The many new nature sports represented a ‘return to nature’ but in a new and more intense form. The new non-traditional sports came with names such as risk, extreme, action, youth, lifestyle, and vertigo sports. Some of the sports took place in nature, but not all. Many new risky nature sports were continuations and differentiations of earlier sports. Sports like mountaineering or climbing have developed into high-altitude, big-wall, ice, bouldering, indoor, and solo climbing (Breivik 2007). Other sports were innovations or complete makeovers of earlier sports, such as windsurfing and kiting, white water kayaking, and rafting. Active performers, equipment producers, and media people all played roles in the development of the new sports. Currently, the performers use videos and social media to present their feats and stunts to a worldwide audience of followers.

Key concepts: Sport and Nature sport

Let me start with the concept of sport. Are play-like activities in nature, such as climbing, white water kayaking, or surfing sports? A central aim for sports philosophers has been to develop a precise definition of sport as a basis for a theory of sport. The various approaches developed, such as formalism, broad internalism, and conventionalism, have mainly started from Suits’ definition of sports as physical games (Suits 1988). According to Suits’ theory, sports are institutionalized physical games characterized by rules which prescribe the use of less efficient (lusory) means to overcome certain obstacles to reach an end state (lusory goals) that separates winners from losers.

There are several problems with presenting a theory of sport based on precise definitions and the ability to resolve all disputes relative to rules, ethos, and traditions. First, it may not be a good idea to look for precise definitions, since we may be better off with more fuzzy borders of our key concepts, such as shown in the theories of Tversky (1977) (similarity and difference), Wittgenstein (2009) (overlapping similarities), Rosch (1978) (prototypes). Quine remarked that the best paintings are not necessarily painted with the sharpest pencils or brushes. ‘Thus take the general term “mountain”: it is vague on the score of how much terrain to reckon into each of the indisputable mountains, and it is vague on the score of what lesser eminences to count as mountains at all’ (Quine 1960, 126). The term sport has similarly unclear borders and boundaries. Second, the focus on sports as physical games is especially relevant for team sports but less for other types of sports, such as individual and nature sports. Third, the Suitsian focus on rules, competitions, and end states (pre-lusory and lusory goals) is designed for competitive sports. However, sport also has a tradition of being a physical activity that is bodily, playful, enjoyable in itself, and where the focus is on the process and not a competitive end state.

It is in this last non-Suitsian sense that activities in nature such as backcountry skiing, mountaineering and white-water kayaking can be called sports and be defined as nature sports. It is especially Krein (2015) and Howe (2012) that have contributed to a more precise delineation of the concept of ‘nature sport’. Krein defines ‘nature sport’ in the following way: ‘Nature sports are those sports in which a particular natural feature, or combination of natural features, plays at least one of the primary roles that human competitors or partners play in traditional sports’ (Krein 2019, 5).

There are some problems with this definition. First, the definition says that a particular natural feature plays one of the primary roles that competitors or partners play in traditional sports. I would say that a natural feature or element plays the primary role. Furthermore, the competitors in traditional sports may be of different kinds. In individual sports, the competitors may come in parallel or one after the other. In fighting sports, there is one direct opponent. Fighting sports and dance are the best candidates for paralleling nature sports with traditional sports. However, is a natural feature an opponent? In general, we have to adapt to the natural features and not look at them as competitors that we have to beat or conquer. Arne Naess (1970) maintained, concerning popular mountaineering mythology, that a conquest of mountains is a contradiction in terms. In general, we do not and cannot fight or conquer natural elements and features through sports. Therefore, I do not think it helps to identify natural features as competitors. For the skier, the snow slope (or the snow and the slope separately) does not play the role of a competitor. I would rather suggest that there is an interaction between performer and a natural element (snow, rock, air, water) of a specific gestalt (landscape) and in a specific context (a section of a specific river or the section of rock climb). This interaction has, in general, and most of the time, the form of an adaptive interaction. However, in some circumstances, the fighting terminology may be relevant, such as when a kayaker fights with the paddle and full strength to force the kayak through a big stopper in a river.

In contrast to Krein, the Norwegian tradition, represented by Arne Naess, has described many nature sports with terms from friluftsliv. Friluftsliv is a form of outdoor activity without formal competitions, using simple means, non-motorized, and a mindset where nature’s depth, beauty, and greatness are central viewpoints (Naess 1990). When some of the new risky nature activities developed in the 1970s and 1980s, some groups in Norway tended to develop them in a sporting direction with a focus on performance, while others chose a friluftsliv-inspired direction with a focus on strong and intense experiences in nature. Consequently, some climbers adopted a competitive mindset, while others considered climbing a form of friluftsliv, where the wilderness trip and being in nature were central elements. If we accept that sport, and thus nature sport, is a concept with fuzzy borders, we may include both sport and friluftsliv as nature sports in a broad sense.

Part 2. Types and manifestations of risk in nature sports

The concept of risk

Not all nature sports are risk sports. In risky nature sports, the degree of risk will vary according to the level of performance, the type of environment, and the performance goal. In the following discussion, I will focus on full-blown versions of risk sports with skilled performers at high levels. At the high levels, the nature of a sport best reveals itself.

In most scientific disciplines and contexts, risk is defined as something negative, as a loss of some kind (Hansson 2023). Risk is the possibility, or the probability, of some negative occurrence. In some cases, the severity is included in the probability formula. Something is very risky if it may include a negative consequence that is very probable and very severe. I take a big risk if I cross a mountain side and the snow conditions make it highly probable that I will trigger a huge avalanche that will most likely take my life.

In some cases and contexts, risk may also refer to the risky thing itself (Hansson 2023). The avalanche may itself be talked about as the risk that may threaten my life. Both usages, risk as probability and as the thing itself, should be accepted. The last usage is often better suited to convey my feelings. I do not fear the probability, but the avalanche.

In some decision theories like game theory, one distinguishes between decisions under certainty, risk, and uncertainty (Luce and Raiffa 1957). Under certainty, one knows the probability of an event and the resulting outcome. Under uncertainty, one knows neither probability nor outcome. Under risk, one knows the probabilities but not the outcome. Within such approaches most decisions in risk sports are decisions made under uncertainty and not under risk. One does not know the probabilities. If one thinks about probability, it is in unprecise and heuristic terms; in risky sports situations, we do not have the precise numbers that the statisticians in quantitative sciences have. While risk sports athletes must decide ex-ante before the event, the statisticians present their numbers ex-post after the events.

Another distinction is between subjective perception of risk and objective or actual level of risk. In this sense subjective risk can be defined as the subjective perception or estimate of the probability of some event. Our only access to the objective or actual level of risk is through the probability extracted from regular recordings of an event over time, such as the probability of serious injuries or deaths of climbers over a year. However, this gives us the statistical risk but does not tell us more than the likelihood of an average climber being injured or dying. Climbers vary in abilities and decisions, and the climbing conditions vary even more. The objective risk would be a specific climber’s risk in specific situations over a year. A climber may get help from the statistical risk to estimate how risky her activity is, but it would not give a precise or objective estimate for that specific climber.

There are several pitfalls in subjective estimations of risk. Dramatic or rare events are overestimated, and daily events are underestimated in riskiness. Uncontrollable factors are overestimated, and factors that are controllable are underestimated. When people become proficient, say, in a risk sport, they become better in their risk perceptions and evaluations but may still suffer from the common mistake of overestimating their skills and capacities.

When we call some activities risky, engagement includes taking risks or exposing oneself to certain dangers. However, when athletes pursue these activities, they focus on risks that can be managed. It means that the risks must be relevant and come in the right way. This means that they may willingly accept and even increase relevant risks, such as a more technically challenging and exposed climbing route. In contrast, they want to minimize irrelevant risks such as loose rock, bad weather, and old or non-tested equipment. One may be willing to take a calculated fall, but not an old climbing rope that may snap.

Another important distinction is between risky acts and risky arenas. On relatively safe ground, one may be impulsive and playful and take a happy-go-lucky attitude. However, in a dangerous arena, one becomes cautious. Happy-go-lucky bomb disposal experts are rare; they would not survive. They must focus on full control.

Similarly, base jumpers call themselves control freaks. The riskier the arena, such as vertical rock faces, the more careful one must be. One must control the equipment, prepare actions carefully, be mentally alert, well trained, and so on. When people call risky sports performers risk takers, it indicates that people think risk athletes are happy-go-lucky risk takers. However, this seems wrong. They are risk-takers, not because of their impulsive and risky attitude, but because they are in a risky arena and, therefore, must be alert, careful, and safety-oriented.

The feeling of risk and the ultimate fears

People are safety-oriented in risky arenas because they do not want to die. They want to live. The Freud-inspired theory (Freud 2003) that risk athletes have a hidden death wish is, in general, on the wrong track. Most risk sports performers are not dominated by a hidden Thanatos motive, a death wish, but quite the opposite. According to most of their testimonies, they want to live life fully and feel the pulse as intensely as possible. They seek life, Eros.

Nevertheless, there are dangers, some hidden, and some ultimate. The ultimate risk is to die. Each risk sport has its own phenomenology of the ultimate risk, the fear of losing one’s life. In rock climbing, the ultimate fear is to fall, and in some fateful and scary moments see that one’s protection is failing and one is falling to the ground. In sky diving it is similarly the experience that the main parachute fails, and then the reserve parachute fails, and then one falls helplessly at high speed to the ground. In white water kayaking, it is to become stuck under a huge stone or the branches of a tree sticking out in the river. Or it is being caught in a big stopper wave and turned around as in a washing machine, unable to get out. In steep mountain skiing, it is being caught by an avalanche and swallowed by the immense forces of snow at high speed.

Part 3. The role and value of risk in risky nature sports

I said earlier that risk is mostly defined as a loss of some kind. This means that risk is something negative, and risks should always be avoided. Modern societies have increasingly focused on risk management, safety, and control as key values. An important distinction here is between risks that are imposed and risks that are freely chosen. We want our bridges to be safe and our cars to be dependable. We protect ourselves against health risks, floods, storms, etc. Some people choose, however, to engage in unsafe activities such as risky sports.

A condition for engagement in risk sports is that the risks must be relevant and come in the right way. Another factor linked to this, is that the skill element must dominate over the chance element. In risk sports, there is a blend between skill and chance. Russian roulette is uncontrollable. There is no skill element, only chance. Therefore, very few people are willing to try Russian Roulette. Risk sports such as white-water kayaking and climbing involve a mixture of skill and chance factors. The first climbers on Eiger Nordwand were willing to accept a high degree of uncontrollable rock falls and avalanches. They thought that physical and mental skill factors would help them handle the risks and the chance factors would be manageable. However, people may think they are more skilled than they are. When accidents happen, they are often caused by a lack of relevant skills. A huge study of accidents in the mountains of Grand Teton National Park in USA from 1970 to 1980 (Schussman and Lutz 1982) showed that most accidents, approximately 75%, were caused by the climbers themselves. They lacked the necessary skills or made mistakes. Around 25% were due to chance factors like avalanches and loose rock. Even if people know that risk is uncontrollable, both through chance and mistakes, they nevertheless engage in risky sports. The uncertainty may be attractive since it gives a heightened mood, both fear and thrills. Sometimes, the acceptance of high risks goes to the extreme, such as in Formula 1 racing in the 1970s and 1980s when one out of four drivers lost their lives during their careers. A similar death rate was found in early Himalayan climbing above 8000 meters.

If risk is associated with loss and something negative, there may still be reasons to take risks. One reason is that the total expected subjective utility may come out favorably. The expected positive outcomes will outweigh the negative. The Base jump from a new mountain, the climb of a new route, the success on a new difficult passage in a river, may be so valuable for a person that she is willing, after a serious utility calculation, to give it a try. What makes the total utility measure positive and attractive may vary. It may be deep personal satisfaction, record-breaking, or approval from friends or the sporting community. One might speculate if deeper evolutionary reasons are in play since humans survived by taking calculated risks, overcoming obstacles, breaking new ground, and crossing rivers and mountains. Even if this was for survival reasons, the deep-seated satisfaction when overcoming barriers still lurks in us. The polar explorer Fridtjof Nansen (1927) expressed it in the following way: ‘It is our perpetual yearning to overcome difficulties and dangers’ and ‘Nothing worth having in life is ever attained without taking risks’. Of course, this urge to overcome dangers is stronger in some people than others, for instance, risk sport athletes.

However, there may be more than favorable cost-benefit analyses or positive measures of subjective utility schemes that cause people to become risk sport performers. Risk may have value in itself. Think about top-roping a difficult climbing route. One may enjoy the moves, the contact with the rock, and the physical and mental satisfaction of succeeding. But there is no risk. Then, think about leading the route, having to place the protection means, and risking a fall. The experience is different. One can still enjoy the moves but with another tension in the body and a different mindset. Then, think about soloing the route without any protection, as Alex Honnold famously did on El Capitan (Honnold and Roberts 2016). To fall means to die. Now, the tension is much higher. It is not as if the bodily moves are the same; the mindset is different. The whole bodymind is different. The tension is not only in the mind but in the whole body. With increasing risk, the climb shifts its character. Heightened fear and tension are blended with exhilaration and excitement. It is not two separate things but one and the same, the fear and the joy are blended into one unique state of the bodymind.

Along these lines, one could argue for three positions: A) Risk is always negative. One should avoid risk sports. B) Risk is something negative, but some things can only be attained by taking risks, and the total expected subjective utility is positive. C) Risk can be positive since it may sometimes lead to bodymind states that cannot be attained without the risk element. Sport philosophers speak about the sweet tension of uncertainty of outcome. In risk sport, the tension is not sweet but has a sharper, more interesting taste. It is a combination of bitter and sweet that one can become addicted to. It is the bittersweet tension of uncertainty of control.

The tension is about contrasts. The risk element introduces a contrast to safety and control. The opponent process theory (Solomon 1980) argues that contrasts provide the best experiences: being thirsty and getting water, being hungry and getting food, being injured and becoming healed, freezing and getting warm. However, with risk, it may be different. The positive mood may often come after the negative, such as the joy after a safe skydive landing. Or when sitting down on the top of the route after a risky and unprotected climb. However, as argued above, the fear and joy may also be blended during the freefall or the climb to create a unique positive mood state, which is not only the relief after a safe landing but has a different intensity, a unique bittersweet flavor. This view is somewhat different from the flow theory since flow is supposed to be a positive mood state that is hard to combine with fear. The list of characteristics of flow experiences does not contain experience of risk or fear.

This means that risk is not peripheral but central to risk sports. Risk is not accidental or external but internal. Risk is part of the defining core, making risk sports unique. If the risk element is removed, the sport changes and becomes something different. Indoor competitive climbing is, in one sense, climbing; many moves are similar, and the use of protection means is the same. However, it is also a totally different sport since it is no longer an outdoor sport in natural surroundings and is without risk. The sport is no longer wild but tame, and the risk athlete has become a domesticated animal. It also means that there will be no accidents and no people will die. A Norwegian climber and friend of mine maintains that if no people die in risky sports, then the sport loses its character and respectability. Some people think this is too harsh. People do not need to die; it is enough that there is a real possibility of dying. But totally safe indoor climbing cannot, in any case, be a risk sport or a nature sport.

The value of risk in risk sports

I have argued that the element of risk is central and not peripheral in risk sports. It is a defining feature of risk sports. I will argue that this is at least partly due to the dramatic element it introduces. Climbing a route top-roped and with full protection is without risk. If one leads or solo-climbs the same route, one introduces a dramatic potential: the possibility of serious injury and death. The dramatic element in risk sport is just this possibility of losing one’s life or getting severely injured. The element is also a tragic element since it means that a person who is loved will be missed and mourned in the case of a death. But the dramatic aspect can potentially be valuable, according to Nietzsche (2001, 2006). In The Gay Science he writes: ‘For believe me! – the secret for harvesting from existence the greatest fruitfulness and the greatest enjoyment is: to live dangerously!’ (Nietzsche 2001, 160). And in Thus Spoke Zarathustra he stated, ’Many die too late, and some die too early’. The doctrine still sounds strange: ’Die at the right time!’ (2006, 53) According to such a view, to die young during an extreme climb may be the right time, the right time for drama and tragedy.

But in which sense can an element that is potentially negative and with tragic consequences confer value on an activity? One can distinguish between pro-social, anti-social, and autotelic risk-taking. While pro-social risk-taking undertaken by police officers or rescue people is considered valuable, anti-social risk-taking undertaken by burglars or smugglers is considered non-valuable, in fact, the opposite. It is here the positive or negative relation to other people, the heterotelic element, that confers positive or negative value on the activity. But what about autotelic risk-taking, where people take risks for their own sake? Climbers, white water kayakers, and big wave surfers are primarily involved in egoistic pursuits. The relationship to other athletes may be positive, but it is not a primary goal to help or hurt others.

Without a doubt, the value of taking part in autotelic risk sports is a value for me, a self-regarding value. Autotelic risk-taking is tautologically valuable for the risk sport performer. However, it may also be valuable as a member of a team. I may cooperate with other team members to reach a goal on a risky project. Risk sports may also be used in pedagogical settings to develop personal virtues and group solidarity. Risk sports may be considered valuable as education or Bildung for young people since these sports may develop stamina, self-control, courage, and other characteristics considered personal virtues. Courage was considered one of the key virtues in Greek philosophy.

When I say that a risk sport is valuable for me, it may indicate an instrumental view. But can the risk element also indicate something more, an autotelic value? Can value be attached to the sport activity itself? I will here refer to Robert Nozick’s discussion of the concept of value and how the concept was interpreted in relation to sport by Breivik (2021). According to Nozick (1981) value can be understood as ‘unity in complexity’. Some of the most admired landscapes or works of art can be characterized by a) a complexity or diversity of many different types of elements, and b) a unifying factor, a style, that brings the many elements together to form a unified pattern, a gestalt. An increase in unification and complexity will contribute to higher value. ‘The greater the diversity that gets unified, the greater the organic unity; and also, the tighter the unity to which diversity is brought, the greater the organic unity’ (Nozick 1981, 164).

Climbing a route with little or no protection gives a more elegant solution than having to handle different types of protection gear during the climb. The unity in complexity increases, seen from the climber’s as well as the spectator’s viewpoint. The aesthetics of the climb increases. While the addition of ropes and protection adds complexity, because it is not essential, it detracts from the unity. Protection means are not essential parts of the climb as performance, they are extras needed to protect the climber. They may be necessary for survival but irrelevant as part of the performance. I argue here for a minimalist conception of what a climb is. A more comprehensive view could mean that an elegant placing of protection means is part of the aesthetics of the climb.

A different problem is how we should evaluate a) risks that are due to the technical difficulty of the route and b) risks that are external and due to chance factors like avalanches, loose rock, weather change etc. Compare climbing in Alex Honnold style El Capitan on hard rock and on good conditions with soloing Eiger Nordwand, famous for avalanches and rockfalls. The Eiger climb has a greater complexity but is impossible to climb with the same unifying style as El Capitan. There will be a trade-off between complexity and style. I would not here argue that the external factors on Eiger Nordwand are not relevant in the sense mentioned earlier, since one has to prepare for them as potential chance factors outside one’s control. They represent relevant risks. The Eiger Nordwand has higher dramatic potential, but the technical skill level may be higher on El Capitan.

Compared with many traditional sports, nature sports have higher unity in complexity because they take place in more complex environments. A white-water kayaker paddling a long white water stretch with many falls, big waves, and technical problems will have to use a huge variety of moves and strokes, balances, and rolls. At high levels, the kayaker may display an aesthetically impressive performance from an agent-relative as well as spectator-relative perspective. From the viewpoint of value as unity-in-complexity, one can argue that many risky nature sports have a higher value than traditional sports. Complexity could here mean two things. It could mean complexity concerning how many different skills and capacities participants need to use in the sport. It could also mean the complexity of the arena and the surroundings. Nature sports typically take place in more complex arenas than traditional sports and hence need a broader and more complex set of physical and mental skills and capacities. The risk factor contributes to complexity since risk athletes have to perform under performance stress, as other athletes do, but in addition they are stressed by the risk factor. One can therefore argue that risky nature sports are of high value and that the risk element contributes considerably to the increased value. Climbing a difficult and risky route following an elegant line to the top of a mountain is aesthetically pleasing for the athlete as well as the spectator. Paddling the perfect line through stoppers, around stones, and through big waves is similarly aesthetically pleasing. Risk sport athletes thus display artful performances and tell stories about the difficult stages of a route. Risky nature sports have a unique potential for storytelling and narratives compared with traditional sports, where the narratives mostly are related to exciting duels between competitors and the dramas of winning and losing.

The meaning of risk

I have argued that risk sports can be valuable and that engaging in risk sports can be a valuable pursuit. In which sense can it also be a meaningful pursuit? As argued by Breivik (2021), following Nozick (1981), meaning in sport can focus on a) the meaning of a sport for the participant, b) the intrinsic meaningfulness of the sport itself, c) the total web of meanings in a sporting life, and d) the objective meaningfulness or impact of sport on the broader society.

In the following, I will focus on points a and c. However, we must first clarify the concept of meaning. While value can be understood as the integration of diversity to form a unity, the concept of meaning focuses on how things are interconnected and directed toward something. The words in a sentence get meaning by being interconnected to form a totality with a specific direction. The sentence’s meaning may express a description, an order, or a question. Something can also get its meaning, and thus be meaningful, by being part of a larger meaning structure. A feint or a dribble in football is meaningful as part of the attack. A specific move in climbing is meaningful as part of succeeding on a specific route.

And further on; being involved in climbing or another risk sport is meaningful as being an important part of the life one wants to live. Finding or creating meaning thus refers to something beyond itself, a larger whole or context. A meaningful element is connected to something beyond its border. At the end of the chain, there must be a terminal meaning, which has meaning in itself. In existentialist terminology, what grounds meaning is the basic existential choice of how I want to lead my life. Heidegger (1962) used the term ‘Sorge’ (Care) to characterize the basic existential purpose or goal in life. For people involved in risky nature sports, taking risks is paradoxically part of the Care, even if it may involve serious accidents or deaths.

For a participant in a risky nature sport, three elements of meaning are of special interest and importance. First, the person must find the activity meaningful for herself, enjoying the activity itself and with the possibility of reaching higher performance levels and excelling. The person must also find meaning in being out in nature and interacting with natural features, different surroundings, and landscapes. Furthermore, finally, the person must accept and even enjoy that the activity includes taking risks. The risks are inherent parts of the meaningful whole, for instance, climbing a specific risky route to the top.

Not only must the activity, the natural surroundings, and the risk aspect come together to form an enjoyable whole, but the whole package must be accepted and fit into one’s life as a whole, must be something that one wants to pursue as an integral part of one’s life. For some people, a nature sport like climbing or kayaking is more than a hobby; it is a deeper commitment. Climbing is then not a hobby that one has, but being a climber is something that one is. It is about existential identity.

Since nature sports include strong links to natural features and environments, there are extra reasons to have the second internalized attitude of being a nature sport person, involved with nature. Finally, the sporting life one wants to live in nature includes risks that make possible exceptional experiences impossible to reach without taking risks. Risky nature sports can thus be meaningful parts of one’s life, part of one’s identity and life project.

Conclusion

I argued initially that nature sports have evolutionary roots and represent a ‘return to nature’. Nature sports do not fit the Suitsian sport paradigm but represent a broader conception of what sport is. I further argued that the interaction with natural elements in risk sports should be understood as an adaptation to nature, not as a competition with a competitor. Risk belongs centrally to risk sport and may be defined as the probability and severity of some loss, such as loss of life and limbs, but may also refer to the risky thing itself, such as an avalanche. In risk sports, the risks must be relevant and come in the right way, and mainly be possible to handle through skillful actions rather than by luck and chance. I argued that the risk element in risky nature sports contributes to the value of such sports since it increases the complexity of the sport. Sports combining high complexity with a strong unifying factor are especially valuable. I further argued that participation in risky nature sports is meaningful, can be meaningful in itself, and can also contribute to making such participation an important part of a meaningful life.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).