The concept of "naturalness" in indoor climbing

This study focuses on public programs designed to promote and identify climbing opportunities. From the 1800s to 1975, climbing was a sport practiced in natural settings. Today, artificial climbing structures are proliferating and have become essential training tools, with the primary goal no longer being to “replicate” nature indoors. The study demonstrates that the practice, the participants, the motivations, and the settings have evolved significantly. These spaces bring together a diverse range of climbers as well as a variety of climbing styles. This study therefore examines the concept of “naturalness” in the practice of these climbers, who operate within an artificial environment. The qualitative analysis of the data we obtained through six semi-structured interviews demonstrated the existence of a hybrid relationship with nature. Indeed, there appear to be multiple relationships with naturalness that vary depending on the climbers, the time periods, and the settings in which they practice.

“If you don’t go to the mountains, the mountains will come to you” (Louvel and Rotillon, 1985, p. 274).

This quote aptly captures the enthusiasm for mountaineering, and more specifically for rock climbing. The sport has undergone dramatic changes and transformations since 1970. Initially, rock climbing was an outdoor physical activity (APPN). However, over the past twenty years or so, it has come to be practiced in a variety of settings, ranging from natural to artificial environments. In fact, climbers have the opportunity to practice in extremely different conditions: either in the “great outdoors” or “nature,” or in an artificial and sanitized environment. It seems important to differentiate and define certain concepts that are still used today without much distinction by those involved in sports tourism, in order to clearly explain the subject.

Naturalness is a polysemic concept, which makes it difficult to define. According to Jean Corneloup, “naturalness evokes the relationship established with nature. This relationship is strongest when artificiality is as discreet as possible. Depending on the depth of the interaction with the natural environment, different degrees of naturalness can be observed” (2003, p. 8). In our study, we will discuss naturalness as a degree to which a space is or is not impacted by human influence. The concept of naturalness thus refers to the concept of the “natural.” Géraldine Thévenot is a leading authority on this subject. For her, “the definition of the natural draws its origins from the idea of nature: the natural, at its core, is what is given to us, what is innate and opposed to the transformed, a definition to which are added connotations of simplicity and a connection to nature.” We can therefore say that the concept of “naturalness” stands in contrast to that of “urbanity.” These characteristics will subsequently serve as points of comparison with rock climbing and its practitioners.

In outdoor sports, the wilderness can be defined as an area for activities that is largely or entirely undeveloped, close to its natural state. Furthermore, “aroundoor” refers to an area on the outskirts of cities, resorts, and mountain ranges that is emerging as a recreational space, serving as an intermediate zone between the fully artificial nature of indoor sports and recreational facilities (resorts, cities, climbing walls, etc.) and the still-strong “naturalness” of the outdoors (wilderness with minimal human intervention) ” (Corneloup, 2002, p.7). Here, we could take as an example the high ropes courses that exemplify this concept of“aroundoor,” as a means of popularizing outdoor sports. Thus, these four concepts differ along a spectrum of increasing artificiality and correspond to different practices:indoor ( artificial climbing structures), aroundoor ( accessible sport climbing sites), outdoor ( demanding athletic commitment and advanced preparation), and wildoor(wild environments and expeditions into largely unexplored terrain).

Nowadays, the term “nature”—or rather “pre-nature”—seems more appropriate in light of the previous definitions. Changes in how mountains are used correlate with our perception of nature. This is why nature is now more akin to a developed recreational space or facility, governed by various standards and certifications. Climbing sites are subject to increasingly sophisticated developments. These respond to growing demand and help ensure user safety. It is clear that this contemporary “nature” is moving away from the definition of “wild nature” cited and defined earlier.

Today, this sport is no longer practiced exclusively by mountaineers, as it once was. During the modern era (1800–1975), “climbing did not exist,” states Corneloup (1995, p. 1). It was practiced for a single purpose: to prepare for summiting peaks. Mountaineers were considered the elite of society, and mountaineering was an exclusive and selective activity. A very strong bond united climbers with the mountains. It was not until the 1970s that “rock climbing” acquired a true identity (Corneloup, 1995). The number of stakeholders grew: federations, mountain rescue teams, manufacturers of artificial climbing structures (SAE), the media, and associations. During this period, according to Jean Corneloup, a true “rupture-fracture” ( 1995, p. 2) emerged. Profiles, styles of practice, motivations, and relationships with nature changed significantly. Thus, a structure for climbing took shape alongside the institutionalization of the practice. New values such as playfulness, performance, and ecology emerged. Peer groups formed, dividing climbers into different categories. Corneloup studied climbers in Fontainebleau to identify distinct styles of practice. He identified four groups: the “alpine-cafistes,” who adhere to alpine tradition, in contrast to the “hedo-sportifs,” who advocate for the sanitization of climbing sites. There are also the “neo-adventurers ,” who value risk-taking, and finally the “tourists,” who favor the commodification of all climbing areas. The “world of climbing” thus resembles a “logic of multiplicity” (Corneloup, 1995, p. 7).

However, since the 2000s, with the emergence of the transmodern era—which we will discuss in more detail later—a single climber may identify with multiple groups and, consequently, with different consumption patterns and values. It is the interaction between these perspectives and practices that drives climbers to create, combine, and develop new forms of climbing. The literature shows that numerous changes can be observed and noted within climbing gyms. These spaces are marked by great heterogeneity: the profiles of climbers, climbing styles, motivations, and practice locations are all factors that both divide and unite indoor climbers. Indeed, consumption patterns are shifting and varied. To illustrate this “break” with the modern era, it seems relevant to note that today, for some climbers, the sport is practiced exclusively indoors. They have abandoned rock climbing and climbing on boulders. As Eric de Léséleuc points out, “many of them have never been there, and have no desire to go” (1998, p. 65). The era of conquering peaks is over, and most of the sport’s development now takes place indoors.

Today we are witnessing a trend toward the “naturalization” of urban areas and the “urbanization” of nature (Marsac, 2008, p. 4). This means that climbers no longer need to seek out natural sites—sometimes far from cities—to pursue their sport. Now, they find these sites nearby and concentrated within a single space. This transformation reflects well the quote from Louis Louvel, cited in the introduction, and the desire to be able to practice, even in urban settings. The relationship with nature has evolved profoundly over time. Furthermore, according to Lafargue (1990), the development of artificial climbing walls (ACWs) contributes significantly to the process of turning the activity into a sport, as well as to the evolution of climbing styles and the profile of climbers. For other authors such as Corneloup, Bourdeau, or Rodriguez, a new era in the 2000s could emerge and supplant the postmodern era: the transmodern form. In climbing, this movement is akin to climbers maintaining a blend of practices. This cultural mix helps create bridges between different eras. This is why we still find climbers who uphold the traditional values of climbing. Today, it is therefore not surprising to find the same climber practicing both indoors and outdoors.

Following these initial reflections, which help put the phenomenon into context, several questions may arise. Do climbers who climb exclusively indoors engage in a form of climbing that is out of touch with nature? What sense of naturalness emerges from the practice of “mixed” or “hybrid” climbers?

In this article, we will attempt to explain how the concept of “naturalness” fits into the practice of indoor climbing and the lives of those who participate in it. We can hypothesize that there are different forms of naturalness, varying according to various factors that we will examine later, which could be described as “hybrid” or “multiple.”

Methodology

The complexity of this study lies in the fact that no research has yet been conducted on the concept of “naturalness” in indoor climbing. Information, scientific data, and literature on the subject are therefore limited. Consequently, a qualitative approach seemed most appropriate. “This approach aims to understand and uncover a phenomenon by asking ‘why’ and ‘how’ ” (Claude, 2019). This approach thus allowed us to analyze and characterize the concept of “naturalness” in climbing. Regarding the selection of the study population, we initially contacted climbers we knew by phone and presented them with the survey. This method allowed us to interview three respondents while refining the questionnaire for subsequent interviews. However, even though their climbing practices were diverse, a certain profile of climbers was missing. Our challenge was to find this very specific profile: those who climb exclusively indoors. To address this, we subsequently reached out via social media to several climbing gyms to inform them about the project and the specific profile we were seeking. We then sent an email to our contacts, who forwarded it to their gym members. This allowed us to complete the sample, resulting in a total of six interviews.

Due to the health crisis, all interviews were conducted remotely. Of the six interviews, three were conducted via video conference using the “Messenger” app. This allowed us to conduct a more comprehensive analysis of the interviews, covering both verbal and nonverbal cues. The remaining interviews were conducted over the phone. However, this method has its limitations, as it is more difficult to gauge the interviewees and establish a sense of trust. Nevertheless, the remote format makes it easier to interview individuals residing in multiple locations. Furthermore, as Héas noted in 2022, this method “allows for standardizing the conditions under which interviews are conducted” (p. 28) and thus helps limit potential biases.

Table of Respondent Profiles

This table highlights the diversity of the respondents. To ensure the sample was as representative as possible, we selected participants of different genders, ages, and sports.

To conduct the interviews, we used an interview guide covering various topics, which helped us structure both the discussion and the interviewee’s responses. The topics we chose to address during the semi-structured interviews were very broad so as not to limit the dialogue: “profile of the practitioner” and “relationship with nature.” Nevertheless, we developed highly targeted questions to systematically obtain the information we needed to successfully complete the study.

With regard to the “profile of climbers,” the goal was to develop a typology of climbers. The questions focused on the individuals themselves, as well as their climbing practices and how they came to take up the sport.

For the theme of “naturalness,” the questions were divided into four subtopics. First, we discussed the interviewees’ perceptions of what nature means to them. Next, we sought to identify the factors that led them to choose indoor or outdoor activities, in order to understand their motivations. To refocus on naturalness, we asked what role it played in their indoor and outdoor practices, as well as in their lives. Finally, we examined “key” terms such as the concepts of “hybrid climbers” or “blending of practices” to gauge their opinions on the subject.

A sense of naturalness that varies depending on the type of practitioner and their practice environment

Disagreements regarding the definition of key terms

We found that, ultimately, the role of naturalness in the practice of rock climbing was not as clear-cut as one might think to those who climb.

In Western society, the concept of “naturalness” is becoming increasingly prominent in the commercial sphere. It could be defined as that which is innate, and thus stands in contrast to the artificial. Furthermore, the concept of “naturalness” is often contrasted with that of “urbanity.” It would therefore be impossible to associate the concept of naturalness with an artificial indoor climbing gym.

This raises the question of whether climbers view indoor climbing as an “outdoor” sport—one that takes place in the great outdoors—or as an urban sport. On this point, only one interviewee considers indoor climbing to be an outdoor sport:

“Since it’s the same foundation for me, and in my view the same activity, it serves as a training ground for the outdoor environment” (Florence, 41). However , Jean, Christian, and Mélanie believe that indoor climbing cannot be considered an outdoor sport. Mélanie qualifies her statement : “I’d say rather that it’s nature that we’ve brought into the city and therefore into the gym… I think that indoor climbing, in my view, is a way to train and acquire the skills, knowledge, and attitude necessary for outdoor climbing.” These results show that indoor and outdoor climbing are not perceived in the same way by all climbers.

The data collected during the interviews showed that individuals all had different definitions and perceptions of what nature could be. The “polysemy” of the term “nature” thus refers to an idea of nature that varies from person to person. Based on this observation, it stands to reason that our relationship with nature is, in part, shaped by the definition we give it. However, “the definition of ‘natural’ as it is commodified in products is inevitably shaped by the market constraints—both health-related and economic—that govern product distribution: the ‘natural’ in the commercial sphere is necessarily transformed and disconnected, to varying degrees, from nature” (Lecompte, 2015, p. 4). Climbing gyms therefore attempt to replicate naturalness in their operations but are forced to make compromises with the industrial and commercial environment in which they operate. The naturalization process is based on “consumers’ representations of what is natural, in order to reduce the risk of dissonance between consumer expectations and corporate constraints” (Thevenot, 2014, p.13).

Géraldine Thevenot explains that the naturalization process helps create cues around the product, which suggest naturalness to the consumer. At the Boulder Line climbing gym in Castelnau-le-Lez, the natural aspect is highlighted through the following symbols: photographs of climbers on cliffs, plants, names of rocks, and even real climbing routes found in natural settings that have been recreated indoors. These cues allow consumers to form an idea of nature through “the naturalization of a message” ( Ibid, p.18). It is through these intrinsic elements that naturalness is emphasized within this gym, which gives meaning to the vertical ascent of its participants.

Rock climbing: a complex world that fosters a varied “relationship with nature”

The world of climbing is a complex one, as there is a wide variety of climbers, even among indoor climbers. Among them are those who climb both indoors and outdoors, as well as those who climb exclusively indoors. If we focus on the role of nature in indoor climbing, we can now say that it is not an intrinsic part of the activity.

If we take the definition of “naturalness” cited above as a reference point, we can now say that the connection to nature is virtually nonexistent inside the gym. Since everything is artificial rather than natural or innate, all that remains are symbols and elements associated with nature as a reminder of naturalness. We could describe this as a “domesticated relationship with nature” to characterize the presence of nature within climbing gyms.

As Géraldine Thevenot points out in the process of naturalization, the strategy employed by climbing gyms is to highlight iconic elements that suggest and remind climbers that indoor climbing is connected to climbing in the natural environment. They focus on climbers’ perceptions of the natural world, allowing climbers to access a certain idea of nature. We can therefore say that the role of naturalness in indoor climbing correlates with individuals’ perceptions of it.

We also believe this idea needs to be qualified. Just because a climber has little or no connection to nature in their climbing practice does not mean that nature does not play an important role in their daily life. Moreover, for a climber who engages in a variety of disciplines or a “hybrid” practice, they necessarily maintain a connection with the natural environment since it is, among other things, where they practice.

The data collected shows that no systematic link can be established between the climbing environment, climbers’ level of environmental awareness, and their relationship with nature. Florence explains: “So, I’m hesitant to generalize again, because I think there must be different types of climbers within that group. From there, to say that they have an ecological awareness, I don’t know—I don’t know them. On the other hand, I’m not sure that just because climbers are in a natural environment, they’re necessarily eco-conscious. It’s often a quick association we make; in fact, just because you practice in nature doesn’t mean you necessarily have an ecological awareness. So, do those who practice indoors have it to a greater or lesser extent… I don’t know; there are certainly some who do. In any case, I don’t make the connection at all between outdoor sports enthusiasts and an ecological conscience.” Greg confirms this view. Although he only practices indoors, he does go hiking and mountain biking. Moreover, he says he appreciates nature and that “it’s also linked to my parents’ upbringing; that played a big role. I grew up in the countryside, so there you go!” He clearly demonstrates that his relationship with nature isn’t correlated with his climbing practice. However, he thinks that climbing outdoors “could awaken me even more.”

In this sense, one’s relationship with nature will vary in strength depending on these different factors: Pierre Bourdieu explained this through the concepts of “cultural capital” and the “primary socialization” of individuals. For him,

“Sensitivity to nature is forged during early socialization through family influence and is then activated through activity: ‘To make nature one’s own requires a culture, a connection to things that endure’” (2011, p. 16). Greg confirmed this during our discussion. Growing up in the countryside and developing a love for nature during his childhood likely contributed significantly to his attraction to nature. Nevertheless, he never climbs outdoors. Yet he asserts that outdoor climbing could help him awaken even further, as Bourdieu points out.

Furthermore, one’s relationship with nature is likely influenced by their interest in the sport and, consequently, by their level of proficiency. Certainly, climbers who climb exclusively indoors are often “beginners” and “young.” As Christian notes, “they climb for the summer body” and “to hang out with friends.” We can therefore assume that if they were seriously interested in climbing, they might be drawn to outdoor climbing. In our view, the climber’s skill level also plays a role. “ The skills of knowledge, know-how, and interpersonal skills are greater outdoors,” emphasizes Mélanie. Thus, it may be that indoor climbers are drawn to outdoor climbing but are forced to limit themselves to indoor climbing due to a lack of experience and qualifications. Furthermore, climbing and canoeing were compared by Lapierre and Marsac in 2008 for their similarities and the detterritorialization of their respective practice environments. As with indoor climbing, canoeing in whitewater courses “brings together a heterogeneous group both in terms of skill level and social composition.” In fact, the term “general public” refers to a “catch-all” category in which managers group together beginners, outdoor enthusiasts, paddlers with low technical skill levels, novices, and experienced kayakers belonging to clubs. Consequently, this term primarily refers to non-competitors” (2008, p.4). The participants found at artificial practice sites are, for the most part, beginners. Marsac also states that “instructors emphasize that the participants they welcome have little experience in the activity” and “that it is more difficult to familiarize oneself with and engage independently at a natural site if one is unfamiliar with the region, its location, its difficulty, or the available equipment” (2008, p. 243). The relationship with nature in rock climbing is therefore partly determined by the climbers’ skill level.

Other factors may also influence the changing “urban relationship with nature” (Krieger, 2015, p. 9) that climbers may experience, or this concept of “hybrid” naturalness, particularly those related to the social context and changes in the practice itself.

The evolution of practice as a factor explaining a “hybrid” and “mixed” naturalness

The influence of external factors: The temporal dimension in conjunction with the process of sportsification

First and foremost, the study shows that people’s relationship with nature and the role of natural elements indoors are not static over time.

The sportification of climbing has likely played a major role in creating new value chains, new styles of practice, and, as a result, a new relationship with the sport and with nature. This is what

what Jean Corneloup calls “organic links”: everyone can give meaning “to their vertical action” (1995, p. 7). Bourdeau’s writings have shown that the 1970s and 1980s were marked by developments that radically transformed our relationship with natural spaces: “The shift from mountaineering as the dominant practice during modernity (1850–1975) to the diverse climbing activities characteristic of postmodernity (1975–2000) transformed the linear organization of practice spaces (from small climbing sites to high mountains) into a circular organization (bouldering, small ‘cliffs,’ large

“cliffs,” frozen waterfalls, via ferrata, high mountains, distant mountain ranges…), which follows the model of a network far more than that of a straight line, bringing the system of climbing practices into a logic of multiplicity” (1990). This movement thus refers to the process of naturalizing the city and urbanizing nature. We can therefore say that the development of the artificial has created a rupture with nature, by fostering the development of competition and performance. These “geosport transgressions” (Mao, 2008) respond to the increase in the number of practitioners and the need for training. One could also speak of transmodernity to describe this multifaceted naturalness. It is defined “as a cultural movement that seeks to transcend modernity (go beyond it) while building bridges with previous historical forms” (Corneloup, 2011, p. 6). It is clear that this cultural blend resembles a fusion of indoor and outdoor climbing practices. These practitioners thus combine the traditional values of climbing with hypermodern values : playfulness, hedonism, and a connection to nature all combined. It is the interaction between these visions that creates new forms of practice and a more or less profound relationship with nature, depending on the context and the era.

Finally, the current social climate influences our sporting practices, particularly in terms of the time constraints it imposes: “Space and time are the fundamental material dimensions of human existence” (Castells, 1998, p. 425). Outdoor climbing requires greater technical skills than indoor climbing, such as knowledge of the environment, use of equipment, and an understanding of risk. Furthermore, this form of climbing is restrictive. It requires more time for learning, as well as for traveling to climbing sites. People who live in cities are often forced to climb indoors due to a lack of time, and this impacts their connection to nature.

A “hybrid” naturalness, caught between disparate conceptions and the rise of the artificial

We’ve seen that rock climbing has experienced exponential growth over the past twenty years. This market is subject to constant competition among different climbing gyms, which drives them to diversify. For Mélanie and Hugo, “gyms will steer consumers toward this behavior. It’s become a marketing issue—we pay to enter a gym just as we would to go to the movies! I think the environmental aspect will take a back seat; at the very least, it will be a less common motivating factor.” Since people’s perspectives on the sport vary from one individual to another, it’s only natural that different viewpoints will emerge. For Jean, who works at Boulderline, their “new slogan is ‘back to basics.’ The foundation of climbing is climbing outdoors, and we want to return to that. Then, even indoors, we have a project that involves recreating certain boulders found outdoors right in the gym. The idea is to identify boulders from the local area, or from Fontainebleau and Rockland (South Africa), and reproduce them as accurately as possible, to give them a taste of what outdoor climbing is like. All of this is to encourage our climbers to (re)start climbing outdoors.” Here, we see that the project is moving toward a more visible and present sense of nature within climbing gyms (symbols, elements that evoke nature, and climbing styles). In order to remain competitive, climbing gyms are subject to numerous changes and innovations, which lead either to a closer connection with or a distancing from nature within them. Jean Corneloup explained in 1993 that “the relationship with nature is always part of the ‘logos’ (the relationship) where one expresses the values and imaginaries of one’s era, in reference to one’s position in the social space” (p.19). Thus, individuals’ representations of nature are bound to evolve over time. Christian emphasized that there is a “generational effect” or an “age effect” (Lefèvre, 2004).

Climbers of the past, guided by alpine values, had a closer connection to nature than today’s “young” climbers. In the past, the very essence of the sport was rooted in the exploration of the natural environment. Marsac highlights this in his thesis on canoeing and kayaking: “the original essence of the activity, which is based on the discovery of nature, is being transformed. The pedagogical approach in whitewater centers is becoming less school-like while simultaneously breaking free from the fundamentals of river descent” (p. 6). Indeed, “this quest for a closer connection with nature—or even a fusion with it—requires, in practical terms, learning about nature. Indeed, to move on water as on land, one must know how to read nature. Recreational users thus develop everyday knowledge—knowledge acquired through repeated practical experiences” (Krieger, 2016, p.182). The practice of SAE does not allow participants to cultivate this relationship with nature, and consequently, the prospects for merging with it are very limited.

This phenomenon is similar to surfing:

“The artificial creation of waves thus heralds potential changes in the structure of surfing’s ‘internal logic,’ insofar as it could alter the relationships between surfers—since there would no longer be a physical and symbolic struggle to claim the wave—and with space, since surfing would no longer be practiced exclusively in a marine environment, and with time, since wave programming would introduce a standardization of ride times. The artificial creation of waves thus alters the ecology of the surfer’s relationship to the wave, which in a natural environment requires the development of a “maritime sense” acquired through “tuning in”—that is, the surfer’s motor and sensory ability to grasp a practice environment whose balance is precarious, homeostatic ” (Mariani, 2013). It is entirely possible to apply this line of thinking to the world of rock climbing. Indoor climbing gyms clearly allow for the optimization of climbing time due to their ease of access and the proximity of routes within a single space. The layout of the climbing gym does not replicate the conditions of climbing in a natural setting, but rather aims to facilitate climbers’ progress within a safe and practical environment. The element of adventure—the physical and symbolic confrontation with the natural environment—is no longer present. Climbing becomes an everyday sport, which is paradoxical given that climbing in a natural setting allows one to disconnect from the urban environment. Indeed, the development of artificial climbing structures impacts the climber’s relationship with their environment, since indoor climbers no longer need to understand or anticipate the natural environment in which they operate.

Conclusion

The 20th century was marked by numerous changes that led to a diversification of sports activities, such as rock climbing. This sport is practiced in a variety of settings, ranging from artificial climbing structures to natural, more or less “wild” cliff sites. Thus, rock climbing is practiced somewhere between an urban setting and a “domestic” and/or “domesticated” natural environment.

The issue of “naturalness” in indoor climbing remains a topic that has received little attention in the scientific literature and among researchers. This is why we set out to examine the role of the concept of “naturalness” in indoor climbing and among its practitioners. This concept can be defined as the “relationship with nature,” which varies depending on humanity’s impact on the environment—a definition to which we can add elements that evoke this idea of nature and that can be contrasted with “urbanity.”

As part of our study, we selected and interviewed six climbers, all with different profiles and practices, in order to obtain results that are as representative as possible. These results show that the concept of naturalness is not interpreted in the same way by everyone and varies depending on the climbing environment. Thus, since perceptions of naturalness differ among climbers, the relationship with nature will be, in part, shaped by how it is defined. The “naturalization process” creates cues around the product that suggest naturalness to the consumer. In indoor climbing gyms, some of these cues could therefore influence the perception and importance of naturalness in the eyes of climbers. We have seen that the world of climbing operates within a “logic of multiplicity” since there is a plurality of climber profiles, even among indoor climbers. Nevertheless, naturalness is not, or only minimally, visible within a climbing gym from an intrinsic perspective, but rather resides solely in the imagination and the representation climbers have of it. Practitioners therefore, at first glance, have no direct connection to naturalness. One could speak here of a “domesticated relationship with nature.” However, just because nature is not physically present in the gym does not mean that climbers have no connection to it in their practice. For a climber who engages in what is known as “hybrid” climbing—both indoors and outdoors—naturalness is necessarily present in their practice, since they experience it firsthand when climbing on the rock face. Finally, the study highlighted that the evolution and transformation of the practice have influenced the concept of naturalness. The sportification of the activity and the development of artificial climbing do not allow practitioners to cultivate this relationship with naturalness. As it becomes an “everyday sport” in an urban environment, there is no longer a symbolic dimension, no adventure, no confrontation with, or knowledge of, the natural environment. Consequently, the prospects for merging with it are very limited. New value chains and new styles of practice are emerging, accompanied by a new relationship to the practice and to nature. In this sense, it is therefore not possible to establish a systematic association between a climber and their relationship to nature. The study’s sample does not allow for the proposal of a typology of climbers in relation to nature. However, it is possible to identify trends. For experienced climbers, who engage in a hybrid practice, it can be said that the degree of naturalness will be stronger in their practice since they are confronted with it and their imagination as well as their representations of nature align with the definition of naturalness. For beginner climbers, who climb exclusively indoors, the degree of naturalness will be virtually nonexistent. It varies depending on their socialization, their references and conceptions of the natural world, but also on the process of naturalization present in indoor climbing gyms. We can conclude that indoor climbing gyms have a key role to play in highlighting naturalness within their spaces.

We understand that indoor climbing gyms have replicated outdoor climbing indoors, but we wonder whether these facilities and their users are seeking to adapt their style to the outdoors. It would be interesting to expand this study by focusing research on this topic, to see whether changes in climbing practices are also impacting natural environments.

Bibliography

Biard, E. (October 5, 2012). Factors Influencing the Spread of Non-Traditional Sports Practices and Stakeholder Strategies: Comparative Case Studies on the Relocation of Outdoor Sports to Urban Settings. Education . Factors Influencing the Spread of Non-Traditional Sports Practices and Stakeholder Strategies: Comparative Case Studies on the Relocation of Outdoor Sports to Urban Settings (archives-ouvertes.fr)

Bourdeau, P.,Mao, P., &Corneloup, J. (2011). Outdoor sports as mediators of the “pas de deux” between city and mountain. A livability in the making?*Annales de géographie *, No. 680, 449–460. https://www.cairn.info/revue- annales-de-geographie-2011-4-page-449.htm

Bourdieu, P. (2011). Heritage and Transmission in Pierre Bourdieu’s Sociology. Idées économiques et sociales, No. 166, 6–14. Heritage and Transmission in Pierre Bourdieu’s Sociology | Cairn.info

Corneloup, J. (March 1993). The Logic of Sport and Images of Nature in Rock Climbing. ”, International Conference on “The Social Functions of Nature”, Chantilly, http://casquedor.free.fr/wikini/techniques/Sociologie/Logiques_sportives_images_nature_escalade.pdf

Corneloup, J. (1995). New Forms of Social Interaction in Rock Climbing. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Sport, Social Relations, and Collective Action, published by the MSHA. http://casquedor.free.fr/wikini/techniques/Sociologie/Nouvelles_formes_sociabilite_escalade.pdf

Corneloup, J. (1995). Rock Climbing: Between Risk and Play.Article for the Encyclopédia Universalis, 1–8. http://casquedor.free.fr/wikini/techniques/Sociologie/Escalades_entre_risque_et_ludisme.pdf

Corneloup, J. (1999). Imagination in Rock Climbing. *Les cahiers de l’imaginaire*, an international journal, no. 18, 28–37. http://casquedor.free.fr/wikini/techniques/Sociologie/Les_imaginaires_escalade.pdf

Corneloup, J. (2011). The Transmodern Form of Nature-Based Recreational Practices. Sustainable Development and Territories, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1–36. https://journals.openedition.org/developpementdurable/9107

Imbert, G. (2010). The semi-structured interview: at the intersection of public health and anthropology. Research in Nursing

Nurses, No. 102, pp. 23–24. The Semi-Structured Interview: At the Intersection of Public Health and Anthropology | Cairn.info

Lafabregue, M. (1990). The Evolution of Rock Climbing as a Sport. Contemporary Societies. https://www.persee.fr/doc/socco_1150- 1944_1990_num_2_1_958#xd_co_f=Zjc4MWUxMjYtMDgyYi00ODcxLWExNmYtZGIxN2EyZDBhYTU0~

Léséleuc, E. (1998). Contemporary Rock Climbing: A Taste for Risk or a Passion for… Reading?Agora débats/jeunesses, No. 11, 65–72. Contemporary Rock Climbing: A Taste for Risk or a Passion for… Reading? – Persée (persee.fr)

Marsac, A. (December 8, 2008). Canoeing and Kayaking: From Torrents to the Whitewater Stadium ( PhD Dissertation PhD Science and Technology of Physical and Sports Activities, Volume 1). Sociology of Practices and Ethnography of Learning, University of Paris Ouest Nanterre-La Défense.  PART I THE SOCIOGENESIS OF WHITEWATER PRACTICES:

(researchgate.net)

Mao, P., Bourdieu, P., & Bourdeau, P. (2003). Analysis of the territorialization processes of major destinations for nature-based tourism and sports: the example of the Verdon Gorge. Les routes à thèmes, 52-62.Analysis of the territorialization processes of major destinations for nature-based tourism and sports: the example of the Verdon Gorge (openedition.org)

Mao, P. (2003). Outdoor Sports Venues in Rural and Mountain Areas, A Contribution to

An analysis of the geographical space of sports. Sciences de l’Homme et Société, 1-694. Venues for sports activities

Nature in Rural and Mountain Areas: A Contribution to the Analysis of the Geographical Space of Sports (archives-ouvertes.fr)

Krieger, S-J. (April 2016).Greening a “Centaur”?Thesis submitted as part of the joint supervision between the doctoral program in regional development and the Doctoral School of Society, Politics, and Public Health, specializing in sociology, toward the degree of Doctor. SJ Krieger_thesis_jury corrections + UQAR outline

Suchet, A. (2011). The Sportification of So-Called "New" Practices. 1–12 . Microsoft Word – FINAL VERSION – sportification.doc (ulaval.ca)

Suchet, A. (2014).Fun Activities, Adventure Sports, and Outdoor Sports. Three Key Moments in the Evolution of Outdoor Sports Dynamics in France (1970–2010). 389–406 . Fun Activities, Adventure Sports, and Outdoor Sports. Three moments in the evolution of outdoor sports dynamics in France (1970–2010) (archives-ouvertes.fr)

Thevenot, G. (2014). From Representations of the Natural to Commercial Naturalness. Décisions Marketing. 11–25. From Representations of the Natural to Commercial Naturalness on JSTOR

Vachet, C. (2021). Representations and imaginaries of nature in rock climbing. The Imaginary Folds of Social Bonding. 109–

115. Outdoor sports as mediators of the city-mountain “pas de deux.” A livable environment in the making? | Cairn.info