The Concept of “Naturalness” in Indoor Climbing Practice

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 environments. Today, artificial climbing structures are proliferating and have become true training tools, where the primary objective is no longer to “replicate” nature indoors. The study demonstrates that the sport itself, its participants, their motivations, and the settings in which it is practiced have evolved significantly. These spaces bring together a diverse range of climbers and a wide variety of climbing styles. This study therefore examines the concept of “naturalness” in the practice of these climbers, who operate within an artificial environment. A qualitative analysis of the data we collected through six semi-structured interviews revealed 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 climb.

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

This quote aptly reflects the enthusiasm for mountaineering, and more specifically for rock climbing. This sport has undergone spectacular evolution and transformation 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 a man-made and sanitized environment. To fully clarify the subject, it seems important to differentiate and define certain concepts that are still used today without much distinction by those involved in sports tourism.

Naturalness is a concept with multiple meanings, 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 measure of the extent to which a space is—or is not—impacted by human influence. The concept of naturalness thus relates to the concept of “the natural.” Géraldine Thévenot is one of the leading authorities on this subject. For her, “the definition of ‘natural’ draws its origins from the idea of nature: ‘natural,’ at its core, is that which is given to us, that which is innate and stands in contrast 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 later serve as points of comparison with rock climbing and its practitioners.

In outdoor sports, the wilderness could be defined as an area for practicing these 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 growing 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-prominent “naturalness” of the outdoors (wilderness with minimal human intervention) ” (Corneloup, 2002, p. 7). Here, we could take high-altitude acrobatic courses as an example that exemplify this concept of“aroundoor,” as a means of making outdoor sports more accessible to the general public. Thus, these four concepts differ along a gradient of increasing artificiality and correspond to different practices:indoor ( artificial climbing structures), aroundoor ( easily accessible sport climbing sites), outdoor ( sporting 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 activity site or a recreational space, governed by various standards and certifications. Climbing sites are subject to increasingly sophisticated developments. These developments meet 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 mountains. 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. According to Jean Corneloup, a true “rupture-fracture” ( 1995, p. 2) emerged during this period. Profiles, climbing styles, motivations, and relationships with nature underwent significant changes. Consequently, a structured framework for climbing emerged alongside the institutionalization of the sport. New values such as playfulness, performance, and environmentalism began to take shape. Peer groups formed, dividing climbers into different categories. Corneloup studied climbers in Fontainebleau to identify different styles of climbing. He identified four groups: the “alpine-cafistes,” who adhere to alpine tradition, as opposed 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 characterized by great heterogeneity: climbers’ profiles, climbing styles, motivations, and practice locations are all factors that both divide and unite gym climbers. Indeed, consumption patterns are shifting and varied. To illustrate this “break” with the modern era, it is worth noting that today, for some climbers, climbing takes place exclusively indoors. They have turned their backs on outdoor crags and “rock climbing.” 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 phenomenon of the “naturalization” of the urban environment 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 practice their sport. Now, they find these sites nearby and grouped together within a single space. This transformation clearly reflects the quote from Louis Louvel cited in the introduction and the desire to be able to climb, even in urban settings. Our relationship with nature has evolved profoundly over time. Furthermore, according to Lafargue (1990), the development of artificial climbing walls (ACWs) has contributed significantly to the process of turning climbing into a sport, as well as to the evolution of climbing styles and the profile of climbers. For other authors such as Corneloup, Bourdeau, and Rodriguez, a new era in the 2000s could emerge and supplant the postmodern era: the transmodern form. In climbing, this movement is reflected in climbers who maintain a blend of practices. This cultural mix helps build 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?

Thus, in this article, we will attempt to explain how the concept of “naturalness” fits into the practice of indoor climbing and among its practitioners. We can hypothesize that there are different forms of naturalness, which vary depending on various factors that we will examine later, and 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 rock climbing. Information, scientific data, and scholarly 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 interview guide 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 then reached out via social media to several climbing gyms to inform them about the project and the specific profile we were seeking. Next, an email was sent to our contacts, who forwarded it to the various members of their gyms. This is how we were able to complete the sample, conducting a total of six interviews.

Due to the health crisis, all interviews were therefore 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 other interviews took place over the phone. However, this method has its limitations, as it is more difficult to gauge the interviewees and establish a climate of trust. Nevertheless, the remote format makes it easier to interview individuals residing in various locations. Furthermore, as Héas noted in 2022, this method “allows for standardized conditions for conducting the interviews” (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 consisting of various topics, which allowed us to 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 on 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 the concept of “naturalness,” we asked what role it played in their indoor and outdoor climbing practices, as well as in their lives. Finally, we examined “key” terms such as the concepts of “hybrid climbers” and “blending of practices” to gauge their opinions on these topics.

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

Disagreements regarding the definition of key terms

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

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

Thus, one might wonder whether climbers consider indoor climbing to be an “outdoor” sport—one practiced in the “great outdoors”—or 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 opinion, 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 rather say that it’s nature that we’ve brought into the city and therefore into the gym… I think that climbing indoors, 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 one’s relationship with nature is, in part, shaped by the definition one assigns to it. However, “the definition of ‘natural’ as marketed in products is inevitably shaped by the health and economic constraints of bringing products to market: 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 process of naturalization 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 the concept of naturalness is emphasized within this climbing 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 climber profiles—even among indoor climbers. Among them are climbers 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, we can now say that the connection to nature is virtually nonexistent inside the climbing gym. Since everything is artificial rather than natural and innate, all that remains are symbols and elements associated with nature as a reminder of naturalness. We could refer to a “domesticated connection to nature” to describe the presence of nature within climbing gyms.

As Géraldine Thevenot points out in *The Process of Naturalization*, the strategy employed by indoor climbing gyms is to highlight iconic elements that suggest and remind climbers that indoor climbing is connected to climbing in a natural environment. They focus on climbers’ perceptions of the natural world to allow them 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. Furthermore, a climber who engages in a variety of climbing styles or a “hybrid” approach necessarily maintains a connection with the natural environment, since it is, among other things, where they climb.

The data collected show that no systematic association 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 this group. To go from there to saying they’re environmentally conscious—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, that automatically makes them environmentally conscious. It’s often a quick assumption we make—in fact, just because you climb outdoors doesn’t necessarily mean you’re environmentally conscious. So, do those who climb 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 consciousness.” Greg confirms this view. Although he climbs only indoors, he also enjoys hiking and mountain biking. Moreover, he says he appreciates nature and that “it’s also related to how my parents raised me—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 linked to his climbing. However, he thinks that climbing outdoors “might awaken me even more.”

In this sense, one’s relationship with nature will be stronger or weaker depending on these various 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 brought to life through activity: ‘Connecting with nature requires a culture, a sense of being rooted in things that endure’” (2011, p. 16). Greg confirmed these remarks during our discussion. Growing up in the countryside and developing a love for nature during his childhood likely contributed greatly 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 influenced by one’s interest in the sport and, consequently, by one’s skill level. Certainly, climbers who climb exclusively indoors are often “beginners” and “young.” As Christian points out, “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—knowledge, technical ability, and interpersonal skills—are more advanced outdoors,” emphasizes Mélanie. Thus, it’s possible 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, rock climbing and canoeing were compared by Lapierre and Marsac in 2008 for their similarities and the deterritorialization of their respective practice environments. As with indoor rock climbing, canoeing at whitewater parks “brings together a diverse group in terms of both paddling 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 who belong to clubs. Consequently, this term primarily refers to non-competitors” (2008, p. 4). The participants found at artificial paddling sites are, for the most part, beginners. Marsac also states that “instructors emphasize that the participants they welcome have little experience with the activity” and “that it is more difficult to become familiar with and explore a natural site independently if one is unfamiliar with the region, its location, its difficulty level, 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 influence changes in the “urban relationship with nature” (Krieger, 2015, p. 9) that climbers may experience, or in 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 “Hybrid” and “Mixed” Naturalness

The Influence of External Factors: The Temporal Dimension Coupled with the Process of Sportification

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 shift toward competitive climbing has largely contributed to the creation of new value chains, new styles of practice, and, consequently, a new relationship with the sport and with nature. This is what

which 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 revolutionized 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 climbing 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 growth 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 refer to “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 climbers thus combine the traditional values of climbing with hypermodern values : a blend of playfulness, hedonism, and a connection to nature. It is the interaction between these perspectives that creates new forms of practice and a more or less profound connection to nature, depending on the context and the era.

Finally, the current social context influences our sports 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” form of naturalness, between disparate conceptions and the rise of the artificial

We’ve seen that rock climbing has been growing exponentially over the past twenty years or so. This market is subject to constant competition among the various climbing gyms, which is driving them to diversify. For Mélanie and Hugo, “ the gyms will steer consumers toward this behavior. It’s become a marketing issue—you pay to enter a gym just as you would to go to the movies! I think the environmental aspect will take a back seat—at least it will be a less common motivating factor.” Since people’s perceptions of the sport vary from one individual to another, it’s only natural that different perspectives will emerge. For Jean, who works at Boulderline, their “new slogan is ‘back to basics.’ The foundation of climbing is climbing rock outdoors, and we want to get back to that. Also, even indoors, we have a project to recreate certain boulders you’d find outdoors right in the gym. The idea is to identify boulders from the local area, or from places like Fontainebleau and Rockland (South Africa), and recreate them as faithfully as possible, to give climbers 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). To remain competitive, climbing gyms are subject to numerous changes and innovations, which either bring them closer to or further away from nature within their spaces. Jean Corneloup explained in 1993 that “the relationship with nature is always part of the ‘logos’ (the relationship) through which one expresses the values and imaginaries of one’s era, in reference to one’s position in the social sphere” (p. 19). Thus, individuals’ perceptions 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 relationship with nature than today’s “young” climbers. In the past, the very essence of the sport was rooted in the discovery of the natural environment. Marsac emphasizes 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 at whitewater centers is moving away from a school-like setting while becoming more independent from the fundamentals of river rafting” (p. 6). Indeed, “this quest to reconnect with nature—or even to merge with it—requires, in practical terms, learning about nature. Indeed, to navigate 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 a wave—and with space, since surfing would no longer take place exclusively in a marine environment, and with time, since the scheduling of waves would introduce a rationalization of ride times. The artificial creation of waves thus alters the ecology of the surfer’s relationship with the wave, which in a natural environment requires the development of a “sense of the sea” acquired through “attunement”—that is, the surfer’s motor and sensory ability to navigate a precarious, homeostatic environment ” (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 the 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 in a safe and convenient environment. The element of adventure—the physical and symbolic confrontation with the natural environment—is no longer present. Climbing has become an everyday sport, which is paradoxical given the idea that climbing in a natural setting allows one to break free from the urban environment. Indeed, the development of artificial climbing facilities impacts the climber’s relationship with their environment, since indoor climbers no longer need to understand or anticipate the natural environment in which they are climbing.

Conclusion

The 20th century was marked by numerous transformations 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 sites—some more “wild” than others—such as cliffs. Thus, rock climbing is practiced in a space that lies between urban environments and a “domestic” and/or “domesticated” natural setting.

The issue of “naturalness” in indoor rock climbing remains a topic that has received little attention in the scientific literature and among researchers. That is why we set out to examine the role of the concept of “naturalness” in indoor rock 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 climbing styles, 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 different individuals and varies depending on the climbing context. Thus, while climbers perceive “naturalness” differently, their relationship with nature is, in part, shaped by how they define it. 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 climbers’ perceptions of naturalness and the importance they attach to it. We have seen that the world of climbing operates within a “logic of multiplicity,” as there is a wide variety of climber profiles, even among indoor climbers themselves. Nevertheless, naturalness is not—or is only minimally—visible within a climbing gym from an intrinsic standpoint; rather, it exists solely in the imagination and in the way climbers perceive it. At first glance, therefore, climbers have no direct connection to naturalness. One might refer to this as a “domesticated relationship with nature.” However, just because nature is not physically present in the climbing 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 inevitably present in their practice, since they experience it firsthand when climbing on rock faces. Finally, the study highlighted that the evolution and transformation of the sport 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 sense of adventure or challenge, and no engagement with the natural environment. Consequently, the prospects for merging with nature 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 greater in their practice since they are directly 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 nature, 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 climbing gyms were created to replicate outdoor climbing indoors, but we wonder whether these gyms and their climbers are seeking to adapt their style to the outdoors. It would be interesting to expand this study by focusing research on this topic, in order to see whether changes in climbing practices are also disrupting 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 Shift of Outdoor Sports to Urban Settings. Education . Factors Influencing the Spread of Non-Traditional Sports Practices and Stakeholder Strategies: Comparative Case Studies on the Shift 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 Recreational Nature 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, 23–24. The Semi-Structured Interview: At the Intersection of Public Health and Anthropology | Cairn.info

Lafabregue, M. (1990). The Evolution of Sport Climbing. 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 Sciences and Techniques 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 Gorges. 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 Gorges (openedition.org)

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

An Analysis of the Geographical Space of Sports. Sciences de l’Homme et Société, 1-694. Places Where Sports Are Practiced

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 arrangement 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 of Philosophy. SJ Krieger_thesis_jury corrections + UQAR outline

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

Suchet, A. (2014).Fun Activities, Adventure Sports, and Outdoor Sports. Three Milestones in the Evolution of Outdoor Sports Dynamics in France (1970–2010). 389–406 . Fun Activities, Adventure Sports, and Outdoor Sports. Three Milestones 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 New Vision of Livability? | Cairn.info