Nature for everyone? Planning perspectives on accessibility, disability and participation in the Swedish outdoors

For older adults and people with disabilities, it can be difficult to participate in recreation due to inaccessible nature. This can lead to exclusion when it comes to outdoor experiences and health. Nature-based solutions for quality of life are hence essential. Through semi-structured interviews with Swedish municipal and county representatives, and representatives of interest organizations for people with physical disabilities, we identify challenges in the planning and management of the recreational landscape in relation to accessibility and participation. We enlighten how accessibility and social inclusion can be enhanced through planning and management to promote health through equal access to nature.


Introduction
Most recreation experiences do not just happen; they have to be provided for in some way.(Jenkins & Pigram, 2006, p. 372) Recreational experiences are strongly connected to spatial planning and management of nature, and to society's ability to provide the conditions for people to be in nature, such as various aspects of accessibility.For people with disabilities, as well as for many older adults, the lack of accessibility becomes an obstacle to participate in outdoor recreation activities on equal terms to people without disabilities (Bell et al., 2007;Burns et al., 2009;Lovelock, 2010).If nature is to be accessible and inclusive to everyone, a better understanding of the participation patterns and perceived limitations of people with disabilities is necessary (Bell, 2019;Corazon et al., 2019).In addition, identifying the challenges as perceived by planners and managers, for example how to include different interests and needs, is necessary to achieve more inclusive outdoor recreation (Groulx et al., 2021).This has also been underlined by other scholars.For instance, it is essential to consider access to nature in the context of justice, and to understand how planners and managers handle these issues in practice (Wolch et al., 2014;Wüstemann et al., 2017;Dahlberg et al., 2022).We explore the above further with the objective to contribute to the limited literature on nature, outdoor recreation, and accessibility to enable people with disabilities and older adults to improve their health and well-being through activities in nature.
An active lifestyle has numerous positive effects for the individual, and for society at large.Thus, more proactive promotion of an active lifestyle benefits the individual in terms of better health and is a cost-effective use of societal resources as it reduces healthcare costs (Thompson Coon et al., 2011;Zingmark et al., 2019).Therefore, it is important to enhance accessibility to nature.Increased accessibility, in turn, means that people can enhance their quality of life.The health benefits of nature interactions, as well as the long tradition of being outdoors, have led to a political discussion of the priority of outdoor recreation in Sweden.In 2012, the Swedish Parliament enacted an outdoor recreation policy with ten goals of which one is 'Accessible nature for everyone' where it is stated that 'All people should have the opportunity to be in and enjoy nature and cultural landscapes, where the various needs of people are met' (Swedish Gov Writ, 2012/13, p. 51).
Access to nature is hence a high priority in Swedish planning.The Planning and Building Act (The Swedish Parliament, 2010) declares that Swedish municipalities have juridical control of the land use.While the municipality has the jurisdiction over land use planning matter, the county administrative board represents and coordinates the state's interests.At a governmental level, there is a strong belief that the municipal planning system should promote and protect outdoor recreation as a general interest in Sweden.The municipalities are expected to retain and safeguard nature through spatial planning, while also making nature accessible.Simultaneously, there is tension between the desire for nature on one hand and urban densification on the other hand (Petersson Forsberg, 2014).In our definition of nature in this paper, we include coasts, mountains, meadows, and forests but also urban green spaces with parks, green wedges, and gardens etc.The types of nature environments where outdoor recreation is performed may vary as much as the outdoor activities (Norman et al., 2010).
In this study, we investigate how equal access to nature and participation in planning as well as collaboration, may be improved for older adults and people with physical disabilities.To examine this, we primarily use the case of Östersund municipality in Sweden, along with three other Swedish municipalities (Huddinge, Örebro and Örnsköldsvik).The questions we explore are: • How is the concept 'accessibility' defined in relation to outdoor recreation and disabilities?• How is accessibility to nature areas handled in practice by the public sector (planners and managers)?• What are the perceived challenges to improve accessibility?
• How is collaboration and participation considered regarding accessibility in nature areas?
We begin by reviewing the concept of accessibility to nature including an examination of participation, collaboration, and social inclusion in the planning and management of outdoor recreation in Sweden.Our study population includes older adults age 65 and above, reflecting the retirement age in Sweden and people with physical disabilities, congenital or due to accidents or illness, without any age restrictions.We then describe the method used.Next, we present the findings followed by a final discussion about the role of planning and management for enhancing accessibility to outdoor recreation.This study contributes to the understanding of the role of planning and management of nature environments to improve accessibility for everyone.We also hope our findings may lead to societal benefits by illustrating concrete local planning and management examples, and thereby encourage further equality and learning.

Accessibility -environmental and social barriers
In simple terms, accessibility concerns people's ability to reach geographically dispersed activities, attractions, and amenities (Solá et al., 2018).A location's accessibility depends on factors such as transportation systems, infrastructure, information, and the terrain where different physical barriers can be experienced.In addition to the physical, technological, and information barriers, there are social barriers including policies, norms, and attitudes (Rigolon et al., 2022).Hence, to understand accessibility to nature in relation to recreational activities of older adults and people with disabilities, it is necessary to include several dimensions.By an ecological model of environmental justice of recreation, Rigolon et al. (2022) describe the impacts on the ability of marginalized people to take part in recreation.Except for the individual factors, Rigolon and colleagues have identified four environments; the perceived (individual meanings/interpretations of a place), the social (e.g.norms and social climate), the physical (natural and built items), and the policy (if and how issues are viewed as principal).In Sweden, one major part of the policy environment is the Right of Public Access (Allemansrätten), which allows the public to be in nature without the landowner's permission and is thereby essential to outdoor recreation (Hansen et al., 2022).We include the above factors when considering accessibility as a concept in this paper.Accessibility can be enhanced through various practical measures, such as improved infrastructure and increased preparation of a location, and through information.Nevertheless, even though knowledge about accessibility is not new in parks and protected areas, it has been under-prioritized in planning and management (Groulx et al., 2021;Wall-Reinius et al., 2023).In addition, there needs to be greater awareness in policy and planning that neither older adults nor people with disabilities are homogeneous groups; some climb mountains while others use a walker, some seek adventure and challenges, while others want tranquility (Figueiredo et al., 2012;McKercher & Darcy, 2018;Zingmark et al., 2021).By acknowledging that various motives and needs in combination with perceived environmental barriers, different planning stakeholders, and policymakers may achieve a better understanding of recreational preferences and outdoor independence (Schehl & Leukel, 2020).
In this paper, we highlight the societal aspects of access to nature; it is society that creates barriers to full participation for marginalized groups (Oliver, 1990(Oliver, , 1996; also see Barnes, 2019 for an overview of the origins of the social model of disability).In other words, society itself is responsible for the exclusion of, for example, people with disabilities.This understanding calls for action focused on a shift in societal attitudes and structures and on collaboration between stakeholders, including planners, managers, and persons with disabilities, to improve accessibility and reduce disabling environments.Society in general, and recreational areas, are designed by and for people without disabilities, thus, due to physical, social, and financial barriers people with disabilities have few opportunities to engage in outdoor activities (Oliver & Barnes, 2012).However, participation is a complex and multifaceted construct where the focus should be on the level of social relationships, groups, communities, and cultures and not on people with disabilities.
Even though one main goal of management of outdoor recreation in Sweden is to create opportunities for participation for everyone, we can certainly ask if nature is accessible to everyone, or if everybody feels respected, welcome, and supported (see Bell, 2019).Dahlberg et al. (2022) push for future studies to consider local planning practicalities, which we address in this study when we investigate how the practical work is carried out.It is also important to understand the ways in which the municipalities collaborate and include participatory practices in the planning of nature to increase accessibility.In Sweden, a formal requirement for dialogue (i.e. the municipalities must consult with various stakeholders) is established in the Planning and Building Act.In addition, the municipalities are encouraged to invest in extended citizen dialogues, which strengthens democracy, for example, in relation to the Swedish national objective of disability to 'achieve equitable living conditions and full participation in a diverse society for people with disabilities' based on the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Swedish National Board of Housing, Building and Planning webpage).By including the experiences and views of interest organizations for people with physical disabilities, we hence intend to increase the understanding of accessibility by studying how accessibility is perceived and the opinions of participatory practices in planning of nature areas.

Methods
Before presenting our case in more detail, it is worth mentioning the scope of the target groups.The elderly population is rapidly increasing, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of the total population in Sweden.Currently, between 20% and 30% of the Swedish population in municipalities is aged 65 and above.This percentage is anticipated to rise in the upcoming decades.The share of individuals aged 80 and above is projected to rise by 50% by 2028 (SCB Statistics Sweden, 2018).It is challenging to specify the proportion of individuals with disabilities due to variations in demarcations and definitions.In Sweden, there are no official statistics regarding the percentage of individuals with disabilities.Notably, in a national outdoor recreation survey among the Swedish population, nearly 20% reported having a disability that affects their ability to engage in outdoor activities (Fredman et al., 2019).

Case study
This is a case study (Yin, 2003) that includes especially municipal but also regional and national levels in Sweden to gain a deeper understanding of the above issues.In Östersund municipality, planning and management representatives were interviewed, as well as local representatives of interest organizations for people with physical disabilities.Planning and management representatives of Huddinge, Örebro and Örnsköldsvik municipalities were also interviewed.Due to their work with accessible outdoor recreation, each of these municipalities have been awarded the label 'Sweden's outdoor municipality of the year' by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA), the Swedish Outdoor Association, 1 and the Swedish Leisure and Culture Managers' Association.Hence these localities are relevant to include in our study to further understand accessibility in practice, as well as collaboration and participation.Both urban and rural nature are represented in the case study areas, which widens our understanding of various challenges of an accessible outdoors for everyone.The locations of the case study areas are presented in Figure 1.
Östersund municipality is located in Jämtland County and has about 64,000 inhabitants of which 21% are over the age of 65 (in 2019).There are several nature reserves in the municipality to conserve valuable environments and biodiversity, which are also aimed at recreational purposes.Outdoor recreation and spending time in nature for

PLANNING PRACTICE & RESEARCH
various activities is an important part of the area's identity for all ages.In winter, it is possible to do long-distance ice-skating on lakes and cross-country skiing.Within the city there are two ski slopes, and the Scandinavian mountains are only an hour's drive away.In summer, common activities include walking and hiking (both in the urban nature areas and in the mountains), picking berries and mushrooms, and cycling.Since 2019, Östersund municipality is a member of the WHO Global Network Age-friendly Cities and Communities, which encourages initiatives that address the well-being and participation of older adults.
Huddinge municipality borders the urban area of Stockholm in the north and has about 113,000 inhabitants of which 13% are over the age of 65 (in 2019).The municipality encompasses protected areas, and several urban parks while popular outdoor activities include swimming, fishing, bird watching and hiking.Huddinge municipality intends to make nature accessible to all age groups and people with disabilities.For example, hiking trails have become accessible for people with reduced mobility and there are age-appropriate nature guides for children and young people.Further, the municipality's spatial planning addresses nature close to homes and schools.
Örebro municipality has about 156,400 inhabitants of which 18% are over the age of 65 (in 2019).Örebro city is Sweden's seventh largest urban area.The municipality collaborates with private landowners, companies, authorities, organizations, and associations, and emphasizes the idea of 'Nature for everyone': as many people as possible from different social groups should be able to access nature.The municipality has invested in making urban nature accessible, focusing on people with disabilities and people with a foreign background in recent years.
Örnsköldsvik town and municipality are located within the UNESCO world heritage site High Coast, which offers many outdoor activities, including hiking, swimming, canoeing, golfing, bird watching, ice skating, and skiing.About 56,000 people, of which 24% are over the age of 65 (in 2019), live in the municipality.Just above half of the inhabitants live in the Örnsköldsvik urban area.The municipality prioritizes older adults and people with disabilities when seeking to make the physical outdoor environment accessible, especially around elderly housing.Investments have been made in outdoor recreation for both younger and older adults and everyone is to have the opportunity for mixed outdoor recreation and nature experiences (Örnsköldsvik municipality, 2016).

Semi-structured interviews
A total of 13 semi-structured interview occasions were carried out in 2020.In total, the study includes 18 participants from municipalities, county administrative board, and organizations.Table 1 depicts the participants' roles and responsibilities, which were important selection criteria in being contacted and selected to participate.We have anonymized the participants, and as a result, it is not possible for us to indicate to which municipality they belong.Five of the interviews were conducted in pairs at the request of the interviewees, either because these individuals work together or share the same specialization.
Six of the interviews were conducted in February-March 2020 with various representatives of Östersund municipality and the county administrative board of Jämtland.The interviewees work with planning and management, accessibility issues, public health, or outdoor recreation.We asked about accessibility, plans and strategies, obstacles and challenges identified regarding accessibility in nature, identification of actual adaptations and other nature environments, as well as cooperation within the organization and with other organizations.
With the same set of questions as described above, four additional interviews were conducted in June 2020 with representatives from Huddinge, Örebro, and Örnsköldsvik municipalities.Due to the geographical distance, these interviews were carried out by telephone.These cannot fully be compared with face-to-face interviews due to lack of various interactional aspects during face-to-face interviews (Irvine et al., 2013).The purpose was to achieve a clear distribution across various areas of responsibility at the regional and local levels -planning and administration, health, outdoor activities, accessibility -to gain insight into how these issues are addressed in different sectors.Based on a project reference group, we acquired knowledge about whom to contact, employing a snowball sampling approach.During the same period, we conducted three semi-structured interviews with representatives of interest organizations for people with physical disabilities in Jämtland (member associations), see Table 1.These organizations exist at the national level with district associations, which we reached out to in Jämtland.We inquired about how accessibility to urban green spaces and nature areas for outdoor activities is discussed within the organizations, and different needs related to accessibility.Also, desired adjustments to increase accessibility to nature (before and during a visit), the perception of collaboration with Östersund municipality, and involvement in the planning and management of urban green areas were inquired.During all the semi-structured interviews, we asked additional questions to encourage a deeper dialogue with the respondents, who often included personal narratives as well as additional information (Kvale, 2006).This leads to further development of statements, descriptions, and examples by the respondents.
The interviews lasted approximately 1-1.5 hours, during which two researchers asked questions and took notes.All interviews were recorded and transcribed.During our analysis process, we identified key themes, patterns, and differences from the notes and transcripts.No data analysis software was used.Rather, we preferred an analog coding structure with notes and color pens.We also re-listened to parts of the recorded interviews to better comprehend contexts and quotes.As described by Cope and Kurtz (2016), the coding process is flexible, involving an ongoing theme-building process that we have recognized throughout our research.The interviews were conducted in Swedish and direct quotations have been translated, followed by language proof-reading.Before the interviews, the participants were informed about the research topic, and that they could choose to end their participation at any time.The study has been approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (Dnr.2019-04935 and Dnr 2022-01009-01).

Understanding accessibility
This section concerns the planners' and other representatives' understanding of the concept of accessibility.We asked them: How is accessibility defined by your organization?For many of the interviewees, accessibility was difficult to define.Several of them viewed accessibility as a broad concept with various aspects and purposes.None of the municipal or county administrative board representatives interviewed apply a specific definition of the concept accessibility in their work.For example, when asked how the Jämtland county administrative board defines accessibility, the answers received were individual definitions based on the interviewee's focus and professional expertise.One of the interviewees defined accessibility in relation to cultural environments; the extent to which these are physically accessible and digitally accessible through information and an overall understanding of strategies.Another interviewee stated that participation and influence (physically and digitally) is a matter of accessibility.Equality and participation were also mentioned when defining accessibility.The development strategists emphasized different strategies and conventions for human rights (UN Agenda 2030, Public Health Strategy, etc.) when discussing accessibility -without explaining how the concept is defined.One of the leisure developers for people with disabilities in Östersund noted that everything is about accessibility -even though it is not specified in their work.Interestingly, the municipal landscape architect reflected on how the view of accessibility has changed over time with the movement of new residential areas away from nature.Activities and recreation are hence being relocated far away.The same interviewee considered this shift as disadvantageous and a dismantling of the residential areas.
The definition of accessibility was also vague in our interviews with the other three municipalities of Huddinge, Örebro, and Örnsköldsvik.The Örebro municipality representative considered accessibility as a broad concept at different levels and referred to the municipal accessibility strategy for a specific definition.According to the person interviewed from Huddinge municipality, there is no specific definition of accessibility within their department, even though there might be a definition at the municipal level.The development strategist in Örnsköldsvik municipality said that it was probably unlikely that there was a clear definition of accessibility, but the definitions used by the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare and the Swedish Agency for Participation were included in their work.The outdoor strategist from Örnsköldsvik municipality explained that the more they work with accessibility, the bigger and broader it becomes.
It was also valuable to hear the definition of accessibility by the representatives of various interest organizations for people with disabilities.Again, the concept is wideranging.It was obvious that everyone asked believes that any definition of accessibility should include an opportunity to live a good life, be able to live independently, cope with everyday life, and participate in leisure activities.From this point of view, accessibility is also closely connected to the possibility (or the right to) of personal assistance, as stipulated in The Swedish Act concerning Support and Services for Persons with Certain Functional Impairments 1993 (LSS).The LSS is immensely significant to accessibility.The representative for Disabled children and young people stated that without the LSS, their son would not be able to get anywhere.The strong connection between being in nature, physical activity, and wellbeing was also emphasized by the interest organizations.

Outdoor recreation and accessibility in planning and management
Regarding the question about what planners do in their work to create accessible nature and outdoor recreation, one recurring theme concerned adaptations and built facilities.Several interviewees talked about adaptations such as signs, ramps, adapted toilets, parking spaces, and trails with tightly packed gravel or otherwise accommodated to obtain a flatter surface.Some interviewees address accessibility at a very detailed level, for example by putting more benches in public spaces, others have a broader approach to accessibility, for instance that nature should be used by as many people as possible in society.In Östersund, a previously secluded military area, about 10 km outside the city core and with no public transport, has been restored for outdoor recreation with adapted toilets, picnic areas, ramps and marked trails.Similar examples are to be found in the other locations and municipalities as well.In Huddinge, however, nature areas are kept close to where people live and several of the nature reserves are adjacent to commuter trains.Similarly, Örebro accommodates nature reserves near transportation infrastructure and the municipality overall works broadly with accessibility in nature areasphysically and cognitively -with vision and hearing aided through tactile maps, adjusted trails, and digital apps, etc.Today, 17 of the 21 municipal nature reserves in Örebro have been partially developed to increase accessibility for people with reduced mobility.Three reserves are also accessible for people who have visual or hearing disabilities, as well as for people with cognitive disabilities (the ability to recognize and orientate oneself in the landscape and use of symbolic language).
Small adjustments can also create accessibility, for instance building ramps, graveled trails (see Figure 2), or toilets.Sometimes just a little is enough, according to one of the representatives of the interest organizations.When major constructions are not possible, simple adjustments can be made that create opportunities for people with disabilities.An example mentioned in our interviews, is to offer visits to nature in groups with a guide.

Challenges to enhance accessibility
One of our interview questions concerned challenges to enhance accessibility to nature environments.In general, several of the challenges concerned funding, both for construction and maintenance of adaptations, and facilities in nature.The municipal representatives in Östersund all expressed concerns over tight budgets and the lack of longterm perspectives.The interviewed find it challenging to obtain money to finance adaptations in nature and to create long-lasting accessibility, and they state that when the project money is spent, the project also ends.As stated in one interview: We have too few resources. . . .There is a great deal of uncertainty, some years we have a lot of money and the next year we may not have any money, so it is difficult to start projects because they usually take longer than a year.Long-term planning for this type of adaptions is difficult.
Figure 3 depicts a nature reserve in Östersund which is promoted as accessible with ramps, even though, these have been unusable and dangerous since 2017.
Likewise, Huddinge municipality highlighted the issue of funding.They often apply for external funding with some success.However, rather than building new facilities, they often have to use the funds to maintain existing ones.One problem is the lack of adapted toilets.The interviewee explained that this may prevent people visiting nature.However, it was an active choice by the municipality not to invest in toilets because it requires such labor-intensive and substantial investment.The representative from Örebro municipality stated that, generally, they have a larger budget for development and investment as opposed to maintenance purposes.If maintenance is delayed, it usually leads to the need for completely new investments -which is costly.According to the interviewee in Örebro, investments and maintenance are part of the same department.Therefore, the budget for these two purposes is shared, which can be an advantage compared to many other municipalities, which have separated investments and maintenance.
In addition to the challenge of obtaining financing, the ongoing urban densification and adaptions on private land were also mentioned in the interviews.As explained by the outdoor recreation developer in Östersund, their accessibility-related efforts only cover municipal land since it is easier to manage, even though there is interest in cooperating with private landowners, for example regarding trails.Protecting nature close to and within cities was emphasized in the interviews, and the compact urban development was identified as a challenge.There were concerns that the benefits of nature experiences would disappear if the green spaces became too small and several interviewees described what one of the representatives in Östersund stated 'recreational activities have been moved further afield'.A representative from an interest organization said that the likelihood of engaging in outdoor activities increases when nature is nearby: Nature is incredibly important.Green spaces make all the difference in giving a positive stimulus from some sort of nature.This may be extra important for those with disabilities, so that they do not need a car to get out of the city.It is more difficult with a wheelchair and having to lift a person into a car . . .The respondent continued and showed concerns about the on-going densification: 'Access to beaches around the lake is very important regardless of who you are and what your needs are.Densification means that there have been fewer such areas'.
Yet another difficulty found was knowledge of preferences and needs, including the trade-off between conservation and making nature accessible.Signs are sometimes perceived as negative adaptations that diminish the authentic feeling of being in nature while others wish to have adapted paths across grazing lands or cultural heritage areas.However, the representative from Huddinge municipality explained the positive effects recreational infrastructure has on nature: We see that by making nature areas more accessible, it is not only older adults and people with physical disabilities who go outside and appreciate it.It benefits the entire population such as families with children, pregnant women, people with injuries, etc.Then there is also the point that we can channel people to areas that are less sensitive when we make these accessible.There are only positive effects . . .Örebro municipality emphasized that the greatest challenge is that the perception of the accessibility is individual.Adaptations will never suit everyone, the representatives argued, and 'some people may always need help to visit nature areas'.Surveying and mapping recreational use of different areas, and where to prioritize actions for increased accessibility, is problematic for municipalities that cover large geographical areas.Predicting preferences and future demands and uses of nature for outdoor recreation is difficult.Consequently, accommodating different preferences is also a challenge to planning and management.

Collaboration and participation in planning and management
One focus of the study is to find out more about how the public authorities work with collaboration and participation in planning and management to address some of the challenges identified, and thereby increase accessibility.One example of internal collaboration is found in the municipality of Örnsköldsvik, which has created a 'Nature group'.The group consists of municipal representatives specifically tasked with creating and encouraging collaboration between different units within the same organization, thus, different parts of the municipal organization contribute with different competence.The interviewees described this group as well-structured, with the intention to gain an overview of and prioritize nature areas for improved accessibility.In Östersund, the development of an accessible nature reserve was mentioned as a successful approach to collaboration between three different departments within the municipality.The department responsible for outdoor recreation issues is increasingly being invited to meetings concerning detailed planning and has consequently tried to prevent plans for buildings in recreational areas.Nevertheless, the municipal representative expressed that collaboration between different administrations in Östersund municipality could be better and less 'siloed' within the organization.Overall, few of the interviewed public representatives mentioned intraorganizational collaboration to increase accessibility.However, shortcomings in the municipal organization make collaboration, exchange of knowledge, and information flows more difficult.The development strategist in Östersund acknowledged that internal issues needed to be addressed: Previously, they [planning and management] had start-up meetings that we were invited to, where we could give input on things that needed to be improved.Now we are involved at other stages which is sometimes problematic since we are included at the end [of the process] when things have already been decided.We should be involved earlier; the planning side also thinks so.The will is there, but there is no functional way right now.
This was confirmed in the interview with the leisure developers for people with disabilities (within the municipal health and care services department).They explained that collaboration only exists with other units in the sector of disability in Östersund municipality.There is no major collaboration between the three departments that work with disabilities, outdoor recreation, and nature.
Different forums and collaborative approaches were expressed as necessary to manage the challenges of inaccessible environments and attitudes.The interviews highlighted examples of how accessibility is improved through collaboration with member associations, reference groups, and cross-administration collaboration within the public sector.By the 'Accessibility council', the interest organizations in Östersund can collaborate locally.However, the forum has been criticized for becoming transformed into information meetings instead of providing the opportunity for dialogue.
Furthermore, Huddinge municipality has a 'Disability council' including politicians, officials, and different associations.This is how people with disabilities and older adults become involved in the spatial planning, according to the interviewee.Huddinge municipality also has a 'Forum for dialogue' with different associations to create collaboration.Nonetheless, reaching out to some groups is viewed as difficult according to Örebro municipality, even though there are some contacts with different interest groups, and schools that have students with visual and hearing disabilities.Furthermore, the development strategist in Örnsköldsvik emphasizes the UN Convention as the basis for her work.Thus, the municipality is obligated to interact and collaborate with older adults and people with disabilities early on in their processes.This is achieved through 'citizen dialogues' or the local 'Accessibility council' and enthusiastic individuals, as well new ways of involving people.The interviewee illustrates how municipal work includes both participants, joint activities, and fieldwork in outdoor recreation areas: We have begun to have meetings in the actual areas that we are having meetings about.This means that we gain a better understanding about what we are planning for.We get the full context in a completely different way than if you just look at a plan design.
Consequently, associations for older adults and other associations become involved to increase accessibility and provide feedback.In recent years, trips to nature areas have been arranged with different groups of people with different needs (various ages, different capacities to see, hear or walk) to increase understanding and knowledge.
Representatives of the interest organizations clearly desire participation and collaboration, even though it is a complex matter.One major issue is how and by whom.Commitment and non-profit work are problematic when associations experience declining numbers of members who are often also elderly.It makes commitment and energy difficult, according to the interviewee.According to the different member associations, it is also a sad truth that neither nature nor outdoor recreation are discussed centrally.Instead, the on-going threat of disassembly of the personal assistance (LSS) is the primary focus, even if nature is very important for the wellbeing.

Discussion
In this study, we have focused on the planning and management of nature environments with accessibility in mind.We ground our empirical findings on interviews with local and regional public authorities in four municipalities in Sweden, and with representatives from interest organizations for people with disabilities.We identify that there are adaptations and facilities in some nature areas (adapted toilets, picnic areas, ramps, marked trails with gravel, parking spaces and signs etc.) made by the public sector in our study.In some areas, tactile maps, and digital apps have been developed.Public transportation and nature close to where people live are also exemplified in this study.Nevertheless, despite the well acknowledged positive link between wellbeing and being active outdoors in nature (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989;Thompson, 2011;Bell, 2019), where communities are working to some extent with activities and adaptations in nature to increase accessibility, there are still challenges to overcome in planning and management.
Priorities and lack of financial resources are obvious challenges.While different investments may have been made from the beginning to enable various adaptations in nature, the issue thereafter becomes maintaining the adaptations and having the funds to keep facilities in a good condition.Lack of financial resources creates great instability in long-term planning, which is very much confirmed in our study.This is similar to the findings presented by Wall-Reinius et al. (2023) who have studied providers of accessible nature-based tourism.They concluded that nature-based tourism companies and managers of nature areas lack financial resources and long-term planning, and that providers of nature areas have limited knowledge about people with disabilities, also adding to difficulties in assessing efforts and priorities.The fact that municipalities are politically governed brings about short budget processes, and the political regime (or interests) has an impact on the priorities and resource allocations.Funding of accessibility initiatives is a major challenge for both public and private stakeholders, thus, stakeholder collaboration can be an important part in the strategic work to secure financing, share costs, and make priorities based on knowledge about users and needs (Wall-Reinius et al., 2023).
We can conclude that various types of nature areas and a range of different adaptations is necessary, which would better address the heterogeneity of preferences and needs (Bell, 2019;Wall-Reinius et al., 2023).This reflects the conclusion of Burns et al. (2009) who point out the importance of dialogue with different groups with disabilities about their outdoor recreation preferences.We also see the need to improve surveys and other ways to find out who spends time in nature and what their preferences and needs are.In our study, for instance field trips together with a group of people with disabilities were mentioned as a method.
Social inclusion of different groups in society, including older adults and people with disabilities, is important in future planning and management because it not only enables inclusion and justice, but also the strategic work around priorities and investments, which is essential when financial resources are limited.One key strategic factor regarding accessibility is information -onsite and online.Inaccurate or absent information is a barrier to accessibility.The challenge is understanding how to distribute the information, knowing which information is needed, and how information of an accessible nature can reach the target group -something that could be improved by closer stakeholder collaboration and participatory approaches in planning and management.As such it is essential that people with different disabilities are involved in the planning process.Additionally, as indicated by the findings of Hammel et al. (2008Hammel et al. ( , p. 1459)), participation in society is both a right, and personal and societal responsibility that 'requires determination, advocacy, and empowerment'.Hammel et al. (2008) found that the ability to network with other people with disabilities as well as memberships in organizations create a sense of shared understanding and strength, which unlocks opportunities for participation.
In our study, including older adults and people with physical disabilities so that they can participate and become involved in processes at different levels is a challenge.Several of the interviewees emphasized that they work with accessibility for everyone -not for specific target groups.In terms of participation, collaboration has taken place regarding the strategic development of certain nature areas in the case study areas.Finding key people is also highlighted in connection with participation.Several alternatives for including people with disabilities to influence policy have been presented in earlier research, such as allowing the community to present perceived problems, supporting community-led initiatives, and involving the community to generate solutions (Hodgson & Turner, 2003).To find and involve those who are concerned with current accessibility is viewed as difficult in our study.Furthermore, the councils in which politicians and different municipal departments meet the interest organizations, have become information meetings rather than valuable meetings with dialogue.Hence, increased collaboration between the public organizations and interest organizations for people with disabilities may raise awareness and enhance knowledge, and not least contribute to social inclusion and connectedness.We see a system problem within the public sector, which prevents reaching a more sustainable and fair society.We identify shortcomings in the municipal internal organization, which make collaboration, exchange of knowledge, learning and information flows difficult.This may be due to the absence of internal communication and collaboration between units.Previous research has found that matters are often dealt with within one's own unit -in silos -and rarely dealt with across units and areas of expertise (e.g.Laven et al., 2015;Solá et al., 2018).This makes planning and management of nature areas demanding.Our research shows that collaboration and participation in planning is difficult, complex, and multidimensional.At the same time as we acknowledge that, we strongly trust that increased collaboration between different units within the same organization, for example within the municipality, is an important element since different expert units possess knowledge and experiences that could enable a better, holistic view of accessibility issues.We see the need to address these issues horizontally and not vertically within municipal organization.Concretely, and as important research implications, this means that our research makes an important contribution to clarify that the public sector must be an active enabler and find new ways of working to bridge silos or drainpipes.Long-term collaborations and effective planning, which focus on finding solutions rather than obstacles, can only be fostered when municipalities are willing to experiment with new working methods, clarify responsibilities, and establish platforms for reflection, experience sharing, and learning.It is through these initiatives that opportunities are created to break new ground and achieve meaningful progress.
Out research also emphasizes the importance of how the concept accessibility is interpreted and understood.The interviewees in our study generally agreed that the concept of accessibility is broad and encompasses many different aspects.The concept is used both on a strategic and practical level, and on an individual and societal level that concerns physical and mental aspects, distance, as well as availability of information and participation.To conclude, there is no shared understanding of the concept of accessibility, not even within the same institution or association.To facilitate collaboration and further progress, we therefore encourage public authorities to discuss views, interpretations, and use of the concept of accessibility at different levels within and between organizations.Here, a development of the ecological model of environmental justice for recreation by Rigolon et al. (2022) can be applied and further support organizations to structure the dialogue around various dimensions of accessibility: perceived interpretations of a place; social barriers and norms; physical setting and geographical preconditions, and policy context.
Our research, like others (e.g.Corazon et al., 2019;Zingmark et al., 2021;Dahlberg et al., 2022), shows that closeness to nature is an important prerequisite for getting out and taking part in outdoor activities.However, our study participants raise the challenge of urban densification leading to diminishing nature areas.Given nature's healthpromoting effects and the national directives and goals including protection of nature and making nature accessible for everyone, it would be relevant to further investigate whether Sweden's municipalities take this issue into account when other (conflicting) goals are to be realized in spatial planning.As nature moves further away from people and our homes, it becomes increasingly difficult for certain groups to have access to nature.Unequal access to nature becomes clear in relation to people with disabilities, thus considering access to nature from an environmental justice perspective is imperative (see Dahlberg et al., 2022).
We can conclude that proximity to nature is the single most important factor to enable more equal access to nature and thereby facilitate for people who cannot participate in nature experiences on the outskirts of towns or in more peripheral places.We believe that if the importance of everyday life experiences in nearby nature were increasingly recognized, knowledge of the marginalized groups would be strengthened too.

Conclusion
Our study contributes to the understanding of accessibility by investigating the experiences and perceptions of Swedish local and regional planners and managers, and how they apply the concept of accessibility in their work.Based on the findings of this study, we can outline six categories of challenges in planning and management of accessible nature.Firstly, i) the lack of financial resources is a major difficulty in the management of nature areas.Secondly, we would like to highlight ii) limited knowledge of people's preferences and needs when visiting nature.Moreover, iii) deficient participation and representation from different groups in society in planning and management are also identified challenges.Additionally, iv) the lack of a shared conceptual understanding of 'accessibility' as a challenge in planning practice.Furthermore, we conclude that v) weak stakeholder collaboration, including intra organizational collaboration within authorities responsible for spatial planning and management, hinders successful work in making nature more accessible.Finally, vi) urban densification leading to compact cities with decreasing access to nature is identified as one of the fundamental problems of contemporary urban planning ideals.These conclusions are of importance for further negotiations and implementation.Zingmark, M., Norström, F., Lindholm, L., Dahlin-Ivanoff, S., & Gustafsson, S. (2019) Modelling long term cost effectiveness of health promotion for community dwelling older people, European Journal of Ageing, 16(4), pp.395-404.doi:10.1007/s10433-019-00505-1

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Map of Sweden with case study areas.

Table 1 .
Overview of the study participants.