--- topic: "Nature and Green Space" title: "How Much Time in Nature Do You Need?" order: 1 description: "About two hours a week in parks, woods or by water is linked to better health and wellbeing. What green-space studies show, and what they cannot prove." question: "How much time in nature do you need for better health?" answer: "Around two hours a week in nature likely helps, in one visit or several, with gains leveling off near three to five hours." actions: - "Aim for about 120 minutes a week in a park, garden, wood or by water: among nearly 20,000 people surveyed, one visit or several made no difference [1]." - "Short breaks help: in 36 city dwellers, drops in the stress hormone cortisol were most efficient at 20 to 30 minutes outdoors [4]." - "When your mind is stuck in worry, try a long, quiet walk in a natural setting. A 90-minute nature walk reduced brooding, and a 90-minute city walk did not [5]." cautions: - "In tick country, check skin after outings: evidence for each habit is limited, so combine repellent, clothing and checks; see a doctor for rash or fever after a bite [12]." - "Time in nature supports, but does not replace, care for depression, anxiety or high blood pressure. If symptoms persist, see a clinician [7]." confidence: 3 confidenceNote: "Big surveys and cohorts agree, and a few trials support mood benefits, but nature time is self-reported and confounded by income, health and neighborhood." evidenceSummary: rctCount: 2 observationalCount: 4 metaAnalysisCount: 4 totalParticipants: "8,000,000+" replicated: true newestStudyYear: 2022 references: - id: "1" pmid: "31197192" title: "Spending at least 120 minutes a week in nature is associated with good health and wellbeing" authors: "White MP, Alcock I, Grellier J, et al." year: 2019 journal: "Sci Rep" - id: "2" pmid: "31777338" title: "Green spaces and mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies" authors: "Rojas-Rueda D, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, Gascon M, et al." year: 2019 journal: "Lancet Planet Health" - id: "3" pmid: "27334040" title: "Health Benefits from Nature Experiences Depend on Dose" authors: "Shanahan DF, Bush R, Gaston KJ, et al." year: 2016 journal: "Sci Rep" - id: "4" pmid: "31019479" title: "Urban Nature Experiences Reduce Stress in the Context of Daily Life Based on Salivary Biomarkers" authors: "Hunter MR, Gillespie BW, Chen SY" year: 2019 journal: "Front Psychol" - id: "5" pmid: "26124129" title: "Nature experience reduces rumination and subgenual prefrontal cortex activation" authors: "Bratman GN, Hamilton JP, Hahn KS, et al." year: 2015 journal: "Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A" - id: "6" pmid: "27074702" title: "Exposure to Greenness and Mortality in a Nationwide Prospective Cohort Study of Women" authors: "James P, Hart JE, Banay RF, et al." year: 2016 journal: "Environ Health Perspect" - id: "7" pmid: "34646931" title: "Nature-based outdoor activities for mental and physical health: Systematic review and meta-analysis" authors: "Coventry PA, Brown JE, Pervin J, et al." year: 2021 journal: "SSM Popul Health" - id: "8" pmid: "28843736" title: "Outdoor blue spaces, human health and well-being: A systematic review of quantitative studies" authors: "Gascon M, Zijlema W, Vert C, et al." year: 2017 journal: "Int J Hyg Environ Health" - id: "9" pmid: "30646029" title: "Effect of Greening Vacant Land on Mental Health of Community-Dwelling Adults: A Cluster Randomized Trial" authors: "South EC, Hohl BC, Kondo MC, et al." year: 2018 journal: "JAMA Netw Open" - id: "10" pmid: "29982151" title: "The health benefits of the great outdoors: A systematic review and meta-analysis of greenspace exposure and health outcomes" authors: "Twohig-Bennett C, Jones A" year: 2018 journal: "Environ Res" - id: "11" pmid: "32183815" title: "Effectiveness of prescribing physical activity in parks to improve health and wellbeing - the park prescription randomized controlled trial" authors: "Müller-Riemenschneider F, Petrunoff N, Yao J, et al." year: 2020 journal: "Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act" - id: "12" pmid: "35791092" title: "Effectiveness of personal protection measures against Lyme disease: A review of epidemiologic studies from the United States" authors: "Schwartz AM, Mackeprang JM, Mead PS, et al." year: 2022 journal: "Zoonoses Public Health" --- About two hours a week seems to be the threshold. In a survey of nearly 20,000 people in England, those who spent at least 120 minutes a week in nature were much more likely to report good health and high wellbeing, whether in one visit or several [1]. Larger cohort studies link greener neighborhoods to lower death rates [2], though observational data cannot prove cause. ## How it works **The dose.** In that English survey, people with 120 to 179 minutes of weekly nature contact had 1.59 times the odds of reporting good health (and 1.23 times the odds of high wellbeing) compared with people who had none. The link peaked at 200 to 300 minutes a week with no further gain, and it held for older adults and people with long-term conditions [1]. A population study in an Australian city estimated that visits of 30 minutes or more during a week could lower the prevalence of depression by up to 7% and high blood pressure by up to 9% [3]. **Short doses.** In 36 city dwellers asked to spend at least 10 minutes in a nature setting three times a week for 8 weeks, cortisol fell more during a nature break than it normally does across the day, and the payoff per minute was best between 20 and 30 minutes [4]. A 90-minute walk in a natural setting reduced rumination, a pattern of repetitive negative thinking, and activity in a brain region tied to it. A walk of the same length in a city did not [5]. **Where you live matters too.** Across nine cohorts with 8.3 million people, each 0.1 rise in greenness within 500 meters of home went with a 4% lower risk of death from any cause [2]. In a US cohort of 108,630 women, those in the greenest fifth of neighborhoods had 12% lower non-accidental mortality than the least green fifth [6]. **Why it might work.** Green places may reduce exposure to air pollution, noise and heat, invite physical activity and social contact, and help the body recover from stress. In the women's cohort, activity, air pollution, social engagement and depression appeared to explain part of the link [6]. **Programs and places.** Structured outdoor programs, such as gardening, green exercise and nature therapy, improved depressed mood and anxiety in randomized trials. The most effective ran 8 to 12 weeks, with an optimal dose of 20 to 90 minutes [7]. Water counts too: a review of 35 studies found the most consistent benefits of blue space (lakes, rivers, coast) for mental health and physical activity [8]. In a Philadelphia trial, greening vacant lots left nearby residents less likely to report feeling depressed [9]. You can build this in anywhere: lunchtime walks, a park on the school run, a weekend by a lake. For a deeper, slower practice, see [Shinrin-yoku](/forest-bathing/shinrin-yoku), and for the movement side, [Walking](/walking/most-underrated-exercise). ## The evidence in detail **Dose-response surveys.** The English Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment survey (19,806 adults, nationally weighted) grouped recreational nature contact in the past week into 60-minute blocks and controlled for neighborhood greenspace. Odds of good health and high wellbeing rose significantly at 120 minutes or more (for 120 to 179 minutes: health odds ratio 1.59, 95% CI 1.31 to 1.92; wellbeing 1.23, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.40), peaked at 200 to 300 minutes and did not depend on how the minutes were split [1]. Limits: it is cross-sectional and self-reported, so healthier people may simply get out more. **Field and lab studies.** Among 36 urban dwellers followed for 8 weeks, salivary cortisol dropped 21.3% per hour during a nature experience, beyond the normal 11.7% daily decline, and amylase (another stress marker) fell only in the least active participants [4]. The 90-minute walk study was an experiment in healthy volunteers and measured self-reported rumination and brain activity, not clinical depression [5]. **Population cohorts and reviews.** The meta-analysis of nine cohorts (8,324,652 people in seven countries) found a hazard ratio of 0.96 (95% CI 0.94 to 0.97) per 0.1 higher greenness (NDVI) near home. Seven of nine studies found an inverse association, two found none, and heterogeneity was very high (I2 = 95%) [2]. The US nurses cohort followed 108,630 women through 8,604 deaths: the greenest quintile had 12% lower all-cause non-accidental mortality (95% CI of the rate ratio 0.82 to 0.94), strongest for respiratory and cancer deaths [6]. A wider meta-analysis of 103 observational and 40 interventional studies linked greenspace exposure to lower cortisol, heart rate and diastolic blood pressure (about 2 mm Hg), and to lower risk of type 2 diabetes (ratio 0.72), cardiovascular mortality (0.84), preterm birth (0.87) and all-cause mortality (0.69), while noting poor study quality and heterogeneity [10]. **Trials.** In the Philadelphia cluster trial, 110 clusters with 541 vacant lots were randomized to greening, trash cleanup only or no intervention, with 442 adults enrolled and 342 analyzed. Greening cut the share feeling depressed by 41.5% (95% CI 5.9% to 63.6%) and feeling worthless by 50.9%; the drop in overall poor mental health (62.8%) narrowly missed significance (P = 0.051), and trash cleanup alone produced no significant change [9]. A review of 50 outdoor-activity studies, 16 of them randomized, found benefits for mood and anxiety but less evidence for physical health [7]. In the park-prescription trial, 160 adults aged 40 to 65 were randomized to a prescription plus weekly group sessions in parks or to standard advice. After 6 months they spent more time in parks (about 148 more minutes a month) and reported better psychological quality of life, but total moderate-to-vigorous activity did not change significantly, and attendance at group sessions fell from 48% to 24% [11]. **Null and conflicting results.** Two of nine cohorts found no green-space and mortality link [2], and the largest reviews warn that study quality and heterogeneity limit confidence [10]. Residential greenness is not the same as time spent outdoors, and income, health and neighborhood safety can drive both. Blue-space findings were consistent for mental health and activity but inconsistent for general health, obesity and cardiovascular outcomes [8]. Which kinds of nature, such as wild versus manicured, matter most is unknown, and few trials have tested a nature "prescription" directly. **Bottom line (confidence 3 of 5).** Consistent surveys, cohorts and a few trials suggest that roughly two hours a week in green or blue spaces goes with better wellbeing and lower mortality, with little added benefit past 3 to 5 hours. The numbers describe associations, not guaranteed effects, but the habit is free, safe for most people and pairs well with walking and daylight.