Does Two Hours a Week in Nature Change How You Feel?
People who spent at least two hours a week in nature were more likely to report good health and high well-being. Under two hours, no different from none at all.
In one paragraph
Researchers analysed 19,806 adults from a representative English survey who reported their time in natural places over the previous week. Compared with none, 120 minutes or more a week went with higher odds of reporting good health (odds ratio 1.59) and high well-being (1.23), after adjusting for income, exercise, neighbourhood greenspace and more. Under 120 minutes there was no difference, the gain flattened between 200 and 300 minutes, and the split of the time did not matter. The data are a one-week snapshot of self-reports, so they cannot show cause.
How did the researchers measure time in nature?
The authors drew on the Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment survey, a yearly survey of adults in England, using 19,806 respondents from two years and weighting them to represent the adult population. Each person was asked about recreational visits to natural places, such as parks, woodlands and beaches, in the previous seven days.
To turn those answers into a weekly amount, the survey asked how long one randomly chosen visit had lasted and multiplied that by the number of visits that week. The result was grouped into 60-minute blocks, from no contact at all up to 300 minutes or more.
Two outcomes were measured, both self-reported: general health, cut into good or not good, and life satisfaction, cut into high or low. Survey-weighted logistic regressions compared each block of nature time against no contact, holding constant factors such as age, sex, income group, employment, relationship status, physical activity, long-term illness, neighbourhood greenspace, area deprivation and air pollution. Sensitivity analyses treated time as a continuous variable and split the sample by age, area and health.
What did the two-hour threshold look like?
Once the other factors were taken into account, people who spent between one and 119 minutes a week in nature were no more likely to report good health or high well-being than people who spent none. From 120 minutes a week the picture changed: the odds of reporting good health were 1.59 times higher than with no contact, and the odds of high well-being were 1.23 times higher.
More time helped only up to a point. The association kept rising to somewhere between 200 and 300 minutes a week and then flattened, with some sign of a dip beyond that. It made no difference whether the 120 minutes came as one long visit, two medium ones or several short ones.
The pattern held across the groups the authors checked: people older than 65, people with a long-term illness or disability, urban and rural residents, richer and poorer areas, and people who did not meet physical activity guidelines. In size, the association was similar to that between health and living in a low-deprivation area, or meeting the exercise guideline.
Why does a weekly number for nature matter?
Guidelines for physical activity rest on exposure-response studies that say how much is enough. The authors set out to provide the same kind of evidence for time in nature, and a fair reading is that this is the paper's main contribution: a measure in minutes per week, on a sample large enough to split by age, income and health, with a threshold that a person can act on.
The finding that the split does not matter is practical. Someone who prefers a long weekend walk and someone who takes short lunchtime visits to a park can both reach the same weekly dose, and the authors caution against telling either to switch.
The result also argues for measuring nature contact directly rather than through where people live. Those in the least green neighbourhoods were in fact more likely to reach 120 minutes a week, because people travel to reach nature. A fair reading is that a lack of green space nearby need not be a barrier, though the data cannot say how long the pattern takes to appear or which kinds of nature matter most.
What does the study not show?
Read before you quote it
It does not show that time in nature causes better health or well-being. The data are cross-sectional, a single survey about a single week, so the authors cannot rule out that healthier, happier people simply go outside more. The consistency of the pattern among people with long-term illness argues against that reading but does not settle it.
Everything is self-reported: the length of the visit, the person's health and their satisfaction with life, and the weekly minutes were extrapolated from one randomly selected visit. Time in nature also explained only about one percent of the variation in health or well-being in the unadjusted models, a small share next to income or illness.
The 120-minute threshold itself should be read with care. People tend to round their answers to the hour, which can create a step where the underlying pattern is gradual, and the continuous models suggested a smoother rise. The authors call for longitudinal and intervention studies before any weekly guideline is written.
- It does not show that spending time in nature causes better health or well-being.
- It does not show which kinds of natural places or activities matter, or how long the pattern takes to appear.
- The data are observational and cross-sectional, so healthier, happier people spending more time in nature cannot be ruled out as the explanation.
- Exposure and outcomes were self-reported, and weekly time was extrapolated from the duration of a single visit.
- Time in nature explained only about 1% of the variance in health and well-being in the unadjusted models.
- The 120-minute threshold may partly reflect answers clustering around the hour mark; the spline models suggested a more gradual pattern.
Takeaways
- saysTwo hours a week in nature went with better self-reported health and well-being than none at all, and under two hours made no difference.
- saysIt made no difference whether the time came as a single long visit or several short ones, and the gain flattened from two hundred to three hundred minutes.
- saysOne week of self-reports cannot show that nature causes the difference, and nature explained only about one percent of the variation.
- explainsAn odds ratio compares the chance of an outcome in one group with another; exactly one means no difference, and 1.59 means the odds of good health were about one and a half times higher.
- interpretsA fair reading is that the paper offers a practical weekly number for time outdoors, in the way exercise guidelines do, while leaving the question of cause to future studies.
Ask the paper
In PaperSays you can ask this paper anything, by text or by saying “Hey Aiden”. Three questions listeners asked:
How much time in nature was enough?
At least 120 minutes a week; under that there was no difference from none, and the gain flattened between 200 and 300 minutes. Hear the full answer in the app →
Does one long visit count the same as several short ones?
Yes. The analysis found no difference by how the weekly minutes were achieved. Ask in the app →
Does this prove nature improves health?
No. It is a one-week survey of self-reports, so healthier people may simply spend more time outside. Ask in the app →
Briefing reviewed by an editor before publication. The paper belongs to its authors; this page summarises it and links to the original. Reviewed by Editor. Paper licence: CC BY 4.0. Corrections: support@papersays.com.