top of page

Acerca de

Enjoying Outdoor

Research about how nature is good for us.

Spending two hours a week in nature is linked to better health and well-being

Author Matthew White

First published in The Conversation  June 14, 2019 12.30am AEST

The idea that spending recreational time in natural settings is good for our health and wellbeing is hardly new. Parents have been telling their kids to “go play outside, it’s good for you” for generations. Now, colleagues and I have published a study in the journal Scientific Reports which suggests that a dose of nature of just two hours a week is associated with better health and psychological wellbeing, a figure that applies to every demographic we could think of (at least in England).

So why do we need research into this? Although our parents’ common sense observation is true in the general sense, the devil – as always – is in the detail. For instance, it’s less intuitively obvious exactly how much time in nature we need before we experience the benefits, whether we can have “too much of a good thing”, whether it’s better to have lots of smaller encounters or one big one, whether parks, beaches and mountains offer similar benefits, or whether nature exposure is more important for some people than others.

We wanted to answer these questions so we could start developing recommended guidelines about how much time people should spend in nature. Similar guidelines have been developed to advise 150 minutes of physical activity per week, or that five portions of fruit and veg a day benefits health. Our findings do not yet offer a final recommendation, but we think they are an important starting point.



We know about official exercise guidelines. But what about nature time? Simon Pugsley via Shutterstock

Our research used responses from a large, representative sample of 20,000 adults in England, collected as part of an annual government advisory survey on Engagement with the Natural Environment. The survey takes place in people’s homes and interviewers ask respondents to go through each of the previous seven days and describe any time they spent “out of doors” in natural settings such as urban parks, woods, or beaches on each day.

Once this nature “diary” has been reconstructed, interviewers randomly select a previous visit in the past week, and ask more extensive details such as how long the visit was, who they went with, how they got there, and what they got up to. This “random” selection aspect is really important scientifically because it means we get to learn about people’s visits in general, not merely the “highlight” events that most stick in the memory. Using these responses, we were able to build a profile of how much time each of our 20,000 respondents spent in nature per week.

To figure out how this was linked to health and well-being, we looked at the responses given by the same people to two further questions on general health and overall “life satisfaction”.

We found that people who spent at least two hours a week in nature were more likely to report “good” health or “high” levels of well-being than people who spent no time in nature. People who spent some time in nature, but less than two hours, were no more likely to report good health and well-being than those who had zero weekly exposure, suggesting that one can have too little. Further, after about five hours a week, there was some evidence of no additional benefits.



Probability of reporting good health peaks at around three hours in nature over the past week. White et al

Two-hour threshold

Perhaps most importantly, this pattern of a “two-hour threshold” was present for nearly all groups we looked at: older and younger adults, men and women, people in cities and in rural areas, people in deprived and wealthy communities, and even among people with and without a long-term illness or disability.

This suggests our results are not merely due to “reverse causality” – the possibility that people who visit nature are already a self-selected sample of healthier people. Even those with long-term illnesses were more likely to report better health and well-being if they spent 120 minutes a week in nature.

Although encouraging, we must be careful about overplaying these results. The fact remains that the data was self-reported and “cross-sectional”. Despite our best efforts, we can’t rule out the possibility that people didn’t accurately remember the time they spent in nature last week, or are nervous about talking about their health and well-being to interviewers. We don’t think this was too much of an issue here because the questions were simple, taken from internationally recognised surveys, including the census, and have been shown to be highly reliable.

Furthermore, there is a large body of experimental work, including work using stress biomarkers, which essentially shows that time spent in nature is good for physiological and psychological health – our main advance here is taking a step towards understanding a weekly dose.

There is increasing pressure on our parks and other green spaces to be used for urgently needed housing and other infrastructure. Colleagues and I fully appreciate that these alternative land uses are important, but we feel these spaces themselves are often undervalued. By improving our understanding of how spending time in nature is related to health and well-being we hope to better inform these decisions on what to do with green space.

Access to most parks and green spaces is free, so even the poorest, and often the least healthy, members of communities have equal access for their health and well-being. We hope that evidence such as ours will help keep them that way.

Republished for free under Creative Commons licence and the original is here.

Research and reflective practice.


Donald Schön brought the idea of reflection for learning to the attention of professionals in the 1980s. He wrote about reflection-in and reflection-on action. The first one, reflection-in-action is while something is happening, while reflection-on-action takes time after an activity or experience has happened.


David Boud proposes that reflection is "… a conscious activity in which we engage to explore our experiences and develop new understandings and conceptualisations." (Boud 1987)

Quite a lot of research into reflection is in particular professional fields: nursing, teaching.

Often professionals use writing to look at a situation from different ways to improve what they do.

 "A reflective journal can help learners process their thoughts, feelings and actions. By committing reflections to paper the learner can stand back from them and create another opportunity to reconstruct knowledge, awareness and practice."

We use a number of different reflective exercises (including writing) to help people pay attention to a situation, experience, or time, to help us find what is good in it as well as learn from it.


Sheila Slesser, Pedro Morago, Linda Bruce and Malcolm Macmillan, "Reflective Practice."

Boud, D. et al. (1987) Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning London: Kogan Pag

Harvard Business review has published articles about reflection and some of the research around it.

Below are summaries and links to a few:

"Don’t Underestimate the Power of Self-Reflection." James R. Bailey  and Scheherazade Rehman, March 04, 2022,



Research shows the habit of reflection can separate extraordinary professionals from mediocre ones. But how do you sort which experiences are most significant for your development?

To answer this questions, the authors asked 442 executives to reflect on which experiences most advanced their professional development and had the most impact on making them better leaders.

Three distinct themes arose through their analysis: surprise, frustration, and failure. Reflections that involved one or more or of these sentiments proved to be the most valuable in helping the leaders grow.

Surprise, frustration, and failure. Cognitive, emotional, and behavioral. These parts of you are constantly in motion and if you don’t give them time to rest and reflect upon what you learned from them, you will surely fatigue."

James R. Bailey  and Scheherazade Rehman, "Don’t Underestimate the Power of Self-Reflection." March 04, 2022,

"How Self-Reflection Can Help Leaders Stay Motivated." Klodiana Lanaj, Trevor A. Foulk, and Amir Erez.



Occupying a leadership role often comes with more prestige, money, and flexibility. We often forget, however, that leadership is hard and exhausting work. A team of researchers tested a short daily intervention to see if it would help leaders remain energized throughout the day at work. Leaders take a few minutes in the morning to think and write about three things that they like about themselves and that make them a “good leader.” Leaders wrote about personal qualities (e.g., “I am willing to take a stand in the face of injustice”), skills (e.g., “I consider others’ opinions”), and achievements (“I helped my team during a crisis”). Leaders in the study reported feeling less depleted and more engaged, and the results lasted into the evening."

Klodiana Lanaj, Trevor A. Foulk, and Amir Erez, "How Self-Reflection Can Help Leaders Stay Motivated." September 13, 2018,

Let's see how we can serve you

Get in touch so we can start working together.

  • Facebook
bottom of page