Two hours outside a week, however you get them.
A large England-wide survey found a threshold of weekly time outdoors linked to better self-reported health and wellbeing — but a threshold isn't a guarantee.
Study title: The '120 Minutes a Week' Nature Study, Explained — White, M. P., Alcock, I., Grellier, J., Wheeler, B. W., Hartig, T., Warber, S. L., Bone, A., Depledge, M. H., & Fleming, L. E., Scientific Reports, 2019
- Study type
- Cross-sectional study
- Population
- 19,806 adults in England, drawn from the Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment survey (2014/15–2015/16), weighted to be nationally representative
- Published
- 2019
- Evidence confidence
- Moderate confidence
The short version
In a large England-wide survey, people who reported at least 120 minutes of recreational time in nature in the previous week were significantly more likely to report good health and high wellbeing than people who reported none. It made no difference whether those minutes came in one long visit or several short ones.
The finding, drawn out
120 minutes — where the association appears
200–300 minutes · benefits levelled off around here
Both figures are reported in White et al. (Scientific Reports, 2019). Association only — the study cannot show the nature itself is doing the work.
Why it matters
The benchmark is unremarkable, which is the useful part: two hours across a week is a walk most days, not a weekend in the mountains.
What this doesn't mean
It does not mean 120 minutes outdoors produces better health. This is one cross-sectional survey — people who already feel well may simply go out more, and daylight, movement and company all travel with 'time in nature'.
01
The question
02
How it was studied
03
What they found
04
Limitations
05
What it may mean
In real life
If getting outside has fallen off your radar, this isn't a case for heroic effort — the study's own threshold is unremarkable: a couple of hours a week, however you can fit it in.
Try this
Try tallying your outdoor time this week without changing anything, just to see roughly where you land against two hours — then add one short outdoor stretch if you're under.
Evidence confidence
Moderate confidence
This is one large, well-controlled survey rather than a body of experimental evidence, so the specific '120-minute' figure should be read as a helpful benchmark rather than a proven causal dose.
Source
White, M. P., Alcock, I., Grellier, J., Wheeler, B. W., Hartig, T., Warber, S. L., Bone, A., Depledge, M. H., & Fleming, L. E. (2019). The '120 Minutes a Week' Nature Study, Explained. Scientific Reports.
Peer-reviewed · Free full text available · Last reviewed 2026-08-14
Read the original research →One study isn't the whole storyOne study gives us a piece of the picture. Selfey looks for patterns across the broader evidence rather than treating a single finding as a rule.
Read this in everyday terms
What Time Outdoors Is Actually Linked ToSelfey research briefs are educational summaries, not medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Research describes patterns across groups; it cannot tell you what is right for your situation.
Related research
- JoyDoes Listening to Music Actually Help Regulate Mood?A meta-analysis found personality traits like neuroticism are modestly linked to how people use music to manage emotions, for better or worse.
- JoyWhat a Major WHO Review Found About Art and WellbeingA major WHO review of thousands of studies found regular arts participation is broadly associated with better mental and physical wellbeing, though evidence quality varies by art form.
- JoyThe Argument That Less Free Play Has Costs for ChildrenOne influential analysis argues that decades of decline in children's free play parallel rising youth anxiety and depression, though it can't prove the two are causally linked.