Aggregatez

Daily research and news, summarised

Regular short visits to green spaces may matter more than long ones

Saturday, 7 November 2026 · Mental health & wellbeing · Full report · Evidence: Strong

OpenAlex, 2026-09-17 | read: abstract only (full text is not open access)

What was found

This study modelled how mental health benefits change as people spend more time in parks and other green spaces. The benefits rose quickly at first and then levelled off. How often people visited mattered more than how long they stayed in total. One visit or one hour per week reached half of the greatest benefit the model predicted. Four visits or four hours per week reached 90 percent. Six visits or eight hours per week reached 99 percent 1.

Who it applies to

The findings concern people anywhere in the world who spend time in outdoor green spaces. The mental health outcomes covered include lower stress, anxiety and depression, and better mood 1.

How strong the evidence is

Moderate. The study is a meta-analysis that pooled earlier research and fitted a dose-response curve. It drew on a pool of 92,430 studies published between 1980 and 2025. The authors call it an initial modelling study that needs careful reading. Reaching half of the modelled benefit does not mean depression or similar conditions drop by half. The analysis looked only at how often and how long people visited, because data on other aspects of green space contact were too limited. This summary is based on the abstract only, because the full paper is not openly available 1.

What it means in practice

The study offers simple reference points for green space contact. Its results suggest that a modest amount, such as one hour-long park visit each week, is linked to a large share of the modelled mental health benefit. Extra time adds progressively smaller gains. Because frequency counted for more than total time, spreading visits across the week appears to matter more than adding hours to a single outing 1.

What others say

Science news coverage described the results as useful benchmarks. It highlighted that the biggest gains appear at fairly low levels of exposure. It also stressed that the percentages describe shares of a modelled benefit. They should not be read as direct percentage reductions in depression symptoms 2.