Solo or Guided? Comparing Mindful Forest Walks

Summary

Both solo and guided mindful forest walks reduce stress, improve mood, and increase nature connectedness. Guide-led programs tend to add greater gains in self‑esteem, emotional regulation, social bonding, and sometimes larger anxiety and physiological effects than self-guided walks, though findings vary.

Main outcome differences

Self-guided experiences reliably improve mood, anxiety scores, and nature connectedness, while guided programs more often add effects on self‑esteem, emotional shifts, and social engagement.

• Both effective Self-guided and guided forest therapy produced significant improvements in negative affect, mood states, anxiety, and nature connectedness compared with routine activities or controls [1] [2] [3].
• Guided advantages Guided programs showed additional increases in self‑esteem compared with routine activities and, in several studies, greater reductions in state anxiety and total mood disturbance than self‑guided immersion [1] [4].
• Different experiential emphasis Qualitative analyses report that self-guided sessions are more associated with introspection and inward focus, whereas guided sessions emphasize emotional change and social interaction [3].

Physiological outcomes

Comparative physiological data show consistent overall benefits from forest exposure but mixed differences between solo and guided formats depending on measures and contexts.

• General physiological effects Forest-based interventions reduce systolic and diastolic blood pressure and salivary cortisol on average across studies of urban residents [5].
• Heart rate Reductions in heart rate have been reported in both guided and self‑guided sessions across diverse parks and seasons [6].
• Blood pressure and stress hormones Blood pressure responses varied between guided and self‑guided sessions and across individuals and settings; some studies found guided sessions produced larger or more consistent Systolic Blood Pressure decreases and lower stress‑hormones than strolling alone [6] [7].
• Therapist-led clinical advantage Guided forest immersion led by clinical therapists was associated with greater short‑term reductions in state anxiety [4].

Psychological outcomes

Psychological outcomes across formats include depth of reflection, emotion regulation, social connectedness, and mindfulness.

• Mood and anxiety Both formats improved mood and reduced anxiety in randomized crossover and controlled trials [2] [9] [10].
• Nature connectedness Participation in either self‑guided or guided immersion increases connectedness to nature; some studies report stronger or more complex cognitive–emotional responses when a guide structures the experience [1] [2] [11].
• Introspection versus social bonding Self‑guided therapy is repeatedly reported to foster introspection and inner-focused reflection, while guided programs foster emotional shifts and opportunities for social interaction and shared processing [3].
• Mindfulness depth Insufficient evidence to conclude that certified guide‑led sessions reliably produce deeper mindfulness states than self‑guided sessions; many comparative trials did not include validated “mindfulness depth” measures or produced mixed results.
• Emotional nuance and stability Guided formats can elicit deeper emotional processing and more complex cognitive responses to nature, and may buffer external variability (e.g., noise, weather), supporting more consistent experiential outcomes [11].

Moderators and practical interpretation

Differences between self-guided and guide-led outcomes depend strongly on participant characteristics, facilitation type, environment, and dose; these moderators explain many inconsistent findings. Choice of format should align with intended goals (introspection, clinical symptom reduction, social support, or scalable public health delivery).

• Participant experience Increases in nature connectedness and mood were larger among participants with low prior forest‑bathing experience in some studies, affecting whether guided facilitation adds benefit [6].
• Environment and sensory context Plant diversity, ambient sound levels, light, and season influenced mood and physiological responses, sometimes interacting with whether sessions were guided or self‑guided [6].
• Dose and session length Longer or multi‑session forest therapy (≥20 minutes and repeated sessions) produced larger blood pressure and cortisol reductions in pooled analyses [5].
• Facilitator type matters Clinical therapist‑led sessions (psychologists/therapists) have shown larger short‑term mental‑health gains and reduced outcome variability compared with unguided immersion in at least one study, and one retrospective analysis suggested higher economic value for therapist‑led delivery [4].
• Practical recommendation Use self‑guided formats when the goal is personal reflection, scalability, or low cost; choose certified or therapist‑led programs when targeting clinical anxiety, structured emotional processing, social cohesion, or when environmental distractions must be managed.

References

[1]W. S. Shin and J.-G. Kim, “The influence of Self-Guided and Guided Forest Therapy Program on Students’ Psychological Benefits,” Journal of people, plants, and environment, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 169–179, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.11628/ksppe.2023.26.2.169.

[2]W. S. Shin, I. K. Seong, and J.-G. Kim, “Psychological Benefits of Self-Guided Forest Healing Program Using Campus Forests,” Forests, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 336–336, Feb. 2023, doi: 10.3390/f14020336.

[3]J.-G. Kim and W.-S. Shin, “Forest Therapy Alone or with a Guide: Is There a Difference between Self-Guided Forest Therapy and Guided Forest Therapy Programs?,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 18, no. 13, p. 6957, June 2021, doi: 10.3390/IJERPH18136957.

[4]R. Rivieccio, F. Meneguzzo, G. Margheritini, T. Re, U. Riccucci, and F. Zabini, “Therapist-Guided Versus Self-Guided Forest Immersion: Comparative Efficacy on Short-Term Mental Health and Economic Value,” Behavioral science, vol. 15, Nov. 2025, doi: 10.3390/bs15121618.

[5]Q. Qiu et al., “The Effects of Forest Therapy on the Blood Pressure and Salivary Cortisol Levels of Urban Residents: A Meta-Analysis,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 458–458, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.3390/ijerph20010458.

[6]“Forest bathing in Metro Vancouver, Canada : a randomized crossover study examining health outcomes and environmental and vegetation influences,” Mar. 2025, doi: 10.14288/1.0448266.

[7]K. Igawahara, T. Kagawa, N. Takayama, and B.-J. Park, “Research on the Effect which a Guide Brings about in a Forest Walk,” Journal of the Korea Society of Computer and Information, vol. 70, no. 5, pp. 597–600, Mar. 2007, doi: 10.5632/JILA.70.597.

[9]H. Ochiai et al., “Physiological and psychological effects of forest therapy on middle-aged males with high-normal blood pressure,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2015, doi: 10.3390/IJERPH120302532.

[10]A. Muro et al., “Forest bathing and hiking benefits for mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic in Mediterranean regions,” European Journal of Forest Research, vol. 142, no. 2, pp. 1–12, Feb. 2023, doi: 10.1007/s10342-023-01531-6.

[11]P. E. Loyola, “Evaluación de la influencia de un guía en prácticas de inmersión en la Naturaleza: conexión y actitudes de valoración de la Naturaleza en espacios verdes urbanos,” Jan. 2024, doi: 10.7764/tesisuc/agr/88525.