Tag: forest therapy research

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.
September 26, 2026
The Indoor Sit Spot: How Touching Wood Brings Nature Inside
The biophilia hypothesis suggests that humans have an evolved affinity for living systems . Modern humans remain adapted to sensory-rich, natural settings, resulting in measurable physiological stress when isolated in synthetic environments .

“Touch grass” has entered common usage as shorthand for stepping away from a screen and returning to the physical world. The phrase resonates because it names something real: human nervous systems evolved in close contact with living material, and sustained separation from it has measurable physiological costs.

Multi-sensory natural environments produce greater benefits that single-modality indoor interventions cannot fully replicate .

However, weather, air quality, urban living, shiftwork, unsafe circumstances, accessibility, and long work days can be obstacles to time outside. The good news, is that your wooden furnishings might be making you calmer than you think.

In small studies, touching wood has been associated with short-term signs of increased rest-and-recovery activity . The effect is consistent across multiple studies and wood species. The body responds to natural materials in ways that are measurable, and distinct from its response to metal, plastic, or synthetic surfaces.

Studies have also found restorative potential of exposed wood surfaces in healthcare facilities and oncology waiting rooms , alongside improved physiological recovery in hospital rooms containing indoor foliage .

If you live with any of those barriers — if you work long days, if smoke season keeps you indoors, if your mobility makes a forest path difficult, if your workday runs past sunset, if your body is recovering from illness or injury — a sit spot practice is for you.

A sit spot practice is simply spending time outdoors in a consistent location and engaging your senses. The indoor sit spot adapts this practice. In fact, early stress reduction research presented photos and videos to participants indoors . A practical indoor sit spot that includes a wood surface, a plant, natural light and a brief daily ritual, offers an accessible, science-backed way to maintain nature connection regardless of outdoor conditions.

The Environmental Mismatch

The human nervous system evolved in sensory-rich outdoor environments. When you feel depleted by a screen-heavy day, that depletion is a predictable biological response to conditions humans have never previously encountered at this scale.

A sit spot works because repeated, brief exposure to natural stimuli triggers measurable physiological changes: parasympathetic activation (the body’s rest-and-recovery response), reduced prefrontal cortex activity, and lower stress biomarkers.

The outdoor version delivers those stimuli through multiple senses simultaneously: sound, light quality, temperature, smell, visual complexity, ground contact. One sense that is often underestimated for indoor interventions is touch.

The Science of Touching Wood

Simple physical contact with natural wooden surfaces helps shift the autonomic nervous system away from stress-induced arousal and toward physiological calm. Research led by Hiroko Ikei and Yoshifumi Miyazaki demonstrates that physical contact with natural, untreated wood produces measurable relaxation responses in the human nervous system compared to synthetic or hard inorganic materials such as marble, tile, or stainless steel .

When individuals touch uncoated or brushed wood, two distinct physiological changes occur: 1) blood oxygenation levels in the prefrontal cortex, the region of the brain responsible for complex cognitive processing, decline, indicating a reduction in mental exertion and cerebral strain, 2) measurements of high-frequency heart rate variability (HF-HRV) increase significantly. High-frequency heart rate variability serves as a direct marker of parasympathetic nervous system activity, which regulates the body’s involuntary recovery and relaxation functions.

The mechanism is partly thermal. Wood conducts heat more slowly than metal or stone, so it maintains your hand’s surface temperature rather than drawing warmth away. The nervous system registers this as safe. Surface texture also plays a role: both thermal perception and roughness shape the physiological response.

Surface finish matters. Uncoated and oil-finished wood produces stronger relaxation signals than glossy, mirror-polished, or urethane-coated surfaces.

Caveat. Systematic reviews caution that many primary studies in this area use small samples, single-modality stimuli, and heterogeneous methods, meaning the findings are promising and consistent, but translation to clinical guidelines warrants further large-scale trials .

Wooden Environments

Large-scale reviews of the literature support wood as a restorative environmental material, proposed for offices, schools, and care settings. For example, researchers found that a wooden waiting-room had regenerative potential in clinical indoor spaces . Another study found that using wooden tableware in social workplace gatherings reduced stress compared with metal alternatives.

The Exchange in Kelowna, British Columbia, a mass timber office building, was evaluated post-occupancy by Happy Cities for Forestry Innovation Investment. 87% of employees reported higher mental wellbeing, 61% improved physical wellbeing, and 74% better collaboration compared with conventional office environments. The combination of exposed wood, natural light, and plants produced measurable gains. This is biophilic design (the practice of incorporating natural elements into built environments) working as intended: built-in environmental conditions that support human biology.

These findings inform the benefits for indoor sit spots.

Designing Your Indoor Sit Spot

Designate an indoor spot where you dedicate 10 minutes to quiet, semi-structured attention. Include at least one wooden surface within reach.

Choose your surface. A wooden table, an unfinished timber shelf, a smooth piece of driftwood, a turned wooden bowl, a wooden spoon, or a cutting board kept. Uncoated or oil-finished is better than glossy.

Don’t have unfinished wood? Raw clay, unglazed ceramic, stone, and textured natural fibre also conduct heat more slowly than metal or plastic. A river stone, a terracotta coaster, or a linen cushion in your lap won’t replicate wood exactly but will give your nervous system a warmer, more natural signal than a plastic desk or metal chair.

Position it near natural light. Light quality matters alongside material contact. Ideally you can be near a window, but it is not required.

Add a plant. A plant that you can touch extends the multi-sensory signal. Multisensory natural environments consistently outperform single-modality contact in the research .

Keep it consistent. Same spot at about the same time every day. The nervous system responds to predictability, and it is the repetition, not just the habit-building that provides benefits.

One January 2026 cohort participant described the feeling this way:

“Such a gentle way to approach the practice.”

The Practice

Guided Audio Practice • 3 Min

Indoor Sit Spot — Wood (Sit Spot Club)
1. Press play. Rest your hand on the wood surface, palm down, weight released. Notice the temperature, the texture, and the grain.
2. Breathe. Follow the 3-minute guided audio to anchor your attention.
3. Sit. When the audio finishes, remain seated in quiet observation for the rest of your 10 minutes: what you can hear, what you can see, and what the air feels like on your face.
10 minutes is the minimum meaningful dose based on the research, enough time to complete a stress cycle rather than interrupt one.

“10 minutes flew by.”

Why This Matters

Nature connection happens through touch, through smell, through the sound of rain on glass. It requires contact with materials and conditions that your nervous system recognizes.

The indoor sit spot keeps the practice alive through the seasons when outdoor access is genuinely limited. And it is backed by real research. Including mine .

Build the Habit: The Free 3-Day Sit Spot Series

If 10 minutes touching wood changes your baseline today, building a 3-day rhythm anchors the habit.

Sign up below to receive the free 3-Day Sit Spot Audio Series by email. Each morning, you will receive one brief guided audio practice and a specific sensory prompt to start your day:

Email address *

Ready to go deeper? The full Sit Spot Sessions delivers a daily practice by email each morning.

Start the 30-day program ($39 CAD)

References

{7513010:UMBG2QV2};{7513010:LNJ6S9ME},{7513010:ARMHVR5G};{7513010:F5BRNZIU},{7513010:U3C3N95A};{7513010:TWC6CBF7},{7513010:KQVIJM5I},{7513010:P25V9MCP},{7513010:HH5JMA7Q},{7513010:KANU4LTB};{7513010:F7KYGJKB};{7513010:IVDEB63C};{7513010:TR9GEYRV};{7513010:TWC6CBF7},{7513010:KQVIJM5I},{7513010:P25V9MCP},{7513010:HH5JMA7Q};{7513010:F7KYGJKB};{7513010:F7KYGJKB};{7513010:F5BRNZIU};{7513010:6U69BF4K} vancouver default desc 0 3347
September 16, 2026
IUFRO 2024 – Forest Bathing in Canada

Session: T4.15 Healing Power of Nature: Forest Therapy in Action
Tuesday, June 25, 08:30 – 10:30 AM (CEST)

Forest Bathing in Canada: A Randomized Controlled Trial Investigating Environmental Influence on Health

Presentation References

Colley, R. C. et al. (2022, October 19). How sedentary are Canadian adults? It depends on the measure. https://www.doi.org/10.25318/82-003-x202201000002-eng

Colley, R. C., & Saunders, T. J. (2023, October 18). The ongoing impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on physical activity and screen time among Canadian adults. https://www.doi.org/10.25318/82-003-x202301000002-eng

Ipsos. (2024, May 29). Trails and Outdoor Recreation in BC. https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/trails-and-outdoor-recreation-in-bc

Kellert, S. R. (1991). Japanese Perceptions of Wildlife. Conservation Biology, 5(3), 297–308. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2385899

Mathias, S., Daigle, P., Dancause, K. N., & Gadais, T. (2020). Forest bathing: A narrative review of the effects on health for outdoor and environmental education use in Canada. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, 23(3), 309–321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42322-020-00058-3

Public Health Agency of Canada. (2017). How Healthy are Canadians? [Education and awareness]. https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/healthy-living/how-healthy-canadians.html

Stats Canada (2018). An overview of Canada’s forest resources. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-627-m/11-627-m2018007-eng.htm

Yeon, P.-S., Jeon, J.-Y., Jung, M.-S., Min, G.-M., Kim, G.-Y., Han, K.-M., Shin, M.-J., Jo, S.-H., Kim, J.-G., & Shin, W.-S. (2021). Effect of Forest Therapy on Depression and Anxiety: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(23), Article 23. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182312685

June 19, 2024