Do walks in nature reduce stress? A useful break, with a modest evidence claim

A German brain-imaging study and a Japanese walking trial support a careful answer: nature may help, but a stress marker is not a treatment outcome.

Prepared by PoshanSense · AI-assisted educational writing
Our sources and editorial approach · Not clinically reviewed

Research explained · Published 2022, 2025

A walk can offer a pause from notifications, traffic and a demanding room. You do not need a brain scan to decide that you enjoy a park. Research is useful when the claim becomes bigger: does that setting reliably reduce stress, and what does “reduce” mean?

Is a forest walk better than a city walk?

It may feel more pleasant or restorative, but the answer depends on which outcome is measured. A change in a stress-related brain response is interesting. It is not the same as someone feeling less anxious, functioning better or recovering from a mental-health condition.

Those distinctions prevent a simple preference from becoming an exaggerated treatment promise.

What did the Berlin study actually show?

After the forest walk, activity in the amygdala during the tested tasks decreased. The urban group stayed comparatively stable. The main paper did not establish that the city walk damaged the brain or increased clinical anxiety.

Other findings were less dramatic. The study did not find clear matching changes in self-reported stress or its physiological indicators. Nature walkers rated their setting more restorative and the walk more enjoyable, but those answers should not be collapsed into a psychiatric outcome.

The setting also included a bundle of differences: views, noise, surroundings and the experience of being there. The experiment cannot identify trees alone as the active ingredient, or tell you an exact amount of nature that everyone needs.

Does evidence from Japan tell the same story?

A 2025 Japanese trial randomized 84 men aged 40–70 to guided forest or urban walking; 78 completed the study. It found a lower adjusted cortisol level after forest walking, but no clear between-group advantage on the tension-and-anxiety mood score.

Overall mood disturbance and vigour also improved more in the forest group, even though the tension-and-anxiety comparison was uncertain. This mixed pattern supports some subjective and stress-related changes without proving a consistent anxiety treatment. The walks were on different days with different environmental conditions, and people knew where they were walking. The findings cannot establish what happens in every climate, sex, age group or neighbourhood.

What is a reasonable way to use this?

If an accessible park, waterfront or green route makes a break enjoyable, that can be reason enough to choose it. Safety, weather, air quality, mobility and access matter more than recreating a research route exactly. A distant forest is not an obligation.

Nor should someone feel that a city walk is worthless. These experiments compared particular routes, not all urban environments with all natural ones. A quieter local street and a crowded, uncomfortable forest trail might offer very different experiences.

Separate enjoyment from the promise of medical benefit. Notice whether the break suits your day, rather than trying to infer your cortisol level or brain activity from how many minutes you spent outside.

When a walk is not enough

Persistent anxiety, depression or major stress-related difficulty deserves appropriate support. A pleasant walk can sit alongside care; these studies do not show that it should replace therapy or prescribed treatment.

The Berlin authors declared no competing interests. The Japanese trial received support from the Vehicle Racing Commemorative Foundation of Japan. Neither funding disclosure changes the distinction between a measured marker and a demonstrated treatment effect. Educational article; not clinically reviewed.

Published 11 October 2026 · Sources checked 11 October 2026. Suggest a correction.