This is scientific Americans 60 Second Science. I'm Jason Goldman. By now it's almost common knowledge that spending time in nature is good for you.

Areas with more trees tend to be less polluted,

so spending time there allows you to breathe easier.

Spending time outdoors has been linked with reduced blood pressure and stress, it seems to motivate people to exercise more.

So it will come as no surprise that there's research showing that spending time in nature is good.

I mean that's been known for millennia. There's dozens of

papers showing that. University of Exeter Medical School researcher Matthew

P White. We get this idea. Patients are coming to us and they're saying well

doctor how long should I spend and the

doctor saying I don't really know so white and his team decided to find out by

using data collected from nearly 20,000 people in England through through the Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment Survey.

And their answer, two hours a week.

People who spent at least that much time amid nature, either all at once or totaled over several shorter visits,

were more likely to report good health and psychological well-being than those with no nature exposure.

Remarkably, the researchers found that less than two hours offered no significant benefits.

So what's so special about two hours?

I have absolutely no idea really.

We didn't have an a priori guess at what this threshold.

It emerged and I'd be lying if I said, you know, we predicted this.

I don't know.

Even more noteworthy, the two-hour benchmark applied to men and women, to older and younger folks,

to people from different ethnic backgrounds, occupational groups, socioeconomic levels, and so on.

...