Forest Therapy Alone or with a Guide: Is There a Difference between Self-Guided Forest Therapy and Guided Forest Therapy Programs?

Abstract

There are generally two types of forest therapy. One is to walk or view the forest alone without a guide, and the other is to be accompanied by a guide. This study aimed to investigate the healing factors and health benefits of self-guided forest therapy and guided forest therapy programs and examine the differences in characteristics between interventions. Thirty-seven undergraduate students participated in a randomized experiment (19 in the self-guided forest therapy and 18 in the guided forest therapy program). Data were collected from 111 self-reported essays after each intervention (three essays per person). Results revealed that the forest healing factors contained four categories in common: auditory element, visual element, tactile element, and olfaction element. Forest therapy’s health benefits included five categories in common: change of mind and body, introspection, change of emotion, cognitive change, and social interaction. Among the typical differences, the self-guided forest therapy group mentioned more keywords related to introspection than the guided forest therapy program group. On the other hand, the guided forest therapy program group mentioned more keywords associated with the change of emotion and social interaction than the self-guided forest therapy. Our findings show that self-guided forest therapy provides an opportunity for self-reflection to focus on and think about one’s inner self. On the other hand, guided forest therapy programs provide positive emotional changes and promoting social bonds through interaction with others. Therefore, because the effects that can be obtained vary depending on the type of forest therapy, participants can utilize forest healing to suit the desired outcomes.

Effect of Forest Therapy on Depression and Anxiety: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…However, the forest therapy program showed a more significant effect than simply forest walking activities. The results of this study are partly consistent with the results of previous studies that show that forest therapy programs were more effective in psychological recovery than forest walking activities [ 82 , 83 ]. Thus, it may be more effective in improving depression and anxiety than walking in the forest.…”

Forest Therapy Trails: A Conceptual Framework and Scoping Review of Research

“…For the interaction component, we sought information on the structural nature of forest therapy engagements in terms of what types of activities participants engaged in and the duration of engagements. Additionally, important to us was the social nature of interactions, including the size of groups that participated in an engagement and whether and how guided forest therapy engagements differed from unguided ones [36,37]. Additionally, for the outcome component, similar to more standard reviews of the forest therapy literature, we wanted to identify the types of outcome measures being studied and the success of forest therapy engagements in achieving desired psychological, physiological, and other health and wellbeing outcomes [20][21][22].…”

Medical Evidence of Alpine Natural Resources as a Base for Health Tourism

“…Another study from China examined the psychological effects of forest therapy [105]. Also, in China, Kim and Shin [106] investigated whether there is a difference between guided and selfguided forest therapy (level IIa). In both cases, positive psychological effects have been shown, but they do not seem to be generally transferable.…”