Walk and talk interventions across psychotherapy, counselling, and coaching: a scoping review of designs and components
This scoping review of eight nature-based "walk and talk" interventions across psychotherapy, counselling, and coaching reveals significant heterogeneity in their design and a critical gap between practitioner-developed clinical content and empirical testing, highlighting the need for more rigorous reporting and research to support evidence-informed practice.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
For decades, scientists have known that stepping outside into the natural world does more than just clear the air; it clears the mind. This growing body of research suggests that simply being in green spaces—parks, forests, or gardens—can lower stress, improve mood, and support overall mental health. Building on this foundation, a specific subset of professionals began experimenting with a unique twist: moving the traditional therapy session out of the office and onto a walking path. Instead of sitting face-to-face across a desk, a therapist and a client walk side-by-side through nature while talking. This approach, often called "walk and talk," aims to combine the calming effects of the outdoors with the healing power of conversation, hoping that the movement and the environment might help people open up and process their feelings in new ways. While the idea has gained popularity among practitioners, the scientific community has struggled to keep up with how these sessions are actually structured, what happens inside them, and whether they work the same way across different types of help, from professional coaching to clinical psychotherapy.
To make sense of this scattered landscape, researchers at the Université de Sherbrooke and Université Laval in Canada conducted a comprehensive review of the available scientific literature. They set out to map exactly how these outdoor walking sessions are designed. The team searched through ten major databases covering psychology, health sciences, and business management, looking for peer-reviewed studies published in English before early 2026. They were looking for any study where a qualified professional, such as a psychologist or a certified coach, led a walking session outdoors to help someone with mental health challenges, stress, or personal growth. After sifting through nearly nine hundred records and removing duplicates, the researchers narrowed their focus to just nine articles that met their strict criteria. These nine articles described eight distinct interventions, involving a total of 257 participants across seven different countries, including the United States, Denmark, Australia, and South Korea.
What the researchers found was a field defined by variety rather than uniformity. There was no single "walk and talk" formula. The interventions they reviewed differed wildly in almost every aspect. Some sessions lasted for just four weeks, while others stretched out over six months. The length of a single meeting ranged from thirty minutes to three hours. The frequency of meetings varied from once a week to three times a week, and some even spaced sessions months apart. The locations were just as diverse, taking place in local parks with water features, university campuses, school grounds, botanical gardens, and even large arboretums that serve as living museums for trees and plants. The participants themselves came from different walks of life, including adults with depression, women with post-traumatic stress symptoms, men with burnout, and even middle-school students with behavioral challenges.
Despite this diversity, the researchers were able to identify common threads in how these sessions were built. In most cases, nature played a role that fell somewhere on a spectrum. At one end, the outdoors served merely as a pleasant background, a place to walk and talk where the environment itself was not the focus of the conversation. At the other end, nature was an active participant in the healing process. In these more immersive sessions, therapists used the forest or the garden as a tool to help clients. For example, a therapist might ask a client to observe the trees to help them reflect on their own problems, or they might engage in gardening activities to practice mindfulness. Some sessions included specific exercises like breathing techniques, grounding practices to help people feel present in the moment, or even journaling where clients wrote down their thoughts and took photographs of the landscape to capture their insights.
The methods used to guide these conversations also varied significantly. Some therapists relied on established clinical frameworks, such as cognitive behavioral therapy, which helps people identify and change negative thought patterns, or mindfulness-based stress reduction, which focuses on staying aware of the present moment without judgment. Others drew from humanistic approaches, emphasizing empathy and the relationship between the therapist and the client. A few interventions were more eclectic, blending elements from different schools of thought, including ecopsychology, which explores the connection between human well-being and the natural world. One study even incorporated positive psychology exercises, encouraging participants to practice gratitude and use their personal strengths.
However, the review also highlighted a significant gap in the current knowledge. While there is a rich body of practical advice written by therapists and coaches about how to conduct these sessions, the scientific studies reviewed often lacked detail. Many of the papers did not fully explain the specific techniques used or the theoretical reasoning behind them. The researchers noted that the most detailed descriptions of these interventions came from clinical literature written by practitioners for other practitioners, yet these rich descriptions have not been thoroughly tested or measured in the scientific studies they reviewed. This creates a distance between what professionals are doing in the field and what the scientific data can currently confirm. The studies that did exist showed promising results, but the lack of standardized reporting makes it difficult to know exactly which parts of the intervention are responsible for the benefits.
The authors concluded that while the concept of walking and talking in nature is clearly taking root across different disciplines, the field is still in its early stages of development. The interventions are characterized by flexibility and adaptation to the individual rather than a rigid, one-size-fits-all protocol. To move forward and build a stronger evidence base, the researchers suggest that future studies need to describe their methods with much greater precision. They need to clearly outline not just that a session happened, but exactly what was said, what exercises were performed, and how the environment was used. Only with this level of detail can the scientific community truly understand how to replicate these successes and help more people find healing through the simple act of walking and talking in the natural world.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.