Abstract
In recent years, outdoor hiking has garnered global attention as an effective health promotion activity. This review synthesizes relevant literature from various databases up to October 2025, assessing the physiological, psychological, and socio-economic impacts of outdoor hiking on individuals. The findings indicate that outdoor hiking significantly improves cardiovascular function, reduces the risk of chronic diseases, and enhances immune function. Additionally, it alleviates stress, improves mood, and helps reduce symptoms of depression. Furthermore, hiking contributes to increased social interaction and community cohesion, while also stimulating tourism and related industries. Existing policies and management measures still have limitations. This paper suggests incorporating trail development into national infrastructure planning, promoting “green social prescribing,” and establishing a standardized framework for benefit assessment to support evidence-based decision-making. In conclusion, outdoor hiking not only enhances individual physical and mental health but also has a positive impact on economic and social development, necessitating policy support and interdisciplinary collaboration for sustainable health promotion.
1 Introduction: discovering the value of outdoor hiking
With the acceleration of globalization and urbanization, sedentary lifestyles, persistent psychological stress, and detachment from natural environments have led to rising trends in chronic diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, obesity, and diabetes) and mental health issues (such as anxiety, depression, and stress disorders) (–). These issues pose a significant burden on both individual quality of life and public health systems. In response to these challenges, public health policies have increasingly focused on promoting active lifestyles, particularly through outdoor activities like hiking, to improve physical and mental health. Hiking, with its low entry barriers, flexibility, and rich nature-based experiences, has become a globally popular outdoor activity (). In this study, hiking is defined as a non-competitive outdoor walking activity conducted in natural environments (such as forests, mountains, and rural trails), typically lasting ≥30 min and characterized by natural exposure, psychological restoration, and social interaction (–). Existing studies indicate that hiking not only improves cardiovascular function, weight management, and immune function but also alleviates stress, improves mood, and enhances mental health (–). Furthermore, hiking promotes social interactions, strengthens community cohesion, and has positive effects on local economies, particularly in tourism and environmental conservation sectors (, , , ). However, most studies have focused either on physiological or psychological effects, often with small sample sizes or cross-sectional designs, lacking interdisciplinary integration. Research on the economic and social benefits remains fragmented. Knowledge gaps still exist regarding unequal participation opportunities, the sustainability of hiking activities, and policy implementation pathways. Therefore, this review adopts an interdisciplinary approach to systematically assess the multidimensional impacts of hiking on health, economics, and social sustainability, examining mechanisms, policies, and practical applications to provide scientific evidence for public health, urban planning, and tourism ().
2 Methods
This study is an integrative review that synthesizes systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and original research evidence, aiming to evaluate the multidimensional benefits of outdoor hiking in terms of physiological, psychological, and socio-economic outcomes. The methodology follows the structure of an umbrella review, integrating quantitative data from existing meta-analyses for the physiological and psychological aspects, while employing a traditional narrative review approach for the socio-economic section. The research follows the PICO/PECO framework to define the study scope: Population: general adults and specific subgroups (such as older individuals and adolescents); Intervention/Exposure: outdoor hiking activities (including trekking, mountain trail walking, and walking in natural environments, excluding indoor or virtual walking, unless used as a comparison); Comparison: non-participants or groups engaged in usual activities; Outcome: physiological health, psychological health, socio-economic benefits, and factors influencing participation barriers and facilitators. Systematic searches were conducted in the PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and SPORTDiscus databases, with a cutoff date of October 20, 2025, including only English-language literature, supplemented by gray literature and reference tracking. The search strategy was developed by an information expert and reviewed according to PRESS standards (the full search strategy is provided in Supplementary Table S1). Two researchers independently screened the literature and extracted data, managing references using EndNote 20.2.1, and documenting study characteristics, intervention information, and primary outcomes using standardized forms. Double data entry and independent verification ensured accuracy, with discrepancies resolved by a third researcher. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the AMSTAR2 tool (see Supplementary Tables S2–S5) (). Data synthesis primarily involved narrative analysis, with quantitative summaries for measurable outcomes, covering physiological, psychological, and socio-economic benefits, and identifying factors influencing participation barriers and facilitators. Policy, infrastructure, and health promotion strategies were also summarized. The study adhered to the PRISMA 2020 reporting standards, with the literature screening process and final selection of articles presented in Supplementary Figure S1 and Supplementary Table S6.
3 Global development and trends in outdoor hiking
3.1 Global participation overview, growth projections, and influencing factors
Outdoor leisure activities, particularly hiking, have gained increasing attention worldwide, with participation showing a strong upward trajectory. However, it is noteworthy that, to date, there is no authoritative institution that has published unified and precise comparative data on outdoor hiking participation rates for 2025 across countries. Nonetheless, statistical data from North America, particularly the United States, provides valuable insights into global hiking trends. Long-term forecasts from organizations such as the U.S. Forest Service predict steady growth in hiking participation from 2010 to 2060, with an expected increase of ~7%−10% (). This growth trend is largely driven by factors such as population growth, socioeconomic changes, and increased leisure time (, ). Although some studies suggest a decline in participation among younger generations in certain outdoor activities, the youth demographic remains a key participant group in hiking (). For Europe and Asia, despite the lack of detailed forecasting data, there are indications of positive trends in hiking through the growth of adventure tourism, increased national park visitation, and the booming outdoor equipment market, suggesting that hiking is similarly on the rise in these regions (, ).
Participation in hiking is influenced by a range of factors, with population demographics, socioeconomic conditions, resource accessibility, and climate change being key variables (, –). While aging populations may see a decline in participation in high-intensity outdoor activities, hiking, with its low-to-moderate physical demands, offers broad adaptability, allowing participation across different age groups with minimal impact from age-related changes. Socioeconomic factors also play a crucial role, with higher-income individuals typically having greater economic capacity and more leisure time to engage in hiking activities, whereas urbanization and accessibility to natural environments may limit urban residents' opportunities for such engagement. The distribution and quality of public natural resources, such as national parks, forests, and trails, directly affect the promotion of hiking activities. The greater the accessibility to these resources, the higher the level of hiking participation. Furthermore, the growing impact of climate change has altered suitable seasons and geographical areas for hiking, significantly influencing the seasonal distribution and regional participation rates of hiking.
3.2 Emerging trends: technological integration and practical transformations
With advancements in technology, the integration of navigation and safety technologies has significantly enhanced the accessibility and safety of hiking. Devices such as smartphones, GPS devices, personal locator beacons (PLBs), and hiking apps (off-line maps, route planning, and elevation tracking) have become essential equipment for hikers (, ). These technologies not only reduce the risk of getting lost but also enhance hikers' sense of safety in the outdoors, particularly for beginners, encouraging more individuals to attempt more complex trails. Additionally, the rise of social media, online forums, and video platforms (such as YouTube) has facilitated the rapid dissemination of route guides, equipment reviews, and real-time trail information, fostering the widespread dissemination of hiking culture and the formation of online communities ().
However, the proliferation of technology has sparked debates regarding the relationship between “technology and nature,” with some hikers expressing concerns that over-reliance on technology might diminish the deep connection between individuals and nature, thus impacting the authentic wilderness experience (, ). Therefore, finding a balance between enjoying the conveniences brought by technology and maintaining the traditional spirit of hiking has become an ongoing topic of discussion. Furthermore, technological advancements have also led to the emergence of new outdoor activities, such as “Geocaching,” which incorporates GPS positioning to add an element of gaming and exploration to hiking, attracting more young participants and driving the diversification of the hiking experience ().
4 Physical and mental health benefits of hiking
4.1 Physical health benefits
Hiking, as a moderate-intensity aerobic exercise, has been widely recognized for its positive effects on physical health (Figure 1). It not only improves cardiovascular health and optimizes metabolic function but also boosts immune system defenses. Numerous studies have shown that hiking significantly helps in the prevention and management of chronic diseases, particularly cardiovascular diseases and type 2 diabetes (, ). Furthermore, organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) actively promote hiking as an integral part of daily physical activity, recognizing it as an effective means to enhance physical health and delay aging (–). Regular hiking activities contribute to weight management, lower blood pressure, improved blood lipid levels, and significantly enhance bone, muscle, and joint health, thereby improving overall quality of life (–).
Figure 1
4.1.1 Cardiovascular system improvement
Extensive clinical research supports the positive effects of hiking on cardiovascular health. Hiking has been shown to significantly reduce systolic and diastolic blood pressure in individuals with hypertension, with the benefits being particularly pronounced when hiking in natural environments, such as urban parks or forests (–) (Table 1). Regular hiking can also improve heart rate recovery, an indicator of cardiovascular system adaptation and health (). While hiking may lead to temporary increases in heart rate and blood pressure due to exercise intensity, long-term adherence to hiking helps the body control these fluctuations, thereby reducing the long-term risk of cardiovascular diseases (, ). At the molecular level, hiking significantly promotes the expression of proteins related to cholesterol reverse transport (e.g., CD36 and ABCA1) while reducing levels of matrix metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9), which facilitates vascular remodeling. These molecular changes contribute to lowered blood pressure, improved arterial elasticity, and reduced arterial stiffness, thereby lowering the risk of coronary heart disease and other cardiovascular conditions (, ). Additionally, heart rate variability (HRV), a key indicator of autonomic nervous system function, has been shown to significantly improve with hiking in natural environments, highlighting the relaxation and health-promoting effects that nature has on the cardiovascular system ().
Table 1
| First author/Year/Number of included studies | Outcome | n (comparisons) | Effect size (SDM) | 95% CI | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oja P (2018) () (n = 38 studies) | Body mass | 42 | −0.134 | −0.233, −0.034 | < 0.01 |
| BMI | 29 | −0.142 | −0.257, −0.027 | 0.015 | |
| Body fat | 29 | −0.216 | −0.336, −0.096 | < 0.01 | |
| SBP | 35 | −0.213 | −0.344, −0.082 | < 0.01 | |
| DBP | 33 | −0.166 | −0.285, −0.047 | < 0.01 | |
| FG | 17 | −0.211 | −0.401, −0.022 | 0.029 | |
| VO2max | 31 | 0.528 | 0.391, 0.664 | < 0.01 | |
| Hanson S and Jones A (2015) () (n = 42 studies) | SBP | 440 | −3.72 | −5.28, −2.17 | < 0.01 |
| DBP | 440 | −3.14 | −4.15, −2.13 | < 0.01 | |
| HR | 252 | −2.88 | −4.13, −1.64 | < 0.01 | |
| Body fat (%) | 328 | −1.31 | −2.10, −0.52 | 0.01 | |
| BMI | 451 | −0.71 | −1.19, −0.23 | < 0.01 | |
| Total cholesterol (mmol/L) | 271 | −0.11 | −0.22, −0.01 | 0.03 | |
| VO2max | 166 | 2.66 | 1.67, 3.65 | < 0.01 | |
| SF-36 Physical Functioning (points) | 68 | 6.02 | 0.51, 11.53 | 0.03 | |
| 6-min Walk Distance (m) | 65 | 79.6 | 53.37, 105.84 | < 0.01 |
Summary of meta-analysis results on biomedical and functional health outcomes of hiking.
The meta-analysis results indicate that outdoor hiking significantly improves key physiological indicators such as body weight, blood pressure, body fat, blood glucose, and aerobic capacity, while also enhancing functional health levels (VO2max, 6-min walk distance, SF-36 physical health scores). These effects suggest that hiking not only effectively promotes cardiovascular health and metabolic homeostasis, but also improves overall physical fitness and quality of life, providing evidence-based support for public health interventions. SDM, standardized difference in means; BMI, body mass index; SBP, systolic blood pressure; DBP, diastolic blood pressure; FG, fasting glucose; VO2max, maximal oxygen uptake; HR, resting heart rate; TC, total cholesterol.
4.1.2 Metabolic and immune function optimization
Hiking not only benefits weight management and energy balance but also improves metabolic function and enhances immune system defenses. Hiking helps control body weight, increase energy expenditure, improve insulin sensitivity, and reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes and other metabolic diseases (). Particularly when conducted in natural environments, hiking, such as “Shinrin-yoku” (forest bathing), has been found to modulate the functions of the central nervous system, autonomic nervous system, and endocrine systems, thereby enhancing immune system responses (). By promoting parasympathetic nervous activity and reducing sympathetic nervous tension, hiking helps the body enter a state of recovery and relaxation, which not only benefits mental health but also boosts immune defenses, preventing chronic diseases (). In terms of immune function, hiking, especially in natural environments such as forests, has been shown to significantly increase the activity of natural killer (NK) cells, enhancing the body's ability to fight disease (). Furthermore, hiking reduces stress and regulates stress hormone levels, further enhancing the body's immune response and improving overall health ().
4.1.3 Exploring the physiological mechanisms of hiking
The health benefits of hiking result from a complex interaction of physiological, psychological, and environmental factors. Physiological evidence shows that forest hiking significantly lowers salivary cortisol levels by modulating the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, thereby reducing stress responses (–). This process enhances parasympathetic nervous activity and reduces sympathetic nervous tension, allowing the body to effectively enter a state of recovery and relaxation, thereby improving self-repair abilities (, ). Moreover, hiking also quantifiably demonstrates the effects of this recovery process through physiological indicators such as heart rate variability (HRV). Neuroscientific studies further reveal that hiking significantly reduces the activity of the subgenual prefrontal cortex and amygdala, brain regions associated with negative thinking, suggesting that hiking has a direct neurological basis for stress regulation (, ). In terms of neurotransmitters, hiking is thought to promote the release of “happy hormones” such as serotonin, dopamine, and endorphins, which improve mood and mental well-being (, ). However, some studies suggest that forest walking may reduce dopamine levels in the blood, indicating that the mechanisms of hiking are more complex and involve the rebalancing of neurotransmitter networks (). As such, future research will need to focus on the specific regulatory effects of outdoor hiking on neurotransmitter dynamics, exploring its complex physiological and psychological mechanisms (–).
5 Mental health benefits: the therapeutic power of nature
5.1 Emotional and stress regulation
Multiple systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have empirically demonstrated that outdoor hiking can alleviate stress, improve mood, enhance self-esteem, and overall well-being, while also promoting psychological recovery and emotional regulation (see Figure 2, Table 2) (, , 60). Natural environments provide quiet, green spaces that facilitate psychological restoration and emotional regulation, which can be explained by theories based on ecological psychology and environmental psychology (, 61–63). Research indicates that, compared to indoor or urban settings, “green exercise” in natural environments has distinct advantages in improving mood; forest walking (Shinrin-yoku) is particularly effective in reducing anxiety and stress (, , 64), suggesting that natural spaces, through their quiet and green characteristics, play a significant role in promoting psychological health recovery (, 65, 66).
Figure 2
Table 2
| First Author/Year/Number of Included Studies | Outcome | n (comparisons) | Effect size (SDM) | 95% CI | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grassini S. (2022) () (n = 7 studies) | Depression (pre- vs. post-nature walk) | 175 | −0.39 | −0.61, −0.18 | < 0.01 |
| Anxiety (pre- vs. post-nature walk) | 173 | −0.43 | −0.69, −0.17 | < 0.01 | |
| Depression (nature walk vs. control) | 637 | −0.23 | −0.34, −0.12 | < 0.01 | |
| Anxiety (nature walk vs. control) | 637 | −0.23 | −0.87, −0.64 | < 0.01 | |
| Coventry PA (2021) (60) (n = 50 studies) | Depressive mood | 1044 | −0.64 | −1.05, −0.23 | < 0.01 |
| Anxiety | 737 | −0.94 | −1.87, −0.01 | < 0.01 | |
| Positive affect | 289 | 0.95 | 0.59, 1.31 | 0.101 | |
| Negative affect | 347 | −0.52 | −0.77, −0.26 | 0.350 | |
| Hanson S and Jones A (2015) () (n = 38 studies) | Depression Score | 101 | −0.67 | −0.97, −0.38 | < 0.01 |
Summary of meta-analysis results on mental health outcomes of hiking.
The meta-analysis results indicate that hiking is effective in reducing symptoms of depression and anxiety, enhancing positive emotions, and alleviating negative emotions. SDM, standardized difference in means.
5.2 Cognitive function and creativity enhancement
The Attention Restoration Theory (ART) posits that the “soft fascination” of natural environments (e.g., trees, flowing water, birdsong) requires minimal cognitive effort to capture attention, thereby aiding in the restoration of directed attention and enhancing cognitive function and creativity (, 67, 68). The Stress Reduction Theory (SRT) and Biophilia Hypothesis also emphasize that the evolutionary bond between humans and nature can reduce psychological stress. Hiking interventions, which combine gait rhythm with natural sensory stimulation, have been shown to improve attention, working memory, and cognitive flexibility (69). As a sustainable exercise therapy, hiking has been explored as an adjunctive treatment for mental disorders (e.g., depression, anxiety), with some studies showing that its psychological benefits are comparable to traditional cognitive behavioral therapy or pharmacological interventions (70–72). Additionally, hiking has been found to improve the quality of life, psychological recovery, and social functioning in specific populations (e.g., cancer survivors, veterans) (69, 73–75). However, as of 2025, there is a lack of large-scale, up-to-date meta-analyses specifically focused on “hiking interventions for mental disorders” (73, 74, 76, 77), highlighting the need for high-quality, cross-population longitudinal research to further validate its intervention effects and mechanisms.
5.3 Theoretical frameworks and neurophysiological evidence
ART, SRT, and the Biophilia Hypothesis provide psychological mechanisms explaining how natural environments can alleviate mental fatigue and activate the parasympathetic nervous system, thereby reducing stress and anxiety (, 78). Neurophysiological studies show that forest walking significantly increases parasympathetic activity, reduces sympathetic tension, lowers cortisol levels, and improves blood pressure (79–81). Complex natural landscapes have also been shown to enhance brain executive functions, particularly in cognitive flexibility and perceptual fluency (79, 82).
5.4 Quantitative assessment of emotional improvement
In scientific evaluations, standardized scales such as WHO-5, DASS-21, and PANAS are widely used to quantify emotions, stress, and well-being (60, 83–86). Meta-analyses have indicated that exposure to natural environments significantly reduces fatigue (POMS effect size = −0.84), and hiking interventions produce moderate to large effects in improving mood (87–89).
In summary, outdoor hiking, as a moderate-intensity aerobic exercise, derives its psychological health benefits from the interaction between psychological and environmental factors. Empirical evidence supports that hiking improves mood, reduces stress, and enhances cognitive function, while theoretical frameworks (ART, SRT, Biophilia Hypothesis) provide explanations of the psychological and physiological mechanisms involved, offering scientific basis for public health interventions and disease prevention (, 90, 91).
Physiologically, hiking contributes to cardiovascular health, metabolic regulation, and immune function. Psychologically, it helps alleviate anxiety and depression, enhances emotional health, and improves cognitive function and creativity. These benefits are mediated by neurophysiological mechanisms, including reduced cortisol levels, enhanced self-repair capacity, and the promotion of serotonin, dopamine, and endorphin release.
6 Quantitative assessment of economic and social benefits
6.1 . Macroeconomic impact: driving regional growth and employment
Hiking tourism, as a significant form of outdoor recreation, has been shown to significantly promote economic growth in regions rich in natural resources, particularly in rural areas. Existing literature categorizes the economic benefits of hiking tourism into three effects: direct effects, indirect effects, and induced effects. The direct effects primarily arise from tourists' expenditures on accommodation, transportation, dining, and equipment. Indirect effects involve the diffusion of hiking-related industry chains, such as equipment manufacturing and the supply of local agricultural products. Induced effects stem from the re-consumption of hiking-related income (, 92). Empirical studies indicate that these effects can significantly increase regional output and employment. For example, a quantitative study in the Berguedà region of Spain, using input-output models and tourist expenditure surveys, assessed the specific contributions of hiking activities to total output, value-added, and employment (). Other outdoor recreational activities, such as visits to state parks, non-motorized trail use, rafting, and fishing, also demonstrate similar economic impacts, including job creation, increased local income, and higher regional tax revenues (93–95). Research methodologies primarily include input-output (I-O) models, Keynesian multiplier methods, and tourist expenditure surveys (, 93, 96, 97). While some studies attempt to explore the relationship between trail mileage and regional GDP or employment rates through regression analysis (98), no standardized quantitative model or official guidelines (such as frameworks from WHO or the UN) currently exist internationally. Therefore, the existing economic benefit data are derived from empirical studies conducted in specific regions, serving as background information to demonstrate the economic potential of hiking tourism. From a macroeconomic perspective, the outdoor recreation industry has become an important component of national economies. For instance, the large scale of the outdoor recreation economy in the United States significantly contributes to GDP (99). This data suggests that outdoor activities, particularly hiking, are not only independent economic phenomena but also key drivers of growth in related industries such as equipment manufacturing, tourism services, and transportation (100).
6.2 Health economics perspective: cost-effectiveness and value transformation
The health benefits of hiking can be viewed as a quantifiable economic asset. Existing research has shown that organizing outdoor hiking activities can effectively prevent chronic diseases, improve physical and mental health, and reduce dependence on national healthcare services, thereby saving public healthcare expenditure (e.g., the UK's NHS) (). Moreover, improvements in physical and mental health can directly translate into increased labor productivity, such as reduced absenteeism and improved efficiency. One study indicated the significant economic loss caused by depression to the U.S. workforce (101), indirectly supporting the potential economic value of outdoor activities like hiking in improving mental health. Health economics research typically uses cost-benefit analysis (CBA) () and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (102) to monetize health benefits. In this context, CBA quantifies all costs and benefits to assess the social return on investment, while QALYs combine life expectancy and health quality to convert health improvements into economic value.
6.3 Contribution to social development: social cohesion and community building
Hiking activities also have significant social impacts, particularly in promoting social cohesion and community building. Research shows that group or partnered hiking can build trust, support, and a sense of belonging through shared challenges, thereby enhancing social capital within the group (103–107). Organized hiking activities, such as community walking groups, have been shown to reduce health inequalities, strengthen neighborhood relationships, and enhance community identity (105, 106). Trust and cooperation gained through social interactions among participants can further promote community entrepreneurship and sustainable development (108). Additionally, specific hiking communities (e.g., long-distance hikers) have formed unique social networks through online and offline activities and information sharing, injecting new vitality into hiking culture (109).
Outdoor hiking interventions not only improve participants' physical and mental health and reduce healthcare costs but also promote community participation, enhance social cohesion, and create economic benefits through tourism and related industries. These multi-level benefits highlight the integrated value of hiking activities in the fields of health economics and social development (Figure 2). The ToC model in Figure 2 is constructed based on the evidence-based ToC framework proposed by WHO, employing a combination of systematic literature mapping, expert consultations, and theoretical deduction. The causal pathways regarding the effects of hiking on cardiovascular, metabolic, and mental health are supported by a wealth of randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses. However, the links between hiking and economic benefits (e.g., employment, GDP growth) as well as social cohesion (e.g., community participation, social capital formation) are, in part, based on theoretical synthesis from interdisciplinary literature, and require further verification through longitudinal and mixed-methods research.
The Theory of Change (ToC) model for outdoor hiking interventions was constructed based on three core references (, , 105). This figure follows the stage-by-stage process outlined in the “Evidence-Informed Theory of Change” published by the World Health Organization (WHO), systematically presenting the outcome chain of outdoor hiking interventions from “Inputs—Activities—Outputs—Long-Term Outcomes—Ultimate Impacts.” On the left side of the figure, the supporting conditions that generate effects (policy, environment, and culture) are listed. The core chain illustrates how hiking activities and associated services can ultimately create comprehensive societal value in the areas of economic sustainability, social equity, and health equity by improving physical and mental health, promoting tourism consumption, and fostering community interaction.
6.4 Emerging issues
In recent years, the rise of digital platforms and the sharing economy model has profoundly altered the organization, economic structure, and social dynamics of outdoor hiking activities. Platforms like AllTrails and Meetup have provided hiking enthusiasts with more convenient ways to organize and participate, driving both economic and social transformation in the field. Sharing economy platforms, by connecting service providers (e.g., hiking guides) with consumers, have created new market opportunities. Through this model, individual guides or amateur enthusiasts can bypass traditional intermediaries to provide direct services to tourists, thereby earning more income (110, 111). However, the emergence of digital platforms has also introduced new competitive challenges. By charging commissions and employing price competition strategies, these platforms may influence the income structure of traditional professional guides (112–114). Moreover, the proliferation of platform economies could lead to market profits being concentrated in a few large platform companies, whose algorithms and rule-making processes play a decisive role in the income and market access of guides, raising concerns about fairness (115, 116). From a social inclusivity perspective, digital platforms have a dual impact. On the one hand, they provide marginalized groups (such as people of color, women, and larger-bodied individuals) with more opportunities to participate and platforms for social interaction, thereby increasing their visibility in outdoor activities (117–119). On the other hand, the widespread adoption of these platforms may exacerbate the “digital divide,” particularly for economically disadvantaged groups or those living in rural areas who may lack access to digital devices or related skills, thus hindering their full participation in outdoor activities and exacerbating social inequalities in health behaviors (120, 121).
6.5 Challenges and frontiers in evaluation methodology
Although existing evaluation tools and frameworks are becoming more refined, there remain significant challenges in quantifying “non-market values,” especially when it comes to pricing mental health benefits. Methods such as Wellbeing Valuation and Social Return on Investment (SROI) provide directions for addressing this issue (, 122), but they often rely on complex surveys and statistical models, and the universality and robustness of their results still require further empirical validation (123, 124). Additionally, the standardization of data collection remains a major challenge in evaluations. Current studies predominantly collect data through surveys and interviews (125), yet there is a lack of unified national or international data collection protocols. Establishing standardized data frameworks would improve the transparency and comparability of evaluation results (126–128). While some regions have enhanced the market appeal and tourist satisfaction of trails through certification systems (e.g., Europe's “Leading Quality Trails”) (129), the integration of these certification standards with economic impact assessment methods is still not widespread.
7 Major issues and challenges currently faced
With the rapid growth of outdoor hiking, the health, economic, and social benefits it brings are becoming increasingly evident. However, existing research and empirical case studies indicate that the widespread adoption of this activity also exposes a range of challenges, including those related to individual health and safety, social equity, environmental sustainability, and inadequate data and policy support.
Firstly, concerning individual health and safety, although hiking has been shown to effectively improve physical health, beginners and participants in high-risk environments still face significant risks. These include acute illnesses caused by environmental conditions and weather, accidents such as falls or slips, musculoskeletal injuries, and psychological stress (120, 130–136). Evidence suggests that systematic risk education, pre-hike planning, physical conditioning, first aid training, the provision of professional equipment, and the establishment of rescue systems can effectively reduce the incidence of such accidents (132, 133, 135, 137, 138).
Secondly, social inequality and resource distribution issues remain prominent in hiking activities. Low-income communities, ethnic minorities, and people with disabilities encounter significant barriers to access to trail resources, information, and the economic costs associated with hiking (106, 118, 139–142). Empirical research shows that even with interventions such as community walking programs and free walking events like Parkrun, participation inequalities have not been fully eliminated (139, 140, 143–147). Additionally, the rapid growth of hiking activities exerts pressure on vulnerable ecosystems, leading to vegetation destruction, soil compaction, wildlife disturbance, and environmental pollution (144, 148–155). This growth may also negatively impact residents' quality of life and visitors' experiences (156–159). While measures such as visitor flow management, the promotion of “Leave No Trace” principles, and trail maintenance have been implemented, challenges related to funding, staffing, and visitor compliance remain constraints (153, 160).
Lastly, the issues of data collection and policy lag further hinder the sustainable development of outdoor hiking. Current assessments of economic, health, and social benefits suffer from significant methodological differences, inconsistencies in scope, and lack of standardization (, 97, 161–164), resulting in a delay in policy development relative to the growth of the activity. This is particularly evident in the challenge of balancing environmental protection, visitor experience, community interests, and economic development (160, 165).
8 Policy implications, research limitations and future directions
8.1 . Policy recommendations
Based on the aforementioned empirical findings, several policy suggestions can be made to enhance the comprehensive benefits of outdoor hiking, while distinguishing between evidence-based recommendations and interpretive inferences. Firstly, the construction of high-quality, accessible trail networks should be prioritized as a key infrastructure investment. Previous studies indicate that trail accessibility and quality are directly related to participation rates, public health improvements, and local economic growth (). Therefore, trail planning should encompass both urban and rural areas, ensuring barrier-free access, with a particular focus on accessibility for people with disabilities, to maximize social and health benefits. Secondly, interdepartmental collaboration among sectors such as healthcare, environmental protection, sports, and tourism should be promoted. Health economics research demonstrates that outdoor hiking activities improve mental health, alleviate symptoms of depression, and reduce healthcare costs (101, 102). Consequently, at the policy level, hiking could be incorporated into a “green social prescription” system, allowing doctors to prescribe outdoor activities as preventive and rehabilitative interventions. Thirdly, it is crucial to establish a standardized framework for evaluating the benefits of outdoor activities and to improve data collection systems. Existing literature shows significant discrepancies in the methodologies, indicators, and scope of quantifying economic, health, and social benefits (161–164), which hampers the scientific rigor and practicality of policy-making. Developing unified data collection methods, core evaluation indicators, and recommended assessment approaches would provide reliable support for policy decisions and improve performance management. Fourthly, targeted interventions are needed to address social equity and the participation of disadvantaged groups (partially evidence-based and partially interpretive suggestions). Studies indicate that low-income groups, ethnic minorities, and individuals with disabilities face barriers in accessing trail resources (139–141). Policies can improve resource accessibility through community empowerment projects, digital technology, and social platforms, while ensuring equitable participation. Finally, environmental protection and visitor management should be strengthened. Empirical research indicates that hiking activities exert pressure on ecosystems, while visitor flow management, trail maintenance, and the promotion of “Leave No Trace” principles can mitigate environmental degradation (144, 160). Policies should leverage big data and monitoring technologies to optimize visitor distribution, ensuring a safe and sustainable outdoor experience.
8.2 . Research limitations and future directions
While existing literature broadly supports the positive effects of hiking on physical and mental health, there are still notable gaps in both methodology and evidence. Firstly, many studies combine hiking with broader categories such as “outdoor activities” or “nature exposure,” making it difficult to isolate the specific effects of hiking (166–168). Secondly, small sample sizes and the predominance of cross-sectional designs limit the generalizability and causal inference of the results. Moreover, most studies rely on self-reported questionnaires, lacking long-term follow-up and objective physiological measures (, 60, 169, 170). Differences in environmental types (e.g., forests, coastlines, mountains), intervention intensity, and cultural contexts further increase heterogeneity in results (171). Quantitative studies on the dose-response relationship of hiking (including frequency, duration, and intensity) remain limited, and no standardized recommendations for policy or clinical implementation have been established (172). In terms of economic and social dimensions, most research focuses on descriptive analysis, with insufficient cross-regional comparability (96, 173). Additionally, longitudinal studies on the impact of hiking on socio-economic outcomes are almost non-existent (, 174, 175). Although some studies examine differences in outdoor activity participation among low-income populations (176), the long-term economic impact of hiking as a path to social capital and career development (e.g., guiding or hospitality businesses) has not been explored in depth. Furthermore, there is a lack of research systematically assessing the long-term contributions of hiking activities in reducing chronic disease burden and saving healthcare costs from a macro health economics perspective (177).
To improve the scientific rigor and practicality of outdoor hiking research and policy-making, future studies should adopt a combination of longitudinal designs and mixed methods, incorporating objective physiological indicators, psychological assessments, and economic modeling to build a robust evidence base (, 123, 124). Furthermore, there is a need to explore the differential responses of various groups (e.g., children, older individuals, and those with specific health conditions) to intervention dose, frequency, and intensity, providing a foundation for personalized interventions and policy optimization. Additionally, interdisciplinary collaboration—encompassing public health, economics, and geographic information sciences—is essential for establishing a standardized framework for evaluating the health, economic, and social benefits of hiking. This would aid in the scientific evaluation of policy effectiveness and guide resource allocation, thereby achieving the integrated enhancement of social equity, environmental sustainability, and public health goals. Moreover, the use of digital technologies and data analytics could facilitate dynamic management, optimize visitor flow distribution, and reduce ecological pressure. This would maximize the health, social, and economic benefits of outdoor hiking activities while ensuring participant safety and environmental sustainability, providing quantifiable scientific support for policy decisions (, 144, 150).
9 Conclusion
This study demonstrates that outdoor hiking activities have widespread and profound effects on enhancing individual physical and mental health, fostering social integration, and promoting local economic development. Specifically, outdoor hiking not only reduces the incidence of chronic diseases and promotes mental health improvements but also generates significant economic benefits, especially in tourism, employment, and related industries. However, with the increasing participation in hiking, new challenges such as resource inequality, environmental burdens, and personal safety risks have emerged. Therefore, ensuring the sustainable development of outdoor hiking requires systematic and comprehensive policy interventions and management measures. Policymakers should prioritize addressing resource allocation inequalities, enhancing infrastructure, optimizing trail networks, and promoting public health through initiatives like green social prescribing. Meanwhile, future research should focus on long-term health benefits, particularly the economic quantification of mental health improvements, and explore the effectiveness of personalized intervention strategies. These efforts will lay a solid foundation for promoting the sustainable development of outdoor hiking and ensuring its widespread benefits across society. Therefore, further strengthening interdisciplinary collaboration and policy support will be key to maximizing the health, economic, and social benefits of outdoor hiking activities.
Statements
Author contributions
TP: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. ZZ: Resources, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft. JZ: Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft. WL: Data curation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – original draft. XT: Investigation, Project administration, Writing – original draft.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This study was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant No. 2025023).
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank our editor and reviewers for their valuable comments.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1700325/full#supplementary-material
References
1.
RomainAJMarleauJBaillotA. Association between physical multimorbidity, body mass index and mental health/disorders in a representative sample of people with obesity. J Epidemiol Commun Health. (2019) 73:874–80. doi: 10.1136/jech-2018-211497
2.
LavalleeKLZhangXCSchneiderSMargrafJ. Obesity and mental health: a longitudinal, cross-cultural examination in Germany and China. Front Psychol. (2021) 12:712567. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.712567
3.
SamudraRPHeboyanV. Examining the connection between health outcomes, state political ideology, and food access in the United States. J Public Health Manag Pract JPHMP. (2023) 29:E284–92. doi: 10.1097/PHH.0000000000001786
4.
GeigerSSteinbachJSkodaEMJahreLRentropVKocolDet al. Needs and demands for e-mental health interventions in individuals with overweight and obesity: user-centred design approach. Obes Facts. (2023) 16:173–83. doi: 10.1159/000527914
5.
MuroAMateoCParradoESubirana-MalaretMMoyaMGarrigaAet al. Forest bathing and hiking benefits for mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic in Mediterranean regions. Eur J For Res. (2023) 142:415–26. doi: 10.1007/s10342-023-01531-6
6.
TeixeiraAGabrielRQuaresmaLAlencoãoAMartinhoJMoreiraH. Obesity and natural spaces in adults and older people: a systematic review. J Phys Act Health. (2021) 18:714–27. doi: 10.1123/jpah.2020-0589
7.
CordellHK. Outdoor Recreation Trends and Futures: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment. Asheville, NC: US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station (2012). p. 1–167. doi: 10.2737/SRS-GTR-150
8.
FattoriniLPittiglioGFedericoBPalliccaABernardiMRodioA. Workload comparison between hiking and indoor physical activity. J Strength Cond Res. (2012) 26:2883. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e318242a61e
9.
Acevedo-DuqueÁLlanos-HerreraGRGarcía-SalirrosasEESimón-IsidoroSÁlvarez-HerranzAPÁlvarez-BecerraRet al. Scientometric analysis of hiking tourism and its relevance for wellbeing and knowledge management. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2022) 19:8534. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19148534
10.
MittenDOverholtJRHaynesFID'AmoreCCAdyJC. Hiking: a low-cost, accessible intervention to promote health benefits. Am J Lifestyle Med. (2018) 12:302–10. doi: 10.1177/1559827616658229
11.
LiaoXZhuYLuLLiWZhangLJiCet al. Maternal manganese activates anti-apoptotic-related gene expressions via miR-1551 and miR-34c in embryonic hearts from maternal heat stress (Gallus gallus). J Therm Biol. (2019) 84:190–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jtherbio.2019.07.014
12.
LesserIAThomsonCJ. A pre-post study design exploring the potential benefits of a hiking intervention for active and inactive older adults. J Aging Phys Act. (2025) 33:17–26. doi: 10.1123/japa.2023-0347
13.
NiedermeierMEinwangerJHartlAKoppM. Affective responses in mountain hiking-a randomized crossover trial focusing on differences between indoor and outdoor activity. PLoS ONE. (2017) 12:e0177719. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0177719
14.
XuPHuangYHouQChengJRenZYeRet al. Relationship between physical activity and mental health in a national representative cross-section study: its variations according to obesity and comorbidity. J Affect Disord. (2022) 308:484–93. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2022.04.037
15.
BettmannJESpeelmanEBlumenthalECouchSMcArthurT. How does nature exposure affect adults with symptoms of mental illness? A meta-analysis. Int J Mental Health Nurs. (2024) 33:1889–907. doi: 10.1111/inm.13400
16.
SmileyARamosWElliottLWolterS. Comparing the trail users with trail non-users on physical activity, sleep, mood and well-being index. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2020) 17:6225. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17176225
17.
RayaJMMartinez-GarciaECelmaD. Economic and social yield of investing in hiking tourism: the case of Berguedà, Spain. J Travel Tour Mark. (2017) 35:1–14. doi: 10.1080/10548408.2017.1350252
18.
MakanjuolaALynchMHartfielNCuthbertAEdwardsRT. Prevention of poor physical and mental health through the green social prescribing opening doors to the outdoors programme: a social return on investment analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2023) 20:6111. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20126111
19.
SheaBJReevesBCWellsGThukuMHamelCMoranJet al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. (2017) 358:j4008. doi: 10.1136/bmj.j4008
20.
MarafaLMTingHYCheongCK. Perceived benefits of hiking as an outdoor recreation activity in Hong Kong. LICERE Rev Programa Pós-grad Interdiscip Estud Lazer. (2007) 10. doi: 10.35699/1981-3171.2007.934
21.
PalK. A review of employee engagement and strategies implementation in virtual work environment. Int J Sci Res Sci Eng Technol. (2021) 48:114–21. doi: 10.32628/IJSRSET218425
22.
DangTTAntolinPOxleyH. Fiscal Implication of Ageing: Projections of Age-Related Spending. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network (2001). Available online at: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=607122. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.607122
23.
GramannJH. Ethnicity, Race, and Outdoor Recreation. A Review of Trends, Policy, and Research. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station (2025). Available online at: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/html/tr/ADA306913/
24.
WhiteEMBowkerJMAskewAELangnerLLArnoldJREnglishDBK. Federal Outdoor Recreation Trends: Effects on Economic Opportunities. Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture, Pacific Northwest Research Station (2016). doi: 10.2737/PNW-GTR-945
25.
AskewAEBowkerJM. Impacts of climate change on outdoor recreation participation: outlook to 2060. J Park Recreat Adm. (2018) 36:97–120. doi: 10.18666/JPRA-2018-V36-I2-8316
26.
HyattEPointonMHarveyMInnocentiP. Whither wilderness? An investigation of technology use by long-distance backpackers. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. (2021) 72:683–98. doi: 10.1002/asi.24437
27.
FieldsSG. Technology on the Trail: Using Cultural Probes to Understand Hikers. Blacksburg: Virginia Tech (2017). Available online at: http://hdl.handle.net/10919/78726.
28.
HuberDFreidlJPichlerCBischofMKiemMWeisböck-ErdheimRet al. Long-term effects of mountain hiking vs. forest therapy on physical and mental health of couples: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2023) 20:1469. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20021469
29.
MalemRRistianiRAli PutehM. Brisk Walking exercise has benefits of lowering blood pressure in hypertension sufferers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Iran J Public Health. (2024) 53:774–84. doi: 10.18502/ijph.v53i4.15554
30.
WenCPWaiJPTsaiMKYangYCChengTYLeeMCet al. Minimum amount of physical activity for reduced mortality and extended life expectancy: a prospective cohort study. Lancet. (2011) 378:1244–53. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60749-6
31.
SmithECusackTCunninghamCBlakeC. The influence of a cognitive dual task on the gait parameters of healthy older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Aging Phys Act. (2017) 25:671–86. doi: 10.1123/japa.2016-0265
32.
MurtaghEMMurphyMHBoone-HeinonenJ. Walking: the first steps in cardiovascular disease prevention. Curr Opin Cardiol. (2010) 25:490. doi: 10.1097/HCO.0b013e32833ce972
33.
WoodcockJGivoniMMorganAS. Health impact modelling of active travel visions for England and Wales using an integrated transport and health impact modelling tool (ITHIM). PLoS ONE. (2013) 8:e51462. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0051462
34.
KahlmeierSCavillNThondooMRutterHde SaTHRacioppiFet al. The Health Economic Assessment Tool (HEAT) for walking and cycling - experiences from 10 years of application of a health impact assessment tool in policy and practice. Front Sports Active Living. (2023) 5:1146761. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2023.1146761
35.
GötschiTKahlmeierSCastroABrandCCavillNKellyPet al. Integrated impact assessment of active travel: expanding the scope of the health economic assessment tool (HEAT) for walking and cycling. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2020) 17:7361. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17207361
36.
PapaleOFestinoEDi RoccoFFosterCPrestantiISerafiniSet al. The impact of a multidimensional physical activity intervention on glycemic control in type 1 diabetes: a preliminary study. J Funct Morphol Kinesiol. (2025) 10:163. doi: 10.3390/jfmk10020163
37.
MooreMS. The interleaving trails of lifestyle and wilderness. Am J Lifestyle Med. (2023) 17:470–5. doi: 10.1177/15598276221140854
38.
WebbRThompsonJERuffinoJSDaviesNAWatkeysLHooperSet al. Evaluation of cardiovascular risk-lowering health benefits accruing from laboratory-based, community-based and exercise-referral exercise programmes. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med. (2016) 2:e000089. doi: 10.1136/bmjsem-2015-000089
39.
PapaleOFestinoERoccoFDMaioMDCortisCFuscoAet al. Psychophysiological data harmonization for the sustainability of outdoor activities. Sustainability. (2023) 15:15838. doi: 10.3390/su152215838
40.
OjaPKellyPMurtaghEMMurphyMHFosterCTitzeS. Effects of frequency, intensity, duration and volume of walking interventions on CVD risk factors: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis of randomised controlled trials among inactive healthy adults. Br J Sports Med. (2018) 52:769–75. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2017-098558
41.
HansonSJonesA. Is there evidence that walking groups have health benefits? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. (2015) 49:710–5. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2014-094157
42.
SkaliyAVMulykKVBanZet al. Assessment of the functional state of the cardiovascular system of students during a mountain hiking trip. Slobozhanskyi Her Sci Sport. (2023) 27: 158–165. doi: 10.15391/snsv.2023-3.007
43.
MiedaRMatsuiYTobeMKanamotoMSutoTSaitoS. Education program for prevention of outdoor accidents in middle-high aged trekkers: monitoring of change in blood pressure and heart rate during exercise. Prev Med Rep. (2021) 23:101396. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2021.101396
44.
FaulknerJGerhardJStonerLLambrickD. Self-paced walking within a diverse topographical environment elicits an appropriate training stimulus for cardiac rehabilitation patients. Rehabil Res Pract. (2012) 2012:140871. doi: 10.1155/2012/140871
45.
ManningJWMontesJStoneTMRietjensRWYoungJCDeBelisoMet al. Cardiovascular and perceived exertion responses to leisure trail hiking. J Outdoor Recreat Educ Leadership. (2015) 7:83–92. doi: 10.18666/JOREL-2015-V7-I2-7005
46.
MartinaitieneDSampaioFDemetrovicsZGjoneskaBPortačenkoJDamulevičiuteAet al. A randomised controlled trial assessing the effects of weather sensitivity profile and walking in nature on the psychophysiological response to stress in individuals with coronary artery disease. A study protocol. BMC Psychol. (2024) 12:82. doi: 10.1186/s40359-024-01574-3
47.
López-PousaSBassets PagèsGMonserrat-VilaSde Gracia BlancoMHidalgo ColoméJGarre-OlmoJ. Sense of well-being in patients with fibromyalgia: aerobic exercise program in a mature forest-a pilot study. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. (2015) 2015:614783. doi: 10.1155/2015/614783
48.
ShinMJYouJHKimJUShinWS. Effects of exercise intensity differences in forest therapy programs on immunoglobulin a and dehydroepiandrosterone levels in older adults. Forests. (2024) 15:577. doi: 10.3390/f15040577
49.
NiedermeierMGrafetstätterCHartlAKoppM. A randomized crossover trial on acute stress-related physiological responses to mountain hiking. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2017) 14:905. doi: 10.3390/ijerph14080905
50.
O'maraS. Biopsychosocial functions of human walking and adherence to behaviourally demanding belief systems: a narrative review. Front Psychol. (2021) 12:654122. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.654122
51.
FarrowMRWashburnK. A review of field experiments on the effect of forest bathing on anxiety and heart rate variability. Glob Adv Health Med. (2019) 8:2164956119848654. doi: 10.1177/2164956119848654
52.
MauMAabyAKlausenSHRoesslerKK. Are long-distance walks therapeutic? A systematic scoping review of the conceptualization of long-distance walking and its relation to mental health. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2021) 18:7741. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18157741
53.
SudimacSSaleVKühnS. How nature nurtures: amygdala activity decreases as the result of a one-hour walk in nature. Mol Psychiatry. (2022) 27:4446–52. doi: 10.1038/s41380-022-01720-6
54.
WangMJiangCHuangYHeXDengL. The association of outdoor walking per week with mental health and costs of psychotropic drugs in adults. J Commun Health. (2023) 48:136–40. doi: 10.1007/s10900-022-01157-6
55.
WalterKHOtisNPGlassmanLHRayTNMichalewicz-KraghBKobayashi ElliottKTet al. Comparison of surf and hike therapy for active duty service members with major depressive disorder: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial of novel interventions in a naturalistic setting. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. (2019) 16:100435. doi: 10.1016/j.conctc.2019.100435
56.
Thompson CoonJBoddyKSteinKWhearRBartonJDepledgeMH. Does participating in physical activity in outdoor natural environments have a greater effect on physical and mental wellbeing than physical activity indoors? A systematic review. Environ Sci Technol. (2011) 45:1761–72. doi: 10.1021/es102947t
57.
RobertsLJonesGBrooksR. Why do you ride?: A characterization of mountain bikers, their engagement methods, and perceived links to mental health and well-being. Front Psychol. (2018) 9:1642. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01642
58.
BartonJPrettyJ. What is the best dose of nature and green exercise for improving mental health? A multi-study analysis. Environ Sci Technol. (2010) 44:3947–55. doi: 10.1021/es903183r
59.
GrassiniS. A Systematic review and meta-analysis of nature walk as an intervention for anxiety and depression. J Clin Med. (2022) 11:1731. doi: 10.3390/jcm11061731
60.
CoventryPABrownJEPervinJBrabynSPatemanRBreedveltJet al. Nature-based outdoor activities for mental and physical health: systematic review and meta-analysis. SSM Popul Health. (2021) 16:100934. doi: 10.1016/j.ssmph.2021.100934
61.
BratmanGNHamiltonJPHahnKSDailyGCGrossJJ. Nature experience reduces rumination and subgenual prefrontal cortex activation. Proc Nat Acad Sci. (2015) 112:8567–72. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1510459112
62.
PivaGCarusoLGómezACCalzolariMVisintinEPDavoliPet al. Effects of forest walking on physical and mental health in elderly populations: a systematic review. Rev Environ Health. (2024) 39:121–36. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2022-0093
63.
NoseworthyMPeddieLBucklerEJParkFPhamMPrattSet al. The effects of outdoor versus indoor exercise on psychological health, physical health, and physical activity behaviour: a systematic review of longitudinal trials. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2023) 20:1669. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20031669
64.
ParkBJTsunetsuguYKasetaniTKagawaTMiyazakiY. The physiological effects of Shinrin-yoku (taking in the forest atmosphere or forest bathing): evidence from field experiments in 24 forests across Japan. Environ Health Prev Med. (2010) 15:18–26. doi: 10.1007/s12199-009-0086-9
65.
KellyPWilliamsonCNivenAGHunterRMutrieNRichardsJ. Walking on sunshine: scoping review of the evidence for walking and mental health. Br J Sports Med. (2018) 52:800–6. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2017-098827
66.
GrecoGCentroneCPoliLSilvaAFRussoLCataldiSet al. Impact of coastal walking outdoors and virtual reality indoor walking on heart rate, enjoyment levels and mindfulness experiences in healthy adults. J Func Morphol Kinesiol. (2024) 9:11. doi: 10.3390/jfmk9010011c
67.
NiedermeierMGrafetstätterCKoppMHuberDMayrMPichlerCet al. The role of anthropogenic elements in the environment for affective states and cortisol concentration in mountain hiking—a crossover trial. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2019) 16:290. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16020290
68.
BaileyAWKangHK. Walking and sitting outdoors: which is better for cognitive performance and mental states?Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2022) 19:16638. doi: 10.3390/ijerph192416638
69.
VictorsonDDoningerGVictorsonSVictorsonGHallLMaletichCet al. Psychosocial and biological outcomes of immersive, mindfulness-based treks in nature for groups of young adults and caregivers affected by cancer: results from a single arm program evaluation from 2016-2021. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2021) 18:12622. doi: 10.3390/ijerph182312622
70.
KleinstäuberMReuterMDollNet al. Rock climbing and acute emotion regulation in patients with major depressive disorder in the context of a psychological inpatient treatment: a controlled pilot trial. Psychol Res Behav Manag. (2017) 10:277–81. doi: 10.2147/PRBM.S143830
71.
LuttenbergerKStelzerEMFörstSSchopperMKornhuberJBookS. Indoor rock climbing (bouldering) as a new treatment for depression: study design of a waitlist-controlled randomized group pilot study and the first results. BMC Psychiatry. (2015) 15:201. doi: 10.1186/s12888-015-0585-8
72.
DorschtLKargNBookSGraesselEKornhuberJLuttenbergerK. A German climbing study on depression: a bouldering psychotherapeutic group intervention in outpatients compared with state-of-the-art cognitive behavioural group therapy and physical activation – study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial. BMC Psychiatry. (2019) 19:154. doi: 10.1186/s12888-019-2140-5
73.
HarmonJKyleG. Connecting to the trail: natural spaces as places of healing. Leisure Sci. (2022) 44:1112–27. doi: 10.1080/01490400.2020.1712282
74.
WalterKHOtisNPRayTNGlassmanLHBeltranJLKobayashi ElliottKTet al. A randomized controlled trial of surf and hike therapy for US active duty service members with major depressive disorder. BMC Psychiatry. (2023) 23:109. doi: 10.1186/s12888-022-04452-7
75.
MeloniMNataleDCariaAPorcoIGVenturaLBandieraPet al. Land- and water-based sports activities in natural environments as a group exercise for Parkinson's disease: proof-of-concept pilot study. Sport Sci Health. (2025) 21:839–51. doi: 10.1007/s11332-024-01321-6
76.
MaJLinPWilliamsJ. Effectiveness of nature-based walking interventions in improving mental health in adults: a systematic review. Curr Psychol. (2024) 43:9521–39. doi: 10.1007/s12144-023-05112-z
77.
Rosa CDChaves TSColladoSet al. The effect of nature-based adventure interventions on depression: a systematic review. Environ Behav. (2023) 55:140–74. doi: 10.1177/00139165231174615
78.
ParkSKimEKimGKimSChoiYPaekD. What activities in forests are beneficial for human health? A systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2022) 19:2692. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19052692
79.
LamatunggaKEPichlerováMHalamováJet al. Forests serve vulnerable groups in times of crises: improved mental health of older adults by individual forest walking during the COVID-19 pandemic. Front Forests Glob Change. (2024) 7. doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2024.1287266
80.
LeeJTsunetsuguYTakayamaNet al. Influence of forest therapy on cardiovascular relaxation in young adults. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. (2014) 2014:834360. doi: 10.1155/2014/834360
81.
LeeDGLeeMMJeongYMKimJGYoonYKShinWS. Influence of forest visitors' perceived restorativeness on social-psychological stress. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2021) 18:6328. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18126328
82.
WanRWanRQiuQ. Progress and prospects of research on the impact of forest therapy on mental health: a bibliometric analysis. Forests. (2024) 15:1013. doi: 10.3390/f15061013
83.
MayerKLukácsA. Motivation and mental well-being of long-distance hikers: a quantitative and qualitative approach. Heliyon. (2021) 7:e06960. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06960
84.
MarselleMRIrvineKNWarberSL. Walking for well-being: are group walks in certain types of natural environments better for well-being than group walks in urban environments?Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2013) 10:5603–28. doi: 10.3390/ijerph10115603
85.
WenYGuXDengWYanQPanYLiuYet al. The effects of dynamic and static forest bathing (Shinrin-yoku) on physiological and psychological health in males and females. Forests. (2023) 14:1592. doi: 10.3390/f14081592
86.
WatsonDClarkLATellegenA. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. J Pers Soc Psychol. (1988) 54:1063–70. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.54.6.1063
87.
KanchibhotlaDHarsoraPGuptePMehrotraSSharmaPTrehanN. Alleviating work exhaustion, improving professional fulfillment, and influencing positivity among healthcare professionals during COVID-19: a study on Sudarshan Kriya Yoga. Front Psychol. (2022) 13:670227. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.670227
88.
Enrique RoigAMolinariGMirallesIet al. El Mejor Self Posible: Una intervención dirigida a generar emociones positivas. Res Prelim. (2015) 2:215–23. doi: 10.6035/AgoraSalut.2015.2.21
89.
SongSTuRLuYYinSLinHXiaoY. Restorative Effects from green exposure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2022) 19:14506. doi: 10.3390/ijerph192114506
90.
BullFCAl-AnsariSSBiddleSBorodulinKBumanMPCardonGet al. World Health Organization 2020 guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Br J Sports Med. (2020) 54:1451–62. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2020-102955
91.
StoltzfusKBNaylorDCattermoleTAnkeneyAMountRChangRet al. Blood pressure changes while hiking at moderate altitudes: a prospective cohort study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2020) 17:7978. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17217978
92.
KastenholzERodriguesÁ. Discussing the potential benefits of hiking tourism in Portugal. Anatolia. (2007) 18:5–21. doi: 10.1080/13032917.2007.9687033
93.
NaglerAMBastianCTTaylorDTet al. Community economic contributions from recreational trails usage on public lands: implications from a comprehensive Wyoming Case Study. West Econ Forum. (2013) 12:1–11.
94.
BergstromJCCordellHKWatsonAEAshleyGA. Economic impacts of state parks on state economies in the South. J Agric Appl Econ. (1990) 22:69–77. doi: 10.1017/S1074070800001826
95.
EnglishDBKBowkerJM. Economic impacts of guided whitewater rafting: a study of five rivers. J Am Water Resour Assoc. (2025) 32:1319–28. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.1996.tb03500.x
96.
LukoseviciuteGPereiraLNPanagopoulosT. The economic impact of recreational trails: a systematic literature review. J Ecotour. (2022) 21:366–93. doi: 10.1080/14724049.2022.2030745
97.
ComleyVMackintoshC. The Economic Impact of Outdoor Recreation in the UK: The Evidence. Liverpool: SRA/Liverpool John Moores University location (2014).
98.
DunlopSRUkkusuriSThakkarDJMittalSPatilUGalaJet al. Economic Effect of Active Transportation Features and the Association Between the Healthcare Industry and Transportation. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University (2023).
99.
SpradlinTJGivensJE. Framing climate change in local context: newspaper coverage of climate change in three mountain towns in the intermountain west compared to national coverage. Newsp Res J. (2022) 43:073953292211064. doi: 10.1177/07395329221106485
100.
MaplesJBradleyM. Outdoor recreation and rural transitions in Central Appalachia: revisiting the economic impact of rock climbing in Kentucky's Red River Gorge. J Econ Impact. (2021) 3:186–95. doi: 10.52223/jei3032108
101.
StewartWFRicciJACheeEHahnSRMorgansteinD. Cost of lost productive work time among US workers with depression. JAMA. (2003) 289:3135–44. doi: 10.1001/jama.289.23.3135
102.
WhiteMPElliottLRTaylorTWheelerBWSpencerAet al. Recreational physical activity in natural environments and implications for health: a population based cross-sectional study in England. Prev Med. (2016) 91:383–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.08.023
103.
CartyE. Outdoor adventure youth work: bridging child and youth care and outdoor adventure. In: Child & Youth Care Across Sectors: Canadian Perspectives. Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press (2007).
104.
VespestadMMehmetogluM. The relationship between tourist nationality, cultural orientation and nature-based tourism experiences. Eur J Tour Res. (2010) 3:87–104. doi: 10.54055/ejtr.v3i2.50
105.
IrvineKNFisherDMarselleMRCurrieMColleyKWarberSL. Social Isolation in older adults: a qualitative study on the social dimensions of group outdoor health walks. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2022) 19:5353. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19095353
106.
RigbyBPDodd-ReynoldsCJOliverEJ. Inequities and inequalities in outdoor walking groups: a scoping review. Public Health Rev. (2020) 41:4. doi: 10.1186/s40985-020-00119-4
107.
HamelE. Wild Civility: Cultivating the Foundations of Social Justice Through Participation in a Wilderness Program. Saarbrücken: LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing (2012).
108.
WilcerS. Understanding hiking participation and benefits: lessons learned from the first day hikes initiative (thesis). Clemson: Clemson University (2017).
109.
KotutLHorningMHaqqDNiuSStelterTMcCrickardDSet al. Tensions on trails: understanding differences between group and community needs in outdoor settings. arXiv [Preprint]. arXiv:1810.08666. (2018). Available online at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1810.08666
110.
ZiółkowskaJ. Finding opportunities in uncertain times. The case study of a tourist guides venture in the EU. Sustainability. (2021) 13:12959. doi: 10.3390/su132312959
111.
NilssonJZillingerM. There is No Such Thing as a Free Walk: Spatial Implications of Shared Guiding Developments. Östersund: Mid Sweden University (2018). Available online at: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/There-is-no-such-thing-as-a-free-walk%3A-Spatial-of-Nilsson-Zillinger/7f2894d6cc32531b0f331341262c1c2706eca1f4
112.
BrunoBFagginiM. Sharing competition: an agent-based model for the short-term accommodations market. B.E. J Econ Anal Policy. (2020) 20:1–13. doi: 10.1515/bejeap-2019-0231
113.
ZervasGProserpioDByersJW. The rise of the sharing economy: estimating the impact of airbnb on the hotel industry. J Market Res. (2017) 54:687–705. doi: 10.1509/jmr.15.0204
114.
GuttentagD. Airbnb: disruptive innovation and the rise of an informal tourism accommodation sector. Curr Issues Tour. (2015) 18:1–26. doi: 10.1080/13683500.2013.827159
115.
ChakrabortyAHannakABiegaAJGummadiKL. Fair sharing for sharing economy platforms. In: Proceedings of FATREC Workshop on Responsible Recommendation at RecSys, Como, Italy (2017). Boise, ID: Boise State University. Available online at: http://scholarworks.boisestate.edu/fatrec/2017/1/6
116.
GösslingSHallCM. Sharing versus collaborative economy: how to align ICT developments and the SDGs in tourism?J Sustain Tour. (2019) 27:74–96. doi: 10.1080/09669582.2018.1560455
117.
StanleyP. Unlikely hikers? Activism, Instagram, and the queer mobilities of fat hikers, women hiking alone, and hikers of colour. Mobilities. (2020) 15:241–56. doi: 10.1080/17450101.2019.1696038
118.
WinterPLCranoWDLambCSBasáñezT. Equity in access to outdoor recreation—informing a sustainable future. Sustainability. (2020) 12:124. doi: 10.3390/su12010124
119.
RödlMHaiderJJoosseS. The quest for “nature” in selfies: how platforms shape nature/society relationships. J Environ Plan Manag. (2024) 67:1928–51. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2023.2265548
120.
D'HoogheSInaçYDeforcheBDyckDVde RidderKVandevijvereSet al. The role of the perceived environment for recreational walking among adults in socioeconomically disadvantaged situations: a study using walk-along interviews. SSM Popul Health. (2023) 23:101456. doi: 10.1016/j.ssmph.2023.101456
121.
LindellSK. Reconciling technology and nature : the use of mobile technology in outdoor recreation (thesis). Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA, United States (2014). Available online at: https://cedar.wwu.edu/wwuet/346
122.
HartfielNGittinsHMorrisonVWynne-JonesSDandyNEdwardsRT. Social return on investment of nature-based activities for adults with mental wellbeing challenges. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2023) 20:6500. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20156500
123.
Buckley RCBroughP. Economic value of parks via human mental health: an analytical framework. Front Ecol Evol. (2017) 5. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2017.00016
124.
BuckleyRBroughPHagueLChauvenetAFlemingCRocheEet al. Economic value of protected areas via visitor mental health. Nat Commun. (2019) 10:5005. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-12631-6
125.
BusbeeRL. Maximizing economic benefits from a rails-to-trails project in southern West Virginia: a case study of the greenbriar river trail. Huntington, WV: Marshall University (2001). Available online at: https://trid.trb.org/View/585109.
126.
LiZMaoL. Construction of a national trail research framework under a natural protected area system. Sustainability. (2022) 14:12343. doi: 10.3390/su141912343
127.
Moore RogerLBarthlowK. North Carolina State University. The Economic Impacts and Uses of Long-Distance Trails: Featuring a Case Study of the Overmountain Victory National Historic Trail.Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management (1998).
128.
SlabbertLM. The Impact of an Accreditation System for Trails on Growth in Hiking Tourism - ProQuest. University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa (2015). Available online at: https://www.proquest.com/openview/344f33432b56cebd66e72d762348bb22/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=2026366&diss=y
129.
JarolímkováLVaníčekJBejdákováB. Evaluation of the benefits of the certification leading quality trails – best of Europe: case study LuŽnice Valley Hiking Trail. In: Tourism in Southern and Eastern Europe 2021: ToSEE – Smart, Experience, Excellence & ToFEEL – Feelings, Excitement, Education, Leisure (2021). p. 375–85. doi: 10.20867/tosee.06.25
130.
LiuYSalbachNMWebberSCBarclayR. Individual and environmental variables related to outdoor walking among older adults: verifying a model to guide the design of interventions targeting outdoor walking. PLoS ONE. (2024) 19:e0296216. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0296216
131.
SalbachNMBarclayRWebberSCJonesCAMayoNELixLMet al. A theory-based, task-oriented, outdoor walking programme for older adults with difficulty walking outdoors: protocol for the Getting Older Adults Outdoors (GO-OUT) randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. (2019) 9:e029393. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029393
132.
VanceLKJonesGPLemlyJMNewlonKRColorado Natural HeritageProgramMontana Natural HeritageProgramet al. Assessing the Natural Range of Variability in Minimally Disturbed Wetlands Across the Rocky Mountains : The Rocky Mountain ReMAP Project. Helena, MT: Montana Natural Heritage Program (2012). doi: 10.5962/bhl.title.65647
133.
HuffmanM G. Trouble in paradise - accident trends in the outdoors. In: Proceedings of the 1998 International Conference on Outdoor Recreation. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press (1999).
134.
WachiraLMuthomiHOokoW. Outdoor adventure practice in Kenya: injuries, illnesses, non-medical concerns, and evacuation profiles on Mt. Kenya. J Human Perf Extrem Environ. (2021) 16. doi: 10.7771/2327-2937.1137
135.
SahriSRaharjoBBNasukaNSumartiningsihSKresnajatiSSugiartoSet al. Criticality of preparation and equipment in hiking and trekking activities: a systematic review. Retos. (2024) 61:210–7. doi: 10.47197/retos.v61.108220
136.
MancaAMeloniMMorroneMBoiAMartinezGVenturaLet al. Wild trekking as an opportunity for rapidly improving anthropometrics, cardiorespiratory and muscular performance in active older adults: the Sardinia “Selvaggio Blu” experience. Sport Sci Health. (2024) 20:609–18. doi: 10.1007/s11332-023-01150-z
137.
JingDZhengYJialongRJianingCet al. The systematic construction of emergency medical security system in long-distance walking movement on urban paved roads. Int J Med Sci Clin Res Stud. (2024) 04. doi: 10.47191/ijmscrs/v4-i03-18
138.
FreemanEL. Walking through and being with nature : an examination of meaning-making and human-environment interaction in two walking and solo experiences in UK wild places (thesis). University of Leeds, Leeds, England (2013).
139.
WuYWeiYDLiuMGarcíaI. Green infrastructure inequality in the context of COVID-19: taking parks and trails as examples. Urban For Urban Green. (2023) 86:128027. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2023.128027
140.
ReedJABallardRMHillMBerriganD. Identification of effective programs to improve access to and use of trails among youth from under-resourced communities: a review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2020) 17:7707. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17217707
141.
StrifeSDowneyL. Childhood development and access to nature. Organ Environ. (2009) 22:99–122. doi: 10.1177/1086026609333340
142.
WernerA. Key challenges facing the development of accessible tourism, using the example of Szczecin in Poland. Eur Res Stud J. (2023) 26:680–9. doi: 10.35808/ersj/3241
143.
ReeceLJQuirkHWellingtonCHaakeSJWilsonF. Bright Spots, physical activity investments that work: Parkrun; a global initiative striving for healthier and happier communities. Br J Sports Med. (2019) 53:326–7. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2018-100041
144.
SchneiderPPSmithRABullasAMQuirkHBayleyTHaakeSJet al. Multiple deprivation and geographic distance to community physical activity events—achieving equitable access to parkrun in England. Public Health. (2020) 189: 48–53. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2020.09.002
145.
RigolonAFlohrTL. Access to Parks for youth as an environmental justice issue: access inequalities and possible solutions. Buildings. (2014) 4:69–94. doi: 10.3390/buildings4020069
146.
HansonS. Towards an understanding of walking groups as a health promoting intervention (thesis). University of East Anglia, Norwich Medical School, Norwich, England (2016). Available online at: https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/eprint/59466/
147.
SalvoDGarciaLReisRSStankovIGoelRSchipperijinJet al. Physical activity promotion and the United Nations sustainable development goals: building synergies to maximize impact. J Phys Act Health. (2021). 18:1163–80. doi: 10.1123/jpah.2021-0413
148.
Malchrowicz-MośkoEBotikováZPocztaJ. “Because we don't want to run in smog”: problems with the sustainable management of sport event tourism in protected areas (a case study of National Parks in Poland and Slovakia). Sustainability. (2019) 11:325. doi: 10.3390/su11020325
149.
BoonyasuratPYJongwanichJW. Eco-trekking in Southeast Asia: a comparative study of sustainable practices in mountain tourism. J Hosp Tour Manag. (2023) 6:12–22. doi: 10.53819/81018102t4175
150.
GreenRJCroftDBWolfID. Preface: special issue on environmental impact of nature-based tourism. Environments. (2019) 6:112. doi: 10.3390/environments6100112
151.
LeungYMarionJ. Recreation Impacts and Management in Wilderness: A State-of-Knowledge Review. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station (2000).
152.
BarrosAMarina PickeringC. How networks of informal trails cause landscape level damage to vegetation. Environ Manage. (2017) 60:57–68. doi: 10.1007/s00267-017-0865-9
153.
GathoniBRintauguEGMunayiSP. Effectiveness of the management measures undertaken to mitigate the impact of recreational activities on vegetation, soil, water and wild game. Int J Sociol. (2022) 6:11–9.
154.
TaylorARKnightRL. Wildlife responses to recreation and associated visitor perceptions. Ecol Appl. (2025) 13:951–63. doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(2003)13[951:WRTRAA]2.0.CO;2
155.
PickeringCMHillW. Impacts of recreation and tourism on plant biodiversity and vegetation in protected areas in Australia. J Environ Manag. (2007) 85:791–800. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.11.021
156.
WójcickiASwitlikWDobrowolskaD. The need for wildlife research and improved management of protected areas in the face of increased nature-based tourism. Environ Prot Nat Resour. (2023) 34:20–8. doi: 10.2478/oszn-2023-0009
157.
BennerM. The decline of tourist destinations: an evolutionary perspective on overtourism. Sustainability. (2020) 12:3653. doi: 10.3390/su12093653
158.
KuščerKMihaličT. Residents' attitudes towards overtourism from the perspective of tourism impacts and cooperation—the case of Ljubljana. Sustainability. (2019) 11:1823. doi: 10.3390/su11061823
159.
TaiminenS. The negative impacts of overtourism on tourism destination from environmental and socio-cultural perspectives (thesis). Yrkeshögskolan Arcada, Helsinki, Finland (2018). Available online at: http://www.theseus.fi/handle/10024/158561
160.
ThomasSLReedSE. Entrenched ties between outdoor recreation and conservation pose challenges for sustainable land management. Environ Res Lett. (2019) 14:115009. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab4f52
161.
RandallA. A difficulty with the travel cost method. Land Econ. (1994) 70:88–96. doi: 10.2307/3146443
162.
GoffR. The economic value of tourism and recreation in forested areas of Western Australia (thesis). Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia (2003). Available online at: https://ro.ecu.edu.au/theses/1302
163.
FixPLoomisJ. The economic benefits of mountain biking at one of its meccas: an application of the travel cost method to mountain biking in Moab, Utah. J Leisure Res. (1997) 29:342–52. doi: 10.1080/00222216.1997.11949800
164.
OrmerodNS. An Examination of the Challenges of Capturing the Value of Adventurous Off-Road Cycling: A Perspective from South West England – ProQuest (2025). Available online at: https://www.proquest.com/openview/3fdc335a98ae3456b9b2d9852827c346/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=51922&diss=y (Accessed October 20, 2025).
165.
ManningRParks StewardshipForum. Walking the Talk in America's National Parks – ProQuest (2025). Available online at: https://www.proquest.com/openview/c56ad46a98746abb4fa8f962776aa862/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=55002 (Accessed October 20, 2025).
166.
HartigTMitchellRVries SdeFrumkinH. Nature and health. Ann Rev Public Health. (2014) 35:207–28. doi: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182443
167.
Anzman-FrascaSDrozdowskyJZayatzCHolmbeckK. Effects of a randomized controlled hiking intervention on daily activities, sleep, and stress among adults during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Public Health. (2023) 23:892. doi: 10.1186/s12889-023-15696-7
168.
BowlerDEBuyung-AliLMKnightTMPullinAS. A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments. BMC Public Health. (2010) 10:456. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-456
169.
HollandWHPowellRBThomsenJMMonzCA. A systematic review of the psychological, social, and educational outcomes associated with participation in wildland recreational activities. J Outdoor Recreat Educ Leadership. (2018) 10:197–225. doi: 10.18666/JOREL-2018-V10-I3-8382
170.
KwanRYCSalihuDLeePHTseMCheungDSKRoopsawangIet al. The effect of e-health interventions promoting physical activity in older people: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Rev Aging Phys Act. (2020) 17:7. doi: 10.1186/s11556-020-00239-5
171.
MeredithGRRakowDAEldermireERBMadsenCGShelleySPet al. Minimum time dose in nature to positively impact the mental health of college-aged students, and how to measure it: a scoping review. Front Psychol. (2020) 10:2942. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02942
172.
StruthersNAGuluzadeNAZecevicAAWaltonDMGunzA. Nature-based interventions for physical health conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ Res. (2024) 258:119421. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2024.119421
173.
LukoseviciuteGPereiraLNPanagopoulosTFedeliGRamseyEMaddenKet al. Recreational trail development within different geographical contexts as a determinant of income multiplier and local economic impact. Tour Manag Perspect. (2023) 46:101090. doi: 10.1016/j.tmp.2023.101090
174.
CummingsJP. A Longitudinal Study of the Outcomes from Participation in Wilderness Adventure Education Programs – ProQuest (2025). Available online at: https://www.proquest.com/openview/f8e6a153d6fc2e1a7f5fdb876347ae7d/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y (Accessed October 20, 2025).
175.
ChhetriPArrowsmithCJacksonM. Determining hiking experiences in nature-based tourist destinations. Tour Manag. (2004) 25:31–43. doi: 10.1016/S0261-5177(03)00057-8
176.
SmithRASchneiderPPCosulichRQuirkHBullasAMHaakeSJet al. Socioeconomic inequalities in distance to and participation in a community-based running and walking activity: a longitudinal ecological study of parkrun 2010 to 2019. Health Place. (2021) 71:102626. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2021.102626
177.
ReuterSKemmerlingTSchmalenbachTBrözelNC. Economic impacts of trail destinations: the case of the peaks of the Balkans trail. J Outdoor Recreat Tour. (2025) 52:100928. doi: 10.1016/j.jort.2025.100928
Summary
Keywords
outdoor hiking, physical health, mental health, economic benefits, social benefits, sustainable development
Citation
Peng T, Zhang Z, Zhang J, Liang W and Tang X (2026) An integrative review of the physical, mental, and socioeconomic benefits of outdoor hiking. Front. Public Health 13:1700325. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1700325
Received
06 September 2025
Revised
14 November 2025
Accepted
25 November 2025
Published
07 January 2026
Volume
13 - 2025
Edited by
Andrea Fusco, G. d'Annunzio University of Chieti and Pescara, Italy
Reviewed by
Joaquín Gómez-Varela, University of A Coruña, Spain
Olga Papale, University of Cassino, Italy
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Peng, Zhang, Zhang, Liang and Tang.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Tianhang Peng, 2024110066@bsu.edu.cn; Xiuqi Tang, txqtea@163.com
†These authors have contributed equally to this work
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.