Articles like this frustrate me because they almost always conflate a bunch of very different things (e.g. being near trees, being away from loud noises, being in an environment that has no deliberate function, increased exposure to sunlight) under the umbrella of "nature", which turns out to be a largely inconsistent and culture-bound concept. There are clear hints of researchers actually wanting to understand the underlying processes or play with other manifestations of whatever "nature" might be giving us, but they're treated like footnotes to the narrative of "Hooray, we knew all along that nature is great, but now science proves it!".

And then there's this:

> “Imagine a therapy that had no known side effects, was readily available, and could improve your cognitive functioning at zero cost,” the researchers wrote in their paper. It exists, they continued, and it’s called “interacting with nature.”

I can't adequately explain how deeply I loathe this kind of claim (free, no side effects, huge benefits; similar claims are often made about exercise, optimism, or just about anything else that an author thinks is wholesome and virtuous). Anything that has effects has side effects. Anyone who says differently is selling something.