Whatever it might be, it isn't science

Oh, dear.  Universities and researches are being called on the mat everywhere for not showing their work, for using non-random populations, for small sample sizes, for using self-reports rather than empirical observations, hyping small effect sizes, and all the other scientific ills which unaccountable researchers are heir to.  

And still, this got published?

What is Europe PMC? 

 Europe PMC is an open science platform that enables access to a worldwide collection of life science publications and preprints from trusted sources around the globe.

And this is what they published.  Biophilia: does visual contact with nature impact on health and well-being? by B. Grinde and GG Patil.  Emphasis added.

It is concluded that an environment devoid of Nature may act as a "discord", i.e., have a negative effect. While the term mismatch is used for any difference between present living conditions and the environment of evolutionary adaptation, discords are mismatches with a potentially undesirable impact on health or quality of life. The problem is partly due to the visual absence of plants, and may be ameliorated by adding elements of Nature, e.g., by creating parks, by offering a view through windows, and by potted plants. The conclusion is based on an evaluation of some fifty relevant empirical studies.

[snip]

The biophilia trait can be reinforced or subdued by individual learning. It seems likely, however, that even in individuals who do not express any appreciation for plants and nature, the lack of nature can have a negative effect. Moreover, although the demonstrated effects are not overwhelming, the cost of making nature available, if only as potted plants, is neither prohibiting. In other words, it seems worthwhile to encourage interaction with plants, both outdoor and indoor, as this is likely to be a useful environmental initiative with a sound cost-benefit profile.

This isn't science.  They looked at a population of studies.  They do not share their methodology and make no assertion as to the accuracy or replication of those studies.  Instead, they conclude that it seems likely that the thesis they wish to be true could be true.

Nonsense.  Get your evidence together and present that.

I am more than inclined perhaps than others to believe that exposure to nature is healthful, at least to some categories of people to some degree.  I love nature and hiking and exploring and climbing.  I find it restorative and therapeutic.  

I have always been interested in finding some credible support as to 1) whether that effect is particular to individuals or is universal, 2) whether the health effects (physical or mental) are sufficiently material to improve lives (being mindful to control confounds), and 3) whether the effects of exposure to nature are more than ephemeral (i.e. maybe positive effect within an hour but not continuing).  I have never comes across such robust findings.  Every research I see is plagued by all the above weaknesses mentioned in the opening paragraph, as well as an incomprehension of human variation.

Having been a BSA Assistant Scout Master and involved in urban scout troops, I can guaranty that the beauties and healthful response to nature are not uniform, either amongst adults or children.  Being in nature for many can be alarming and anxiety inducing, if not dramatically terrifying.  Which makes this sinister presumption absurd:

Even in individuals who do not express any appreciation for plants and nature, the lack of nature can have a negative effect.

The researchers are so committed to finding what they assume is true that they are willing to override and ignore actual people's responses.  Shame on them.  I am so tired of faux intellectuals and their bullying.