I don’t know that this study is crap, but it fits the pattern on the surface: “Correlate politically valuable thing A with biomarker B, observe that B is correlated with universally valued C, totally ignore statistics to infer that A causes C”.
I say this as someone who actively believes it’s healthier to live in or near green spaces!
Allowing lazy content pushers to 'report' on studies without understanding any of it is much more of a problem than any study, however flawed.
That and unscrupulous politicians and megacorps is what has eroded the trust in our society, not only of science but almost anything.
Everyone seems to want the city completely paved over in roads and parking and places to shop and eat and do as much for as cheap as humanly possible.
There's a small number of people who want greenspace and acknowledge it comes at a cost, and they seek it out.
Everyone else seeks out more cheap appliances and clothes and gasoline.
Everyone else seeks out cheaper apartments and 9-5 jobs with two weeks vacation.
There's plenty of beachfront places in other countries American families could easily afford and retire and yet chose to work to live in dumpy apartments in Manhattan instead.
It only works if it's within your financial means.
We can't all assume everyone doesn't want a $200M house in the hills with a megayacht and a full staff because they don't have it. They don't have the means.
But if you have the means and chose something else, it's not because you're dumb and society is evil and tricking you. It's because that's what you want.
Most of the time, people just do things without thinking too much about it and they do the things that are the "default mode" operations in the context in which they are operating.
It is not wise to look at actions people take and conclude that's what they really wanted to do. At the very least you'd need to ask them about it.
There may be 100 reasons why they feel tied to a spot where they actually don't want so much to live in. So let's try to really and truly improve the cities, make them walkable with green and blue spaces, easy public transport out to larger parks and reserves, etc.
Everyone has choices. The society we've made is the sum of our choices. You don't freely chose to do things you don't want to (given your available options).
And this study does not prove anything about them being good for people.
Maybe instead of X USD on this study we should have spent that money on an actual green space somewhere...
And of course even once you get to high enough conviction to call it causation, it’s still liable to be overturned and to reveal itself as a mere correlation nonetheless!
Humans have never once “proved causation” of even a single phenomenon ever.
"Correlation doesn't equal causation!" cried the internerds.
It doesn't need to. If you've got a set (P) of N people who consume substance X, and N people (Q) who did not consume substance X, and 100% of set P died within half an hour of that act, and 100% of Q are still happy little dandelions, that is an entirely valid scientific finding, and an entirely sufficient reason to stop the supply of substance X.