> Findings A total of 129 335 adults were included in the final sample. In the cross-sectional, between-individual analysis, we observed a greater risk (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1·10 [95% CI 1·03–1·20] p<0·05) of antidepressant prescription for those living within 800 m (approximately 10-min walk) of an improved woodland compared with those living further away, but no significant difference in the risk of anxiolytic prescription. In the longitudinal, within-individual analysis, we observed lower prescription use for antidepressants (aOR 0·90 [95% CI 0·87–0·93] p<0·01) and anxiolytics (aOR 0·94 [0·90–0·99] p<0·01) during periods spent living within 800 m of an improved woodland when compared with periods spent living beyond 800 m of an improved woodland.

In the abstract they argue that this is because the woodland improvement program located woods in socioeconomically deprived areas. But in general they shouldn't be making any causal claims with observational data like this. It's a frequent problem that popular press takes a study and reframes an association as causation for their story.

Could be that woodlands grow better in areas with more rain and thus less sun and thus more cases of seasonal depression?

There's a controlled experiments that did show a pretty significant benefit to being outside in a forest vs. in an urban environment. The Japan one on forest bathing from Chiba University saw a 12.4% decrease in cortisol, 5.8% decrease in pulse rate and lower blood pressure for the forest cohort vs. the urban cohort under identical physical exertion parameters.

There was also one I found from back in 1984 where patients in a hospital that had a view of trees having a shorter stay vs. the group with the view of a brick wall, although not entirely sure that one was robust enough to draw any real conclusions on if view matters.

Just going outside in daylight in general should get you most of the benefits (in the right season, depending on where you live. Where I am in the PNW, midday light in the winter isn't even strong enough to trigger a lot of the benefits), so if your only option is to go for a walk outside on the sidewalk then do so, but there are even more positive benefits to be gained by being in nature, outside of an urban environment.

There’s a general benefit to the SF Bay Area outside Palo Alto as each municipality, county, state, federal and open space organizations like the Midpeninsula Open Space District have been maintaining and increasing public parks under their respective jurisdictions open to most all, and free to non drivers. Only my personal experience but it’s a sharp contrast to Texas where 95 percent of land is privately owned and access to open space is much more limited by comparison. I had a few favorite parks in Texas and new ones since I left 30 years ago are close to nil - there’s still a bit extra you can pay the owner for access.

> A study from Scotland

This is not a snipe, please go outside. Take some deep breaths, be around some flora, and fauna. This kind of cynical non-sequitur tells me you're looking for something to be frustrated at.