The article is well sourced and does well not to over-represent the findings which will need to be confirmed by more studies. The piece was credible and well-researched, but it could have done much more to demonstrate how canopy trees are being used in cityscapes today around the world and what the reported health benefits or trends are. For example, is this finding being taken seriously by city planners and contractors around the world? Should we expect to see more canopy tree lines in a city near us? I guess I just wanted to go a layer deeper on the story and its practical implications.

A simple overview of recent research suggesting trees in urban places can increase mental health. They go over why it may have an effect, and that this is just some preliminary research. It's kind of a cool thought, more urban trees.

At first, I was taken aback by how many times they linked to other PS Mag articles within the first paragraph, but those links went to articles where the actual study links could be found. Overall I found the presentation of information credible but would've liked more context around what "psychological distress" actually means, and for those study links to go directly to the source of information. As a follow-up, it would be nice to know what cities/parts of cities have the highest density of tree canopies and see if the people there are happier.