My comment was mocking scientific evidence as this study is pure science and not very practical from the human perspective. But yes there are plenty of studies and even studies on studies:
Table 5. Categories and characteristics of the PWE influencing creativity
It's very similar to how the more nature you bring into your working environment, the more "life" you bring into your work. We're humans, we're not meant to just sit in boring rooms all day and expect to be creative.
> My comment was mocking scientific evidence as this study is pure science and not very practical from the human perspective.
I generally agree with your idea that a natural work environment is better than a boring one. My point was about your assertion that we should get rid of the idea that the tool is the problem, followed by discussion of other factors in a work environment. If we want to know whether or not the tool is the problem, we need to study the tool.
As you point out, and the paper you linked makes clear, there are many other factors involved in creativity in a work environment. The OP study is about one tool however, and it makes it fairly clear that the tool in this case can be a problem. Whether or not it is the main problem is another matter of course.
More generally, the thought that we should even attempt, let alone need, to get rid of any idea without strong evidence to refute it strikes me as worryingly antiscientific. In the context of workplace optimization this may not be very important in the grand scheme of things, but in other matters (climate change comes to mind) it may well be of existential importance.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3051058
Specifically look at:
Table 5. Categories and characteristics of the PWE influencing creativity
It's very similar to how the more nature you bring into your working environment, the more "life" you bring into your work. We're humans, we're not meant to just sit in boring rooms all day and expect to be creative.