I would like to question your description: "just went there, saw the scene, clicked the photo and returned home". You could describe this way every possible human activity, and it also has a literary value (Caesar's "Veni, vidi, vici") but reality is a bit different.

To just "go there" he had to walk around, in search, spending maybe hours. One cannot simply study the travel directions from google maps or whatever, get up from the computer and go straight to the point.

Regarding "seeing the scene": that's the whole point of photography. You visualize and capture something, and maybe a lot of people had seen the same thing a lot of times but didn't think/were able to capture it. Consider the title of Freeman's books: "The photographer's eye", "The photographer's mind"... how many times a mundane subject becomes a great photo? He had to find a good point of view (For example I am always left with the feeling that I have missed something, that it was possible to do better, to be more incisive...)

Regarding "clicking the photo": he had to find the right balance to achieve what he wished. And maybe he was carring a tripod all along in his walk in the trees.

So, it's not at all so easy. Your question seems to imply that since nature is so beautiful, taking a beautiful shot is "easy". But taking a shot always requires your point of view (and your opinion about picking one subject rather than another). And it requires your photographic skills, just like other (maybe much more controlled, e.g. in studio) kinds of photography.