Landscape Research

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/clar20

Understanding recreational landscapes – a review

and discussion

Andreas Skriver Hansen

To cite this article: Andreas Skriver Hansen (2021) Understanding recreational

landscapes – a review and discussion, Landscape Research, 46:1, 128-141, DOI:
10.1080/01426397.2020.1833320

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2020.1833320

© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.

Published online: 01 Nov 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1331

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=clar20
LANDSCAPE RESEARCH
2021, VOL. 46, NO. 1, 128–141
https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2020.1833320

Understanding recreational landscapes – a review and discussion

Andreas Skriver Hansen
Unit for Human Geography, Department of Economy and Society, School of Business, Economics and Law,
University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This paper contributes with a better understanding of recreational land­ Recreational landscapes;
scapes as a conceptual coupling that lacks clarity and cementation as recreation; landscape;
a legitimate and integrated concept in landscape and outdoor recreation- review; human-nature
encounters; place; human
related disciplines, especially within Nordic landscape and outdoor recrea­
geography; Nordic landscape
tion research. The approach in the paper is an explorative-theoretical one
with a base in a literature review. The results show 294 identified texts
using the conceptual coupling ‘recreation(al) landscape(s)’ in any of its
variants and published in 155 different journals. Only a few of the texts
offer detailed description of its meaning. Consequently, in an attempt to
further the understanding of recreational landscapes, the conceptual
coupling is explored and discussed in more detail with special attention
given to different landscape relations, human-nature encounters and the
relationship between landscape and place. A conclusion is that recrea­
tional landscapes must receive more attention and better anchoring in
various landscape and outdoor recreation-related disciplines.

Introduction
As a landscape researcher within the discipline of human geography, I am always curious about
different conceptual couplings involving the landscape concept. Working primarily with outdoor
recreation in a Nordic context, one particular conceptual coupling, ‘recreation(al) landscape(s)’, has
always interested me as it not only combines two loaded concepts, but also two concepts that are
central to the understanding of the history, use and development of the Nordic landscape (Sörlin,
2008). Oddly enough, however, the coupling of the two concepts remains relatively unexplored.
I have always wondered about this, especially considering the strong traditions within Nordic
landscape and outdoor research, which are generally considered highly integrated and wide in
scope and content (see Emmelin et al., 2010; Stenseke & Hansen, 2014).
Instead, what I have found are many cases of both Nordic and international research where the
concepts are used separately to explore various themes. In recreational ecology, for instance, the
concepts are often used in studies on impacts of recreational activities on physical landscape
elements (e.g., Leung, 2012; Monz et al., 2010; Van der Zee, 1990). In human geography, there are
many examples of studies where recreation is examined in relation to landscape perceptions and
experiences as well as landscape management and planning (e.g., Aitchison et al., 2000; Ankre, 2019;
Zube, 1998). Within architecture, studies on shaping landscapes that facilitate outdoor recreation
activity are many (e.g., Bell, 2008; Wyman, 1985). And in resource management, recreation is often
considered an important landscape component that require attention (e.g., Olson, 2010; Svels &
Åkerlund, 2018). Common for all of them, however, is that the conceptual coupling almost never
appears, let alone is explored in terms of what a ‘recreation(al) landscape(s)’ is or could be.

CONTACT Andreas Skriver Hansen andreas.hansen@geography.gu.se

© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
 LANDSCAPE RESEARCH 129

The situation makes me curious to know if literature exists that has explored the conceptual
coupling and if so, what that literature has to say on the matter. This is what I want to explore in this
paper through a systematic review of literature where the conceptual coupling is used in any of its
variants: ‘recreation(al) landscape(s)’. From the results, I want to add my own discussion in order to
give the conceptual coupling some clarity and to cement it as a coherent and integrated concept
within Nordic landscape and outdoor research. The approach taken in the paper is thus an explora­
tive-theoretical one and divided into four parts. First, the two concepts in the conceptual coupling,
‘recreation’ and ‘landscape’, are introduced. This is followed by a systematic review of relevant
literature using the conceptual coupling to explore its usage and possible meaning. From this,
I offer my own discussion of the conceptual coupling before finishing with a few closing remarks.

‘Recreation’ and ‘landscape’

According to the Cambridge online dictionary, ‘recreation’ is ‘[a way of] enjoying yourself when you
are not working’. In other words, recreation consists of leisure time activities and feelings of
satisfaction, enjoyment and happiness and thus connects to quality of life aspects (Hansen, 2018).
Recreation is also synonymous with relaxation, taking a break and regaining energy, and therefore
has strong links to both physical and mental health (Koppen et al., 2014a, 2014b). Thus, recreation
can be summarised as a leisure time activity resulting in physical and mental enjoyment and
wellbeing.
Recreation is also more commonly known as ‘outdoor recreation’, which emphasise activities
performed in the outdoors (Emmelin et al., 2010). The Nordic countries have their own version of
outdoor recreation, called ‘friluftsliv’, literally meaning ‘free air life’. The official Swedish definition is:
Stays in the outdoors in the natural and cultural landscape to gain well-being and nature experiences without an
involvement of competition. (Author’s transl. Swedish Government, 2010)

The definition contains two important aspects. The first is the aspect of nature experiences by which is
meant experiences of the physical environment, thus making a clear link to outdoor activities and
experiences with nature as a main theme. The second aspect is the emphasis on the natural and
cultural landscape, which adds a spatial dimension to outdoor recreation activity. This is an important
notion, as it establishes a clear link between the performance of recreational activities and the
landscape, or more accurately put, how recreational activities and experiences are situated in and are
part of the landscape. The concept and understanding of ‘friluftsliv’ is important as it views the
landscape as an integral, spatial dimension of outdoor recreation.1
The landscape concept is a bit more complex concept with long traditions. In human
geography, the concept is used as a broad category that encompasses everything from rocks
and trees in the landscape to experiences and meanings that we associate with it (Wylie, 2007).
The landscape concept also connects to the important geographic concepts space, place, time
and power, which can be studied as subgenres of the landscape concept. In relation to outdoor
recreation, the focus is often the lived and experienced landscape, and therefore coupled to
social landscape dimensions (Fix et al., 2013). This includes the understanding that there is no
single landscape out there, but rather multiple ones, shaped and influenced by both physical and
human processes (Fry, 2001; Selman, 2009). Consequently, working with landscapes requires
thinking holistically, mixing physical landscape components with social landscape values
(Antrop & Van Eetvelde, 2017).
This landscape understanding is central to Nordic landscape research, which emphasises that
humans are part of the landscape, indeed we belong to it (Head et al., 2016). However, not only
through different land uses, but through different temporally and spatially anchored meanings
and values, which influence how landscapes are understood and thus also used (see Jones &
Olwig, 2008; Setten, 2006). Olwig (2003) claims this to be a typical Nordic landscape perspective
‘characterized by a concern with history, custom/law, and language and culture as they work
130 A. S. HANSEN

together in forming a landscape polity and its geographic place’ (p. 226). The Nordic production
landscape as well as the unique right of public access are examples of this view and how
landscapes can be perceived as ‘common goods’ (Widgren, 2015, p. 203) in which ‘people’s
embodied expressions, memories and practices’ can be studied (Mels & Setten, 2007, p. 199). This
view is articulated by several other Nordic landscape researchers, including Setten (2006), Sörlin
(2008), and Stenseke (2018), who all emphasise landscapes as a lived world consisting of both
past and ongoing natural, social and cultural processes as well as a context for active relations in
and with the landscape (Ingold, 2000). How ‘recreation(al) landscape(s)’ fit into this understand­
ing is then the question.

Materials and methods

The literature review is structured as a systematic review, involving search, selection and analysis
strategies (Booth et al., 2012). The search strategy was done by searching for the conceptual coupling
in several online all-disciplinary databases, including Google Scholar, Elsevier, ProQuest, Sage
Journals online, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Taylor and Francis online, Web of Science and Wiley online
Library. The selection strategy concerned the sampling size, which was set as broad as possible, yet
with a criterion to only search for and include texts that use the actual conceptual coupling
‘recreation(al) landscape(s)’ in any of its variants. Any related terms, such as ‘recreational areas’,
‘recreational settings’, ‘recreational land’ as well as ‘leisure landscapes’ have been excluded as it is
only the conceptual coupling ‘recreation(al) landscape(s)’ that interests me. Furthermore, only
academic texts from the 1970s and onwards and in the form of papers, book chapters or reports
in English have been included. The search stopped when all the online databases started to report
the same texts. Using the analysis strategy, all relevant texts were gathered and split into the
following three text groups:

● Group 1: mentions the conceptual coupling once or twice but offers no conceptual definition or
discussion.
● Group 2: uses the conceptual coupling a few times and offers some kind of indication of its
meaning.
● Group 3: uses the conceptual coupling actively and/or offers a detailed explanation.

Results
The search identified 294 texts using the conceptual coupling ‘recreation(al) landscape(s)’ in any of
its variants. There are likely to be an additional number of texts not included, as a number of relevant
texts were mentioned as references in other works, but not possible to retrieve, or not in English. The
number is therefore not an absolute number, although efforts have been made to be as extensive
and exhaustive as possible.

Journals and disciplines

The 294 texts were published in a large number of academic journals. These are important indicators
of the wide range of disciplines represented in the papers. Table 1 shows the top 10 interdisciplinary
journals containing texts using the conceptual coupling:
As can be seen, there are no clear patterns in names and disciplines among the listed journals,
although it is clear that at least six of the journals have some kind of environmental, urban or policy
focus. It is also notable that there are two journals with a landscape focus (*) and two with an outdoor
recreation/leisure focus (**). The great majority of the 294 identified texts is, however, from single
journals. In fact, aside from the 10 journals listed in Table 1, 145 unique journals could be identified,
 LANDSCAPE RESEARCH 131

Table 1. Top 10 academic journals.

Top 10 Journal name Number of texts
1 Landscape and Urban Planning* 16
2 Landscape Research* 13
3 Urban forestry & Urban greening 8
4 Journal of Leisure Research** 7
5 Journal of Environmental Management 6
6 Land use policy 5
7 Ecosystem Services 5
8 Environmental Science and Policy 5
9 Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism** 5
10 Society & Natural Resources 5

making it a grand total of 155 journals wherein the conceptual coupling has been used. This is
a number, especially considering the broadness of disciplines represented in the journals, which
ranges from historical, design and cultural focused journals over agricultural, psychology and
economics themed journals to geophysical, engineering and operations management focused
journals. Journals with a base in geography and urban studies are slightly overrepresented. It is
also noteworthy that only seven out of the 155 journals have an explicit landscape focus, while only
six have an explicit recreation/leisure focus. Other popular journals include urban, planning and
environmental themes, matching the top 10 journals listed in Table 1. The large spread in disciplines
can be said to be symptomatic for a conceptual concept that does not claim disciplinary specificity,
but rather is shared among many disciplines.

Group 1
With 250 texts, Group 1 contains the majority of the identified texts. What is remarkable about them is
that no single author behind the papers in this category elaborates on the meaning of the conceptual
coupling, let alone discuss its content or relation to the paper focus. Instead, the authors use the
conceptual coupling rather casually and randomly, as if the coupling is already an accepted and
acknowledged constellation with a set meaning and content. As is shown below, this is not the case.
Furthermore, the coupling is used rather inconsistently and for different purposes in the 250 texts,
arguably affecting its meaning and content, and as a consequence, makes it difficult to understand.

Group 2
Group 2 consists of only 37 texts. In this group, texts show improvements in terms of clarity of the
conceptual coupling, although through vague indications only. Table 2 provides an overview,
arranged according to an indication of text theme.
The first theme, A resource, considers recreational landscapes primarily as resources for recrea­
tional uses and activities among other types of landscape uses. For example, the authors describe
recreational landscapes as resource systems, or common pool resources, or patchwork landscapes,
containing multiple resource units and users, and consisting of mixed conservation and zoned
recreation. Theme 2, Cultural and natural content, emphasises that recreational landscapes contain
both natural and cultural features, highlighting particularly natural and human heritage, processes
and practices in the landscape. This is an important notion that links back to the Nordic landscape
understanding. Theme 3, Destinations for local population, concerns recreational landscapes as
important areas for local people, especially in urban area contexts. Examples include parks, playing
grounds and gardens, while themes such as accessibility and proximity are important. Theme 4,
Landscape aesthetics and attractiveness, discusses how recreational landscapes frame certain
132 A. S. HANSEN

Table 2. Group 2 according to indication of theme.

Indication of
theme Author(s) and year Journals
1. A resource Svels and Åkerlund (2018); Olson (2010); Vail and Fennia; Ecological Economics; Geoforum
Hultkrantz (2000)
2. Natural and Bauer (1971); Busck et al. (2008); Carls (1974); Geoforum; Danish Journal of Geography; Journal of
cultural Zamorshchikova et al. (2018) Leisure Research; Landscape Architecture—The
content Sense of Places, Models and Applications (book
chapter)
3. Destinations Schirpke et al. (2018); Middle et al. (2014); Willibald Ecosystem Services; Urban forestry & urban
for local et al. (2019) greening; Applied geography
population
4. Landscape Loures et al. (2008); Schroeder and Anderson (1984); International Journal of Design & Nature and
aesthetics and Ecodynamics; Journal of Leisure Research
attractiveness
5. Lifestyle, Andriotis (2010); Brehme et al. (2018); McNicol and Annals of tourism research; International Journal of
wellbeing and Glorioso (2014); Santana-Cordero et al. (2016); Spa and Wellness; Annals of leisure research;
quality of life Verschuure-Stuip (2014); Zhang and Ramirez Environmental science & policy; Aesop
(2019) Conference 2014; Cities
6. Pressures Liu et al. (2013); McManus (2006) PLoS ONE; Australian Geographer
7. Protected and Cookingham (2000); Fábos (2004); Healy (1994); Journal of Agricultural & Food Information;
recreational Nadim et al. (2018); Nastase et al. (2019); Pons Landscape and Urban Planning (2); Annals of
areas et al. (2014); Ribeiro et al. (2019); Salikhov et al. Tourism Research; Perspectives in Asian Leisure
(2017); Shchepak et al. (2013); Zube (1998); and Tourism; Sustainability; International Journal
Zuckerberg et al. (2016) of Geographical Information Science; Landscape
Planning with Ecosystem Services (book chapter);
Series of Geology and Technical Sciences; SEPIKE;
Diversity and Distributions;
8. Recreational Brown et al. (2015) Australasian Journal of Environmental Management
activities
9. Sense of place, Eaton et al. (2019); Garber-Yonts (2005); Jones et al. Society & Natural Resources; Conceptualising and
identity and (2000); Rickard and Stedman (2015); Addas and Measuring Demand for Recreation on National
meaning Rishbeth (2018) Forests: A review and synthesis (rapport); Journal
of leisure research (2); Landscape Research

experienced landscape aesthetics and nuances of attractiveness. Social landscape values and under­
standings are studied and linked to work on landscape perceptions and assessments.
Theme 5, Lifestyle, wellbeing and quality of life, concerns how recreational landscapes facilitate
active lifestyles, while also encouraging aspects of physical and mental wellbeing, and therefore
ultimately quality of life aspects. Examples include feelings of amusement, relaxation and tranquillity
as well as contemplation and reflection. In Theme 6, Pressures, recreational landscapes are a frame
around human activities that disturb bio-ecological landscape qualities. The result is conflicts with
conservation goals, emphasising the important balance between use and protection. Theme 7,
Protected and recreational areas, is the largest category wherein recreational landscapes are used
in conjunction with various area categories. Examples include forest areas, rivers, lakes, beaches and
mountains, but also more thematic areas such as parks, zoos, golf courses, playgrounds and larger
resorts. Theme 8, Recreational activities, sees recreational landscapes as landscapes that frame
different recreational activities, e.g., angling, camping, biking and boating. Finally, theme 9, Sense
of place, identity and meaning, concerns how recreational landscapes frame meaningful places of
importance. Feelings and experiences associated with a place in the landscape are examined as
indicators of both individual and collective behaviour in that place.

Group 3
As shown in Table 3, Group 3 only consists of seven texts, emphasising how little attention the
conceptual coupling has been given throughout the years.
Koppen et al. (Koppen et al., 2014a, 2014b) examine how to map, measure and enhance
accessibility to urban recreational landscapes. In its simplest form, the authors argue that
 LANDSCAPE RESEARCH 133

Table 3. Texts that offer detailed explanations.

Author(s) and year Journal
Colley and Craig (2019) Journal of Environmental Psychology
Doxtater (2008) Monitoring, Simulation, and Management
of Visitor Landscapes (book chapter)
Jankauskaitė and Grecevičius (2018) Architecture and Urban Planning
Jankauskaitė et al. (2019) Ecology & Safety
Koppen et al. (2014a) Urban Forestry & Urban Greening
Koppen et al. (2014b) Norwegian Journal of Geography
Zube et al. (1982) Landscape Planning

a recreational landscape can be described as a landscape that facilitates physical activities and
restitution, thus resembling Theme 5 and 8 in Table 2. In their own case study, urban forests, coastal
areas and parks are used as examples, further resembling Theme 7. They also point out that the
‘functionality and suitability of a recreational landscape depends on the recreational activity in
question’ (p. 145) by which any area potentially can be understood as a recreational landscape.
What is important is the proximity to and accessibility in the landscape, which determines whether it
will be used, thus emphasising Theme 3 in Table 2. By doing so, recreational landscapes are coupled
with geographical distance and usability.
Jankauskaitė and Grecevičius (2018, p. 2019) define recreational landscapes as ‘a combination of
natural and anthropogenic components’ (p. 1), thus resembling Theme 2 in Table 2. Natural
components include features of specific locations, such as beaches, the sea and green areas, but
also elements such as climate, air and water, which are often less considered landscape elements.
Anthropogenic components include what the authors refer to as the spirit and identity of the place
as well as the built environment of the landscape, the latter emphasising its design. To this is added
social components such as human interests and conditions in the landscape, including elements
human resources, demographics and legislation. Together, the natural, anthropogenic and social
components are indicators of important ecological, cultural and social qualities that frame and
characterise recreational landscapes.
Colley and Craig (2019) focus instead on perceptions of wildness in relation to local green areas.
They introduce what they call wilder recreational landscapes and the influence these have in shaping
a person’s history and nature contact, for instance, through childhood experiences. The authors refer
to this as nature connectedness, which concerns a closeness and bonding with nature, built on
different experiences and sensations. Place attachments and the concept of sense of place resem­
bling Theme 9 in Table 2 are underlined as important, emphasising that these depend ‘not only on
the characteristics of the setting, but the experiences, capabilities and the social and cultural values
which we bring to the person-environment encounter’ (p. 72). Nature connectedness is thus added
as an important theme in the understanding of recreational landscapes as places of personal
meaning and importance.
Along the same lines, Doxtater (2008) investigates different affordances related to recreational
landscapes. Examples include simple affordances, such as using a map and available services, and
advanced affordances, such as cultural expressions by which is meant how ‘people are likely to
attach shared, symbolic meaning to landscapes in an essentially extrinsic manner somewhat inde­
pendent of physical form’ (p. 25). Place bonding and attachment is again emphasised as important
factors, but this time connected to symbolic meaning-making with the physical settings people use
when engaging in recreational activities. The landscape thus becomes an expression of cultural
meaning, originating from individual cultural and social norms and practices.
The joint view of Colley & Craig and Doxtater is elaborated on by Zube et al. (1982) to whom ‘the
psychophysical relationships between the human being and the recreation landscape’ (p. 13) are of
key importance. The authors study what happens in the exchange between human and nature
during the performance of recreational activities, as this defines both individual and collective
understanding and behaviour. The attention is again on the experiential content of recreational
134 A. S. HANSEN

landscapes with an emphasis on psychological and cognitive outcomes of human-nature interac­

tions, thus again resembling Theme 9 in Table 2.
To sum up, the seven texts in Table 3 confirm many of the identified themes in Table 2.
Furthermore, together the texts in Tables 2 and 3 show the broadness of the conceptual coupling.
While this is interesting on its own, the broadness makes the conceptual coupling rather fuzzy and
unclear. Consequently, the following section contains a discussion of particular important aspects of
the conceptual coupling that cane bring more clarity.

Recreation(al) landscape(s)
A quote by Williams and Vaske (2003, p. 838) works well as a basis for the conceptual coupling and
thus begin the discussion:

. . . landscapes [. . .] are more than containers of natural resources and staging areas for enjoyable activities. They
are locations filled with history, memories, and emotional and symbolic meanings

The quote can be split into three different parts: a recreational content (i.e. ‘enjoyable activities’) in
a physical setting (i.e. ‘natural landscape and natural resources’) and the resulting experience (i.e.
‘history, memories, and emotional and symbolic meanings’). Noticeable is that the definition encap­
sulates the following five themes found in Table 2:

● A resource (Theme 1)
● Natural and cultural content (Theme 2)
● Lifestyle, wellbeing and quality of life (Theme 3)
● Recreational activities (Theme 8)
● Sense of place, identity and meaning (Theme 9)

Furthermore, it resonates well with the texts in Table 3, particularly those by Colley & Craig, Doxtater
and Zube et al. At the same time, the quote also opens new angles which are explored here as part of
an expanded understanding of the conceptual coupling.

Layers of landscape relations

Recreational landscapes is not just about studying the relationship between people and their
recreational activities in a given landscape setting. Indeed, following Williams and Vaske, a key
aspect in understanding recreational landscapes is to acknowledge that:

Landscape integrates the material aspects of nature and agriculture, as well as the immaterial and social aspects
of this material world. In fact the word landscape in its German (Landschaft), Dutch (landschap) or Swedish
(landskap) expression refers to the organisation of a group of inhabitants using the land. Much more than
nature, landscape is recognised as a social construct, strongly related to the way it is being perceived. (Buijs et al.
2006, p. 385)

Aside from casting threads back to the integrative and holistic thinking in the Nordic landscape
understanding, the key message in the quote is the last sentence: the landscape is as much a social
construct as it is a physical reality, depending on how it is perceived. The same point is transferable
to the understanding of recreational landscapes, which concern the social content in the landscape,
enacted and lived through engagement in recreational activities. Particularly, it emphasises an
experiential content in a physical setting that can produce feelings and relations of a social nature,
and ultimately lead to deep and complex attachments (Kaltenborn, 1998; Stedman, 2003). A way to
explain these processes is to focus on different layers of landscape relations that all play important
roles in the understanding of recreational landscapes, as shown in Table 4.
 LANDSCAPE RESEARCH 135

Table 4. Layers of landscape relations in recreational landscapes.

The physical landscape The lived landscape The experienced landscape The symbolic landscape
Description The stage of the The practice of The absorption into the The meaning/
recreation activity recreational activity recreational activity importance of
recreational activity
Examples Rocks, trees, flowers, Social ties Cultural Perceptions Feelings
water values Impressions Emotions Attachments
Personal values Sensations

The physical landscape category has clear links back to Theme 1, Theme 6 and somewhat Theme 2
and Theme 7 in Table 2, which all acknowledge the importance of the material reality in the
recreational landscape understanding. The lived landscape category connects with Theme 2,
Theme 3, Theme 5 and Theme 8, acknowledging the importance of cultural, social and personal
landscape practices and values, creating an immaterial layer in the recreational landscape under­
standing. This is followed by the experienced landscape category, which contains Theme 4 and
somewhat Theme 5, acknowledging not only interaction with the landscape, but also the absorption
into this interaction, thus creating another immaterial layer. Finally, there is the symbolic landscape,
which connects to Theme 9 and somewhat to Theme 4 as well as several authors in Group 3 as it
concerns feelings for, emotions in and attachments to the landscape. To study and understand
recreational landscapes therefore means to study these layers of landscape relations.

Human-nature encounters
Recreational landscapes also offer a good opportunity to study, and thus also better understand, the
encounter between humans and nature and any resulting experiences (Povilanskas et al., 2016). In
this regard, it is important to recognise that recreational landscapes constitute, and are formed by,
a multitude of different human-nature encounters. This has received considerable attention in the
broader research literature with relevance to outdoor recreation and particularly studies of human-
nature encounters, such as environmental connectedness (Beery, 2011; Wolf-Watz, 2015), nature
affinity (Kals et al., 1999), environmental identity (Stedman, 2002) and nature relatedness (Nisbet
et al., 2009).
A base for understanding human-nature encounters is to study recreational practices and
activities in as well as perceptions and experiences of a given landscape setting. More accurately
put, the work must focus on connecting practices and activities with what is perceived and
experienced from the point of view of the user. To do this, attention must be given to describe
factors that influence recreational practices and activities and thus also perceptions and experiences.
Farnum et al. (2005) point out five factors:

● The quality of the physical setting

● Individual values, beliefs and interests
● Social actions and behaviour
● Expectations and satisfaction
● Engagement in recreational activities

Although each of the five factors is important on their own, they are also interconnected. For
example, there is a clear line from the quality of the physical setting to the expectations that are
associated with it and the activities that will be performed. At the same time, expectations and
activities are also influenced by individual values, beliefs and interests as well as social actions and
behaviour, which in turn affect the degree of satisfaction that is derived from the overall recreational
activity and the resulting experience (Povilanskas et al., 2016; Williams, 2007). The basis for under­
standing these processes comes, however, from knowledge about each factor and how they
136 A. S. HANSEN

influence one another. In practice, this means that it becomes important to acquire detailed insight
into all of the above five elements as a way to better understand human-nature encounters as an
important part of recreational landscapes.

Landscape and place

The perhaps least understood part of recreational landscapes is the connection between landscape
and place. The link is, however, interesting as it goes from understanding landscapes as ‘empty
spaces’ to ‘places’ filled with meaning and importance (Farnum et al., 2005). Cheng et al. (2003)
builds on this:
By taking a place perspective, one recognizes that human connections with natural resources and the land­
scapes in which they occur are multifaceted, complex, and saturated with meaning. Instrumental and intangible
values are inseparable; both are part and parcel of the meanings people may assign to a place. (p. 90)

Williams and Patterson (1996) share the same viewpoint by emphasising that what biologists and
ecologists refer to as ‘ecosystems’ often coincides with what geographers and other social scientists
call ‘place’. Likewise, it can be argued that recreational landscapes can be seen as a frame around
multiple places alike to ecosystems components. This landscape understanding requires a move
beyond mere utilisation intentions to a more situated understanding, a place-based landscape, to
which important meanings and values are ascribed (Wolf-Watz, 2015). Williams et al. (1992, p. 44)
continue:
Natural resources are not only raw materials to be inventoried and moulded into a recreation opportunity, but
also, and more important, places with histories, places that people care about, places that for many people
embody a sense of belonging and purpose that give meaning to life.

The connection between landscape and place is particularly relevant for understanding recreational
landscapes, as ‘caring about places is important and different from caring about resources’ (Kruger &
Williams, 2007, p. 86). This fact has received considerable attention in the literature on outdoor
recreation, and there is even talk about ‘placed-based’ recreation management with a focus on
understanding and managing the close relationship between recreational users and the physical
setting they engage and interact with (see Farnum et al., 2005; Kruger et al., 2008). For example,
studies by Kaltenborn (1998) and Kyle and Chick (2007) show how recreational users bond with
certain places in the landscape. They appreciate and treat the environments that those feelings refer
to not only differently, but also according to the depth of that feeling (Schroeder, 2007).
Furthermore, repeated experiences in and of the same place often lead to a care for the place,
which may turn into a sense of stewardship. This way, the place becomes a way ‘to express a sense of
identity’ (Williams, 2007, p. 38).
This understanding has much in common with what Stenseke (2018) refers to as place-based
human–environment interactions. This means giving more attention to the study of the dynamics
of these interactions and the place wherein they occur, which may reveal more about how and
why humans connect with their environments. For example, in many cases ‘special places’ cannot
be substituted, which explains high sensitivity levels and strong reaction to changes, regardless if
these are caused by natural or human forces (Cheng et al., 2003; Schroeder, 2007). Knowing more
about places and their meaning is, therefore, a crucial part of understanding recreational
landscapes:
Knowledge of places having high value to humans as well as an understanding of the significant meanings and
images that places have to individuals within a community should allow planners, managers, and decision­
makers to [. . .] maintain the salient characteristics of those places (Galiano & Loeffler 1999; cited in Kruger &
Williams, 2007, p. 85)

To acquire this knowledge, it is important to understand not only what landscape features recrea­
tional users like or dislike, but also what factors make these features special and why (Kruger &
 LANDSCAPE RESEARCH 137

Williams, 2007). In terms of recreational landscapes, an important study, therefore, becomes how
recreational users perceive and experience the landscapes they interact with, as this determines
what meaning(s) and value(s) they associate with them, including how they create and connect to
places within the landscape. The acquired knowledge can be used as a parameter to study how
different places form and are perceived within recreational landscapes. A specific focus should be on
identifying and ensuring (Schroeder, 2007, p. 52):

● Environmental features, qualities, and characteristics contributing to special places.

● Specific locations of places that are special to particular people and groups.
● Experiences, meanings, and values that people associate with special places.

This work implies going from a systems perspective to an individual level and learn from the recreational
users themselves as people’s diverse ties to different places constantly form and change, and both affect,
and are affected by, the way they are perceived and used (Kruger & Williams, 2007). These formations
and changes must be studied as a way to understand the complexity of recreational landscapes.

Final remarks
The results of the review and above discussion of the conceptual coupling point to a recreational
landscape understanding that is complex and has multiple dimensions that need more research
attention. Future work should include further studies into how recreational landscapes encompass
important socio-cultural values that reflect the uniqueness and variation among recreational users
and their interests. It should also include acknowledging that recreational users and their activities
are part of ongoing and ever changing socio-cultural processes that form and re-shape the land­
scape, as is also a key point in the Nordic landscape tradition and the understanding of ‘friluftsliv’.
The role of the recreational landscape understanding is not only to encompass, but also to be the
main approach in the study of these processes and their relation to other landscape processes and
understandings. Ultimately, the goal is to be better equipped to explain environmental and social
complexities, and the interaction between these, in various recreational landscape contexts.
To become fully integrated into academic circles, the understanding of recreational landscapes
must also receive better anchoring in various disciplines. A strategy would be to ground the work
within human geography and other landscape focused disciplines, where it can serve as theoretical
input in the study of outdoor recreation as a broader geographic phenomenon. This would be an
important addition to landscape research across all disciplines as well as academic work on outdoor
recreation in general, and within Nordic landscape and outdoor research in particular.

Note
1. Although it is important to distinguish the concepts of outdoor recreation and friluftsliv, outdoor recreation is
used in the remainder of the paper and covers in this case the Nordic ‘friluftsliv’. For a more insightful discussion
on the use of and difference between the two concepts, see Beery (2011).

Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback and comments.

Disclosure statement
No potential competing interests or conflicts of interests to declare.
138 A. S. HANSEN

Notes on contributor
Andreas Skriver Hansen is a researcher at the Unit for human geography at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. His
research interests include outdoor recreation and tourism planning and management, nature-human interaction and
landscape theory with an emphasis on different landscape perceptions and experiences, uses and understandings.
Andreas also work a lot with applied research, especially in relation to physical and environmental planning, and he has
worked a lot with and in protected areas, both coastal-marine and terrestrial. Andreas’ previous work has been
published in Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, Danish
Journal of Geography, PLAN and Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education.

Originality statement
The work described has not been published before; it is not under consideration for publication anywhere else; the
publication has been approved by the institute and department where the work has been carried out. The publisher will
not be held legally responsible should there be any claims for compensation.

References
Addas, A., & Rishbeth, C. (2018). The transnational Gulf City: Saudi and migrant values of public open spaces in Jeddah.
Landscape Research, 43(7), 939–951. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2018.1427709
Aitchison, C., MacLeod, N., & Shaw, S. (2000). Leisure and tourism landscapes: Social and cultural geographies. Routledge.
Andriotis, K. (2010). Heterotopic erotic oases - the public nude beach experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(4),
1076–1096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2010.04.003
Ankre, R. (2019). Outdoor recreation conflicts in Swedish coastal landscapes from a planning and user perspective: Studies of
Luleå and Blekinge archipelagos. Doctoral dissertation. Karlskrona.
Antrop, M., & Van Eetvelde, M. V. (Eds.) (2017). Landscape perspectives. The holistic nature of landscape. Springer
Netherlands.
Bauer, H. J. (1971). Recultivation and renewal of a balanced landscape in the lignite mining area of the Rhineland.
Geoforum, 2(4), 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7185(71)90028-5
Beery, T. H. (2011). Nordic in nature: Friluftsliv and environmental connectedness. Doctoral dissertation. University of
Minnesota:.
Bell, S. (2008). Design for outdoor recreation (2nd ed.). Taylor & Francis.
Booth, A., Papaionannou, D., & Sutton, A. (2012). Systematic approaches to successful literature review. SAGE.
Brehme, C., Wentzell-Brehme, S., & Hewlett, D. (2018). Landscape values mapping for tranquillity in North York Moors
National Park and Howardian Hills AONB. International Journal of Spa and Wellness, 1(2), 111–132. https://doi.org/10.
1080/24721735.2018.1493776
Brown, A., Baldwin, S., & Chandler, L. (2015). Representation of Butchulla cultural heritage values in communication of
K’gari (Fraser Island) as a tourism destination. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 22(2), 163–180.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2014.985266
Buijs, A. E., Predroli, B., & Luginbühl, Y. (2006). From hiking through farmland to farming in a leisure landscape: Changing
social perceptions of the European landscape. Landscape Ecology, 21(3), 375–389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-
005-5223-2
Busck, A. G., Hidding, M. C., Kristensen, S. B. P., Persson, C., & Præstholm, S. (2008). Managing rurban landscapes in the
Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden: Comparing planning systems and instruments in three different contexts.
Danish Journal of Geography, 108(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00167223.2008.10649584
Carls, E. G. (1974). The effects of people and man-induced conditions on preferences for outdoor recreation landscapes.
Journal of Leisure Research, 6(2), 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.1974.11970175
Cheng, A. S., Kruger, L. E., & Daniels, S. E. (2003). “Place” as an integrating concept in natural resource politics:
Propositions for a social science research agenda. Society & Natural Resources, 16(2), 87–104. https://doi.org/10.
1080/08941920309199
Colley, K., & Craig, T. (2019). Natural places: Perceptions of wildness and attachment to local greenspace. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 61, February 2019, 71–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.12.007
Cookingham, P. O. (2000). The turfgrass information center: Online access to the turf science literature. Journal of
Agricultural & Food Information, 4(1), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1300/J108v04n01_06
Doxtater, D. (2008). What visitors “Do” in recreational landscapes: Using categories of affordances for evaluation, design
and simulation. In R. Gimblett & H. Skov-Petersen (Eds.), Monitoring, simulation, and management of visitor landscapes
(pp. 13–35). University of Arizona Press.
 LANDSCAPE RESEARCH 139

Eaton, W. M., Eanes, F. R., Ulrich-Schad, J. D., Burnham, M., Church, S. P., Arbuckle, J. G., & Cross, J. E. (2019). Trouble with
sense of place in working landscapes. Society & Natural Resources, 32(7), 827–840. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.
2019.1568653
Emmelin, L., Fredman, P., Jensen, E. L., & Sandell, K. (2010). Planera för friluftsliv – Natur, Samhälle, Upplevelser (planning
for outdoor recreation – Nature, society, experiences). Carlsson Bokförlag.
Fábos, J.G. (2004). Greenway planning in the United States: its origins and recent case studies. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 68, 321–342. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.07.003
Farnum, J., Hall, T., & Kruger, L. E. (2005). Sense of place in natural resource recreation and tourism: An evaluation and
assessment of research findings. General Technical Report (PNW-GTR-660). Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Research Station.
Fix, P. J., Carroll, J., & Harrington, A. M. (2013). Visitor experiences across recreation settings: A management or
measurement issue? Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 3-4, Iss:C, 28–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.
2013.09.003
Fry, G. L. A. (2001). Multifunctional landscapes-towards transdisciplinary research. Landscape and Urban Planning, 57
(3–4), 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00201-8
Garber-Yonts, B. E. (2005). Conceptualizing and measuring demand for recreation on national forests: A review and
synthesis (General Technical Report PNW-GTR-645). Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Research Station.
Government, S. (2010). Framtidens friluftsliv [Outoor recreation of the future]. Proposition 2009/10:238.
Regeringskansliet.
Hansen, A. S. (2018). The visitor: Connecting health, wellbeing and the natural environment. In I. Azara (Ed.), Tourism,
health, wellbeing and protected areas (pp. 125–137). CABI Publishing.
Head, L., Saltzman, K., Setten, G., & Stenseke, M. (eds.). (2016). Nature, temporality and environmental management.
Scandinavian and Australian perspectives on peoples and landscapes. Routledge.
Healy, R. G. (1994). The “Common pool” problem in tourism landscapes. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(3), 596–611.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-7383(94)90122-8
Ingold, T. (2000). The perception of the environment: Essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. Psychology Press.
Jankauskaitė, A., & Grecevičius, P. (2018). Tendencies of recreational landscape formation in southeastern baltic seaside
resorts after 1990. Case of the palanga resort. Architecture and Urban Planning, 14(1), 63–69. https://doi.org/10.2478/
aup-2018-0008
Jankauskaitė, A., Verpe, B., & Grecevičius, P. (2019). Evaluation of the recreational landscape potential of the south­
eastern Balti Sea seaside resorts. Ecology & Safety, 13, 45–57. https://www.scientific-publications.net/en/article/
1001858/
Jones, C. D., Patterson, M. E., & Hammitt, W. E. (2000). Evaluating the construct validity of sense of belonging as
a measure of landscape perception. Journal of Leisure Research, 32(4), 383–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.
2000.11949922
Jones, M., & Olwig, K. R. (eds.). (2008). Nordic landscapes: Region and belonging on the northern Edge of Europe. University
of Minnesota Press.
Kals, E., Schumacher, D., & Montada, L. (1999). Emotional affinity toward nature as a motivational basis to protect nature.
Environment and Behavior, 31(2), 178–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139169921972056
Kaltenborn, B. P. (1998). Effects of sense of place on responses to environmental impacts. Applied Geography, 18(2),
169–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0143-6228(98)00002-2
Koppen, G., Sang, Å. O., & Tveit, M. S. (2014a). Managing the potential for outdoor recreation: Adequate mapping and
measuring of accessibility to urban recreational landscapes. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 13(1), 71–83. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2013.11.005
Koppen, G., Tveit, M. S., Sang, Å. O., & Dramstad, W. (2014b). The challenge of enhancing accessibility to recreational
landscapes. Norwegian Journal of Geography, 68(3), 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/00291951.2014.904399
Kruger, L., & Williams, D. R. (2007). Place and place-based planning. In L. E. Kruger, R. Mazza, & K. Lawrence (Eds.),
Proceedings: National workshop on recreation research and management (pp. 83–87). Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-698.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
Kruger, L. E., Hall, T., & Stiefel, M. (2008). Understanding concepts of place in recreation research and management.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
Kyle, G. T., & Chick, G. (2007). The social construction of a sense of place. Leisure Sciences, 29(3), 209–225. https://doi.org/
10.1080/01490400701257922
Leung, Y. F. (2012). Recreation ecology research in East Asia’s protected areas: Redefining impacts? Journal for Nature
Conservation, 20(6), 349–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2012.07.005
Liu, B., Su, J., Chen, J., Cui, G., & Ma, J. (2013). Anthropogenic halo disturbances alter landscape and plant richness:
A ripple effect. PLoS ONE, 8(2), e56109. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0056109
Loures, L., Vargues, P., & Horta, D. (2008). Landscape aesthetic and visual analysis facing the challenge of of develop­
ment of sustainable landscapes. International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, 3(1), 65–74. https://doi.
org/10.2495/D&NE-V3-N1-65-74
140 A. S. HANSEN

McManus, P. (2006). Mangrove battlelines: Culture/nature and ecological restoration. Australian Geographer, 37(1),
57–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049180500511970
McNicol, B. J., & Glorioso, R. S. (2014). Second home leisure landscapes and retirement in the Canadian Rocky Mountain
community of Canmore, Alberta. Annals of Leisure Research, 17(1), 27–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/11745398.2014.
885845
Mels, T., & Setten, G. (2007). Romance, practice and substantiveness: What do landscapes do? Geografiska Annaler, 89B
(3), 197–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0467.2007.00248.x
Middle, I., Dzidic, P., Buckley, A., Bennett, D., Tye, M., & Jones, R. (2014). Integrating community gardens into public parks:
An innovative approach for providing ecosystem services in urban areas. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 13(4),
638–645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2014.09.001
Monz, C. A., Cole, D. N., Leung, Y. F., & Marion, J. L. (2010). Sustaining visitor use in protected areas: Future opportunities
in recreation ecology research based on the USA experience. Environmental Management, 45(3), 551–562. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00267-009-9406-5
Nadim, Z., Gandomkar, A., & Roberts, C. (2018). Optimized site selection for a health themed recreational city.
Perspectives in Asian Leisure and Tourism, 3, Article 2. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/palat/vol3/iss1/2
Nastase, I. I., Patru-Stupariu, I., & Kienast, F. (2019). Landscape preferences and distance decay analysis for mapping the
recreational potential of an urban area. Sustainability, 11(13), 3620. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11133620
Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., & Murphy, S. A. (2009). The nature relatedness scale: Linking individuals’ connection with
nature to environmental concern and behaviour. Environment and Behavior, 41(5), 715–740. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0013916508318748
Olson, B. A. (2010). Paper trails: The outdoor recreation resource review commission and the rationalization of
recreational resources. Geoforum, 41(3), 447–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.11.014
Olwig, K. R. (2003). In search of the nordic landscape: A personal view. In K. Simonsen & J. Öhman (Eds.), Voices from the
North. New trends in Nordic human geography (pp. 211–235). Ashgate.
Pons, M., Johnson, P. A., Rosas, A., & Jover, E. (2014). A georeferenced agent-based model to analyze the climate change
impacts on ski tourism at a regional scale. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 28(12),
2474–2494. https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2014.933481
Povilanskas, R., Baziuke, D., Ducinskas, K., & Urbis, A. (2016). Can visitors visually distinguish successive coastal land­
scapes? A case study from the Curonian Spit (Lithuania). Ocean & Coastal Management, 119, January 2016, 109–118.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.10.002
Ribeiro, S. C., Schroth, O., Konkoly-Gyuró, E., Hermes, J., Boll, T., & von Haaren, C. (2019). Landscape aesthetics capacity as
a cultural ecosystem service. In C. von Haaren, A. A. Lovett, & C. Albert (Eds.), Landscape planning with ecosystem
services (pp. 221–252). Springer.
Rickard, L. N., & Stedman, R. C. (2015). From ranger talks to radio stations. Journal of Leisure Research, 47(1), 15–33.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2015.11950349
Salikhov, T. K., Salikhova, T. S., & Khalel, G. K. (2017). The geological characteristics and recreational potential of the
projected state nature reserve “Bokeyorda” in west Kazakhstan region. Известия Национальной Академии Наук
Республики Казахстан, 3(423), 216–227. UDC 910.3:379.8 (574.4)
Santana-Cordero, A. M., Ariza, E., & Romagosa, F. (2016). Studying the historical evolution of ecosystem services to
inform management policies for developed shorelines. Environmental Science & Policy, 64, October 2016, 18–29.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.06.002
Schirpke, U., Meisch, C., Marsoner, T., & Tappeiner, U. (2018). Revealing spatial and temporal patterns of outdoor
recreation in the European Alps and their surroundings. Ecosystem Services, 31(C), 336–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecoser.2017.11.017
Schroeder, H. (2007). Understanding forest recreation visitors: Special places. In L. E. Kruger, R. Mazza, & K. Lawrence
(Eds.), Proceedings: National workshop on recreation research and management (pp. 51–54). Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR
-698. Depart. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
Schroeder, H. W., & Anderson, L. M. (1984). Perception of personal safety in urban recreational sites. Journal of Leisure
Research, 16(2), 178–194. Sec. Quarter, 1984. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.1984.11969584
Selman, P. (2009). Planning for landscape multifunctionality. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 5(2), 45–52.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2009.11908035
Setten, G. (2006). Fusion or exclusion. Reflections on conceptual practices of landscape and place in human geography.
Norwegian Journal of Geography, 60(1), 32–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/00291950500537315
Shchepak, V., Tymoshevskyi, V., & Senenko, I. (2013). Balanced development of small hotel business and recreational
territories in Ukrain. SEPIKE, 19, 221–225.
Sörlin, S. (2008). Upptäckten av friluftslandskapet [The discovery of the outdoor recreation landscape]. In K. Sandell &
S. Sörlin (Eds.), Friluftshistoria: Från “härdande friluftslif” till ekoturism och miljöpedagogik (pp. 16–26). Carlsson.
Stedman, R. C. (2002). Toward a social psychology of place: Predicting behavior from place-based cognitions, attitude,
and identity. Environment and Behavior, 34(5), 561–581. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916502034005001
Stedman, R. C. (2003). Is it really just a social construction: The contribution of the physical environment to sense of
place. Society & Natural Resources, 16(8), 671–685. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920309189
 LANDSCAPE RESEARCH 141

Stenseke, M. (2018). Connecting ‘relational values’ and relational landscape approaches. Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability, 35, December 2018, 82–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.025
Stenseke, M., & Hansen, A. S. (2014). From rhetoric to knowledge based actions – Challenges for outdoor recreation
management in Sweden. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 7-8, December 2014, 26–34. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jort.2014.09.004
Svels, K., & Åkerlund, U. (2018). The commons and emergent land in Kvarken Archipelago, Finland: Governing an
expanding recreational resource. Fennia, 196(2), 154–167. https://doi.org/10.11143/fennia.69022
Vail, D., & Hultkrantz, L. (2000). Property rights and sustainable nature tourism: Adaptation and mal-adaptation in
Dalarna (Sweden) and Maine (USA). Ecological Economics, 35(2), 223–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(00)
00190-7
Van der Zee, D. (1990). The complex relationship between landscape and recreation. Landscape Ecology, 4(4), 225–236.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00129830
Verschuure-Stuip, G. A. (2014, July). Project new dutch waterline and project arcadian landscapes: Guidelines for new
spatial development based in heritage. Proceedings AESOP 2014: Annual Conference “From control to co-evolution”.
Utrecht/Delft,The Netherlands.
Widgren, M. (2015). Linking Nordic landscape geography and political ecology. Norwegian Journal of Geography, 69(4),
197–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/00291951.2015.1062797
Williams, D. R. (2007). Recreation settings, scenery, and visitor experiences: A research assessment. In L. E. Kruger,
R. Mazza, & K. Lawrence (Eds.), Proceedings: National workshop on recreation research and management (pp. 29–42).
Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-698. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
Williams, D. R., & Patterson, M. E. (1996). Environment meaning and ecosystem management. Perspectives from
environmental psychology and human geography. Society & Natural Resources, 9(5), 507–521. https://doi.org/10.
1080/08941929609380990
Williams, D. R., Patterson, M. E., & Roggenbuck, J. W. (1992). Beyond the commodity metaphor: Examining emotional and
symbolic attachment to place. Leisure Sciences, 14(1), 29–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490409209513155
Williams, D. R., & Vaske, J. J. (2003). The measurement of place attachment - Validity and generalizability of
a psychometric approach. Forest Service, 49(6), 830–840. https://doi.org/10.1093/FORESTSCIENCE/49.6.830
Willibald, F., Strien, M. J., Blanco, V., & Gret-Regamey, A. (2019). Predicting outdoor recreation demand on a national
scale – The case of Switzerland. Applied Geography, 113, December 2019, 102–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.
2019.102111
Wolf-Watz, D. (2015). On environmental grounds: Outdoor recreation, place relations and environmental sustainability.
Doctoral dissertation. Karlstad University:.
Wylie, J. (2007). Landscape. Routledge.
Wyman, M. (1985). Nature experience and outdoor recreation planning. Leisure Studies, 4(2), 175–188. https://doi.org/10.
1080/02614368500390131
Zamorshchikova, L., Filippova, V., Savvinova, A., Samsonova, M., & Totonova, E. (2018). Recreational landscape value in
tourism development of Central Yakutia. In A. Almusaed (Ed.), Landscape architecture - The sense of places, models and
applications (pp. 329–344). IntechOpen.
Zhang, S., & Ramirez, F. M. (2019). Assessing and mapping ecosystem services to support urban green infrastructure: The
case of Barcelona, Spain. Cities, 92, September 2019, 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.03.016
Zube, E. H. (1998). The evolution of a profession. Landscape and Urban Planning, 42(2–4), 75–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0169-2046(98)00078-4
Zube, E. H., Sell, J. L., & Taylor, J. G. (1982). Landscape perception: Research, application and theory. Landscape Planning,
9(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3924(82)90009-0
Zuckerberg, B., Fink, D., La Sorte, F. A., Hochachka, W. M., & Kelling, S. (2016). Novel seasonal land cover associations for
eastern North American forest birds identified through dynamic species distribution modelling. Diversity &
Distributions, 22(6), 717–730. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12428