Learners in the Landscape

Dr Glenda Tinney and Dr Louise Emanuel

Introduction

The rationale for conducting this piece of work was derived from a number of factors.  We are both involved in teaching on the undergraduate Outdoor Education programme at Trinity and would both confess to being passive rather than active recreationalists.  Having said that we both also have a longstanding interest in landscape, environmental and sustainability issues, with complementary yet distinct standpoints – Glenda as ecologist and Louise as geographer.  We both have an interest in the interaction between people and landscape and within our teaching have been advocates of the use of fieldwork and experiential learning in order to explore and study local landscapes and environment.  With this in mind we started to discuss how the relationship between outdoor education students and their landscapes has potential implications for sustainability education.

Initially we started to relate our ideas to what has been a long standing debate over the nature of people/ landscape interaction.  Our individual and collective perceived relationship with nature and the environment is transformed into landscape as space is transformed through human activity.  Landscapes are embodied socially through our relations with each other (Crouch, 2005) and through our cultural reference points.

Landscape as a concept consequently can be understood as more than merely what is out there – it is a synthesis of knowledge, experiences, culture and many other factors relating to the individual and societal/ cultural group, as Cosgrove commented:

“Landscape is not merely the world we see, it is a construction, a composition of that world.  Landscape is a way of seeing the world.”
(Cosgrove, 1984, p13)

Throughout space and time the individual’s conception of landscape has been shaped by cultural shifts and the nature of contact between observer and observed.

For example, Tuan (1974) took the example of the mountain to illustrate changes in environmental attitude:

• In early human history  the mountain was viewed in awe
• The Hebrews saw it as a sign of peace and an indication of the divine
• The Greeks viewed it as wild and terrifying, an aspect of nature that they could not fully grasp
• The Chinese traditionally viewed it with fear and aversion
• The Romans saw mountains as being hostile and desolate
• Even as late as the nineteenth century visitors travelling by train would have the blinds lowered to prevent the offensive sight of the Alps (Urry, 1995)
• More recently mountains have been presented as a challenge to be surmounted or as fragile ecosystems.

Landscapes reflect aspects of desire (Cartier, 2005), of seduction (Baudrillard, 1988) and of the cultural location of the ‘gaze’ (Urry, 1990) in time and space.  The interaction between person and place is in part guided by motive and purpose of interaction, such as one of Baudrillard’s (1990) themes – landscapes that challenge.

Cartier (2005) observes that landscapes also reflect multiple positions of sensory engagement – the ways in which landscapes are read, imagined and experienced relate to diverse points of view and positions of orientation.

Human/ landscape interaction and the juxtaposition of person and place is affected by filters that exist both internal and external to the individual, as Lowenthal, commented:

“we respond to and affect the environment not directly, but through the medium of a personally apprehended milieu.  This milieu differs for each of us according to this personal history; and for each of us it varies also with mood, with purpose and with attentiveness.” (Lowenthal, 1967, p1)

Research has suggested filters such as:

• Visitor or resident (Tuan 1966, Appleyard & Meyer 1967)
• Familiarity (Penning-Rowsell 1986; Kaplan & Herbert 1988)
• Location in space and time (Russel 1988; Tuan 1974)
• Upbringing and education (Tuan, 1974)
• Occupational role of the observer (Tuan 1974; Craik 1986; Greider & Garkovich 1994)
• Usual residence (Orland, 1988; Kent 1993; Gregory & Davis 1993)

have an impact on our perception of landscape.

So experience of and within the landscape is comprised of a complex web of associations as the individual or group effectively ‘flirts with space’ encountering it through different senses (Crouch, 2005) before its transformation into place or landscape.

So why is this relevant?

Much landscape research stops at the point of perception, but the idea of landscape obviously doesn’t stop there – it is a reflexive rather than static experience.  Individuals and groups respond to and interact with landscape based on understanding of the nature of specific landscapes and the individual’s perceived relationship with them. 

Outdoor educators have a significant role to play in ensuring that students begin to identify their relationship with the landscapes in which they interact.  The landscape is more than the backdrop to activity.  In fact a closer understanding of this relationship between learner and landscape is likely to have significant implications for learning enhancement.

In turn, understanding the way in which students engaged in experiential outdoor learning interact and perceive landscape has important implications for education for sustainability.  As the following quotation illustrates:

“Living sustainably depends on a duty to seek harmony within other people and with nature. The guiding rules are that people must share with each other and care for the Earth. Humanity must take no more from nature than nature can replenish. This is turn means adopting lifestyles and development paths that respect and work within nature’s limits” IUCN, UNEP and WWF 1991, p8.

Implicit in this idea is the interdependence of ecological sustainability, social justice and economic development; it is essential that the well being of the physical environment or social development are not viewed in isolation.  An essential component of this process is education, which, since the Rio Earth Summit (1992) has been seen as key in allowing society to engage with the sustainability agenda.

Education is seen as key (Fien and Tilbury, 1998) in order that society is able to engage with the sustainability agenda

“Education is critical for promoting sustainable development and improving the capacity of the people to address environment and development issues…. It is critical for achieving environmental and ethical awareness, values and attitudes, skills and behaviour consistent with sustainable development and for effective public participation in decision making”

Lugg (2007) explores the role higher education outdoor programmes can play in developing the sustainability agenda and highlights the importance of direct contact with a landscape and the need to reconnect people with the natural world.  She also highlights the benefits of outdoor programmes in allowing sustainability issues to be explored at a variety of different levels which connect with their outdoor activities. 

Citing Higgins and Kirk (2006) she highlights the importance of the sensory, affective and cognitive potential of outdoor experiences in promoting education for sustainability.

“For some, feeling water falling from the sky as rain, sitting on a river in a canoe are opportunities to discuss the water cycle and perhaps develop a theme to include global climate change. Similarly boiling water from a hot drink (using a fire or camp stove) can stimulate discussions on the storage and release of carbon from wood or oil and hence global carbon balance, embracing environmental social and economic dimensions” (Higgins and Kirk 2006 p.321, cited in Lugg, 2007).

Brookes (1998) cited in Lugg (2007) highlights how outdoor experiences in themselves can be designed to further explore local landscapes and environments from more than a purely recreational viewpoint.

Being able to explore the link outdoor education students already have with their landscape allows us an opportunity to engage within their own context, and to explore learning methods for making the social, environmental and economic aspects of this area pertinent, allowing the students further ownership of their education for sustainability.

The Pilot Study

We started to think about this by asking the question – how do our outdoor education students perceive the landscapes they interact within?

As much of their learning naturally happens within an outdoor setting how do they perceive the landscapes they interact within?  What do they observe and understand of the landscapes, which types of landscape have positive or negative associations?

We have begun this research process by conducting a pilot study of the landscape perceptions of outdoor education students.

A phenomenological approach which attempted to understand the dialectic between observer and observed was adopted to start to unravel the landscape perceptions of outdoor education students in order to gain a clearer conception of factors contributing to the landscape constructs for this group. 

There were 42 participants with the majority (90%) of participants falling within the 18-25 age group, slightly more (55%) came from an urban rather than rural area and there was a bias (60%) towards male participants.  All were selected to participate in the research for a common reason – all were in the process of studying for a BA (Hons) qualification in Outdoor Education.  The engagement in outdoor learning was used as the key filter for this group.

Participants were asked for three activities they were actively and regularly involved in:-

A variety of different outdoor activities were provided with climbing walking, kayaking and mountain biking being the activities cited most often.

Table 1

Activity Number (Percent)
Climbing 24 (21.6%)
Walking 23 (20.7%)
Kayaking 8 (7.2%)
Mountain Biking  8 (7.2%)
Hiking  6 (5.4%)
Sport Activity 6 (5.4%)
Surfing 5 (4.5%)
Horse Riding 4 (3.6%
Sailing 3 (2.7%)
Swimming 2 (1.8%)
Mountaineering 2 (1.8%)
Skateboarding 2 (1.8%)
Canoeing 2 (1.8%)
Beach Visits 2 (1.8%)
Caving 2 (1.8%)
Visiting Ancient Monuments  1 (0.9%)
Bushcraft 1 (0.9%)
Driving 1(0.9%)
Social Enjoyment 1 (0.9%)
Body boarding 1 (0.9%)
Camping 1 (0.9%)
Coasteering  1 (0.9%)
Gorge walking 1 (0.9%)
Skiing  1 (0.9%)
Walking Dog  1 (0.9%)
Snowboarding  1 (0.9%)
Running  1 (0.9%)

Participants were then asked to choose one of their regular outdoor activities and asked how particular aspects of the landscape impacted on their experience of the activity.  The aspects of landscape chosen were landforms, vegetation, water, wildlife, weather and access, and participants were asked to consider both the negative and positive impacts of these landscape aspects.
Again Climbing and Walking were the most cited outdoor activities.

Table 2

Activity  Number (Percent)
Climbing 9 (22.0%)
Walking 7 (17.1%)
Kayaking 3 (7.3%)
Hiking 3 (7.3%)
Surfing 3 (7.3%)
Mountaineering 3 (7.3%)
Mountain Biking/ Cycling 2 (4.9%)
Horse Riding 2 (4.9%)
Running 2 (4.9%)
Walking Dog 1 (2.4%)
Skateboarding 1 (2.4%)
Snowboarding 1 (2.4%)
Caving 1 (2.4%)
Canoeing 1 (2.4%)
Bushcraft  1 (2.4%)
Visiting Monuments  1 (2.4%)

Several responses were given in this section and coded into groups.  For each positive and negative aspect of landform the most popular responses have been highlighted in order to underline some interesting themes.

Table 3: Landforms

Positive Negative
Variety of landscapes that benefit their particular outdoor activity (40%) Landscape features inhibit the outdoor activity (50%)
Views / Scenery and natural beauty (12%) Landscape impacts on accessibility (8.3%)
Particular landscapes provide a challenge (10%) Danger in a changing landscape (8.3%)

Table 4: Vegetation

Positive Negative
Beauty of vegetation (38.1%) Particular vegetation restricts access (38.9%)
Trees (9.5 %) Damage or loss of vegetation can occur due to recreational activity (16.7%)
Provides habitat for other species (7.1%) Negative perception of particular plant species e.g. Nettles, Gorse, Thorn, Bramble, Seaweed (22.2%)

Table 5: Water

Positive Negative
Relief e.g. cooling, able to drink, swim (28.6%) Restricts access to particular activities (27.8%)
Particular types of water provide an opportunity and challenge in terms of outdoor recreation e.g. swell, white-water (22.9%) Unpredictable and dangerous (22.2%)
Aesthetic beauty (14.3 %) Pollution issues (13.9%) 
 
Table 6: Wildlife

Positive Negative
Seeing wildlife when in the outdoors (51.3%) Wildlife restricts access to outdoor activity (40.7%)
Seeing wildlife adds to outdoor experiences (13.9%) Humans impact negatively on wildlife by being in their habitat (14.8%)
Positive in terms of aesthetic of outdoors (8.3%) Negative perception of particular plant species e.g. Nettles, Gorse, Thorn, Bramble, Seaweed (22.2%)

Table 7: Weather

Positive Negative
Clear, sunny, warm and dry weather (52.4%) Overcast, dark skies, rain and cold (41.7%)
All weather is positive (14.3 %) Some weather is hazardous (16.7%)
Different weather can add to challenge and outdoor experiences (14.3%) Extremes of weather (11.1%)
Some weather can prevent activity / impact negatively on scenery (11.1%)

Table 8: Access

Positive Negative
Free, easy access (68.8%) No or difficult access (65.7%)
CROW Act (9.4 %) Restrictions linked to type of activity or type of land e.g. tide times (11.4%)
Traffic (8.6%)
Overcrowding and increased damage with more access (8.6%)

Several participants provided a strong emphasis on the importance of being able to access the landscape, and that their perception of aspects of their landscape was very much linked to how the landscape enabled their use of the environment for outdoor recreation.  The concept of the landscape as a ‘commodity’ for participants to access provides opportunities to explore the moral and ethical uses of a landscape and wider sustainability dilemmas during learning experiences. Several participants highlighted other issues e.g. damage by excessive use, aesthetic beauty of landscapes, wildlife enhancing their experiences. This proves a useful jumping off point to explore social, economic and environmental issues within sustainability teaching and suggested that outdoor education students in this study already had an awareness of sustainability issues within their own pursuits.  Such prior knowledge therefore provides a basis for further exploration and discussion linked to sustainability.  

The participants were then asked to take some time to reflect firstly on a landscape which they had positive feelings about.  Following the period of reflection they were asked to write a description of each landscape, describing it as if they were there. 

Many participants chose to name and describe a specific landscape such as the Gower or Pembrokeshire whilst others chose to concentrate on features of an imagined landscape.  Common themes were identified from the resulting descriptions and were subsequently categorized into Landscape/ Environmental Features, Emotions and Activity.

Table 9: Positives

Landscape/ Environmental Features 

• Weather – clear skies, sunshine
• Vegetation/ green
• Panoramas
• Water – ocean, sea, river, springs, cascading pools
• Rugged landscape
• Fauna
• Mixed forest
• Mountains
• Beach
• Rolling hills
• Caves
• Open
• Pollution free
• History/ myths 

Emotions 

• At one with nature
• Amazement
• Energising, invigorating
• Peace, spirituality
• Calming, relaxation, contentment
• Childhood memories
• Wellbeing
• Comfortable
• Impressive
• Excites
• Inspires
• Majestic
• Escape
• Isolation 

Activity

• Walking
• Climbs
• Kayaking
• Interaction with the sea

Key features of the landscape consistently appeared within the descriptors with general identification of features such as mountains, hills and water.  Water, whether as sea, rivers, lakes – was a significant feature of many positive descriptors.  Weather also played an important role in shaping the landscape perceptions of the respondents. Some were also aware of the historic landscape. A major feature of all descriptions were the emotions attached to the landscape constructs.  Within the positive descriptors the over-riding emotions related to a sense of calm, peace, being at one with nature, escapism.  Whilst other positive descriptors related to inspirational landscapes, energising and invigorating landscapes and memories of previous visits.  Interestingly, the activity itself often did not play a role within the description.  A few respondents spoke of interaction through walking, climbing or kayaking but there were the exception rather than the rule.

The participants were subsequently asked to repeat the exercise, this time reflecting on a landscape which they had negative feelings about. 

Again, many participants chose to name and describe a specific landscape such as particular industrial towns whilst others chose to concentrate on features of an imagined landscape.  Common themes were again identified from the resulting descriptions and were categorised into Landscape/ Environmental Features, Emotions and Activity as in the previous exercise.

Table 10: Negatives

Landscape/ Environmental Features 
• Weather – fog, mist, rain, grey, cold, damp
• Urban
• Industry
• Pollution, smog
• Plantation forest
• Farmed landscape
• People
• Dams
• Rocky outcrop
• Angry sea
• Cave
• Darkness
• Rockfall
• Pylons
• Smells
• Tourist friendly 

Emotions 

• Fear, scary
• Changed perceptions
• Hectic, rushed
• Oppression
• Stress, panic
• Disconnection from nature
• Isolated
• Depressed
• Unhealthy
• Ugly
• Scarred
• Evil
• overcrowded 

Activity

A major component here was the inclusion of people – tourist friendly, urban, industrial landscapes were, perhaps unsurprisingly viewed in a negative context.  More surprising perhaps was that some of the same features were observed here, but from a negative viewpoint e.g. plantation forests instead of mixed forest, caves and angry seas.  Weather again appeared repeatedly  - here as a component of negative landscape constructs.  Negative emotional associations related to fear, oppression, stress, panic, unhealthy landscapes with a disconnection from nature.  Ugly and ‘evil’ landscapes.  Interestingly, within the negative descriptions activities did not feature at all.

Discussion

Within the data collected there was evidence of a strong visual identity with landscape and an emotional impact on the self, in most cases there was also the suggestion of interaction between the observer and their observed landscape.  There was also a major focus on the importance of being able to access and utilise the landscape for recreation.  One theme was the issue of the commodification of landscape and the desire for a people-less landscape, one that was for the enjoyment of a select group of individuals – no tourists here!  There was also the revulsion of all things urban and industrial.  Such observations provided several interesting themes to explore.

Discussion with students about the ethical and moral and ethical values linked to landscape could revolve around the view of landscape as a commodity. Is our natural landscape merely a place to play, and do recreational users have more rights to access the land than other visitors?  If areas are over crowded or damaged by visitor impacts what duty do those who access these sights have in conserving and using the resources sustainably. Participant’s awareness of pollution, landscape overuse and habitat issues provides a useful jumping off point to explore social, economic and environmental sustainability dilemmas further.

The very negative perception of the urban / industrial landscape highlighted by participants suggests that the social, economic and environmental links so important within sustainability discussion are still unclear in the context of landscape.  Are outdoor education students in this context demonstrating a very limited view of landscape where rural, perceived wild areas are in fact distinctly separate from more obviously industrial man made environments?  Such separation in reality is false.  For example many of the landscape outdoor education students use, although now very rural settings often have an industrial past (as noted in Conway Davies presentation).  Most Welsh and British landscapes are also managed and maintained by human influence. The landscape without such interventions would be non-recognisable, and is in reality as man made as the more industrial settings.

A separation between more rural and industrial landscapes also denies the interconnectedness of these landscapes.  For example the fibre glass used in kayaks, the materials used in outdoor clothes, the plastics and metals used in climbing equipment are all products of industrial processes and are used by several outdoor recreationalists to access their favoured landscapes.  Therefore the industrial landscapes are directly influencing their experiences of more rural areas.  Their choices and decisions may also be influencing the industrial landscape contributing to the features some participants found so negative.  Interconnectedness is at the heart of sustainability and these issues provide a platform to discuss and explore such issues further.

Outdoor education students interact within and transform space in a particular way. 
The experience of the student learning within the landscape can be seen as an encounter comprising learning, perception, memories, anxieties, subjective experience and personal interaction between learner and landscape. 

It is the contention that the nature of the landscape/human interaction is reflexive, not static.  There is a two way interaction between subject and object.  Landscapes and the experiences within them have the potential to change the nature of the individual.  In turn the landscape that occupies a particular space itself changes.  Space is transformed into place, place becomes landscape, interactions within landscape transform the self and transform landscape.  Learning has a role to play – learning about the material facets of landscape and the embedded nature of human interaction has the potential to inform behaviour , enhance the learning experience and ultimately to make a contribution to a more sustainable approach to the environment.

Within teaching we need to start to develop an understanding of landscape as an extension of the self, a reversion to a time before nature was viewed as a commodity.  If capitalist development has been responsible for setting contemporary views of nature (Smith, 1990) and of placing landscapes external to the self for their exploitation, then sustainable development must place nature and landscape within the human realm.  Education for sustainability is essential in reversing the trend to ensure that those active within the landscape have a role to play in safeguarding its future.  This can only be achieved by engendering an understanding of the nature of landscape and an awareness of the way in which landscapes are perceptually constructed from space, and how that space is subsequently transformed by actions partly determined from knowledge and understanding.

Filters have been acknowledged as being important in shaping perceptions of landscape – if we intervene and change those filters through the learning experience we have the potential to change environmental attitudes and behaviour.

References

Appleyard, D et al (1967) ‘The view from the road’ in Lowenthal, D (ed) Environmental perception and Behaviour.  University of Chicago Press.  Chicago.

Baudrillard, J (1988) The Ectasy of Communication.  Autonomdeia.  Brooklyn.  New York.

Baudrillard, J (1990) Seduction.  St Martin’s Press.  New York.

Cartier, C (2005) Introduction: Touristed landscapes/ seductions of place in Cartier and Lew (eds) Seductions of Place.  Routledge.  Oxford.

Cosgrove, D (1984) Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape.  Croom Helm.  London.

Craik, K (1986) ‘Psychological reflections of landscape’ in Penning-Rowsell and Lowenthal (eds) Landscape Meanings and Values.  Allen & Unwin.  London.

Crouch, D (2005) ‘Flirting with space: tourism geographies as sensuous/ expressive practice’ in Cartier and Lew (eds) Seductions of Place.  Routledge.  Oxford.

Fien, J. and Tilbury, D. (1998) Education for sustainability. Some questions for reflection. Roots 17 pp 20-24. Botanic Gardens Conservation International, UK.

Gregory, K.J and Davies, R.J (1993) ‘The perception of river aesthetics: an example from two Hampshire rivers’ in Journal of Environmental Management Vol 39, Part 3, pp171-185.

Greider, T and Garkovich, L (1994) ‘Landscapes: the social construction of nature and the environment’ in Rural Sociology Vol 52, Part 1, pp1-24

IUCN/UNEP/WWF (1991) Caring for the Earth. A Strategy for Sustainable Living. IUCN, UNEP and WWF. Gland, Switzerland and Earthscan, London.

Kaplan, R and Herbert, E.J (1988) ‘Familiarity and preference: a cross cultural analysis’ in Nasar (ed) Environmental Aesthetics: Theory, Research and Application.  Cambridge University Press.  Cambridge.

Kent, R.L (1993) ‘Determining the scenic quality along highways: a cognitive approach’ in Landscape and Urban Planning Vol 27, Part 1, pp29-45

Lowenthal, D (1967) ‘Introduction’ in Lowenthal (ed) Environmental Perception and Behaviour.  University of Chicago Press. Chicago.

Lugg A. (2007) Developing sustainability literate citizens through outdoor learning: possibilities for outdoor education in Higher Education. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning. Volume 7, Number 2, December 2007 pp 97-112

Orland, B (1988) ‘Aesthetic preference for rural landscapes: some resident and visitor differences’ in Nasar (ed) Environmental Aesthetics: Theory, Research and Application.  Cambridge University Press.  Cambridge.

Penning-Rowsell, E.C (1986) ‘Themes, speculations and an agenda for landscape research’ in Penning-Rowsell and Lowenthal (eds) Landscape Meanings and Values.  Allen & Unwin.  London.

Russel, J (1988) ‘Affective appraisals of environments’ in Nasar (ed) Environmental Aesthetics: Theory, Research and Application.  Cambridge University Press.  Cambridge.

Smith, N (1990) Uneven Development.  Blackwell. Oxford.

Tuan, Yi-Fu (1974) ‘Man and nature’ in Landscape Vol 15, Part 3, pp30-36

Tuan, Yi-Fu (1974) Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes and Values.  Prentice Hall.  Englewood cliffs, New Jersey.

Urry, J (1990) The Tourist Gaze.  Sage.  London.

Urry, J (1995) Consuming Places.  Routledge.  London.