Understanding recreational landscapes – a review and discussion

ABSTRACT

This paper contributes with a better understanding of recreational landscapes as a conceptual coupling that lacks clarity and cementation as a legitimate and integrated concept in landscape and outdoor recreation-related disciplines, especially within Nordic landscape and outdoor recreation 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 recreational landscapes must receive more attention and better anchoring in various landscape and outdoor recreation-related disciplines.

KEYWORDS:

• Recreational landscapes
• recreation
• landscape
• review
• human-nature encounters
• place
• human geography
• Nordic landscape

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.

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 explorative-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 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 understanding 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:

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

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, 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.

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

The first theme, A resource, considers recreational landscapes primarily as resources for recreational 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 experienced landscape aesthetics and nuances of attractiveness. Social landscape values and understandings 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.

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

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 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 resembling 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 independent 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 landscapes with an emphasis on psychological and cognitive outcomes of human-nature interactions, 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 Table 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 encapsulates 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.

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

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 understanding. 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 understanding these processes comes, however, from knowledge about each factor and how they 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 landscapes 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 decisionmakers 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 recreational users like or dislike, but also what factors make these features special and why (Kruger & 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 landscape, 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.

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.

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.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Andreas Skriver Hansen

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.

Notes

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).