“Landscape is related to, but not identical with, nature. Nature is a part of every landscape, but is no more than a part of any landscape which has felt the impact of man. In this view landscape is always inclusive of man and nature, rather than a way of distinguishing, or at least emphasizing, nature, as is still not uncommon in some fields, such as art and earth science. Indeed, the idea of landscape runs counter to recognition of any simple binary relationship between man and nature. Rather, it begins with a naive acceptance of the intricate intermingling of physical, biological, and cultural features which any glance around us displays. Landscape is, first of all, the unity we see, the impressions of our sense rather than the logic of the sciences. Thus every landscape is a scene, but landscape is not identical with scenery. The very idea of scenery is limited, a conscious selection of certain prospects, locales, or kinds of country as having some attractive aesthetic qualities. Scenery has connotations of a set piece, a defined perspective, a focus upon certain features, a discrimination based upon some generally received idea of beauty or interest; whereas landscape is ubiquitous and more inclusive, something to be observed but not necessarily admired. Interest in landscape may involve aesthetics but it is not defined by it. As with landscape art, the study of landscape is necessarily reflective in some degree of philosophies and taste and subject to shifts in styles and emphasis, but the landscape is ever with us and we are ever involved in its creation.”

— Donald W. Meinig, Introduction to The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscape: Geographical Essays [1979]