On the Meaning of Natural Beauty in Landscape Legislation


This is a repository copy of On the Meaning of Natural Beauty in Landscape Legislation.

White Rose Research Online URL for this paper:
http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/11121/

Article:

Selman, Paul and Swanwick, Carys (2010) On the Meaning of Natural Beauty in 
Landscape Legislation. Landscape Research, 35 (1). p. 3. ISSN 0142-6397 

https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390903407160

eprints@whiterose.ac.uk
https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/

Reuse 

Unless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright 
exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy 
solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The 
publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version - refer to the White 
Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, 
users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher’s website. 

Takedown 

If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by 
emailing eprints@whiterose.ac.uk including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. 

mailto:eprints@whiterose.ac.uk
https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/


 

This is a post-peer-review draft, prior to publisher formatting 

Selman, P H and Swanwick, C A (2010)  On the Meaning of Natural Beauty in Landscape 
Legislation. Landscape Research, Vol. 35, No. 1, 3–26. 
 
DOI : 10.1080/ 01426390903407160 
 
 

On t he Meaning of Nat ural Beauty in Landscape Legislat ion 
 
 
Paul Selman and Carys Swanwick 
Department of Landscape, University of Sheffield 
 

Abstract 

 

The term ‘natural beauty’ has been an important criterion for designating and managing fine 

landscapes in the UK and elsewhere. However, its meaning has been assumed to be self-

evident and has never been officially defined. Latterly, this has become problematic in relation 

to more critical contemporary understandings of ‘natural’, and legal challenges to the use of 

the term in practice. Based on an analysis of the antecedents to legislation for the protection of 

natural beauty, and of subsequent efforts to analyse and describe fine landscapes, this paper 

considers the contested use of ‘natural beauty’ in current landscape policy. I t proposes an 

extended meaning for the term which is consistent with the intentions of the original 

legislators. 

 

Keywords:  natural beauty  protected landscapes  landscape character   national parks 

landscape legislation 

 

 

I ntroduction 

 



1 
 

The concept of natural beauty is one of the cornerstones of legislation to protect landscapes in 

the UK.  The term “natural beauty” has existed formally in legislation for England and Wales 

since the 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, and has parallels in the 

Northern I reland 1965 Amenity Lands Act and 1985 Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands 

Order, whilst the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991 includes “natural beauty and amenity” 

within its definition of natural heritage. The significance of the concept extends well beyond the 

UK, and has more general implications for ‘protected areas’ which fall into I UCN Category V 

protected landscapes/  seascapesi

 

, and which are predominantly ‘cultural’ rather than ‘natural’. 

The beauty of such places cannot be natural in the strict sense, and this paper explores the 

current meaning and use of the term in relation to the designation and management of 

protected cultural landscapes.  

The 2004 review of the National Park Authorities in Wales commentedii

 

  that "the breadth of 

the term 'natural beauty'…. is not well understood by all those who take decisions affecting 

National Parks.”  As a result the Welsh Assembly, in its National Park Review Action Plan, asked 

the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) to produce a statement on the full scope of 'natural 

beauty'. This paper arises from research undertaken for the Countryside Council for Wales to 

produce such a statement.  

Although the term ‘natural beauty’ initially seems uncontroversial, in practice it has had to 

serve as a vehicle for successive trends in landscape planning, and its implicit meanings have 

been stretched to the point where its continued policy and legal fitness is questionable. Equally, 

however, it is associated with much policy and legal precedent, and is a widely used and 

familiar phrase without an obvious alternative. I n order to explore its continued suitability as a 

basis for planning fine landscapes, this paper examines it from four perspectives. First, we 

consider the theories and concepts which have underpinned natural beauty, ranging from 



2 
 

aesthetic arguments to more utilitarian justifications. Second, we explore the origins of natural 

beauty as an official term, noting the evolution from high culture, preservationist discourses to 

more instrumental arguments about town planning and nature conservation, and from which 

‘natural beauty’ eventually prevailed amongst legislators as the preferred shorthand expression. 

Third, we identify how the term evolved during the latter half of the 20th century, as advances 

in landscape planning required a fuller articulation of the qualities that were to be protected or 

enhanced within fine landscapes. We also consider the sifting of the term in public inquiries, 

noting in particular its contested meanings between different parties. Finally, we report on a 

stakeholder consultation which debated the continuing value of the term as an axiom of 

landscape protection, management and planning. At present, the UK is heavily relying on 

‘natural beauty’ legislation as a basis for complying with the European Landscape Conventioniii

 

, 

stretching its original intentions yet further.  I t is clear that natural beauty is a dynamic and 

malleable concept, potentially posing problems for consistency of interpretation, and yet 

apparently retaining a continuing relevance. 

Concept s and Theories Underpinning Natural Beaut y 

 

Whilst there is little scholarly literature on natural beauty per se, cognate landscape topics are 

well represented in the literature, reflecting a long-standing interest in the nature of aesthetics 

and the inspirational qualities of beautiful countryside. The body of theory on aesthetics relates 

to several categories of object including the natural environment, whilst there have been 

extensive debates about closely related concepts such as ‘sublime’, ‘picturesque’ and 

‘wilderness’. Latterly, many researchers have investigated links between the landscape and 

human wellbeing. All of these offer some convergent ideas, although their differences create 

problems in agreeing a durable definition of natural beauty. Perhaps the most fundamental 

difficulty in interpreting natural beauty is that the term appears generally to have been 



3 
 

assumed, by its originators, to be obvious and self-explanatory. However, as Appletoniv

 

 has 

observed, the discussion of natural beauty is often discipline specific and highly subjective.  

For example, within philosophy (particularly the study of aesthetics), the early 18th Century 

debate led by Shaftesburyv and Burkevi centred on the distinction between beauty and the 

sublime. These two notions were deemed opposite ends of the emotion spectrum – sublime 

being related to vistas that evoked reverence, fear and horror, and beauty being associated 

with feelings of pleasure from gazing on a smooth, delicate and lovely scene. Both beauty and 

the sublime provoked a passion related to the view, although they were difficult to reconcile as 

one was founded on pleasure and the other on pain. The literature and fine art of the Romantic 

Movement – for example, writers such as Gilpinvii and Priceviii - introduced a category of 

‘picturesque’, which was used to describe a scene that was not delicate and smooth but had 

interesting sharp angles, variety and, often, ruins as an allusion to human ‘fall’ and the capacity 

of nature to regain ownership of a landscape. Wordsworth’s Guide to the Lakes published in 

1810 reflected these picturesque sentiments in chapters on the forms and colourings of natural 

features, and charms and character evolved from human inhabitationix.  This predominantly 

European standpoint contrasted with the “wilderness concept”  that emerged in response to 

the exploration of Northern America and the New World in the 19th Century.  Reports of the 

scenery were in no way romantic or picturesque and wilderness encapsulated areas with a 

primeval character and minimal anthropogenic influencex

 

.  The observer was still interested in 

the aesthetics of the scene but perhaps more so in the transcendental experiences and spiritual 

feelings it evinced.  

Other writers have looked more synoptically at the properties of beauty, and provide insight 

into its defining attributes. For example, in the 18th Century, Hogarth’sxi analysis was 

instrumental in addressing the problem of pure subjectivity, arguing that beauty should be 

related to principles of fitness, variety, uniformity, simplicity, intricacy and quantity. Bellxii draws 



4 
 

attention to the contributions of Schopenhauer – who suggested that natural beauty relates to 

the spirit of the place (Genius loci) where distinct features fit together well – and Whitehead – 

whose analysis of aesthetics incorporated  ‘massiveness’ (variety of detail with effective 

contrast) and ‘intensity proper’ (magnitude and scale). More recently, Carlsonxiii

 

 has sought to 

explain aesthetic experience of landscape in terms of both multisensory ‘engagement’ and 

‘cognitive’ understanding of its nature, potentially leading to preferences for landscapes where 

there appears to be a ‘functional fit’ between human interventions and the natural 

environment. 

 

The study of aesthetics, in which the response is perceptual rather than rational and factual, 

and where the observer passively viewed the landscape and judged its looks according to 

contemporary rules, prompts a subjectivist paradigm in which the beholder rather than the 

object determines the aesthetic. As noted, this view dominated before and during the 19th 

century, and Lothianxiv argues that it has a continuing relevance to landscape appreciation. 

Buddxv and Bradyxvi have considered aesthetics in relation to ‘nature’ and the environment, and 

they concentrate principally on providing a critical understanding of what aesthetic appreciation 

of nature involves. Whilst neither sheds particular light specifically on what might be meant by 

the ‘natural beauty’ of the countryside, Bradyxvii

 

 does assemble categories of aesthetic qualities 

(such as ‘sensory’ and ‘symbolic’) which have distinct resonance with the properties frequently 

ascribed to human reactions to landscapes.  

During the past twenty years or so, there has been an empirical trend towards demonstrating 

how (positive) landscape attributes are linked to human preference and wellbeing. Whilst these 

are separate issues – the former relating to aesthetic appreciation based on recordable 

features and the latter providing a more instrumental justification for landscape interventions – 

they overlap extensively in practice.  For example, many papers describe how research 



5 
 

participants consistently choose natural or semi-natural landscapes relative to those with many 

urban features (Van den Berg et al xviii; Herzog et al

xxiii

xix; Staats et alxx; and Ulrichxxi).  Kaplanxxii 

asked a large sample of residents what visual preferences they had from their windows and 

those with numerous natural elements such as trees and flowers reported tranquillity, peace 

and more positive thinking.  Williams and Harvey  describe the transcendent experiences 

amongst a group of visitors to a forest, notably, feelings of the sublime, individual 

insignificance, awe and relaxation.  Fredrickson and Andersonxxiv analysed the accounts of 

female trekkers’ experiences of the Grand Canyon and northern Minnesota, and recorded 

diverse emotions from a sense of infinitude to renewal of strength and capability.  Real et alxxv

 

 

related expressed landscape preferences to models of human behaviour, particularly those 

based on psychophysical and cognitive paradigms, and also confirmed that natural beauty may 

have demonstrable positive effects on physical and mental wellbeing. 

Ulrich et al

xxvii xxviii

xxxii

xxvi investigated the effect of showing volunteers a distressing film and then following 

this with a film of an urban scene or a film of the natural environment.  They found that both 

psychological and physical signs of stress reduced quickly and effectively when people looked 

at a scene of trees, lakes or meadows.  Similar experiments were carried out by Van den Berg 

et al , Herzog et al  and Purcell et al , with comparable results.  Staats and Hertig  

confirmed the restorative effects of group and solitary landscape experiences, whilst Mitchell 

and Pophamxxix have shown that exposure to green environments can significantly mitigate 

socioeconomic health inequalities. Harmonxxx proposes that appreciation of natural beauty is 

basic to human nature, and thus has therapeutic and enriching effects on intellectual, 

psychological, emotional, spiritual, cultural and creative faculties.  Martinezxxxi illustrates how 

ancient languages define landscape and wilderness as etymologically linked to terms for health, 

wholeness and liveliness. Thus, landscape beauty may have a “restorative” effect – for 

instance, Fredrickson and Anderson  consider how beauty can provide personal benefits such 

as improved health, psychological well-being and an improved self image.  Similarly, Williams 



6 
 

and Harveyxxxiii

xxxiv

 identify ‘psychodynamic’ properties where people derive spiritual power from 

natural features and a sense of place and familiarity with a favourite spot, often combined with 

the performance of activities and rituals in beautiful areas that have personal meaning.  Purcell 

et al  

 

suggest seven categories of psychologically restorative landscape values, namely, 

‘being away’, ‘coherence’, ‘compatibility’, ‘fascination’, ‘scope’, ‘familiarity’ and ‘preference’.  

I nterestingly, whilst these may occur in isolation, they often occur in combination in areas 

deemed to possess natural beauty.  

There is a further argument over whether certain landscape types are intrinsically capable of 

evoking ‘positive’ responses in the beholder as a result of our evolution in particular 

environmental settings, or whether these reactions are merely culturally determined. Notably, 

some researchers have argued for a systematic, cross-cultural preference for landscapes that 

evoke our evolutionary cradle, the African savannah. Thus, Appleton

xxxvi. Oriansxxxvii

xxxviii

xxxix

xxxv has famously related 

the attractiveness of landscapes to their opportunities for providing ‘prospect and refuge’, 

whilst Kaplan has linked preference to properties such as complexity, coherence, mystery and 

legibility  proposed that a range of patterns, rather than individual features, were 

more likely to determine perceived landscape beauty. The line of enquiry that relates 

preference to biology and evolution is closely associated with theories of biophilia  (innate 

affinities between people and nature), and topophilia  

 

(between people and place, including 

the cultural landscape). 

Whilst not necessarily undermining the statistical and deterministic basis of landscape 

preference, it is clear that societies and cultures do vary in their assessment of the relative 

beauty of different landscapes. Botkinxl has identified discernible changes in what people 

believe to be attractive over time; when confronted with natural beauty, people have also 

revealed their artistic sensitivity and educational background. I n a similar vein, Ribexli found 

systematic differences between people who innately favour protected landscapes and those 



7 
 

who see land as a basis for production. Hence, Parsons and Daniel

xliii

xlii emphasise how scenic 

aesthetics can be considered superficial and socially malleable, suggesting that acquired 

characteristics rather than inherited ones are pre-eminent. I t is also interesting to speculate, 

particularly in the light of current policy imperatives for a more ‘inclusive’ basis to countryside 

enjoyment, that ethnicity may also influence preference – e.g. Purcell et al’s  finding that 

Australian interviewees ranked certain hillside landscape adversely because of their cultural 

association with depressed rural areas, Yang and Brown’sxliv evidence on preferential 

enjoyment of the Japanese landscape, Kohasaka and Flitner’sxlv evidence on nationally variable 

perceptions of economic or romantic qualities attached to wooded landscapes, and Zube and 

Pitt’sxlvi

 

 findings regarding differential preferences for anthropogenically influenced landscapes 

between American ethnic groups.  

I n summary, therefore, it is clear that natural beauty is far from the straightforward term 

suggested by the legislation, lacking a precise definition or defining set of attributes. I ndeed, 

there are sharp differences between sublime, picturesque or ‘wilderness’ landscapes, all of 

which could be deemed by some observers to epitomise natural beauty. Nevertheless, there is 

a strong case that beauty is explicable in terms of theories of aesthetics, and that the ‘natural’ 

world can comprise a distinct category of the ‘aesthetic’. Further, there appear to be recurrent 

terms which are applicable to beautiful landscapes; these properties appear to be widely 

appreciated, both consciously and subliminally, in ways that may be experimentally confirmed.  

 

Equally, there is a probably unresolvable debate about the relative significance of biology and 

culture, but both are clearly important. The influence of culture means that natural beauty will 

inevitably be a dynamic concept, related to a prevailing consensus on what people consider to 

be aesthetic and important to human wellbeing. Yet it is not entirely fluid, and many qualities 

appear to be consistently recognised across time and place. We now turn to the ways in which 

natural beauty has been interpreted officially, before offering our own distillation. Recognising 



8 
 

that natural beauty is a complex notion, we examine how it became adopted as a simple legal 

phrase fit to cover a variety of situations. 

 

The Origins of “Natural Beauty” as an Official Term  

 

I n England and Wales, the watershed legislation which enshrined the concept of ‘natural 

beauty’ was The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, which emerged 

following half a century of debate, lobbying and examination by official government 

committees.  The antecedents go back much further and the term grew out of a rich tradition 

of appreciating the natural realm from an aesthetic point of view and promoting its protection.  

 

Whilst the attempts during the 18th century to search for an all embracing theory of landscape 

beauty are now recognised as somewhat crude and pompous, Appletonxlvii 

 

suggests that they 

contained the germs of subsequent, more credible ideas.  I mportantly, the 'cult of the 

Picturesque' and, to an even greater extent, the 19th century Romantic Movement (notably 

writers  such as Wordsworth, Coleridge, Sir Walter Scott, Keats, Shelley and the Brownings, 

and painters such as Turner and Constable) had a seminal influence on attitudes to landscape 

and shaped the thinking of the early conservation movement.  The preoccupation with 

landscape as scenery and a somewhat escapist emphasis on aesthetics, picturesque views and 

a Romantic construction of nature, were pre-eminent in influencing legislation. 

Moves to preserve the British countryside were born in the Victorian era and, according to 

Bunce, reflected the tripartite interest of: the protection of nature; enjoyment of fresh air, open 

space and scenery; and preservation of national heritage.  The nature movement spawned 

numerous local botanical societies and field clubs by the 1880s and a number of national 

bodies, including what is now the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.  Although 

somewhat separate from the protection of beauty, much of the early nature conservation 



9 
 

movement was in fact motivated by the aesthetic and psychological benefits of nature. This 

movement was also linked to the growth of rambling as an activity and it is interesting to note 

that a group known as the Sunday Tramps reputedly included the historian G M Trevelyan 

(whose influence is noted below) amongst its leaders. 

 

"Natural beauty" first appeared as a formal phrase in the legislation in the 1907 Act to establish 

the National Trust for Places of Historic I nterest and Natural Beauty.  The Act refers to the 

Trust's purposes as "the preservation for the benefit of the nation of lands and tenements 

(including buildings) of beauty or historic interest and as regards lands for the preservation … 

of their natural aspect features and animal and plant life". I t thus appears to connect natural 

beauty with wildlife as well as with natural aspect and features, but no further definition of the 

term was provided. The Trust was born out of the Victorian heritage movement, which was 

particularly linked to the Romantic Movement and especially to the anti-industrial philosophies 

of William Morris and John Ruskin. For example, Morris wrote eloquently of the beauty to be 

found in nature and, according to Angus Taylor xlviii, believed that "human well-being cannot be 

divorced from the well-being of the natural environment" and "Everything made by man's 

hands has a form which must be either beautiful or ugly; beautiful if it is in accord with Nature, 

and helps her, ugly if it is discordant with nature and thwarts her".  His writings give a clear 

view of beauty in nature as the antithesis of urbanisation and industrialisation.  Ruskin was 

similarly condemnatory of industrialisation, and expressed nostalgia for the harmonious 

peasant culture of earlier times. These two leading thinkers had a significant influence on their 

contemporaries, Robert Hunter and Octavia Hill, who in 1884 initiated the idea of a trust to 

preserve important land and property, eventually to become the National Trust.  Octavia Hill 

was indeed a pupil and devoted follower of Ruskin and, with her sister, established the Kyrle 

Society to promote 'beauty'.  She wrote an essay entitled 'Natural Beauty as a national asset' 

arguing that access to beauty was an essential of life, like food, clothing, or shelter xlix

 

. 



10 
 

As the conservation movement established itself, and growing numbers of people were able to 

gain access to the countryside, rural nostalgia continued during the Edwardian period and in 

the inter-war years.  During this period, the first planning legislation emerged, whilst the need 

for protection of rural landscapes became a pressing issue.  Four leading advocates sought the 

appreciation and protection of rural landscapes – Vaughan Cornish, G. M. Trevelyan, Clough 

Williams-Ellis and Patrick Abercrombie – and all were linked, notably through the emergence of 

what would eventually become the Campaign to Protect Rural England and its equivalents in 

Wales and Scotland. Further, they played important roles in shaping the agenda for countryside 

preservation and National Parks up to and after the Second World War.  They were involved in 

giving evidence to or sitting on the various official committees established and it seems clear 

that their views were influential: the legislative roots of "natural beauty" must, to a 

considerable degree, reflect their ideas and beliefs. 

 

Vaughan Cornish (I 862-1948) was a geographer who in 1920 attended an address by Sir 

Francis Young Husband, the explorer, who made a plea for geographers to turn their attention 

to serious consideration of the beauty of natural scenery.  Thus inspired, he wrote a string of 

books and papers and campaigned for the preservation of fine landscape, often reflecting his 

own experiences - his book “Beauties of Scenery" l, for example, is a personal reflection about 

the nature of natural beauty in the British I sles.  G. M. Trevelyan (1876-1962) can perhaps be 

most closely linked with the use of the phrase natural beauty in the period leading up to its 

inclusion in legislation, and his seminal paper li remarked on the relationship between the 

increasingly conscious appreciation of natural beauty and its dwindling supply. He saw the 

natural beauty of the countryside as the inspirer and nourisher of science, religion, poetry and 

art, and urged its preservation in sufficient quantity to satisfy the thirst of the town dweller’s 

soul.  The architect Clough Williams-Ellis (1883-1978) was a leading figure in campaigns 

against the encroachment of development into the countryside, famously describing the 

tentacles of urban sprawl in 'England and the Octopus'lii . He also brought together concerns 



11 
 

about the effects of developments on other parts of Britain in his editing of "Britain and the 

Beast".  Patrick Abercrombie (1879-1957) was an early town and country planner who, 

amongst other things, solicited support for the creation of a broad coalition to advance the 

cause of the countryside, which led to the creation of the Council for the Protection of Rural 

England (CPRE), of which Abercrombie was the first Honorary Secretary, followed two years 

later by the establishment of the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales (CPRW). I n his 

planning work in the 1930s he introduced the "Abercrombian Landscape Survey" method, 

marking a more professionally focused departure from the personal and romanticised views of 

other luminaries.  

 

The history of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act has been widely 

documentedliii.  I n 1929 a National Parks Committee was established under the Chairmanship 

of Christopher Addison, with terms of reference "to consider and report if it is desirable and 

feasible to establish one or more National Parks in Great Britain with a view to the preservation 

of the natural characteristics including flora and fauna, and to the improvement of recreational 

facilities for the people". According to Mair and Delafonsliv

 

 the committee held 28 meetings and 

heard evidence from 34 groups of witnesses as well as receiving written representations – 

interestingly, the National Trust, Abercrombie and Vaughan Cornish were among the 

contributors. 

The Committee’s report in 1931 recommended various measures for preserving the countryside 

and specifically reflected the wording of Vaughan Cornish in places. I t favoured a system of 

National Reserves and Nature Sanctuaries, in order, among other things, "to safeguard areas of 

exceptional natural interest against disorderly development and speculation" and "to improve 

the means of access for pedestrians to areas of natural beauty".  There are perhaps hints in 

these phrases of the later emergence of "outstanding natural beauty" in the legislation. No 

action was taken in response to the Addison report, but as a result of their lobbying of the 



12 
 

Committee, CPRE and CPRW together set up a 'Standing Committee on National Parks' of 

which Abercrombie was a member and which also included, among others, the National Trust.  

Trevelyan had been actively promoting the cause of the Trust, for example in a paper entitled 

"Must England's Beauty Perish" produced in 1926.  I n 1938 he turned his hand to National 

Parks and, in the foreword to the Standing Committee's pamphlet 'The Case for National Parks 

in Great Britain'lv

 

 , he wrote of "regions where young and old can enjoy the sight of unspoiled 

nature … without vision the people perish and without sight of the beauty of nature the 

spiritual power of the British people will be atrophied". 

The report of the Scott Committee on "Land Utilisation in Rural Areas", 1942, included an 

observation that the establishment of National Parks was long overdue.  The report reflected 

on the countryside’s close relationship with agriculture, observing that: 

 

"the landscape of England and Wales is a striking example of the interdependence between the 

satisfaction of man's material wants and the creation of beauty.  .. I ts present appearance is 

not by any means entirely the work of nature …The land of Britain should be both useful and 

beautiful and that the two aims are in no sense incompatible…  it must be farmed if it is to 

retain these features which give it distinctive charm and character."  

 

The Dower Report, published in 1945, was another vital step towards the legislation for 

National Parks.  John Dower, related by marriage to the Trevelyan family, had been an 

advocate for National Parks throughout the 1930s and acted as drafting secretary for the 

'Standing Committee on National Parks’ paper on the case for National Parks.  The Scott report 

emerged soon after he started this work and Dower was then asked to broaden his work to 

complete a much longer report on National Parks by November 1943.  I n his final report Dower 

defined the meaning of a National Park for Britain as: 

 



13 
 

"an extensive area of beautiful and relatively wild country in which, for the nation's benefit and 

by appropriate National decision and action, (i) the characteristic landscape beauty is strictly 

preserved " . 

 

Dower's phrase 'characteristic landscape beauty' betrays the influence of the lobbying over the 

years by people like Trevelyan (beauty) and Cornish and Abercrombie (landscape character).  

Shortly afterwards, the Hobhouse Committee was appointed as part of the efforts directed 

towards post-war reconstruction.  Many of its members had been on the Standing Committee, 

including Clough Williams-Ellis.  The committee proposed 12 National Parks as well as a larger 

group of 'second order' conservation areas of high-value landscapes and habitats (subsequently 

‘Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty’), whose designation as " areas of high landscape quality, 

scientific interest and recreational value"  was seen as an essential corollary to the National 

Park proposals.   

 

When the Act received Royal Assent in 1949, Section 5(1) set out the purposes of National 

Parks as including "the preservation of the natural beauty of an area", which Section 114(2) 

qualified by stating the "references in this act to the preservation of the natural beauty of an 

area shall be construed as including references to the preservation of the characteristic natural 

features, flora and fauna thereof".  This was amended in 1968 to 'its flora, fauna and 

geological and physiographical features' and in addition the word 'preservation' was replaced 

by 'conservation'. Over the years Section 114(2) has been interpreted as a partial definition of 

the meaning of "natural beauty”, in the sense that it makes clear that "natural beauty" includes 

these considerations, but is not restricted to them.  Section 5(2) related to the designation 

criteria for National Parks, similarly referring to ‘natural beauty’ – however, as noted later, it is 

unclear whether s114(2) can be construed as relating to designation criteria, or only to 

planning and management purposes. 

 



14 
 

There is little evidence to indicate how the final phrasing of the 1949 National Parks and Access 

to the Countryside Act came into being.  Cherrylvi

 

 describes how a Secretary to the Ministry of 

Town and Country Planning in 1948 wrote an internal note about the then Minister's 

predilection for a National Commission to be established with responsibility for "areas of natural 

beauty" . By the time that the Act received Royal Assent in December 1949 "natural beauty" 

had become the preferred phrase to express these ideas.  Several other phrases had been 

used to convey the idea of important landscapes, for example, features of particular landscape 

importance or landscape value and rural areas of remarkable landscape beauty (Abercrombie) 

landscape character and landscape pattern (Scott) characteristic landscape beauty (Dower), 

high landscape quality (Hobhouse) and high scenic value (Minister of Town and Country 

Planning).  Despite this "natural beauty" prevailed, for reasons which are not apparently 

disclosed anywhere, yet which can be taken as a shorthand for all these other concepts. I t also 

of course had resonance with the existing National Trust legislation, which may have influenced 

those drafting the legislation.  

"Natural beauty" has continued to be the accepted official phrase to encapsulate ideas about 

the value and importance of landscape, and is now found in legislation that amends or adds to 

the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, notably the Countryside Act 1968 and 

the Environment Act 1995, as well as in the Agriculture Act 1986 and the accompanying EC 

regulation relating to Environmentally Sensitive Areas, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 

and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.  Despite its widespread use in legislation it 

has never been formally defined even though many over the years have found it a clumsy and 

unhelpful phrase.  Whilst the early legislators presumably felt its meaning to be self-evident, in 

practice it contains many latent tensions, not least that of deciding the point at which a 

landscape, however attractive, ceases to be ‘natural’ by virtue of the intensity of human 

settlement and land use. The next section considers how the term has been elaborated and 

contested as it has been applied in different contexts. 



15 
 

 

The Concept Evolves: policies, practices and public inquiries 

 

The original ten National Parks in England and Wales were formally designated between 1949 

and 1957 and the first tranche of 33 AONBs were confirmed for designation by 1976. The first 

official review of the National Parks, the Sandford review, which took place in 1974

lviii

lvii had little 

to say about the definition or interpretation of "natural beauty" but did establish the primacy of 

the "natural beauty" purpose.  Four years later the Countryside Commission  appointed 

Kenneth Himsworth to undertake its first review of AONBs.  His report, published in 1980lix

 

, 

similarly addressed the balance between the different purposes of designation and noted that 

the 1949 Act provided "no guidance as to the calibration of 'outstandingness' in the quality of 

natural beauty"  nor did it comment on the interpretation of natural beauty itself.  Himsworth 

did, however, note that "AONBs come in all shapes and sizes….. there is no single character".   

I n a signal departure from the vagueness of terminology surrounding criteria for selection and 

definition of national parks and AONBs, the Countryside Commission in 1979 appointed 

consultants to carry out a study of the Kent Downs AONBlx which considered, inter alia, the 

meaning by outstanding natural beauty and the requisite qualities to make a landscape 

outstanding.  I n addressing these issues it emphasised ‘characteristic’ features, such as the 

abundance and integration of the distinctive elements, richness and unity, important influences 

of variable factors such as season and weather, the sweeping and rounded form of the land, 

and the human scale of the landscape. I n addition the study makes particular reference to links 

between contemporary perceptions of the landscape and the paintings of Samuel Palmer who 

is closely associated with the Kent Downs landscape, particularly the area of the Darent Valley.  

This approach to extensive description of the character and special qualities of landscape, 

including detailed reference to how they have been recognised in the work of artists and 

writers, came to the fore in the 1980s, perhaps as a reaction against the emphasis on 



16 
 

quantitative approaches during the 1970s.  I n 1984 the new approach found clear expression 

in a report on the New Forest Landscape which set out the value of the area from a landscape 

perspective, to balance the longstanding emphasis on its national and international significance 

for wildlife and nature conservationlxi

 

.  I t notes how, even 100 years earlier, evidence to the 

House of Commons Select Committee had made reference to the beauty and varied character 

of the New Forest and its great national value - "an object of value as great as exists in any 

work of art, although the New Forest is one of nature".   

A further influence was the production of guidance for the National Park Authorities on the 

implementation of Section 3 of the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act 1985 which 

amended Section 43 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.  These sections required the 

National Park authorities to produce a map of particular types of land (mountain, moor and 

heath in 1981, with woodland, down, cliff and foreshore added in 1985) "whose natural beauty 

it is, in the opinion of the authority, particularly important to conserve". The accompanying 

guidancelxii

 

 considered a number of different aspects of the meaning of "natural beauty” 

relating these to "pleasure to the senses", and  noting that ‘natural’ did not preclude human 

agency: 

"it is not inconsistent with the concept of natural beauty to include such landscape elements as 

designed parklands, archaeological features, fields bounded by walls and even buildings where 

they are intrinsic elements in the wider landscape." 

 

While accepting the primary importance of visual qualities, the guidelines also recognised that 

people react to landscape through sounds, smells, taste and touch. Thus, "natural beauty" 

arose from a combination of a series of complex and varied factors including physiography 

(e.g. geology, ecological habitats), associations (historical and cultural), aesthetics (visual and 

other senses), status relative to other areas (degree of rarity or typicality), feelings evoked in 



17 
 

the observer, and public accessibility. This inclusive definition is significant because it reflects 

an explicit statement about what the Commission saw as being valuable in terms of “natural 

beauty” within a public statutory document.  

 

A second review of National Parks, under the chairmanship of Professor Ron Edwards, reported 

in 1991lxiii 

 

that the purposes set out in the original legislation for National Parks were in need of 

revision.  They reasoned that "the National Parks embrace much more than the conservation of 

fine scenery; wildlife, archaeological features, the man made heritage and other cultural 

qualities are also essential elements of their special quality".  As a result they recommended 

that the first purpose of National Parks, of "preserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the 

areas" should be re-defined as "to protect, maintain and enhance the scenic beauty, natural 

systems and landforms, and the wildlife and cultural heritage of the area". This might imply a 

desire both to update and to clarify the meaning of "natural beauty" by indicating the full 

breadth of meaning that it encompassed in modern usage in the 1990s.  I t is interesting to 

note that the Panel proposed this detailed change to the first purpose but did not at the same 

time suggest any change to the qualifying Section 114(2). The recommendations of the Panel 

were partly reflected in the changes to National Park purposes set out in the Environment Act 

(1995) where the first purpose is re-stated as "conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, 

wildlife and cultural heritage of the areas…".  I nstead of replacing "natural beauty" with a 

broader phrase the Act retained "natural beauty" in the National Park purposes, but added the 

duty of conservation and enhancement of wildlife and cultural heritage.  There was no change 

to Section 5(2) defining the criteria for designation.  "Natural beauty" therefore remained 

undefined, but still qualified by Section 114(2) indicating that in references in the Act to the 

preservation, or the conservation of the "natural beauty" of an area "natural beauty” includes, 

but is not confined to, flora and fauna and geological and physiographical features. 



18 
 

At this time the former Department of the Environment also published a circular lxiv

 

 which 

defined National Parks as "areas of exceptional natural beauty (containing) important wildlife 

species and habitats…But the Parks are also living and working landscapes and over the 

centuries their natural beauty has been moulded by the influence of human activity.  Their 

character is reflected in local traditions which have influenced farming and other land 

management practices.  I t is also reflected in the local building material and vernacular style, 

monuments and landscapes, often of archaeological or historical significance, and in the words, 

customs, crafts and art which mark the individual characteristics of each Park".  Arguably, this 

could be taken as confirmation of a broader view of the meaning of "natural beauty" in that the 

comments about wildlife, the influence of human activity, management practices and historical 

aspects can be read as qualifications of the first statements about "exceptional natural beauty".   

I t is clear that there has been a gradual clarification of what "natural beauty" means when 

applied to valued or designated landscapes.  ‘Landscape’ and ‘character’ are starting to be 

recognised as closely related but nonetheless different terms, and there is a growing 

acknowledgement of the difficulty of applying universal rules of aesthetic appeal in a 

meaningful way.  Character is emerging clearly as the basis for describing the special qualities 

of individual landscapes and beauty is being interpreted as an expression of landscape quality, 

related to particular characteristics of different areas, and of the values that are attached to 

different landscapes, aided by a historical perspective of the ways that artists and writers have 

responded to them over the years. 

 

These emerging conceptions were vigorously tested in the first legal examination which 

touched on the meaning of "natural beauty", namely, the 1985 Public I nquiry into the 

designation of the North Pennines AONB in England.  I n his opening address to the inquiry, the 

Countryside Commission's QC argued that from a legal standpoint 'beauty' must be "construed 

subject to Section 114(2)".  This section amplified natural beauty by reference to flora, fauna, 



19 
 

geological and physiographic features, and thus it was argued that "such features, if worthy of 

preservation (which may be because of their scientific interest rather than aesthetic quality) are 

to be treated as included within the concept of beauty".  The QC was clear that the list of 

‘features’ is not intended to limit the definition of natural beauty to these aspects but rather to 

extend the meaning - that is to ensure inclusion of things which might otherwise have been 

excluded.  Since neither the I nspector nor the Minister disagreed with his interpretation, it 

must be presumed to have a degree of official sanction: 

 

" 'Natural' in the context means therefore no more than 'not artificial'.  Sometimes man has 

laboured to create beauty [ through works]  of 'artistic' or 'architectural' beauty.  The phrase 

'natural' beauty is merely used in contrast to such examples.  I t does not exclude beauty in 

which man has had a hand, or which arises as a by-product of or survives man's activities; only 

beauty which is the deliberate creation of man.  The effects of S114(2) adds to it, not only 

natural features worthy of conservation even if not beautiful but also artificial creations out of 

growing things such for example as a landscaped park.  Thus it is not inconsistent with the 

concept of natural beauty to include fields bounded by man-made walls, although the use of 

local material may be essential if that is not to disturb the natural beauty.  No more is it 

inconsistent to view settlements and villages, of such quality at least as not to disturb the 

beauty of the area, as part of its natural beauty.   

 

The key evidence dealing with the policy framework for AONB designation and interpretation of 

their purposes and the criteria for designation was provided by the Countryside Commission’s 

Director lxv

 

, who observed: 

"Though the statute speaks of 'outstanding natural beauty', in practice this means outstanding 

landscape quality.  This is because there are few, if any, areas of England and Wales, which 

are entirely natural..." 



20 
 

 

This evidence is amplified by reference to the factors that Countryside Commission staff 

considered when judging "natural beauty" or landscape quality, namely, relative relief, 

landscape shape, natural quality (or wildness), semi-natural vegetation, dramatic contrasts, 

remoteness, unspoiled quality, continuity and extent, harmony of the works of man and nature, 

and vernacular architecture.  

 

I n his report following the I nquirylxvi

 

 the I nspector wrote "in considering the 'central issue', the 

Assessor and I  agree with the Commission that natural beauty is in practice best interpreted in 

the context of a proposed AONB as landscape quality" and in his findings of fact he noted that 

"the quality of the landscape of the area is both natural and man-made".  This provides the 

first clear evidence of landscape quality being used in practice in place of natural beauty, albeit 

there is no attempt to clarify what landscape itself means, nor indeed quality.  The Secretary of 

State in his decision letter accepted the I nspector's conclusions and recommendations and 

expressed the view that "assessment of landscape quality necessarily involves a subjective 

assessment and that within the consensus of informed opinion allied with the trained eye, and 

commonsense, the matter is one of aesthetic taste".  This has been an important statement in 

subsequent considerations of "natural beauty". 

The findings of this public inquiry resonated strongly with emerging interpretations of 

landscape as an environmental system which can be described in terms of its character and 

mapped as a geographical unit.   I n particular, it gave considerable impetus to the need for 

statutory organisations to be more explicit in their identification and treatment of special 

landscapes.  Thus, having rejected statistical approaches to landscape classification and 

evaluation, the Countryside Commission facilitated the development of more qualitative 

methodslxvii, which began to consolidate the view that the analysis, description and 

classification of landscape character had to be considered separately from the steps of 



21 
 

evaluation or other forms of judgement. These views were reflected in the Commission’s work 

to prepare its own internal guidance for staff on approaches to landscape assessment, later 

published for a wider audience lxviii, and subsequently elaborated into the method of Landscape 

C

 

haracter Assessment.   

I n further recognition of the need to be much more explicit about what "natural beauty" means 

in practice, the Countryside Commission set about commissioning and publishing landscape 

assessments of all the proposed and designated AONBs.  These assessments were designed to 

provide a statement about why each of the areas was considered important in terms of its 

landscape character and quality.  Emerging wisdom was confirmed in the first of these 

publications, whose preface concluded that, whilst the determination of natural beauty should 

primarily reflect visual quality, geology, topography, flora and fauna, historical and cultural 

aspects were also relevant.  The study proceeds to address this question through a process of 

"informed opinion, the trained eye, and common sense" as recommended by the Countryside 

Commission's Landscape Assessment guidance, which in turn reflected the conclusion of the 

North Pennines inquiry.  

 

I n 2000, work commenced to designate two new National Parks in England, the New Forest 

and the South Downs.  Both proposals were subject to Public I nquiries, in anticipation of which 

the former Countryside Agency produced a series of papers between 1999 and 2002 reviewing 

the application of the criteria for National Park designationlxix

 

.  Landscape Character 

Assessment and guidance on its application played an important part in both inquiries. 

The I nspector at the New Forest inquiry was assisted by a specialist Landscape Assessor who 

advised on the issues relating to the "natural beauty" criterion.  The Assessor reviewed the 

legislation, the “natural beauty” criterion and the way the Countryside Agency had applied it in 

relation to the New Forest and the definition of its boundarylxx .  A key consideration in defining 



22 
 

the boundary for this area was the use of a broad definition of “natural beauty” which included 

“flora, fauna, geological and physiographic features, and elements arising from human 

influences on the landscape, including archaeological, historical, cultural, architectural and 

vernacular features".  I nterpretation of the "natural beauty" criterion was in this case heavily 

based upon a Landscape Character Assessment conducted in 1991 which identified and 

mapped landscape types which  possessed a common identity recognisable as the New Forest 

landscapelxxi

 

.   

The Landscape Assessor supported the view that the primary consideration of natural beauty 

was the presence of outstanding landscape quality reflected through the presence of intact and 

distinctive New Forest landscape character, with an absence of atypical or incongruous 

features.  She stated: 

 

"all the landscapes of England are heavily influenced by human activity.  Bearing that in mind, 

natural beauty as defined in Section 114(2) of the Act cannot imply pristine or completely 

natural landscapes or there would be no land in England that could meet the Natural Beauty 

criterion.  The terms of the Act must therefore require a high degree of 'relative naturalness' 

accepting that the cultural influences on the landscape should be taken into account…" lxxii 

 

The main issue of contention was the degree to which weight should be attached to factors 

such as history, cultural associations, considerations relating to use of the land for common 

grazing, archaeology and nature conservation interests, even where these were unrelated to 

landscape beauty.  The assessor felt that the weight to be attached to such matters needed to 

be carefully considered if they were not to be given undue attention in reaching judgements on 

natural beauty.  This raised the difficult legal question of whether the qualifying statement 

about the definition of natural beauty in Section 114(2) relates only to the statutory purposes 



23 
 

of designation set out in Section 5(1) or also to the designation criteria in Section 5(2) where 

"natural beauty" is unqualified.   

 

 

Following confirmation of the New Forest National Park boundary in March 2005, Meyrick 

Estate Management Limited and others appealed to the High Court against the inclusion of 

Hinton Park within the area.  The High Court Judge, Mr Justice Sullivan, found in favour of the 

claimants.  There were several grounds for the claim, but among them the claimants argued 

that the defendant (the Secretary of State) had erred in the law: 

 

"I n not applying the statutory test in paragraph (a) of subsection 5(2) "natural beauty", but the 

extended definition applicable under section 114(2) only to the management of National Parks 

under subsection 5(1) once they had been designated under subsection 5(2)." 

 

The landscape consultant for the claimants commented that: 

 

“The Countryside Agency's revised approach to boundary making is to include areas of 

historical value.  This is misguided as marginal areas are inappropriately included based on a 

flawed understanding of natural beauty".  

 

This argument was strongly contested at the inquiry by the Countryside Agency who argued 

that:  

 

"Guidance and precedent clearly indicate that historical, cultural, architectural and vernacular 

features form part of natural beauty. … That is why landscape, ecological, historical and 

cultural considerations i.e. commoning, were each considered in turn in Section 3 and 5 of the 



24 
 

'New Forest National Park Boundary Study"… All of these factors (i.e. landscape; ecological; 

historical and cultural) were assessed as part of the 'natural beauty' criterion…" 

 

I n weighing up the balance of arguments, the Judge did not accept the Agency’s case relating 

to the application and meaning of section 114(2), suggesting that the extended meaning of 

“natural beauty” is related to possible conflicts which may arise from the different purposes of 

designation such as those between recreation pressure and the protection of rare flora. The 

Judge criticised the conclusions of both the Landscape Assessor and the I nspector, concluding 

that "in some contexts 'natural' might simply mean rural, as opposed to urban, but 'natural 

beauty' has to be understood in the context of section 5 which is concerned with the 

designation of ‘extensive tracts of country

 

’ which have the particular quality of natural beauty 

(whereas) ‘well maintained’ historic parkland providing the setting for a Grade I  listed building, 

and 'well ordered' dairy fields of dairy farms would seem to be the antithesis of naturalness.  I n 

such landscapes man has very obviously and deliberately tamed nature".  The Judge 

considered that "the Assessor and the I nspector's approach effectively discarded the 

requirement for a high degree of relative naturalness and substituted a test of 'visual 

attractiveness' or 'landscape quality' “.  

I n moving towards his conclusion the Judge noted that the issue of proper application of 

section 114(2) was "not the determining issue".  I nstead he turned to the fact that the Agency 

was contending that a broader range of factors, including, for example historical and cultural 

factors, could be taken into consideration in deciding whether the "natural beauty" criterion 

was met.  He concluded that:  "While such factors were relevant (as the Assessor said) to an 

understanding of how a particular tract of countryside had evolved to its present state, they 

were not relevant when it came to deciding whether it possessed the necessary quality of 

natural beauty so as to justify designation as a National Park".  This ruling therefore took a 



25 
 

narrow view of "natural beauty", bringing into question much of the subsequent evolution of its 

interpretation in policy and precedent.  

 

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), representing the interests of 

the Agencies involved in the original case, contested the High Court Ruling but in 2007 the 

Court of Appeal upheld the decision, although its reasons related to whether opportunities for 

open air recreation existed and it was of little help in reaching a firm view of the correct legal 

interpretation of natural beauty. 

 

I n making the original decision in the Meyrick case the High Court suggestedlxxiii 

 

that legislation 

was needed to clarify the meaning and use of natural beauty in designating landscapes for 

protection, noting that:  

“Views as to which tracts of countryside have the quality of "natural beauty" may (or may not) 

have changed over the last 50 years, but the "natural beauty" criterion in subsection 5(2)(a) of 

the Act has not been changed to embrace wider considerations such as "cultural heritage". I f 

the "natural beauty" criterion in subsection 5(2)(a) is to be changed to reflect 21st century 

approaches to countryside and leisure planning then the change must be effected by 

Parliament, and not by administrative action on the part of the Agency in adopting a wider 

range of factors for the purposes of designation.”  

 

Concerned at the implications of the High Court ruling for the ongoing I nquiry into the 

proposed South Downs National Park, the relevant authorities had to a degree anticipated this 

conclusion.  Taking advantage of the imminent introduction of the Natural Environment and 

Rural Communities Act 2006, a new clause was added very late in the proceedings, with the 

intention to pre-empt any further debates about the meaning of natural beauty.  This new 

clause provided that, when considering natural beauty, an area’s wildlife and cultural heritage 



26 
 

may be taken into account (Section 5(2A)(a)); such an area may include land which consists of 

or includes land used for agriculture or woodlands, or used as a park, or an area whose flora, 

fauna or physiographical features are partly the product of human intervention in the 

landscape (Section 99). It remains to be seen whether this is a sufficient basis for modern 

landscape protection, planning and management, such as that required under the European 

Landscape Convention. 

 

Stakeholder View s on “Natural Beauty” 

 

I t is clear that the interpretation of the term “natural beauty” is not as self-evident as its 

originators presumed. I ndeed, it is openly contested, bringing into question whether it should 

be more explicitly defined or perhaps replaced altogether with an alternative expression. This 

question was explored with a group of stakeholders, in the form of a written consultation and a 

workshop. Both groups received a summary of the researchers’ review and a draft re-definition, 

of “natural beauty”. A number of individual expressions and convergent themes were 

suggested by respondents and attendees during these exercises (Table 1).  

 

A recurrent theme was the intangibility of natural beauty and hence the need to ensure that it 

reflected non-quantifiable and emotional qualities, which often could not be precisely defined 

or specified. Not being a purely objective quality possessed by the land, it was seen to relate to 

the capacity of land and water to evince emotional responses. I t was seen as a fluid concept, 

as cultural evolution leads to changes in what is recognised as being beautiful. I t is also a 

multi-sensory quality – not purely visual – and thus properties such as tranquillity and sense of 

freedom contribute to the human response. I t could also have a ‘spiritual’ quality, given the 

historical association between ‘re-creation’ and inspiring places. Some respondents were 

concerned that too formulaic a definition might trivialise some of these profound qualities.  

 



27 
 

Respondents felt that natural beauty did not need to be restricted to areas which were either 

extensive or wholly free from industrialisation. On the one hand, society is increasingly 

prepared to recognise the beauty associated with urbanisation and industry, even where the 

landscape scars have only recently started to heal. On the other, ‘unspoilt’ natural beauty was 

often to be found in quite small areas, whereas legislation and past practice tended to equate it 

with the grand scale. These smaller enclaves were often close to large settlements and thus 

valued by many people and so it was important to have a definition which allowed 

acknowledgement of natural beauty wherever it occurred.  

 

Whilst respondents tended to describe natural beauty in ‘universal’ terms rather than place-

specific ones, there were some allusions to particular associations with the Welsh language and 

culture. For example it was noted that the difference in language is closely related to the 

understanding of place. The Welsh language includes helpful terms such as tirlun for the 

‘visual’ qualities of landscape and tirwedd for a richer view reflecting wider associations, whilst 

the notion of hiraeth reflects people’s yearning for places they cherish. Further, the time-depth 

of landscape was considered to a very important contributor to what is perceived as beautiful, 

and in Wales this has been reflected in a Register of Historic Landscapeslxxiv. 

 

 

The continued usefulness of natural beauty as a concept caused some division of opinion. A 

significant minority suggested that the term was outmoded and needed to be replaced: first, it 

was felt that human use had shaped the environment for so long that the notion of ‘natural’ 

was misleading; and second, beauty is a category of the aesthetic, and thus some people saw 

it as an inappropriate subject for legislation. The terms natural and beauty were felt to be 

unclear and disingenuous, both individually and in combination, and could usefully be replaced 

by a new term. Most respondents, however, were in favour of retaining the concept, mainly for 

pragmatic reasons, albeit with a deeper support for the term’s intrinsic meaning. Both the 

supporters and opponents of the term were keen to pursue the use of new terms, either as 



28 
 

supplements to or replacements of natural beauty – these included fine scenery, high quality 

rural landscape, special landscape, natural and cultural heritage (qua Scottish national parks), 

and relative naturalness (in a small and crowded country with strong anthropogenic influence). 

Some were particularly keen to see harmonisation with international terminology, particularly 

with I UCN Category V Protected Landscapes, the World Heritage Convention and the European 

Landscape Convention. There was a feeling that most people understood ‘natural’ as being 

where human control is ‘relaxed’, making it easier to see that landscapes are still shaped by 

elemental forces of nature such as weather, tides, seasons, gravity, soils, geology and water.  

 

A common view was that natural beauty remained a useful concept provided it was elaborated 

through criteria based on positive contributors and negative detractors. Some respondents 

sought criteria that were primarily visual, reflecting the essential aesthetic and perceptual 

qualities of beauty; authenticity was similarly mentioned. This view was closely related to 

emergent properties such as tranquillity, relative lack of pollution, wildness, relative 

naturalness, integrity and associations. Others sought scientific criteria, reflecting legal 

references to flora, fauna, geology and physiography. One interesting and strongly made 

viewpoint was that accessibility was a key criterion. Given that beauty has to be seen to be 

appreciated, then it is axiomatic that people should be able to view it at first hand. However, 

some respondents were keen not to introduce criteria, feeling that this would detract from the 

transcendental and indefinable qualities that were most precious. Further, society is constantly 

redefining its attitudes about things that it deems to be beautiful, and thus quantifying and 

specifying such a fluid notion could prove a contradiction in terms. One strongly expressed 

viewpoint by a number of respondents was that natural beauty is a ‘democratic’ concept and 

possesses an aesthetic which relies on the observer’s response – thus,  it was important to ask 

the public what it considered to be beautiful. 

 



29 
 

Clearer definition of the term was felt to be important for a number of reasons: the need for a 

legally robust definition, especially in the post-Meyrick context; generating an improved 

understanding of the role of National Parks; providing a clear thread between the European 

Landscape Convention and domestic practice; interpreting 1940s legislation in a modern way 

that reflected evolution of thinking about landscape; and ensuring that the term was not 

‘overloaded’ by expecting it to apply to all manner of situations inside and outside national 

parks. A common view was that a definition of natural beauty should strike a balance between 

having a popular currency and yet also being fit for legal purpose. Subsequent reflection and 

discussion emphasised the importance of defining ‘natural beauty’ rather than ‘outstanding 

natural beauty’. Many parts of the country may thus be considered to possess a degree of 

natural beauty – however, some places could display this quality to an outstanding degree, and 

so may be worthy of special designation. Criteria that workshop members thought might be 

taken into account in defining natural beauty are summarised in Table 2. 

 

 

 

Conclusion 

 

The foregoing account has analysed the continuing relevance of natural beauty as a legal term 

underlying the safeguard of protected landscapes in the UK, particularly England and Wales. 

During the 18th and 19th centuries, there is evidence of a progressive consensus that ‘nature’ – 

rather than being associated with hazard and privation – could be treated as a category of the 

aesthetic alongside human form and artefacts. For various reasons, this view became 

enshrined in a particular bureaucratic and legislative movement. Even though it is clear that 

successive guidance and professional judgement has drawn upon an increasingly sophisticated 

view of ‘landscape’, and despite the apparent vulnerability of the term to legal challenge, 

natural beauty is still widely considered to be ‘fit for purpose’ as a basis for designating and 



30 
 

managing protected areas. However, it is a somewhat archaic term which clearly needs 

qualification and clarification. 

 

Taking account of the various sources of evidence and opinions, we suggest that the following 

attributes relate to a modern understanding of natural beauty: 

 natural beauty relates, first and foremost, to unspoilt rural areas free from large-scale 

settlements or industry; 

 natural beauty does not apply only to landscape where nature may appear to dominate, 

but includes rural landscapes which have been shaped by human activities, including, 

for example farmland, fields and field boundaries designed parkland, small settlements, 

larger villages and small towns, provided that they are integral to and in keeping with, 

the character of the landscape. Traces of industrialisation may not always be 

incompatible with, and may sometimes be complementary to, beauty; 

 natural beauty is a broad concept that is concerned with ‘landscape’, which is now itself 

inclusively defined as: the interaction between the physical (geology, landform, air and 

climate), natural (soils, flora and fauna), and cultural/ social (land use, enclosure, 

settlement) components of our environment; and the way this is perceived by people 

visually, in terms of aesthetic aspects like colour, form, texture and pattern, and 

through other senses, and also through perceptions and preferences, which are 

affected by people’s cultural backgrounds and interests; 

 natural beauty is related to landscape character, in that it will find expression in areas 

of landscape which have a degree of unity and distinctiveness in character and a strong 

sense of place.  Landscape character is, however, found everywhere whereas natural 

beauty is found in valued landscapes; 

 in the 19th and the first half of the 20th centuries, when landscape was still viewed 

largely as a static scene or picture, natural beauty was used mainly to reflect the value 

attached to the aesthetic and scenic aspects of landscape.  The aesthetic values 



31 
 

attached to landscape, though still important, are only one of the reasons why 

landscape is now valued; 

 natural beauty is about landscape value and thus draws upon the different reasons why 

society may attach value to particular areas.   

These are increasingly established through recurrently used criteria (Table 2). Not all of these 

criteria need be met for an area to possess natural beauty; however, where many of them 

coincide spatially, that area may be considered to possess ‘outstanding’ natural beauty. 

 

I n the context of ‘protected landscapes/ seascapes’, we conclude that natural beauty relates, 

first and foremost, to unspoiled rural areas, relatively free from the effects of urbanisation and 

industrialisation. I t does not apply only to landscape where nature may appear to dominate but 

includes rural landscapes which have been shaped by human activities, including, for example 

farmland, fields and field boundaries, designed parkland, small settlements, larger villages and 

small towns, provided that they are integral to, and in keeping with, the character of the 

‘landscape’.  Overall, therefore, it appears that the concept of natural beauty retains a 

contemporary meaning distinct from the evolving use of ‘landscape’ and continues to have 

legal and policy relevance. 

 

 

Acknowledgements: This paper is based on contract research entitled ‘A Statement on Natural 
Beauty’ undertaken for and funded by the Countryside Council for Wales. The authors 
gratefully acknowledge support from this source and also permission to publish the paper. The 
substantial contribution of Dr Melanie Knight to the literature review is also gratefully 
acknowledged. Any errors and omissions in the paper remain the authors’ own.



32 
 

  
NOTES AND REFERENCES  

 

                                                
i  International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) (1994a) Guidelines 

for protected area management categories. IUCN, Gland. 

 
ii    Land Use Consultants and Arwel Jones Associates  (2004)  Review of the National Park Authorities in 

Wales.  Report for the Welsh Assembly Government.  Reference on Page 18. 

   
iii    Council of Europe (2000) The European Landscape Convention. Strasbourg. 
 
iv  Appleton, J. (1975) The Experience of Landscape.  John Wiley & Sons. London. 

 
v  Shaftesbury, Lord A.A.C. (1990)., Characteristics of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times,. edited by J M 

Robertson, London  

 
vi  Burke, E. (1996) from A philosophical enquiry into the origin of our ideas of the sublime and beautiful 

(1759).  In Ashfield, A. and de Bolla, P. (eds.) The sublime – a reader in British 18th Century aesthetic 

theory.  Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Pg 131-143. 

 
vii  Nicholson, N. (1995) The Lakers:  The adventures of the first tourists.  Cicerone.  Cumbria. 

 
viii  Price, U. (1996) An essay of the picturesque, as compared with the sublime and beautiful (1794). In 

Ashfield, A. and de Bolla, P. (eds.) The sublime – a reader in British 18th Century aesthetic theory.  

Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Pg 131-143. 

 
ix  De Selincourt, E. (2004) Guide to the Lakes by William Wordsworth, Frances Lincoln.  London. 

 
x  Foreman, D. (2000) The real Wilderness Idea.  USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-15-Vol1. 

  
xi  Hogarth, W. (1969). The analysis of beauty (1753).  The Scholar Press Ltd.  London. 

 
xii  Bell, S. (2001). Can a fresh look at the psychology of perception and the philosophy of aesthetics 

contribute to the better management of forest landscapes? In Sheppard, S.R.J. and Harshaw, H.W. 

(Eds).  Forests and landscapes linking ecology, sustainability and aesthetics.  CABI Publishing.  

Trowbridge.  Pg 125-148. 

 
xiii Carlson, A. (2007) On aesthetically appreciating human environments. In: Berleant, A. and Carlson, A. 

(Editors) The Aesthetics of Human Environments. Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press., pp. 47-

65.  A useful summary of Carlson’s contribution can be found at:  Carlson, Allen (2002). 



33 
 

                                                                                                                                                       
Environmental aesthetics. In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: 

Routledge. Retrieved from http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/M047 

 
xiv Lothian, A. (1999).  Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality inherent in the 

landscape or in the eye of the beholder?  Landscape and Ur ban Plan nin g,  4 4  ( 4) .  177- 1 98.  

 
xv  Budd, M. (2002) The Aesthetic Appreciation of Nature. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 

 
xvi  Brady, E. (2003).  Aesthetics of the natural environment.  Edinburgh University Press. Bodmin. 

  
xvii  Brady, E. (2003).  Aesthetics of the natural environment.  Edinburgh University Press. Bodmin. 

  
xviii  Van den Berg, A.E., Koole, S.L. and Van der Wulp, N.Y. (2003) Environmental preference and 

restoration: (How) are they related? Journal of Environmental Psychology 22(2), 135-146. 

 
xix  Herzog, T.R., Maguire, C.P. and Nebel, M.B. (2003)  Assessing the restorative components of 

environments.  Journal of Environmental Psychology 23(2), 159-170. 

 
xx  Staats, H. and Hartig, T. (2004) Alone or with a friend: A social context for psychological restoration 

and environmental preferences.  Journal of Environmental Psychology 24(2), 199-211 

 
xxi  Ulrich, R.S., Simons, R.F., Losito, B.D., Fiorito, R.E., Miles, M.A. and Zelson, M. (1991)  Stress 

recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments.  Journal of Environmental Psychology 

11, 201-230. 

 
xxii  Kaplan, R. (2001).  The nature of the view from home.  Environment and Behavior 33(4). 507-542. 

 
xxiii  Williams, K. and Harvey, D. (2001)  Transcendent experience in forest environments.  Journal of 

Environmental Psychology 21, 249-260. 

 
xxiv  Fredrickson, L.M. and Anderson, D.H. (1999).  A qualitative exploration of the wilderness experience 

as a source of spiritual inspiration.  Journal of Environmental Psychology 19(1), 21-39. 

 
xxv Real,  E. ,  Ar ce,  C. ,  Sabucedo,  J. M.  ( 2000) .   Classif icat ion of landscapes usin g quant it at iv e an d 

cat egor ical dat a,  an d pr edict ion of t heir  scenic beaut y  in nor t h- w est er n Spain.    Jour nal of 

Env ir onm ent al Psy ch ology .  2 0 ( 4) ,  355- 3 73.  

 
xxvi Ulrich, R.S., Simons, R.F., Losito, B.D., Fiorito, R.E., Miles, M.A. and Zelson, M. (1991)  Stress 

recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments.  Journal of Environmental Psychology 

11, 201-230. 

 



34 
 

                                                                                                                                                       
xxvii  Van den Berg, A.E., Koole, S.L. and Van der Wulp, N.Y. (2003) Environmental preference and 

restoration: (How) are they related? Journal of Environmental Psychology 22(2), 135-146. 

 Herzog, T.R., Maguire, C.P. and Nebel, M.B. (2003)  Assessing the restorative components of 

environments.  Journal of Environmental Psychology 23(2), 159-170. Purcell, T., Simons, R.F., Losito, 

B.D., Fiorito, R.E., Miles, M.A. and Zelson, M.  (2001).  Why do preferences differ between scene 

types?  Environment and Behavior 33(1), 93-106. 

  
xxviii  Staats, H. and Hartig, T.  (2004).  Alone or with a friend: A social context for psychological 

restoration and environmental preferences.  Journal of Environmental Psychology 24(2), 199-211. 

 
xxix Mitchell, R and Popham, F. (2008) Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: 

an observational population study.  The Lancet, 372, 1655-1660. 

 
xxx  Harmon, D. (2004)  Intangible values of protected areas: What are they? Why do they matter?  The 

George Wright Forum 21(2), 9-22. 

 
xxxi  Martinez, D. (2003)  Protected areas, indigenous peoples and the western idea of Nature.  Ecological 

Restoration 21(4), 247-250. 

 
xxxii  Fredrickson, L.M. and Anderson, D.H. (1999)  A qualitative exploration of the wilderness 

experience as a source of spiritual inspiration.  Journal of Environmental Psychology 19(1), 21-39. 

 
xxxiii  Williams, K. and Harvey, D. (2001)  Transcendent experience in forest environments.  Journal of 

Environmental Psychology 21, 249-260. 

 
xxxiv Purcell, T., Peron, E. and Berto, R. (2001)  Why do preferences differ between scene types?  

Environmenta and behavior 33(1), 93-106.  

 
xxxv Appleton, J. (1975) The Experience of Landscape.  John Wiley & Sons. London. 
 
xxxvi Kaplan, R. (2001).  The nature of the view from home.  Environment and Behavior 33(4). 507-542 

 
xxxvii Orians, G.H. (1986).  An ecological and evolutionary approach to landscape aesthetics.  In Penning-

Roswell, E.C. and Lowenthal, D. (eds).  Landscape Meanings and Values.  Allen and Unwin.  Lond.  

Pg 3-25. 

 
xxxviii Wilson, Edward O. (1984). Biophilia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press 
 
xxxix Tuan, Y-F,  (1974) Topophilia: A  study of environmental perceptions, attitudes and values.  Prentice-

Hall  Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 
 
xl  Botkin, D.B. (2001) An ecologist’s ideas about landscape beauty: Beauty in art and scenery as 

influenced by science and ideology.  In Sheppard, S.R.J. and Harshaw, H.W. (des.).  Forests and 

landscapes linking ecology, sustainability and aesthetics.  CABI Publishing.  Trowbridge.  Pg 111-123. 



35 
 

                                                                                                                                                       
 
xli  Ribe, R.G. (2002).  Is scenic beauty a proxy for acceptable management? The influence of 

environmental attitudes on landscape perceptions.  Environment and behavior 34(6), 757-780. 

 
xlii  Parsons, R and Daniel, T.C. (2002) Good looking: In defence of scenic landscape aesthetics.  

Landscape and Urban Planning 60(1), 43-56. 

 
xliii  Purcell, A.T., Lamb, R.J., Peron E.M. and Falchero, S. (1994).  Preference or preferences for 

landscape?  Journal of Environmental Psychology 14(3), 195-209. 

 
xliv  Yang, B.E; Brown, T.J.  (1992).  A cross-cultural-comparison of preferences for landscape styles and 

landscape elements.  Environment and Behavior, 24(4), 471-507.   

 
xlv  Kohasaka, R. and Flitner, M. (2004).  Exploring forest aesthetics using forestry photo contests: case 

studies examining Japanese and German public preferences.  Forestry Policy and Economics 6(3-4), 

289-299. 

 
xlvi  Zube, E.H. and Pitt, D.G. (1981).  Cross cultural perceptions of scenic and heritage landscapes.  

Landscape Planning 8, 69-87. 

 
xlvii  Appleton, J. (1975) The Experience of Landscape.  John Wiley and Sons. Chichester. 

 
xlviii  Taylor, A. (1997) Inhaling all the Forces of Nature: William Morris's Socialist Biophilia.  In The 

Trumpeter. (Page 4).  Accessed online at: http:// trumpeter.athabascau.ca/content/v14.4/taylor.html 

(accessed on 12/12/05) 

 
xlix  Reynolds, F. (2004) Britain's Biggest Classroom: the 2004 Purcell Lecture (viewed online at the 

National Trust's web site) 

 
l  Cornish, V. (1944) The Beauties of Scenery.  Frederick Muller Ltd.  London. 

 
li  Trevelyan, G.M. (1931) The Call and Claims of Natural Beauty.  In Trevelyan G.M. (Ed) (1949) An 

Autobiography and other Essays.  Longmans, Green and Co. London. 

 
lii Williams-Ellis C.  (1929).  England and the Octopus.  Geoffrey Bles, London. 

 
liii  The key sources that we have drawn on are: 

 

Cherry, G.E. (1975) Environmental Planning 1936 – 1969.  Volume II. National Parks and Recreation 

in the Countryside.  HMSO. London. 



36 
 

                                                                                                                                                       
Blunden, J. and Curry, N. (1990)  A People’s Charter? – Forty Years of the National Parks and 

Access to the Countryside Act.  HMSO. London. 

Blunden, J. and Curry, N. (Eds) (1985) The Changing Countryside.  The Open University in 

Association with the Countryside Commission. Croom Helm. London. 

Sheail, J. (1976) Nature in Trust: The History of Nature Conservation in Britain. Blackie and Son. 

Glasgow and London. 

Sheail, J. (1998) Nature Conservation in Britain: The Formative Years.  The Stationery Office.London.  

MacEwen, M. and A. (1982) National Parks: Conservation or Cosmetics? George Allen and Unwin. 

London. 

Bishop, K., Nicholls, C., Ormerod, S., Phillips, A., and Warren, L. (1994) Protected Areas in the Welsh 

Countryside. Volume 1 – Protected Areas – Past, Present and Future.  Research Report to the 

Countryside Council for Wales.  Environmental and Countryside Planning Unit. University of Wales 

College of Cardiff. 

 
liv  Mair, J. and Delafons, J. (2001)  The Policy Origins of Britain’s National Parks:  The Addison 

Committee 1929-31.   Planning Perspectives.  Vol. 16. pp 293-309.  

 
lv  According to Cherry, G.E. (1975) Environmental Planning 1936 – 1969.  Volume II. National Parks 

and Recreation in the Countryside.  HMSO. London. 

 
lvi  ibid 

 
lvii  Sandford, Lord (Chairman) (1974) Report of the National Park Policy Review Committee.  London. 

HMSO. 

 
lviii The National Parks Commission, set up in 1949 was replaced by the Countryside Commission in 

1968, itself being merged into a new Countryside Agency in 1999, which in turn was incorporated into 

Natural England in 2006 

 
lix  Himsworth, K. M. (1980) A Review of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  Report for the 

Countryside Commission, CCP 140, Cheltenham. 

 
lx  Land Use Consultants (1979) The Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  Report to the 

Countryside Commission.   

 
lxi  Land Use Consultants (1986) The New Forest Landscape.  CCP 220.  Countryside Commission.  

Cheltenham. 

 
lxii  Countryside Commission (1986) Wildlife and Countryside Acts 1981 and 1985: Section 3 

Conservation Maps of National Parks - Guidelines. CCD6.  Countryside Commission.  Cheltenham. 

 



37 
 

                                                                                                                                                       
lxiii  Edwards, R (Chair) (1991) Fit for the Future: Report of the National Parks Review Panel.  Countryside 

Commission.  Cheltenham. 

 
lxiv  Department of the Environment (1996) Circular 12/96. HMSO. London. 

 
lxv  Phillips, A. (1985) North Pennines AONB Public Inquiry: Statement by the Director of the Countryside 

Commission.  Unpublished statement of evidence. 

 
lxvi  Berthon, Sir Stephen (1986) North Pennines AONB (Designation) Order 1978: report of Public Local 

Inquiry (Reference: DRA1/CW/39) 

 
lxvii  Land Use Consultants (1986) Mid Wales Uplands: Landscape Assessment.  Unpublished report to 

the Countryside Commission.  Cheltenham. 

 Cobham Resource Consultants (1986) Landscape Assessment of Rivers. Unpublished Report to the 

Countryside Commission. Cheltenham. 

 
lxviii  Countryside Commission (1987) Landscape Assessment - The Countryside Commission 

Approach.  CCD 18.  Countryside Commission.  Cheltenham. 

 
lxix  The relevant documents are: 

 Board Paper AP 99/51: National Park Designation a review of how the criteria are applied 

 and an updated and amended version of this in Board Paper series 00/3 

 Board Paper AP 00/15 Designation of a National Park in the South Downs 

 Board Paper 00/30 Definition of National Park Boundaries 

 2002 Paper on 'The Statutory National Park Criteria, their interpretation and application' 

  
lxx Hughes, R. (2004) Landscape Assessor's Report on issues relating to the Natural Beauty Criterion.  

DEFRA.  London. 

 
lxxi Land Use Consultants (1991) Proposed New Forest Heritage Area Boundary.  New Forest 

Committee. Lyndhurst. 

 
lxxii Hughes, R. (2004) op cit. 
 
lxxiii High Court judgment in Meyrick Estate Management & Others v Secretary of State for 

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2005] EWHC 2618 (Admin), Paragraph 62.  
 
lxxiv Countryside Council for Wales (CCW)/ Cadw (2001) Register of Landscapes of Special Historic 

Interest in Wales. Cardiff: Cadw. 
 


	Selman, P H and Swanwick, C A (2010)  On the Meaning of Natural Beauty in Landscape Legislation. Landscape Research, Vol. 35, No. 1, 3–26.
	DOI: 10.1080/01426390903407160
	On the Meaning of Natural Beauty in Landscape Legislation
	Paul Selman and Carys Swanwick
	Department of Landscape, University of Sheffield
	Introduction