That seems quite an insightful book, Isaac. Thanks for the link.
I don't agree with Tim Lookingbill's opinion, when he responded: "Just that short passage from the book already tells me it's mostly comprised of a lot of unscientific intellectual sounding verbal padding and filler especially for a book on landscape photography. I'd rather just look at the pictures. "
It seems pretty obvious and undeniable to me that we are a product of our landscape. We could never have evolved into human beings without the interaction over millions of years with our landscape. We are totally dependent upon our landscape. We cannot exist without it. However, the landscape can exist just fine without us.
In fact, there's a case to be made that without our presence, the landscape would be better (ie. healthier and more vigorous). We're gradually ruining the environment (landscape) with noxious pollutants, deforestation, and farming practices which tend to diminish the quantity of natural nutrients in the soil as well as the amount of carbon and the degree of soil biodiversity.
Of course, we are now so clever we can create our own artificial environments, such as concrete jungles (cities), and space stations. Perhaps in the future we'll eventually be able to colonize Mars and create massive greenhouses to live in.
I suspect anyone who is out-of-touch with that deep emotional connection or heritage with the landscape, is emotionally in trouble. 
I think you are right, but I wouldn't say that required an interest in
photographing it. At least, not beyond the personal souvenir level. The buzz is in being in it, and whenever one can manage that, especially if a city dweller, it can recharge the batteries. But even there, I think it's the
change in landscape that counts: I loved driving up and down France, especially the Dordogne, but in the end, it wasn't that different from Perthshire, where I inevitably ended up for most of the time back in the UK. I didn't enjoy Perthshire much; Mallorca is just as beautiful, in a different nway, but then I hardly see it anymore after all these years.
I suppose that's why people are often unfaithful: nothing wrong with where they are, just lookin' for something different.
Rob
P.S.
Just watched a great programme on BBC4 about Scandinavian art. Yet again I came to the subconscious, and then very conscious conclusion that cinematographers have a better understanding of landscape than do stills shooters. Yet later, I realised the advantage they hold: the abilty to slide seamlessly from one shot of the subject to an immediate other one of the same thing seen, as an example, through a net curtain, in a single, unbroken movement which carries memory of the first glimpse along with it. Stills can't compete with that, and a diptych ain't the same, no way.
Also, the cinematographer's use of longer lenses gives a look far more interesting than seems the stills man's norm.
