The notion of the human environment carries with it the idea that people’s behaviour is largely a product of the physical and social conditions in which they live and develop. But behaviour is also a manifestation of each individual’s genetic package, which, in a historical perspective, is subject to adaptation and environmental contingencies. It can be argued that human beings make choices, but they are situational and relational; that is, they have a direct relationship with the environment and with the beings that compose it.

There are undoubtedly ambiguous aspects to be considered when discussing human relationships and belonging to the worlds of nature and culture. The extension of the idea of the environment is reflected in the contemporary environmental movement by the concept of holism. It is the perception brought by ecology that “everything is connected to everything.” This holistic ideal echoes in the popular environmentalist slogan: “humans are part of nature.” This slogan is often used to imply that “original sin,” which leads to environmental destruction, is an attempt to separate ourselves from nature. We can get back to having a healthy relationship with nature only after recognizing that this attempt at separation is senseless and destructive.

In environmentalist debates, there is a division between “monists” and “dualists”. The latter see the world through significant distinctions between humans and animals, nature and society, savage and civilized, reason and emotion. The first, in turn, deny that these distinctions are profound and see continuity and uniqueness beyond established categories and the differences they represent. Although monism exerts a strong attraction among environmental defenders, it is difficult to face the ambiguities arising from reflection without passing by a series of dualisms.

When discussing the relationships between natural heritage and cultural heritage, as well as the marks that human cultures leave in natural landscapes, it is possible to establish a “hard” distinction between nature and culture. Based on this distinction, environments can be classified into:

1) city/urban, with a predominance of culture and cultural heritage; 2) countryside/rural, with a mixture of nature and culture, but where nature is predominantly anthropized; and 3) uncultivated or wildlands, with a predominance of nature in a primitive state, areas where human presence is sparse or sporadic, with a predominance of natural heritage. These categories have a practical function, within a broad framework of analysis, and reveal continuities, “blurred” borders, and overlaps.

The gradualism characteristic of the evolutionary process brought the human species to the historical scene, with an emerging property, culture. It wasn’t a sudden appearance. Other hominid primates, before Homo sapiens, learned to use stone tools and utensils, handle fire, organize socially, and communicate through gestures and some kind of spoken language. The use of a structured spoken language, agriculture and animal husbandry, writing, the manufacture and use of metals, these feats of Homo sapiens gradually emerged in different places and times. Gradually, human adaptation became increasingly dependent on culture, which makes humans a product both of culture and of nature.

Another important aspect is that humans, insofar as they produce culture, can affect, impact, and influence the natural environment in a very different way from all other living beings. Humans learned to exceed certain limits imposed by nature. Were humans tied solely to the dynamics of the biological evolutionary process, it would be very difficult for their number to reach 7.9 billion. The human species, throughout history, has used the planet’s natural resources more and more intensively to satisfy human purposes. From megafauna extinctions to global warming, humans have been able to profoundly impact the environment in which they live.

The distinction between culture and nature is therefore instrumental. Ambivalence is part of the knowledge game, and there is no mistake in recognizing humans as both belonging to and being separate from nature. The establishment of distinctions between urban/city, rural/countryside, and wild/uncultivated lands is useful in sharpening the perception of different levels of human intervention on natural environments. They allow for a deeper reflection on the specific characteristics of cultural and natural heritage and on the relationships between them. They also allow for a better assessment of human actions and perspectives on the conservation of these heritages – natural and cultural.

An important question is the following: why value cultural and natural heritage? The simplest and most obvious answer is to ensure the conservation of the human environment, without which human life would not be possible. Depredation of the human environment implies a loss of quality of life for human beings. This is a very pragmatic reason and leads to the perception of heritage, cultural or natural, as a resource to be appropriated or enjoyed by humans. Other less instrumental reasons and motivations can be suggested and deserve a reflective exercise. Therefore, it is important to introduce here the notion of transcendence and establish its connection with the motivations for the conservation of cultural and natural heritage.

The transcendence of the world, in relation to individuals, makes it acquire a value beyond mere utility. Certainly, the world of culture exists for humans, but it is the transcendent character of it that irradiates meaning (objectivity) for individual human lives. In society, or in the world of culture, there are emergent properties, a kind of life of its own, something more than the simple sum of individuals. It is a world that is perpetuated through human individuals, their constructions, their actions, and their relationships, an environment conducive to human life in all its dimensions, and a heritage to be cared for, known, and admired.

Transcendence is also a characteristic related to natural heritage. The natural world was not created by or for humans, although it is the environment on which human life and human societies are established. The natural world, with all its diversity of biotic and abiotic aspects, is the product of an evolutionary process, which has been going on for billions of years. The fact is that humans are neophytes, laggards participating in the spectacle of nature, when one thinks of how recent their appearance on the planet is in relation to the duration of the evolutionary process.

The autonomy of the natural world, at its most extreme, refers to the idea of the wild or untamed. Nature, insofar as it was not created by humans or for humans, and insofar as it is indifferent to humans, has a transcendental character in a deeper sense even than culture or society.

There are several types of value that can be attributed to the natural world: life-sustaining value, economic value, recreation value, scientific value, aesthetic value, genetic diversity value, historical value, cultural-symbolic value, character construction value, value of diversity-uniqueness, value of stability and spontaneity, dialectical value, value of life, and religious value. There are several types of value, from the most instrumental to the most disinterested. It is worth noting the intrinsic value of nature. This, as much as its transcendental aspect, must be understood in its deepest sense, related to its autonomous character. The value of natural heritage, understood as all inherent and constitutive diversity of the natural world, is thus beyond mere instrumentality. It is related to pure scientific investigation, aesthetic appreciation, and the establishment of an ethical conduct of humans to nature.

In this aspect, nature can also play an educational role. Although nature is not a moral agent, neither its creatures nor its ecosystems are moral tutors in the field of ethics among humans, we can often “take a moral” from the reflection on nature: that is, to gain a lesson from life. Nature has a “leadership ability”; it educates, leads us to know who we are and where we are, and what our vocation is. The encounter with nature integrates us, protects us against pride, gives us a sense of proportion and place, teaches us what to expect and what to be content with. Living well is being able to capture certain natural rhythms.

The appreciation of cultural and natural heritage, as stated above, has a strong relationship with the need to ensure the conservation of the human environment. This motive has a powerful appeal to anyone with a modicum of common sense. On the other hand, the perception of the transcendental character, both of cultural and of natural heritage, implies a sharper perception and a sensitivity to values that go beyond mere instrumentality. Who can say that the possibility of guaranteeing the perpetuity of enjoying the goods we cherish and enjoying the experiences that fulfil us does not lie precisely in the development of a new perception of the environment around us?

The concept of heritage evokes quite heterogeneous universes. One can speak of historical, artistic, or archaeological heritage, or even ethnological, biological, or geological; material or immaterial; local, regional, national, or global. From a broader perspective, this heterogeneity is encompassed by the concepts of cultural heritage and natural heritage, and by the concept of the environment. It is worth noting that the human environment is also the environment of all other living beings and which, therefore, is a heritage shared by humans and non-humans.

The notion of heritage is related to what is transmitted as inheritance. It involves a social process of valuing and choosing what will be transmitted or what deserves to be preserved for posterity, for future generations. It is a constitutive process of memory and identity, as it decides what will be remembered and valued, and what will be forgotten or, at the limit, even cease to exist.

Heritage preservation involves perpetuating the human environment, and the valuation of cultural and natural heritage considers both utility and aesthetic appreciation. This operation also involves elaborating ethical values related to perceptions of identity and the value attributed to what is considered exotic. Science, art, economics, and politics all play important roles in the social process of valuing heritage.

Travel and tourism involve various aspects related to valuing cultural and natural heritage, which are the basis of tourist attractions. To be interesting, an attraction must have relevant natural aspects that highlight the beauty and/or sublimity of what is not the work of humans (fauna, flora, beaches, rivers, waterfalls, landscapes) or cultural aspects that highlight the genius of human artifacts (architecture, urbanism, and immaterial culture). Some attractions mix nature and culture, such as gardens and cultivated land.

Conserving natural and cultural heritage involves contact, experience, and knowledge of what one wants to protect. Interpretation, as both art and science, plays a fundamental role in promoting the direct experience of natural and cultural heritage. Guides and interpreters act as mediators between visitors and the new world unfolding before them. They also train new interpreters, as the experience of tourist visitation is formative. Interpretation shapes the mythical hero, the one who passes on stories and adventures, and it shapes values, expands perspectives of the world, and shapes consciences. Interpretation activity generates empathy towards the environment.

Interpretation is part of a tradition and a new science and craft. Those who choose interpreting as a profession enter an ancestral tribe that includes shamans, poets, historians, and philosophers, as well as the pioneers of this field: John Muir, Enos Mills, and Freeman Tilden. Among the performers who developed and structured the ideas of these pioneers are Dave Dahlen, David Larsen, Sam Ham, William Lewis, Joseph Cornell, Ted Cable, Doug Knudson, and Larry Beck.