What is the central idea of the article dont put any links to diffent wepsites

Different societies see landscapes differently. You may look at Elizabethan England and see a predominantly green land, characterized by large open fields and woodlands, but an Elizabethan yeoman will describe his homeland to you in terms of cities, towns, ports, great houses, bridges, and roads. In your eyes it may be a sparsely populated land—the average density being less than sixty people per square mile in 1561 (compared with well over a thousand today)—but a contemporary description will mention overcrowding and the problems of population expansion. Describing a landscape is thus a matter of perspective: your priorities affect what you see. Asked to describe their county, most Devonians will mention the great city of Exeter, the ports of Dartmouth, Plymouth, and Barnstaple, and the dozens of market towns. They will generally neglect to mention that the region is dominated by a great moor, Dartmoor, two thousand feet high in places and over two hundred square miles in expanse. There are no roads across this wasteland, only track ways. Elizabethans see it as good for nothing but pasture, tin mining, and the steady water supply it provides by way of the rivers that rise there. Many people are afraid of such moors and forests. They are “the ruthless, vast and gloomy woods . . . by nature made for murders and for rapes,” as Shakespeare writes in Titus Andronicus. Certainly no one will think of Dartmoor as beautiful. Sixteenth-century artists paint wealthy people, prosperous cities, and food, not landscapes.

Explanation:

i promise this will help you meh dude