How landscape is de-emphasized in English

Interested in semantics as I am, I came across a couple of ways in which the concepts of place, or landscape, get the "short end of the stick" in our analyses of language - of English in particular. The first example is in my verb table, where I try to come up with verbs where a place is the 'actor':

actor\target	person	thing	place
person	love understand	want assign value see find	go indicate
thing	cause to	act on compare to	in at
place	affects	contains on	connects to

The one where "place affects person" is pretty lame, and generally the 'place' row is sparse. So English is quite poor in its vocabulary and concepts of how landscape and position act upon us.

A second example has to do with adjectives that are meaningful for place but not for person or thing. For example the word "windy". I find that in English we have the generic term "feeling" to describe attributes of a person; and we have the word "attribute" or "property" to describe the attribute of a thing. Yet there is no word for adjectives that are particular to place and landscape. For example "sad" is an example of a feeling and "windy" is an example of a ...[there is no named category]. Thus English is poor in its vocabulary and concepts for how landscape fits within its own semantics.
I propose to call it "landscape" "setting", generically. So "windy" will be a landscape setting term.