Most countrysides look somewhat like that. At least the one i was forced to grow up in. Sure, there are lots of plants but nevertheless the land is ecologically dead because there's only a few species (mostly 3 different subspecies of corn). Sure there are some trees but i think the trees feel as lonely as i did when i lived there.
If you want to live in nature, go to the mountains or some place that has large bodies of water nearby (lakes, rivers, ocean). That's where the actual life is.
It's because of a mixture of landscape reasons. Large flat areas are attractive to farming, so that's what's being done. On the other side, mountains are unattractive for that because the big machines can't drive over uneven soil. Similarly, large waters host a ton of biodiversity because water is the origin of all life, and you can really feel that. Just give it a try.
Have you priced places near bodies of water and mountains? Out of my paygrade
Bodies of water? Sure, that land can be pricy, although not in every case.
Mountains? Nah those areas are usually pretty inexpensive, at least in the US. Appalachia being a prime example.
In all fairness, there is a reason that Appalachian land is cheap, and that is that setting aside your neighbors, the geographic disadvantages are pretty bad for farming and development.
Absolutely. That's true for mountainous regions in general. Lack of navigable rivers, difficulty of transportation, lack of farmable land, harsh climate, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_people
In the modern world we have developed technology to mitigate these issues so you have some exceptions, like the Alps and the Rockies to some extent. But historically, wealth was always concentrated in the coastal and agriculturally productive regions.