What is the purpose of "Landscape Character Assessment"?

There is no point doing an LCA unless someone, somewhere wants to change it.



So let's take an example: an on-shore wind-farm!

If a windfarm is sited in the most effective place for turning natural wind energy into an environmentally friendly form we can use, then in principle I believe it should be built. It is "design with nature" a la McHarg. It's siting should presumably be a combination of the windiness of the site and the distance to the sink (to reduce transmission losses).

For the latter reason, I would like to see wind-mills in cities - the new cathedrals of our urban centres. How amazing would that be?!

Windfarms offer just one great opportunity for re-connecting humans to nature by making visible the processes that keep us alive. How about changing "out of sight, out of mind" into "back in sight, back in mind"? Instead of technophobia, let's create technophilia through constructivism, i.e. show people the inner workings of life processes. If they want electricty, let them see - in real time - where it comes from, how much is being created and how much they, as individuals, are using. This should create a positive aesthetic in its own right.

One could argue its just a matter of time before this landscape constructivist beauty is appreciated. I assume there was the same argument when the national grid pylons were being erected. Yet now we have groups who love the architectural and sound qualities of pylons!

But, how to deal with more immediate aesthetic concerns! What makes a Dutch windmill in the low countries beautiful and a modern turbine less so, assuming both are sited well and fit for purpose?

Is it despoilation of a "natural landscape" - a spoiled snapshot? As professionals we all know that are a very few places on the planet that are "natural" in not having been engineered by man. And these landscape change over generations. But is this widely appreciated? Perhaps it is our lack of shared education in history that causes the problem?  Or perhapsit is simply that ever common human feature - resistance to change?

Or perhaps it is the jarring vernacular being used. As Lyle (1994) said, "with mass production and transportation, also powered by fossil fuels and mechanical heating, it became possible to use the same materials everywhere". Perhaps people simply don't like huge monocoque fibreglass constructions in rural areas. It might be seen as a huge intrusion by global industry into a romantic pre-industrial setting. Perhaps if windmill bases were built in Oxford of local sandstone they may look more sympathetic to their context? I can see my new book taking shape, The "Dreaming Blades"...

I'm not sure how LCAs could help resolve these deep issues. They may aim to be objective with no value judgements, but the next stage in planning is always open to being subjective and personal, i.e. where should the development go? So is the long-term answer is to influence/change popular culture through education and fashion so that we try to get on the same page about what our "landscape" is no, was over time and could be?