November 2003

Reflections on methods to assess the visual impacts of aggregate operations on landscapes.

By Belinda Arbogast

Among the topics that elicit emotion at a public hearing concerning aggregate development, one of the biggest issues to attract public opposition is the impact of the proposed operation on the landscape. Is there anything that can be done to remove some of the emotion from the process? Biologists, geologists, hydrologists, planning departments, and the mining industry tackle many of the environmental issues that may arise — noise, dust, erosion, sedimentation, and changes in surface and ground water. Although social scientists, geographers, landscape architects, and federal agencies have attempted to tackle visual assessment of the landscape, there is still no universally accepted method. Even so, approaching visual impact from as much of an objective point of view as possible is something the aggregates industry may want to consider.
The public may not be able to define scenic landscapes or beauty, but they believe they know “ugly” when they see it, and to them, any aggregate operation, by definition, is ugly (see Figure 1). Although the public doesn’t want ugly, people cannot always distinguish between “natural” landscapes and mining activities (Figures 2, 3, and 4). Landscape assessment is too often subjective, which adds confusion and emotion into the public process.

Figure 1. This exposed rock face in an active quarry is relatively hidden from the above ground view by the surrounding vegetation. What or who determines if the scene is beautiful or ugly?

Figure 2. Craters of the Moon National Monument, Idaho, is mistaken by some as a dump ground. Photograph by Robert Schneider. Courtesy National Park Service.

Figure 3. It can be difficult for visitors to the Temple Quarry Nature Trail, near Salt Lake City, Utah, to recognize the area that provided granite for the city in the 1800’s.

Figure 4. The public may not perceive these wetlands as artificially created from a sand and gravel pit along the South Platte River in Colorado. Photograph by Raymond Sperger. Courtesy South Suburban Park and Recreation District.

The National Park Service has encountered some visitors to Craters of the Moon National Monument, Idaho, who ask the question, “Where are all the dump trucks that put that stuff down?” They perceive lava or ash as being man-made rather than nature-made. Sometimes the natural landscape, in the form of natural sinkholes, may be mistaken for an old pit. One researcher discovered that people reported seeing roads, borrow pits, timber cuttings, and even an airport, in a study of a totally natural landscape. There were none of the structures in the examples. Conversely, even when a mine is functional, some people have been known to mistake the altered landform and spoils as natural.
There are three approaches the aggregate industry can use in evaluating the visual impact of mining in order to address some of the public concern. Although more frequently used in evaluating landscape visual quality to support decisions for highway, recreation, power lines, ski, or forestry development, the methods may be useful to the mining industry. Two approaches are historical (visual analysis and user analysis methods) and one emerging because of increased scientific knowledge and technology (ecosystem sustainability).
The National Environmental Policy Act (1969) requires practicable means to ensure aesthetic and culturally pleasing surroundings, but it fails to give a methodology to follow. Methods of assessing scenic values have been used in U.S. courts, although there is ongoing debate whether visual attributes of the landscape are quantifiable. Critics complain the environment cannot be reduced to pieces because the whole is greater than the sum of the pieces and there are endless parts to measure. Existing visual assessment methods frame landscapes as one might frame a photograph at a scenic overlook (Figure 5) but in reality, we are immersed in the environment and never separated from it.

Figure 5. An “artistic” view of various fractions and quarry face in an aggregate quarry. Actual landscapes are not framed — we enter them.

The search for a state-of-the-art method
Landscape visual assessment may be considered as much art as science. Both science and art use abstract terms, understand complex objects by breaking them down in smaller components, and are fundamentally a search for beauty. For example, Albert Einstein would look at a mathematical equation and examine its beauty first. If it appeared ugly, he wasn’t interested in the equation.
Historically, the environment and landscape aesthetics have been examined using either visual analysis methods or user analysis methods. Visual analysis methods typically rely upon the identification of form in the landscape — physical traits such as vegetative cover, view shed area, and river width; or artistic elements such as unity and balance. Is the perception that wider, faster rivers are more aesthetic than slow, narrow bands of water a value judgment based upon sound science (facts) or an assumption? What are the accepted definitions and measurements for texture, form, line, and color? Visual analysis methods typically rely upon experts whose specialized training and knowledge increases their sensitivity to aesthetic judgment over the general public.
Critics claim (1) that assessment of landscape characteristics must include the users — and they differ from place to place — and (2) that experts themselves may not agree. Distinctions made in scenery management handbooks vary from a “lack of rock forms weakens scenic attractiveness” (quarries certainly have plenty of rock forms) to “if a landscape is visible to fewer viewers, concern levels drop” (tell that to residents opposed to a proposed mining permit). No mention is made of the research to support such statements.
User analysis methods evaluate individual preference and classify subjective experience, not the physical forms in the environment. Landscape values are psychological and indicated by feelings — is the landscape good, bad, liked, or disliked? More often it is the landscapes’ symbolic meaning, not the specific appearance, which motivates our reactions. The perception of a viewer (i.e., the public) is a reflection of their past environment, economic history, politics, and social pressure. For example, a Virginian may prefer a landscape of dense understory woodland while a Kansas farmer may prefer an open wheat field. Would either person appreciate the economic importance, ecological sensitivity, or landform of a pit or quarry?
The public stereotype of mining sees that landscape as exploitation and that in turn indicates destruction. That perception has an emotional component, such as dislike, anger, or frustration. Critics point out popular taste may not be the best standard in landscape value. The user analysis approach is simpler to implement than visual analysis but is more costly and time consuming. Sampling can also be an issue. Does one survey the neighborhood of a proposed mine site or the regional area?
A new method that is proposed for visual assessment is that of function and in particular ecosystem sustainability. A few geomorphologists and hydrologists have been involved in reclamation work wherein the goal is to work with natural processes. The up-front costs may be greater, but long-term costs are lowered, greater diversity is provided, and visual aesthetics improved (at least in terms of blending in with the surrounding “natural” landscape). One extreme example: landscapes having eroded forms to begin with are proposed to include gullies, cut banks, and steep slopes in the reclamation plan (Figure 6). But this approach may run contrary to existing reclamation regulations. Furthermore, how would one implement such an approach in the rural or urban environment where the surrounding ecosystem has already been artificially altered?

Figure 6. Plenty of rock forms, steep slopes, and erosion exist in these sets of cross-strata in Lyons sandstone, Boulder County, Colo. Would regulatory agencies allow such landforms in a reclaimed mine site? Photograph by E.D. McKee. Courtesy USGS Photo Library.

Critics claim no landscape is truly sustainable and there are costs/tradeoffs involved somewhere. Nevertheless, designing for ecosystem sustainability in mining and reclamation might equal a beautiful landscape, in terms of human visual value, at the end of the day. It’s worth further investigation.
Ideally, both expert and public opinion would be considered in landscape assessment. The U.S. Forest Service combines both in their scenery management method, allowing for changes in the natural system and accepting the cultural landscape. Its handbook attempts to establish common terminology, consistent procedures, and standards but lacks a straightforward approach as one might find in a cookbook or user-friendly computer software program.
Factors such as landscape symbolism and environmental fit could be added to a site survey of visual resources. Unfortunately, this can be a time consuming and costly process. For most organizations, time is money. Planners would need to build a time frame for such studies that delays breaking ground, and that in turn means little money coming in until the mine is operational. Some may question the ethics of investigating visual characteristics when there are claims of more pressing issues such as loss of habitat, water pollution, sinkholes, or erosion requiring funding and research.

Human values
This takes us back to the fundamental importance of ensuring high quality landscapes for society and Earth before, during, and after the mining process. Urbanization is rapidly covering natural-appearing landscapes and resources while psychologists and physiologists claim people need nature and scenic diversity for healthy lives. In seeking objectivity it is easy to lose track of or diminish the value behind intangible attributes or benefits of scenic quality, i.e., the significant contributions to human physical and psychological health and well-being.
The reality is people do not want “blighted” landscapes despite living in “ugly” modern cities. Since we already have “ugly” in our back yards, perhaps we want to influence the results of development elsewhere. The question remains if scientific reasoning and thoughtful reclamation are sufficient to offset emotional public judgment when companies apply for mining permits. Landscape visual assessment is an attempt to interpret landform, biological, and cultural attributes as they relate to scenic beauty. Part science, part art.

Belinda Arbogast is a chemist and landscape architect with the U.S. Geological Survey in Denver, Colo. She shared this presentation at the University of Brandenburg in Cottbus, Germany and the University of Colorado School of Architecture and Planning.