Visual Impacts of Industrial Activities and Visualisation

Visual impacts of industrial activities have not only been widely recognised, but nowadays are considered as one of the major environmental impacts.

The aesthetic impact of various industrial activities on the environment (mining is one of the most characteristic of such activities) is difficult to discuss in view of the overwhelming importance of subjective factors and the lack of an objective base from which to work. An additional complication is that opinion on the visual acceptability of an industrial operation varies markedly, depending on the location, as well as on many non-visual criteria.

To assess the visual impacts of an activity a number of evaluation methodologies have been developed. In general, the Visual Impact Assessment of a proposed development addresses three types of issues: spatial, quantitative and qualitative. Spatial issues include where the development is visible from or, more specifically, what or whom it is visible to; quantitative issues include how much of the development is visible, how much of the surrounding area is affected, and to what degree; and qualitative issues include the visual character of the development and its compatibility with its surroundings.

In other words, the three major problems in visual landscape evaluation are: (i) the technical problem of how to visualise possible changes in the landscape; (ii) the theoretical problem of how to evaluate scenic beauty; and (iii) the administrative problem of how to integrate visual aspects in the planning process (Lange, 1994).

Sometimes the visual impacts of the proposed development are evaluated but rarely is there a good visualisation of the project. In the recent years there has been an increasing interest in the use of visualisation techniques to assess visual landscape variables. Although an important progress has been achieved in this field, there are still a lot of problems to be solved due to the complexity of the subject.

Going beyond a purely descriptive approach, the visualisations are meant to be used as an aid for the “experts” to evaluate the visual impact of a proposal. Furthermore, the visualisations are prepared to be shown to the public after the report is finished but before the final decision is made, thereby taking into account the public’s opinion.

In the examples presented below the initial geomorphologic features and the final output of the proposed plans for two abandoned quarry sites located in Attica basin are illustrated. These examples concern two case studies conducted by the Laboratory of Mining Technology.

A. Quarry site in Salamina Island

Fig. 1 Initial geomorphologic features	Fig. 2 Final output of the proposed plan

B. Quarry site in Merenta area, Markopoulou Municipality

Fig. 3 Initial geomorphologic features	Click on the above figure for a video of the proposed rehabilitation scheme

For more information about the issues discussed above, visit the Web site of the Laboratory of Mining Technology. We are interested in your opinion and suggestions.

You can reach us by e-mail at:

D. C. Kaliampakos
mmesdk@central.ntua.gr
Lecturer
Laboratory of Mining Technology
Division of Mining
Dept. of Mining Engineering-Metallurgy
National Technical University of Athens

M. Menegaki
menegaki@minetech.metal.ntua.gr
Ph.D. Student
Laboratory of Mining Technology
Division of Mining
Dept. of Mining Engineering-Metallurgy
National Technical University of Athens

Back	e-mail to: secretary@gnest.org