Interestingly, the report points out that locating turbines below the skyline in the belief this will reduce visual impact -- as is often the case in Britain -- may in fact have the opposite effect. This is due to the contrast of turbine colour and because the visual relationship between the wind farm and skyline varies as the viewer moves. Since there tends to be an expectation that wind developments should relate to the windiest of sites -- or high points, siting turbines below the skyline may appear irrational. "The location of a wind farm is É about honestly portraying a form in direct relation to its function and our culture; by compromising this relationship, a negative image of attempted camouflage can occur," writes the author. Turbine size should relate to the scale of the surrounding landscape, continues the report. Larger wind turbines do not necessarily result in greater visual impact than smaller ones. And a development's impact is not directly proportional to the number of turbines.
The report finds that many people opposed to wind development have difficulty in associating it with their own electricity consumption. It says people must be made aware of the connection. Controversially, the report argues that wind developments should not be excluded from protected landscapes. Many visual problems arise because of lack of attention to the design and layout of turbines. Landscape architects "must assert their capability to positively contribute to wind farm design."