Tasman Carter Blog
Beyond the Surface: The Risks of Treating Landscape Change as Merely Material
When landscapes are subject to change—through rezoning, subdivision, or infrastructure development—policies and assessments often focus on the material aspects: soil quality, land use, access, built form, transport efficiency, and ecological function. These factors are undoubtedly important, but they tell only part of the story.
By treating landscape solely as a physical or economic resource, we risk overlooking its role as a source of meaning, identity, memory, and emotional wellbeing. This oversight is not just theoretical—it has practical consequences for community cohesion, public trust, and individual psychological health.
This article explores the missed opportunities and potential harms of a materialist approach to landscape change, especially in everyday working environments such as farms, rural fringes, and industrial edges. It draws on the philosophical tension between materialism and idealism to offer a fuller picture of what landscapes really mean—and why that matters.
Materialism vs Idealism: A Conceptual Lens
In philosophy, materialism holds that reality is based solely on the physical—what can be seen, measured, or touched. In contrast, idealism argues that reality is also shaped by the mind: by ideas, perceptions, beliefs, memories, and emotions.
In landscape planning and policy, this tension plays out clearly:
| Perspective | Focuses On | Tends to Value |
| Materialist | Land use, infrastructure, cost | Efficiency, productivity, spatial function |
| Idealist | Experience, memory, identity | Belonging, cultural value, emotional ties |
The problem: Most planning frameworks lean heavily toward the materialist perspective, while the lived experience of landscape is deeply idealist. This disconnect leads to missed signals, poorly handled change, and harm to communities.
Case in Point: The Working Landscape
Take the example of a small, multi-generational farm on the edge of a town. From a materialist view, the land might be seen as underutilized or ripe for subdivision. But from an idealist (or human-centered) perspective, that same landscape:
- Holds family history and pride
- Structures daily rituals and rhythms
- Fosters emotional regulation through continuity and familiarity
- Symbolizes identity, hard work, and belonging
- Provides aesthetic experiences, even in its utility
When such places changed without accounting for these intangible values, the result is often more than physical displacement—it is psychosocial dislocation.
What Gets Missed in a Material-Only Approach
1. Cultural and Emotional Meaning
Material assessments often don’t ask:
What does this place mean to people?
What stories live here?
What is lost when a fence line or shed is removed?
These meanings are not luxuries—they are part of how people make sense of their lives.
2. Psychological Stability and Wellbeing
Routine landscapes offer predictability, which supports mental health. When that continuity is broken, especially without consent or preparation, people can experience:
- Loss of control
- Anxiety and grief
- Identity disruption
- Intergenerational conflict
3. Social Cohesion and Trust
Communities may resist change not out of stubbornness but because they feel unseen or misunderstood. When policy ignores lived values, trust in institutions erodes and participatory processes fail.
4. Regenerative Opportunities
Landscapes with strong emotional and symbolic value can become anchors for stewardship, adaptive re-use, or co-designed development. Ignoring these values squanders opportunities for more sustainable and community-driven futures.
Practical Consequences: What Policy Fails to See
| What Happens When… | The Outcome |
| Landscape change is framed only in terms of efficiency or growth | Social pushback, legal challenges, reputational damage |
| Emotional values are not assessed | Increased psychological stress, especially among elders or long-time residents |
| Cultural memory is overlooked | Loss of place identity and weakened intergenerational ties |
| Everyday aesthetics are ignored | Erosion of local pride and sense of care |
| Local knowledge is excluded | Poorer environmental decisions and reduced buy-in |
Toward Integrated Practice: Bridging the Gap
The opportunity lies in reconciling material and idealist views—in designing processes that respect both the economic function of land and its role in the human imagination and heart.
This requires:
- Human-centered assessment tools (see our previous article)
- Expanded definitions of value in policy and planning frameworks
- Participatory methods that ask communities to define what matters to them
- Visual and narrative mapping of lived experience
Conclusion: Landscape is Not Just Land
Everyday working landscapes are more than spatial assets—they are psychosocial ecologies. They hold meaning in their folds, paths, and worn surfaces. When we reduce them to material terms only, we commit a form of cultural erasure.
The cost is not just symbolic—it is emotional, social, and ultimately economic, as communities disengage and resilience erodes. The task ahead is to bring idealism back into the frame—not in opposition to material needs, but in recognition that meaning itself is a material force in human life.
Coming soon: A toolkit for integrating lived experience into planning and impact assessment processes, including template questions, observation prompts, and participatory mapping techniques.