Monitoring mountain summer farming
landscapes in Norway: Temporal and
regional patterns of continued farming,
leisure use, and abandonment
Sebastian Eiter, Norwegian Forest and Landscape Institute
”Global Change and the World’s Mountains” Conference , Perth, 27-30 September 2010
Questions
> What is the ’state of the nation’ in terms of the
agricultural landscape?
> How has landscape changed, how is it changing?
> Why does it change (”driving forces”)?
> How do recent policies work?
> Which new policies might be needed or desirable?
Material available
> Agricultural statistics
> Case studies: numerous, fine-scale, from different
disciplines: archaeology, biology, ethnology, geography,
history, etc.
> National landscape monitoring programme (since 2009)
Recent statistics
> Approx.1200 mountain
summer farms receiving
subsidies for dairy
production in 2008
Farm unit
Single
Cooperative
(Rekdal 2009, Illustration: M. Angeloff)
/
Historical statistics and estimates
?
> Decline of mountain
summer farms with dairy
production
(Rekdal 2009)
Case studies:
Regional differences and changes over time
(Eiter & Potthoff 2007)
Different farmsteads and types of
buildings in west and east
(1960s/70s and 2009/10)
(Fylkeskonservatoren i Hordaland 1979) (Christensen 1981 [1969])
Development I (1960s-2010):
Continued/modernised farming use
?
(Christensen 1981 [1969]) (Christensen 1981 [1969])
Development II (1970s-2009):
Transition towards leisure use
Public tourist cabin Restoration for private use
(Fylkeskonservatoren i Hordaland 1979) (Fylkeskonservatoren i Hordaland 1979)
Development III (1970s-2009):
Abandonment and decay
(Fylkeskonservatoren i Hordaland 1979) (Fylkeskonservatoren i Hordaland 1979)
Database of landscape monitoring
> 5 x 5 km2 nationally
standardised grid net:
c.20,000 cells
> Random selection among grid
cells with buildings for
seasonal farming purpose,
according to the national
register of real estate
Registration criteria
> Farm unit > Organisation
> Infrastructure
> Access: e.g., walking time needed
> Recent use
> Fence
> Curtilage: woodland regrowth
> View
> Photos
> Buildings > Type: people, livestock, milk,
miscellaneous
> Walls: construction, coating, color
> Roof: coating
> Condition
> Visibility
> Photos Photo: Tor Erik Alræk
Results of 2009
Visited:
>41(+2) grid cells
Registered:
>327 seasonally inhabited farm units
>1596 buildings
W E
M
Ca. % E W M
Grid cells 56 28 16
Farm units 50 25 25
Buildings 59 26 15
Regional distribution
/
Regional differences I: Farm units
Accessibility
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 min. 1-15 min. 16-30 min. 31-60 min. >60 min.
Walking time from nearest road
% o
f fa
rm u
nit
s
Western Norway
Eastern Norway
Mid-Norway
Woodland regrowth
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0-5% 5-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%
Share of curtilage regrown
% o
f fa
rm u
nit
sWestern Norway
Eastern Norway
Mid-Norway
Recent use of farm units
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
None
Leisur
e
Milk
ing
Gra
zing
/Mow
ing
Gas
trono
my
Lodg
ing
Mus
eum
Oth
er/unsu
re
% o
f fa
rm u
nit
s
Western Norway
Eastern Norway
Mid-Norway
Regional differences II: Buildings Condition of buildings in Mid-Norway
In good repair
Initial decay
Decay
Ruin
Foundation w alls only
Registered building disappeared
Registered building replaced
Condition of buildings in Western Norway
In good repair
Initial decay
Decay
Ruin
Foundation walls only
Registered building
disappeared
Registered building replaced
Condition of buildings in Eastern Norway
In good repair
Initial decay
Decay
Ruin
Foundation walls only
Registered building
disappeared
Registered building replaced
Conclusion and Outlook
Preliminary conclusion for policy makers
> Regional differences in policies seem adequate
Future work
> Extend database
> Deal with challenges/uncertainties under registration, e.g., in
terms of change in use of buildings
> Analyse data in more detail
> Integrate qualitatively different data fruitfully
> Develop monitoring data into research projects