Successfully reported this slideshow.

Msc_GIS_Landscapes_WindPower_2006

2,550 views

Published on

Transition of the coastal landscape in Northern Norway: Using landscape approaches and GIS to understand local opposition to wind farms.

A thesis submitted to the Department of Geography, University of Leicester, UK
Master of Science 2006 in Human Geography and GIS

Published in: Education, Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Msc_GIS_Landscapes_WindPower_2006

  1. 1. The transition of the coastal landscape of Northern Norway: Using landscape approaches and GIS to understand local opposition to wind power. By Bjørg Elsa PettersenA thesis submitted to the Department of Geography, University of Leicester In partial fulfilment of the degree of Master of Science
  2. 2. 1PrefaceThis is a thesis in Human Geography and Geographical Information Systems at theUniversity of Leicester, UK. To stay in another culture can be inspiring, and give newviews upon your own culture. On the background of some discussions on landscape Iwanted to go back to my own country and look at current issues. I heard about theconflict on wind power at the island of Andøya in the North of Norway and decided tostudy the case.Doing this project has been quite different from what I expected, in a positive way. Thepeople I met on the road to knowledge have learnt me a lot. I am grateful for thefriendliness you showed and for taking the time to speak with me. Thanks to all of you,people from Andøya on both side of the conflict for sharing your views so openly with astranger. And thank you for all the coffee and mulberry jam.My supervisors Claire Jarvis and James Ryan have been supportive all the way, thankyou so much.A lot of people have helped me with advice and support; Einar Berg with the WindProprogram and the photo visualisation of the wind turbines and Kurt Olsen with adviceson language. I would also like to say thanks to my friends and colleagues and my familyin all corners of the world for good advice and help. A special thanks to my partner,Roy for being very supportive and in charge of the “administration” in Norway so Icould be able to study.Oslo 29.9.2006Bjørg PettersenThe photo on the cover is the wind turbine at Kvalnes, Andøya by Camilla Indregård
  3. 3. 2SummaryWind energy is a new phenomenon in Norway and wind farms are currently emergingon the coast. In many places, conflicts occur. This is a case study from NorthernNorway of local opposition to a wind farm project. Through the ongoing conflict Iwanted to gain knowledge of subjective or collective less expressed aspects oflandscape views, if these views exist. I have tried to investigate what people fear theyare loosing or gaining when their everyday landscape changes as a consequence ofbuilding wind turbines in the area. The methods used are from human geography and it is a case study based onqualitative methods. In addition, participatory GIS have been used for mapping people’suse of the landscape and everyday environment. I have looked at aspects of local knowledge and views on expected effects andimpacts from the wind power plant. The local knowledge related to the effects is oftenin conflict with the ones in the concession reports, or there are other concerns that aremore important to people locally. I have tried to uncover these views by looking at thecontent in discussions about expected impacts of wind power plants on the everydaylandscape. A main point has been to investigate the way visualisations and maps are used inthe communication process. One aspect is to see if the concession reports are inaccordance with the local view when it comes to representing the landscape changes.Do the people who are involved in the process understand the maps and visualisationsand do they find them useful Some alternative visualisations have been made, based onthe local use of landscape, with viewpoint taken from important places in the terrain.The reason for this is to see if some alternative methods may be useful in the process ofcommunicating landscape changes.
  4. 4. 3PREFACE ............................................................................................................................................ 1SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................................... 2LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES .................................................................................................... 51.1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 Discussions on wind power and landscape............................................................................... 61.3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS ........................................................................................................... 7 1.4. Rationale ............................................................................................................................... 82.1 LITERATURE AND THEORY..................................................................................................... 9 2.2. Theoretical approaches to landscape...................................................................................... 9 2.2.1 Landscape representations and maps in concession plans ................................................... 10 2.2.2 Time and landscape in accepting change ............................................................................ 10 2.2.3. Landscape emotions and inner maps.................................................................................. 11 2.2.4 Gender, culture and landscape ........................................................................................... 11 2.3 Acceptance of technology in the landscape and NIMBY-ism ................................................... 12 2.4 The use of concepts related to landscape................................................................................ 133.1 THE PLACE AND THE CASE OF ANDMYRAN WIND POWER PLANT............................. 15 3.1.2 History and culture............................................................................................................. 17 3.2 The wind power plant, Andmyran Vindpark A/S (AVAS)......................................................... 18 3.2.1 Current laws and regulations concerning wind power in Norway ........................................ 20 3.2.2. The influence zones from the wind power plant .................................................................. 214.1. MATERIAL AND METHODS................................................................................................... 22 4.2. Secondary data..................................................................................................................... 22 4.2.1 Newspapers and formal assessment plans ........................................................................... 22 4.2.2 Maps, aerial photos and drawings ...................................................................................... 22 4.2.3. Informal talks and personal interviews, telephone and e-mail............................................. 26 4.2.4. Field trip and data collection............................................................................................. 26 4.2.5. Collecting photos of the terrain.......................................................................................... 26 4.3 Structured interviews............................................................................................................. 27 4.4 Photo documentation............................................................................................................. 29 4.5. Shortcomings and limitations................................................................................................ 29 4.6. Ethical considerations.......................................................................................................... 30 4.7. Reflections on information.................................................................................................... 305.1 THE RESULTS............................................................................................................................ 32 5.2 The public discussion on the case in the local newspapers...................................................... 32 5.2.1 Visual intrusion, consequences on people and society ......................................................... 32 5.2.2 Landscape, environmental aspects and the moor................................................................. 33 5.2.3 Local knowledge................................................................................................................. 33 5.2.4 Local ownership................................................................................................................. 33 5.2.5 The dialogue with the local community ............................................................................... 346.1 FINDINGS AND RESULTS PRIMARY DATA ......................................................................... 34 6.1.2 A formal conflict score of D according to NVE.................................................................... 34 6.1.2The local politicians and planning authorities...................................................................... 34 6.1.3 Applying for a licence; concession plans and assessments................................................... 356.2 INFORMAL INTERVIEWS WITH AVAS AND THE OPPOSITION...................................... 35 6.2.1 The concession process and the dialogue according to AVAS .............................................. 35 6.2.2 On aesthetics and landscape loss ........................................................................................ 36 6.2.3 Aspects of local knowledge ................................................................................................. 37 6.2.4 Photo visualizations and information.................................................................................. 37 6.3.1 The concession process and the dialogue ............................................................................ 40 6.3.2 Aspects of local knowledge, according to the opposition...................................................... 40 6.3.2 On aesthetics and landscape loss ........................................................................................ 41 6.3.3 Photo visualisations and information.................................................................................. 41
  5. 5. 4 6.4 Ground truth, a first field trip in the landscape ...................................................................... 437.1 INTERVIEWS WITH INFORMANTS FROM RAMSÅ, BREIVIKA AND SKARSTEIN....... 44 7.2 The map of places and activities for people living in the area................................................. 44 7.3 Questions regarding the development process and the information given on the consequences of a new wind farm ......................................................................................................................... 548.1 DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS.................................................................................................. 56 8.1.2 What people fear they are loosing....................................................................................... 56 8.1.3 Aspects of local knowledge ................................................................................................. 56 8.1.4 On representing landscape changes in the plans ................................................................. 58 8.1.5 Is the conflict in the right place e.g. is it uncovered or veiled?............................................. 58 8.1.6 The consultative process..................................................................................................... 60 8.1.7 Visualising what will be the changes in the landscape ......................................................... 61 8.1.8 Yet another subjective perspective ...................................................................................... 619 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 63REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 64APPENDIXAppendix 1: Interview guideAppendix 2: Sources from local newspaper and coding schemeAppendix 3: Photo visualisation from TordalsvatnetAppendix 4: Photo visualisation from Breivika harbourtAppendix 5: 3D Model of terrain use
  6. 6. 5List of figures and tablesFigure 1. Andøya. ................................................................................................................................ 19Figure 2. Andøy. Source: Andøya Tourist Board................................................................................... 16Figure 3. The “inner side” of Andøya, the view from the east ............................................................. 167Figure 4. Satelite image of Andøya. Source Norge Digitalt, 2006.......................................................... 19Figure 5. Influence zones. .................................................................................................................... 21Figure 6. Otho photo of the Breivika area, with harbour East, concentric moor on lower left ................ 24Figure 7. Base map of the Ramsa, Breivik and Skarstein, with borders on landed property.................... 25Figure 8 Lines and points, the coding process of the PPGIS data. ....................................................... 257Figure 9. Example of PPGIS map, rectified and ready for coding the data on the vector map ........ 258Figure 10. Economic map, common propery, "felleseie" ..................................................................... 259Figure 11. Choosen vantage points for photo visualisations. Source,AVAS 2006 ................................... 38Figure 12. A, B and C. Photo visualisations by AVAS. ......................................................................... 39Figure 13. Photo visualisation, the opposition. Source: B. Nicolaysen. 2006. ........................................ 42Figure 14. Informant’s use of the terrain in Ramså, Skarstein and Breivika........................................... 45Figure 15. Fishing. ............................................................................................................................ 256Figure 16. Lavvo,Tordalsvatnet............................................................................................................ 47Figure 17. The Lavvo, marked on the map by the informant. Source: B. Pettersen................................. 47Figure 18. On the veranda West, the good side. . .................................................................................. 48Figure 19. A and B. Photo visualisation, Breivika harbour ................................................................... 57Figure 20. Photo standpoints, for visualisations .................................................................................. 59Figure 21. From Tordalsvatnet. Turbines 4.5 MW, 155 meters. See fig 19 for standpoint. ..................... 62Figure 22. The same terrain, 3D model with 180 meter wind turbines. ................................................. 63Table 1. The consultative process. Sources. .......................................................................................... 20Table 2.Maps and geo- referenced sources ........................................................................................... 23
  7. 7. 61.1 IntroductionWind farms are currently emerging on the Norwegian coast and these constructionschange the visual impression of the landscape. Norway has one of the best conditionsfor wind power in Europe, and the coast has by far the highest mean wind-speed and themost stable conditions (Selfors and Sannem 1998). Wind energy is a new phenomenonin Norway as hydroelectric power has been the main source of energy until today. Thenational authorities have chosen not to have a national plan on wind powerdevelopment, but encourage the use of wind energy as a source of clean and renewableenergy. Many projects and developers try to get concessions for building wind powerplants and this has created a ‘Klondike’ like situation. Clean sources of energy are indemand and wind power is currently one of the choices most easily available and isviewed as a profitable investment. The search for suitable sites for producing this newenergy is now at its peak in the north of Norway. The new global industry is highlywelcomed in many areas as it creates new opportunities. But there are also conflicts at alocal level, as the vulnerable coastal zone is under pressure from eager developers.Matters of concern locally are visual intrusion, noise, flickering, ice throwing andchanging the aesthetic experience of the landscape; all of these perceived negativeaspects of the turbines. In most of these conflicts views and discussions on landscapesevolves, as these large constructions are highly visible in the landscape.1.2 Discussions on wind power and landscapeCan the discussions grounded in conflicts on wind power plants help us gain knowledgeon how people view and value their everyday landscape and environment? Howpeople perceive and evaluate expected changes in the coastal landscape caused by windfarms will be investigated using methods from human geography and geographicinformation systems (GIS). The study aims at finding out more on the aspect of howthe locals value and use the landscape, environment and nature. The focus in the text ison representing the active use of the landscape; to interrogate how people look upon andvalue the landscape in relation to how it is used on a daily basis, the local and subjectiveview. Because the subjective and personal view is often about emotions my theory isthat it will not so easily be expressed (Birkeland 2001; Pasqualetti, Gipe et al. 2002).What you see and use every day is not always described but is implicit in your thinking.On assessing perceived loss or gain for the people in the area I am searching for the lessexpressed values in the landscape, like places of collective memories, fishing grounds,
  8. 8. 7terrain for berry picking, skiing and places of traditional use and meaning. I will try torepresent this aspect by the use of participatory GIS methods and represent this on amap. A second aspect is looking at views on transition of the local and everydaylandscape, environment and place. What people expect of changes in the culturallandscape caused by large wind turbines; the local view. What consequences do theysee of having a wind park close to their home? Are these views represented as an aspectin the assessment reports? A third question is how these local values, knowledge and views emerge in thediscussion on wind power, pro and con’s. Where there are contested truths some valuesare expressed more clearly. If they exist, are they taken into the representations e.g.maps, geographical analysis and photo visualisations in the concession plans?1.3. Research questionsThrough the ongoing conflicts we may gain knowledge of subjective or collective lessexpressed aspects of landscape views, if these views exist (Abrahansson 1999). Threedifferent objectives are equally important. • To investigate what people fear they are loosing or gaining when their everyday landscape changes as a consequence of building wind turbines. • Are there aspects of local knowledge and views on effects and impacts of building large constructions in the landscape? Can these be uncovered by looking at content in discussions about impacts on the everyday landscape? • Are the concession reports in accordance with the local view when it comes to representing the landscape changes? Do they unveil the real conflicts? How are the landscapes rendered in photo visualisations and maps?The last objective is on the visual side and representation on maps. Is it possible to takethe local view and use of landscape into consideration by trying out a method of mappingthe local use of the everyday, landscape?
  9. 9. 81.4. RationaleWhy is it this important to investigate this phenomenon? Looking at the EuropeanLandscape Convention it recognises landscape as; …an important part of the quality of life for people everywhere: in urban areas and in the countryside, in degraded areas as well as in areas of high quality, in areas recognised as being of outstanding beauty as well as everyday areas. The landscape contributes to the formation of local cultures and … is a basic component of the European natural and cultural heritage, contributing to human well-being and consolidation of the European identity. (Main page, The European Landscape Convention)1From my opinion, the landscape, the natural as well as the human-made environment, isa basic resource for the local economy. In rural, remote communities the economic andcultural potentials in the landscape are even more important resources for a sustainabledevelopment. What can be achieved at best is to improve the exchange of different types ofknowledge in relation to the planning process; and recognise local knowledge as aresource in planning the use and development of coastal cultural landscapes. And topromote the use of visualisations and maps that are relevant to enhance participation inthe decision process. To communicate with the public is a challenge for the wind energydevelopers, as most projects will meet some opposition. My focus will be on the everyday use of landscape and how the people thatbelong to the area experience the expected changes. We all have to live in ourlandscapes; for some people the close environment is very important for their life andwellbeing, others have less of an emotional investment in theirs. In the wind powerconflicts people object to the altering of their environment (Pasqualetti, Gipe et al.2002). Wind turbines are indeed very visible, built constructions in the landscape andthey can not be hidden. Wind power discussions are very much about landscape andaesthetics so a definition of landscape is the starting point in the following literaturereview and theory chapter.1 From the Convention No.176, signed by the Member States of the Council of Europe on 20 October2000.. http://www.coe.int/t/e/Cultural_Co-operation/Environment/Landscape/ , 27.9.2006
  10. 10. 92.1 Literature and theoryWind turbines must be placed somewhere and often this somewhere is labelledlandscape (Pasqualetti, Gipe et al. 2002). However, landscape is a slippery word, andsome clarification of the notion is necessary. In our everyday language landscape, theview, environment, place and nature can all refer to landscape. In human geography andespecially cultural geography landscape is a central concept and has produced numerousdebates, theories and approaches (Tuan 1974; Relph 1976; Cosgrove 1984; Olwig2002). In this chapter I will start with looking at some central concepts from culturaland human geography concerning landscape. I will then go on to look at some conceptsthat may be useful in analysing wind power conflicts in relation to our experience oflandscape. In the last section I will discuss some central theories on wind powerconflicts in relation to why and how we relate to this technology that creates changes inour environment.2.2. Theoretical approaches to landscapeThe North American “Berkeley school” of cultural geography in the 50ties, representedby Carl Sauer, put emphasis on how the material landscape is shaped by the humanbeings that reside in it (Winchester, Kong et al. 2003). People express their relation tothe landscape by using it and shaping it; landscape is a result of resource use and cultureis imprinted on it. This defines landscape from the morphological perspective as a givenphysical entity, like the “Muslim City” (Johnston, Gregory et al. 2001). The theory hasbeen criticised the last 20 years from the “new” cultural geographers for being toodeterministic or superorganic when it comes to culture. (Winchester, Kong et al. 2003).Humans relate to their physical environment and interact with it. The distinctiveness ofthe place or landscape has a key role in culture. In the 80ties and 90ties the concept of landscape was dominated by the Anglo-American oriented landscape research. Central in this view, especially the British, is thelandscape as a scenic perspective, ‘a landscape way of seeing’ (Cosgrove 1984). Thedevelopment of perspective drawing facilitated the representations of landscapes asmaps and paintings. Cosgrove focuses on the meaning of landscape and the role ofgraphic representations as a reflection of power relations in society. Power relations canbe mirrored in the way the landscape is represented visually to disarm contested socialrelations in the landscape; for the elite of landowners to define their land as acommodity and the people who work on the land as outsiders (Harley 1988). A different concept of landscape is used by Olwig who interrogates theconstruction of landscapes in a social and juridical way related to place, dwelling and
  11. 11. 10society, and emphasises how the definition has been used as a political tool (Olwig2002). Masking diversity in landscapes can be a power strategy, when it comes togoverning over resources. The landscape can be seen as an image but also as an ongoingprocess, influenced by changes both in nature and society Olwig is focusing his theories on the meanings of landscape and nature anddiscusses the two contradictory terms of nature and culture (Olwig 2002). He defineslandscape in the meaning of an area belonging to and shaped by people (Hammarlund1998). Even if the two views differ, Olwig and Cosgrove agree in the use of the linearperspective and the ideological function of landscape and representation. The conceptson landscape and power and maps and graphics as constructed realities are useful. It isrelevant in the context of analysing contested truths and conflicts; to evaluate howlandscapes are represented in photos, maps and drawings. It is a circular relationshipbetween the representation (the map) and the represented (the landscape) with the aimof shaping “a new truth” of the landscape as it is represented.2.2.1 Landscape representations and maps in concession plansRepresenting landscapes is not a neutral task. Olwig (2005) describes the evolvingpower of the English monarchs in the 17th century, uniting divided areas into onelandscape, the English one as body politics. The perspective is important, as bothCosgrove and Olwig emphasised (Cosgrove and Daniels 1988; Olwig 2002). How doesthe state and private actors present their views in plans and assessments? This alsobrings memories of the colonial view; the empty landscape lying there for anyone to use(Kwan 2002, Fox 2006). This perspective is a motivation for looking more closely atmaps in concession plans for wind power plants.2.2.2 Time and landscape in accepting changeThe individual actors and their relation to the landscape evolve over time (Hägerstrand1970). We need places to be and we need space for our activities over a certain periodof time. Time and space are common denominators and important factors concerningthe concept of landscape and the acceptance of change. Views are dependent on factorsof use, the pace of change and the amount of visual intrusion (Pasqualetti, Gipe et al.2002). There is a difference between the permanent user of a landscape and theoccasional user; the tourist or the visitor or the stranger. Her relation is highly basedupon the amount of time she has spent on being in it or looking at it. In our case, the
  12. 12. 11different actors view wind turbines in light of what relations they have to the landscapeand the amount of time they spend in it. Locals and outsiders perceive expected changesfrom different viewpoints.2.2.3. Landscape emotions and inner mapsYi-Fu Tuan, and his humanistic geographies centres around the love of places orlandscapes or fields of care, and how this care is becoming stronger under threat (Tuan1974). He describes this phenomenon as topophilia; the bond between place and people,and how this is a mutual process in the formation of values. It is all about perceptions,attitudes and values (Tuan 1998). It is a subjective feeling, unique for every personwhose body resides in the landscape. These concepts and views are close to the environmental psychologist’squestions of who we are related to where we are . The landscape belongs to people wholive in it and therefore it is about our emotions. This is a useful link betweenenvironment, emotions and time? Land use is interaction with landscape. The conceptof mental maps represents our inner picture of the landscape. The more familiar thelandscape, the more we interact and spend our time in the landscape, the more detailedthe inner map.2.2.4 Gender, culture and landscapeThe landscape is often looked upon as something clearly defined within borders, andsomething different from the self. Feminist geographers has turned to the Greek conceptof Cora in a search for a more open concept, (from choreography) and to define no strictborders between the self and the landscape (Birkeland 2001; Olwig 2002). They aim toreinterpret the landscape in a less gendered way. Place can be seen as not necessarily afixed and bound area but something more fluid and an open ended field of experience.The place is the body with no strict limits between the self and the landscape. Dixon et al. (2000) states that; who we are is closely related to where we are.Culture is important and this landscape conflict is set in a northern European ruralculture. The central European culture, including the British is described by many ashaving a complementary ideal of rural idyll; with women working at home, and men asproviders of income. This gendered landscape is put forward in the feminist tradition asdescribed by Gillan Rose and others (Peet 1998; Kwan 2002). The Scandinavian ruralidyll is traditionally based on more egalitarian gender relations (Gunnerød-Berg andForsberg 2003). Today the norm is the two income family model with two equalpartners. Gender relations was traditionally more compound in the north, with ideals
  13. 13. 12like men and women struggling together to manage the farm or the land (Kramvig 1999;Kramvig 2005). The coastal regions has been exceptional because of the farming- andfishing model, where the men where away at sea for long periods and the women werein charge of the farming (Dyrvik 1997; Sevatdal 2006). In general Norwegian farmershave been predominantly owners, not tenants. This has shaped the culture as well as theidentities for both men and women. And it mirrors the way she or he relates and interactwith the landscape and the environment. For Olwig almost all landscapes are cultural, wilderness hardly exists (Olwig2005). Forming landscapes is a two way process; landscapes both influences and areinfluenced by culture. Cultural values influences how people interact with landscapesand how they interpret and regard them (Winchester, Kong et al. 2003). Interpreting alandscape requires understanding its meaning in the context of cultural values andexperiences.2.3 Acceptance of technology in the landscape and NIMBY-ismWind turbines in the landscape are large constructions and it is not possible to hidethem. Robert Thayer and his team from California did some ground breaking work onacceptance of power producing technology (Thayer and Hansen 1989). They found thatwhile only 9 % found wind plant unacceptable in their own region, 25% found fossil-fired plant unacceptable and almost 50% found nuclear power unacceptable. Even if thewind power was widely accepted in the region most people did not want it within 5miles (8 kilometres) of their own home. This was called the “Not In My Back Yard” orthe NIMBY syndrome. The visual intrusion was the point of greatest concern. Thisreflects a negative view on wind turbines in the landscape generally and the visualaspect as the most significant negative factor for not accepting wind power. Windcompanies fail in ¾ of their proposals (Pasqualetti, Gipe et al. 2002). “If the industry isinterested in changing the public perception, it must be prepared to listen andcompromise.” (p. 53). Some studies also show that once the power plant is in place, it is accepted.Many different studies have shown that people tend change their attitude to a morepositive once the turbines are built (Pasqualetti, Gipe et al. 2002). If the plant isgradually expanded, it is also easier to accept it. This reflects the points of space andtime is a factor, which is not so surprising from a human point of view. If thisacceptance is about time or about giving up and try to live with negative consequences,is discussed.
  14. 14. 13 Perception of landscape changes according to culture and place, the beauty is inthe eye of the beholder (Zube 1984). Landscapes are elements and carriers of regionaland local identity and they must be seen in this context. They have a physical reality butat the same time a mental, social and cultural equally important side. Wind turbines arelarge and not possible to hide, and not considered beautiful by all. They are goodsustainable sources of energy, but at the same time they represent an intrusivetechnology if not placed with care and respect for the surroundings. Even if theNIMBY effect is clearly there when it comes to opposition, it is not easily explained.While the technology serves a higher cause, very few wish to sacrifice their visualwellbeing. Many of the studies on wind power and acceptance are taken from other placesand landscapes than the one investigated in this text. This case is about a conflict, andthus power relations. People make landscape by constructing or reconstructing,organizing space and expressing power (Massey 2003). This case is concerned with theNordic coastal landscape and culture. In his article “Wind power in Harmony”Hammarlund stresses that it is difficult to define a criteria for location of wind turbines,because each landscape is unique (Hammarlund 1998; Böhler 2004). Placing largeconstructions on the coast raises special problems.2.4 The use of concepts related to landscapeWhen I write about culture in this text I choose to use it as a dynamic concept, onewhich is related to ways of life, individually lived, dynamic and unique, as well asshared and reproduced (Berger and Luckman 1985; Winchester, Kong et al. 2003). It isalso a dynamic and active force. An example of this is how dominant groups can defineothers (another cultural group) as a structural opposition. We are the norm and the othergroup (they) are making politics (Winchester, Kong et al. 2003). Who is the mainstreamand who is the minority may change over time, and this is negotiated in discussions oftruth and knowledge and also about what is relevant to discuss at all. It is useful to havethis in mind when analysing a conflict. I look at landscapes in a relational way, not only to have symbolic or textualmeaning but also to be about ownership (juridical) and control. One might say that thisis what Olwig calls the North European tradition (Olwig 1984; Olwig 2002). In thismatter I also agree with both Olwig and Cosgrove who defines landscape as a relationbetween the function of a landscape and the political organization of society (Cosgrove1984; Olwig 1984; Olwig 2002). In the discussions in this text the landscape is
  15. 15. 14described more in the way of the social and political context, with lesser emphasis onthe ecological.Landscape and also the everyday landscape, built environment and places are somethingfluid and changing as are cultural identities and individuals. At the same time identitiescan be reinforced through the landscape by traditions, nature and the home (Dixon2003). Landscapes and especially landscape conflicts can create and also challengepower relations. In text and discursions and representations of landscapes these “fights”can be detected. Some has criticised the geographers for “dallying with text” (Johnston,Gregory et al. 2001). But there is always a social reality behind texts and discursiverepresentations of landscapes are there for the human geographer to use (Winchester,Kong et al. 2003).Why choose to do a case study on a wind power conflict? The wind-power business inNorway is a new industry and people do not know much about it in general. This mightgive fresh perspectives on the technology and its potential impact on the landscapes,environment and people’s lives. Why the focus on the coast of Northern Norway? Theanswer is vulnerability. ” The coastline is a vulnerable zone, ecologically as well as visually. For this reason there will normally be considerable conflicts triggered off by erecting wind turbines very close to the coastline. In addition one must take special care and consideration when placing wind turbines in the outer coastal areas” (Selfors and Sannem 1998) p. 18
  16. 16. 153.1 The place and the case of Andmyran Wind Power PlantThe borough of Andøy is situated in the north ofNorway, in Nordland County in the Vesterålenregion2. The Andøy Municipality covers an area of659, 3 km2, and has a population of 5.134inhabitants. The municipal centre is Andenes withabout 2.900 inhabitants. At 69 degrees north latitude,300 km above the Arctic Circle and overlooking theocean, we find the island of Andøya with its wideopen marshlands and sharp-pointed mountain peaks.The island is 7 mile long and stretches from south-west to north-east. To the east Andøya is enclosed byan open, wide fjord (Andfjorden) and to the west Figure 1. Andøyathere is only ocean as far as to Greenland,(Norishavet). Nearly half of the island is covered with marches which is unique in aNorwegian context. Thanks to the Gulf Stream, the climate is milder than its northerlyposition might suggest. Andøya is also well known for its windy climate. The area hasthe midnight sun from 19th of March to 25 of July and the dark season is from 25th ofNovember to 15th of January. The main occupation is fishery and service industries: A rocket base3, the onlyinstrumented sea- test range in the northern parts of Scandinavia4 , a large military baseand activities and a military airfield. The military has been dominating the island afterthe Second World War. This has produced economic activity and growth but also led toexpropriation of land, as roads and firing ranges as well as other installations have beenconstructed all over the island. In the summer season Andøya has a thriving touristbusiness, the major attraction is whale-watching safaris, but nature safaris also provideadventures and the white sandy beaches on west, “the outer side” are quite famous5.The landscape of Andøya has large dimensions and visual depth (NordlandFylkeskommune 2003). It is a flat landscape with large, flat marshland, steepmountainsides and large mountain plateaus stretching against the sea in the west on the2 www.visitnordland.no, accessed 12.8.20063 http://www.rocketrange.no/arr/index.html4 http://www.testcenter.no/5 www.andoyportalen.no, accessed 12.7.2006
  17. 17. 16“outer side”. On the eastern side of the island or “the inner side” as it is known locally,there are flat mores and low mountains.Figure 2. Andøy. Source: Andøya Tourist Board.
  18. 18. 17The roads and the settlement are situated close to the sea shore. It is on the moresbetween the sea and the mountains the planned wind power plant will be situated. Thereis some 1 to 3 km between the mountains and the sea in a long coastal strip of old seabed, now covered with marshland. Here the Ramsåfeltet range hides fossils of giantamphibians that lived 150 million years ago.6 The great expanses of marshland areabundant with cloudberries. It is a rich birdlife here and every year the nationalchampionship for hunting with bird dogs takes place here. There are lakes rich withtrout and rivers with salmon on the island.Figure 3.The “inner side” of Andøya, the view from the east. Source. AVAS 2006.3.1.2 History and cultureThe County of Nordland is the cradle of the coastal fisheries, and fisheries traditionsand coastal traditions permeate the whole society. Nordland’s island realm has a total of14000 islands and is a coastline unparalleled anywhere else in the world. Use of spaceand landscape has not been restricted as it has mainly been owned by the people whoinhabited the land (Sevatdal 2006). As long as you do not disturb others you can walkand camp even on private land according to the Norwegian tradition and laws of “Every6 www.nordlandreiseliv.no
  19. 19. 18Man’s Basic Rights” to access (Abrahansson 1999). This works as a positive a factor forpursuing outdoor activities on Andøya but also puts pressure on the land and resources.The culture on Andøya has always been innovative. The first wind power plant inNorway on shore was Dahle’s "Vindkraftverk” at Andøya. The power plant was putinto operation in 1916 and provided electricity to 16 subscribers the first years. Dahle’s windpowerplant at Andøya was put into operation in 1916. Source: Odd Solhaug. "Det è glo i strengan".73.2 The wind power plant, Andmyran Vindpark A/S (AVAS)Today the society is still innovative and wind power is again a topic. There have beenseveral investigations aimed at finding a suitable site for a wind power plant on Andøya.Most of the projects have stranded for several reasons; local resistance, lack of fundingor legal conflicts with protected areas of nature or cultural heritage, militaryinstallations etc. In 2004 two companies started to prepare for concessions. The firstone, Skavdalsheia Vindpark is now “put on ice” and one serious actor, AndmyranVindpark A/S (AVAS) is in the process of applying for concession to build a windpower plant. The chosen site is the Skarstein, Breivika and Ramså area which consistsof three small villages on the eastern side of Andøya with 120 – 150 households. Andmyran Vindpark (AVAS) applied for concession for building and running awind power plant in the vicinity of the hamlets of Ramså, Breivik and Skarstein withthe permission to produce at most 200MW effect of electricity8. The area consists ofmoor- and marchland, with an altitude of 20-25 meters above sea level stretching overan area of 11km2. Apart form a few visible moraines the area is flat. Measurements ofwind in the area showed 8.8 m/s mean wind 105 meter above the ground. The originalsketch of the wind power plant showed 10-12 rows of turbines with 2-6 turbines in eachrow in the direction of SE-NE. The distance to the nearest houses will be approximately500 meters. In addition to 40-80 wind turbines roads and infrastructure, new power linesand a transforming station will be built (Bjerke, Strann et al. 2004; Andreassen and7 http://www.vindteknikk.no/fakta/historie.html8 www.avas.no, accessed 4.5.2006
  20. 20. 19Thorkildsen 2005). The application is flexible on size and numbers of wind turbines,due to the rapid change in technology in the field. But a main goal is to have as few andas large turbines as possible. S Ø W NFigure 4. Satelite image of Andøya. Source Norge Digitalt, 2006.
  21. 21. 20Andmyran Ministry OED/ Involved The public Date caVindpark A/S NVE authorities(AVAS)Report Assessment Hearing Hearing 2005 Assesment Public meeting app.(KS)/plan (KU)Application Law of KU-progam Submit to 2005Energy stated Ministry of----------------- Environm.Concession process (MD)Local Law of Evaluation of Hearing Hearing 2005Planning- and Built Application/KU Hearing Public meeting 2006Environment KU-approvalThe Energy Act Total evaluation/ Final conclusion Possible e- concessionProduction/ tender/ 2006orderDevelopment 2007- 2008Operation 2007- 2008Table 1. The consultative process. Sources. NVE, OED, MD. AVAS. 20063.2.1 Current laws and regulations concerning wind power in NorwayTo get the permission for building a power plant it is necessary to apply at a local levelaccording to the Law of Planning of Built Environment9 and a to get a concession forproduction of energy according to the Law of Energy10. Several other special laws andregulations must be clarified, such as the Law of Protection of Cultural Heritage(Kulturminneloven). The process is complicated as well as expensive. In 2005 AVASput forward an orientation to the Directorate of Oil and Energy (OED), the NorwegianWater Resource and Energy Directorate (NVE) and the Department of Environment(MD). The proposal contains plans and a preliminary impact assessment program (KU).The proposal was then sent to all parties to the case (stake holders), both for publichearings and orientation. NVE adapts the report into a KU11-program to be approved byMD, this is then returned to AVAS. In the decision process the local view on landscape9 Norwegian:Plan og bygningsloven10 Norwegian: Energiloven11 Program assessing consequences
  22. 22. 21and their views upon the expected changes shall be taken into consideration as well asthe right to take part in the decision process3.2.2. The influence zones from the wind power plantThe wind farm and the influence of the site is shown on the map below, with 4 visualinfluence zones (Statens vegvesen 1995). Zone 1 (red) is very large negative influence and zone 4 (yellow) is not visible (Ingham and Ingam 2005). On the road, RV 82, from 2 km south of the wind farm to 2 km north of the farm is classified to have a very large negative influence (Zone 1, red). The wind farm will have a large negative influence in the zone to the north and south, and to the west up against the top of the mountains. The recreational andFigure 5. Influence zones. Source, AVAS, 2006 tourist areas on thenorth of the island will be partly sheltered by the mountains. The visual influence willbe dependent on the size and number of turbines chosen. Reviewing concessions and assessment plans were undertaken to collectbackground material. Mainly maps, visualisations as well as facts about the project arecollected from these plans. As used through the text, these reports and documents willbe referred. The plans were discussed during the interviews and I will use someillustrations in regards to issues raised. The next chapter is about material and methods, followed by an examination ofsecondary and primary 5 before discussing and analysing the findings in the last twochapters.
  23. 23. 224.1. Material and methodsWind power is a multi-disciplinary and complex area to investigate, and it is thereforenecessary to use several different methods to gain knowledge (Pasqualetti, Gipe et al.2002). I wanted to go into depth rather than scratching the surface. In investigatingwhat is the reason for this particular conflict, the method of a case study was chosen asa step by step explorative approach for gaining knowledge (Thaagard 2004). The mainapproach taken is qualitative, but I use quantitative data as background variables and tomeasure visibility. Some of the methods and techniques in this case are inspired fromparticipatory mapmaking where local people contribute to create maps (PPGIS) (Kwan2002)12. The investigation of this phenomenon in the field calls for using methods bothfrom human geography and geographical information systems (GIS), hence the mixedmethod approach.4.2. Secondary data4.2.1 Newspapers and formal assessment plansThe first insight and how the case of “Andmyran Vindpark” was brought to myattention were through the local newspaper articles in Andøyposten (the AndøyaGazette). To gain insight into the conflict and views, the general discussion and articleson the case was collected as well as the reader’s letters. To get to know the case and theongoing process the next step was to collect and read all formal documents concerningthe case of Andmyran Windfarm A/S (AVAS). Some documents and the formalconcession statement were available from the official site of The Norwegian WaterResources and Energy Directorate (NVE)13 others had to be collected from AVAS andthe opposition.4.2.2 Maps, aerial photos and drawingsGeo-referenced sources used are base maps and digital elevation models (DEM) fromthe national geo-portal, Norge Digitalt 14. A visit to the local council planning office wasnecessary to collect detailed maps and aerial photos of the wind farm area as well aslocal plans. AVAS gave me drawings of the influence area. The material will be used ingeographical analysis and techniques like line of sight, view-sheds and simplevisualisations.12 See www.iapad.org, (21.3.2006) The Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE) is subordinated to the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy, and is13responsible for the administration of Norway´s water and energy resources. www.nve.no14 ftp://ftp.statkart.no/pub/ 12.6.2006
  24. 24. 23Data Source Datum/Type Projection ResolutionBase map Norge Euref89/WGS84 UTM33 N 1:50000(Roads, elevation, water, Digitaltbuildings, vegetation type,place names)Base map Andøy WGS1948 NGO Zone N 1:5000(Roads, elevation, water, kommune 5buildings, vegetation type,borders, place names)CAD drawings of AVAS CAD Drawinginfluence area withproperty bordersRaster map of area AVAS WGS1948, ØK NGO Zone N 1:50000Economic Map of 5Norway,Aerial photos (Digital Andøy WGS1948 NGO Zone .jpg andOrtho Photos) kommune 5 SOSICoordinates for wind AVAS WGS84 UTM33 .xlsturbine placementDigital Elevation Model, Norge WGS84 UTM33 25 x 25DEM Digitalt meterConstructions in influence AVAS Scannedarea of wind power plant rasterData preparation was undertaken for the purposes of making maps with Ortho-photosfor the interviews and prepare for photo visualizations and 3D animations. Thisincluded making a Triangulated Digital Elevation Model (TIN). The original GRIDDEM had to be clipped to a size that could be manageable, but large enough to avoidedge effects in the areas of interest for analysis (Llobera 2001). N5-maps had to be re-projected to UTM33 and the aerial photos had to be converted from Norwegian SOSI-format to shape.Table 2. Maps and geo- referenced sources.
  25. 25. 24.Figure 6. Ortho photo of the Breivika area, with harbour east, concentric moor on lower SW.Source: Andøy municipality, 2006.
  26. 26. 25Figure 7. Base map of the Ramsa, Breivik and Skarstein, with borders on landed property.
  27. 27. 264.2.3. Informal talks and personal interviews, telephone and e-mailThe first contact was made with the responsible person at the national level (NVE) incharge of the case Ms. Henriette Haavik15. To gain further knowledge of the case andthe actors at the local level, several phone calls were made to informants at the localadministrative level (Andøy municipality). Both the business adviser in the municipalityas well as the council manager gave me valuable information on the case as well asreferences and telephone numbers to key informants on either side in the conflict. Onemight say this was a “snowball method” and it worked even if it was quite timeconsuming.4.2.4. Field trip and data collectionIn the beginning of July 2006 I travelled to the island of Andøya with the goals ofgaining further insight into the case and getting to know the area. Being situated 1500km from Oslo clear appointments were necessary. The director of AVAS, AsgeirAndreassen and Bjørnar Nicolaysen from the “opposition” stated that they had the timeto talk about their views and opinions. I could phone them as soon as I arrived toAndøya. The first two interviews were quite extensive. In addition to the oralinformation, the general manager of AVAS, Mr. Asgeir Andreassen provided a lot ofsecondary material; power point presentations and visualizations as well as geo-datafrom the assessment plans (see section on secondary data). Also Mr. Bjørnar Nicolaysen gave me a lot of printed information, photos andbackground for the view of the local opposition. Both informants very generously andopenly shared their views and opinions with me. And in a friendly way they bothwarned me about what was ahead; “you will be used by all involved parties as well asthe newspaper so you might as well be prepared for that”. These two informants did notmind being cited, as they felt that their views were generally very well known becauseof the public discussion that had taken place in the area. This trip to Andøya alsoincluded collection of “ground truth” e.g. getting to know the area.4.2.5. Collecting photos of the terrainHaving collected the first material and gotten a general knowledge of the case, the nextstep was to construct an interview guide for the final questions. There was littlepossibility of doing a pilot due to the distance, the summer holiday and limited time.But the questions had been tested in an informal way on the first trip and discussed withcolleagues and friends. So I decided to return again in the first week of august to http://www.nve.no/modules/module_111/netbasNVE.asp?iCategoryID=1403&script=9&objid=-41911, 10.5.200615
  28. 28. 27 undertake the personal interviews and collect image data (panoramic photographs and photos of important places in the landscape). 4.3 Structured interviews The goal was to make as many personal interviews with people living in different parts of the influence area as possible. An important factor was to get informants from all the three places (hamlets) involved; Ramsa, Breivik and Skarstein. I aimed to get an even distribution of men and woman and to ask different age groups. When contacting people I gave them a letter of introduction, with explanations and background for the project and statements of privacy (see Appendix1). A more thoroughly explanation on each question will be presented in the findings section. But the main questions were about how the public used the terrain and how they personally imagined the wind farm would influence the local landscape and their use of the area and their access to it (see appendix 1). To gain knowledge on use of the landscape, aerial photos with map-overlays were used (figure 9).This made the map easier to read as people recognized details by looking at known objects in the landscape. The map was covered with a transparent sheet and use of the terrain drawn directly on this. This map was used as basis for drawing places and activities. The map was then rectified to over a base map, points and lines were made and information was coded to show use of the terrain on a new map (figure7 and 8).Figure 8. Lines and points, the coding process of the PPGIS data.
  29. 29. 28Figure 9. Example of a PPGIS map, rectified and ready for coding the data on the vector map.If there were places that were to be held secret they were marked with an S. Questionswhere then asked if they thought the same places would gain more value or loose valueif the wind farm were built, and if the project would improve access to some areas.
  30. 30. 29Some background information on age, occupation, attachment to the place andownership was collected. One section covered the positive and negative aspects ofliving in the area. Some questions that directly asked people to assess influence from thewind turbines. This was used as a check on knowledge about effects. Another section was about their knowledge of the case; had they attendedmeetings and did they know of plans and documents and photographic visualisationsconcerning the case? The last questions were about acceptance of wind power and howclose the planned turbines would be to their house or cabin. As the second last questionthey were asked if they thought they would continue to live in their house if the projectwas done and they got compensation for their houses. As a conclusion all the informantswere asked if there were anything else they would like to add to the case in regards tothe personal interview. Special care was given to the staging and sequence of thequestions to make the informants feel more at ease including having this generalquestion as the last one.4.4 Photo documentationDuring my stay I set out to investigate special places of importance that the informantshad pointed out, taking photos of the terrain. The photos were geo-referenced in a smalldatabase on a PDA. To control the input, a simple map was generated in ArcGis andtransferred to ArcPad on the PDA. Photographs were taken with a digital 35 mm reflexcamera as basis for photo visualisation of the wind turbines. The pictures will bestitched to panoramic images using The Panorama Factory shareware16. The vantagepoints of the panoramas were geo-coded in the database.4.5. Shortcomings and limitationsThere are some weaknesses in the material. First of all it was not easy to makeappointments with people. Because it was summer people were out in the nature, fishingat sea, walking in the mountains, staying on their cabins etc. On the other hand I god agood mix of men and women from the whole area, but the age group from 25 to 35 isnot represented. The interviews were long and I got more information from each informant than Iexpected. Drawing on maps was enjoyable for most respondents, and in this processthere was a lot of information, good stories and laughter. Most informants needed timeand to look at several maps at the start. It was important not to rush people in thisprocess. Eight interviews were undertaken before I had to leave. By then, the snowball16 The Panorama Factory, www.panoramafactory.com (20.6.2006)
  31. 31. 30effect was working again and several people were willing to talk about their doings andviews. However, the amount of information was overwhelming when it came to codingand analyzing the material. I learned that tracing people’s movements and doings in thelandscape is time consuming. Another concern is reliability. I noticed some errors andlack of detail on the drawings; on the other hand, this was not an important factor. At first my aim was to ask people for personal pictures from their favouriteplaces, but in the situation I felt that this would only be possible to do with people I gotto know better. Pictures are personal belongings and one should have a good reason toshare ones own memories with a stranger. Some of the informants showed me picturesfrom their favourite places, and I got some for use in the project. However, on my walksin the landscape there were plenty of opportunities to take photos from the placesmentioned in the interviews.4.6. Ethical considerationsThe ethical considerations and problems with going into a conflict like this are many.The conflict had been going on for two years and the public was getting tired. It wassomehow an unpleasant situation for both sides. The area in the vicinity of the plannedwind park has a population of approximately 120 to 150 households, a small societywhere ethics were even more important. Privacy is the most important one, andmeasures will be taken to protect people’s identity (Flowerdew and Martin 1997;Thaagard 2004). I was careful not to; taking too much of peoples time and hospitality;raising expectations; extracting information only for outsider’s benefits or repeatingactivities (Chambers 1998). I decided not to ask some questions that I expected would upset the informantsor stir up more conflicts or tensions in society. The views of the local politicians and ofpeople that already are sited on the matter may be used, but under no circumstances willperson’s views be sited without explicit permission. Returning favours were also amatter of concern: Giving back knowledge and information, returning photos andfavours has been done as far as possible. I also informed all my contacts of my normaljob and gave my address and telephone number.4.7. Reflections on informationOn my first trip to Andøya I had rented a room close to the influence area on theKvalnes quay (Kvalnesbrygga) where the only windmill on the island is situated.Because there was a lot of activity at the place with the tourist season coming up, I gotto talk to quite a few local people on a more general level about the case. With the
  32. 32. 31windmill in view, we could compare and discuss heights and visibility in relation to thenew project. There were also a lot of jokes and philosophical notions about the project,so staying with the tourist and talking to the owners were a lucky strike. This could bedefined as a kind of participant observation, even if it was not planned.Figure 10. Economic map, common propery, "felleseie". Source AVAS, 2006.
  33. 33. 325.1 The results5.2 The public discussion on the case in the local newspapersAs foreseen a conflict arouse also in this area, but not until may 2005. The referreddiscussions are based on readers’ letters in the newspaper Andøyposten and local andregional newspapers. Reference to sources is found in appendix 2. The material is rich,massive and varied; I will extract content relevant to my research questions on visualintrusion, landscape, and local knowledge but also refer to the general context of thecase.5.2.1 Visual intrusion, consequences on people and societyThe first public meting on wind power was attended by almost 100 people fromAndøya (Andøyposten 11.3.2004). The newspaper heading says; “Divided opinions onwind power” with the subtitle: “A gap between expectations and the content (innhold)of the meeting”. All stakeholders were present; land owners, AVAS, NVE and themanagers of the other project, “Skavdalsheia Vindpark”, Fred Olsen Renewables.Questions asked from the public were; “how much noise will it be” and “how will theturbines look like”? When asked for visualisations and details the developers stated itwas too early in the process. One of the people attending the meeting being a landscapearchitect argued that “It is a lack of respect to come here without anything to show us. Itis not so difficult to make visualisations or animations. It would have made thediscussion much more rewarding for all of us.” (Andøyposten 11.3.2004). Proximity to the built environment in the three places, Ramså, Breivika andSkarstein is and was the greatest concern; the visual and audio influence from theturbines on the general wellbeing and livelihood of the inhabitants in the area. AVAScan not overlook this intrusion “by researching themselves away from the fact” of theenormous dimensions of the turbines that will influence the people living there. “Not asingle word has been mentioned concerning the most important individuals in thevicinity of the planned wind farm, the human beings living there” (Andøyposten19.5.2006). The fact that 150 people are living close to the site is not mentioned in theconcession plans (Vesterålen Online, 30.5.2006). It was also mentioned historicalevents; some of the people living in the Ramså, Breivika and Skarstein were forced to
  34. 34. 33move from their homes when the airfield was built in 1952-5317. The village,Haugnesbygda with its 350 inhabitants was expropriated and removed from the map18.5.2.2 Landscape, environmental aspects and the moorThe influence on birds and especially the eagle were stressed; the wind farm is plannedin the area where they fly from the mountains to the sea to catch food. There areconcentric moors unique in a European context on the Ramså marchland (see figure 5).Dinosaur remains might be found under the moor in the Ramså moraine, stemmingfrom the Jura period, 146 million years ago (Vol.no 24.1.2006). Concerns were raised on the practicalities of building the roads and transportingand erecting the turbines on the moor and the marshland. The landscape on the moor isexpected to change as vegetation will quickly grow if the soil is mixed with sand anddrained. There were arguments for proving the project technically impossible becauseof the conditions on the moor, the deep ponds and the marshy area. It could cause serious local effects if the isolating layer called Aurhella, coveringthe groundwater is damaged; and what about flooding when the moor is drained? If theproject should fail to complete, would there be a proper restoration and removal of theremains of the turbines (Vol.no 24.1.2006)?5.2.3 Local knowledgeLocal knowledge of the area and local views concerning the viability and realization ofthe project was put forward (Andøyposten 19.5.2006). The weather and thesustainability of the project were questioned. Will the turbines fail to function in theclimate with the well known extreme weather conditions on the island? If the turbinesdoes not work or are damaged by extreme weather, will one have to face a “churchyard”e.g. will the company remove the remains? In any case, the moor will be lostirreversibly.5.2.4 Local ownershipThe protesters points to lack of local ownership and control. We are selling out the gold,with no benefits for the locals, e.g. for the people living near by. No real gain for thecommunity as the developer will probably sell concession to foreign companies. Theproject is “terrorising 3 societies to total destruction” and seducing the politicians bypromising 8 millions NOK a year for a 10 year period19, (Vesterålen Online, 24.1.2006).17 Memories from Haugnes, 3D model. http://home.no.net/haunes/minner/daniel_toften.htm, 21.9.200618 The history of Andøya Airfield, http://www.mil.no/luft/start/omlf/stasjoner/andoya/#historikk,22.9.200619 1NOK = 12.8GBP or 6.7USD
  35. 35. 345.2.5 The dialogue with the local communityWords used from the protesters were; no gain from the meetings, lack of information isdisinformation and simplifying the truth (nrk.no, 24.4.2006). A concern about beingbiased was raised, as two assessment reports were produced by co-owners and a shareholder in AVAS: assessment on “Leisure- and recreational use” by Nor Vind A/S and“Visual effects” by Intercon IS. Generally AVAS was focused on informing and urgingthe public to read the assessment reports and information on the case (Andøyposten8.11.2005). And informing in the paper on facts on how many wind turbines will beerected, practical problems, the pace of the work, schedule and funding plan andavailable technology. AVAS puts forward the sustainability of clean energy as apositive factor and their efforts to make a good and sustainable plan. AVAS recognizesthe problem with visual effects and have the opinion that the visual intrusion is the onlyserious problem for the concession to pass.6.1 Findings and results primary data6.1.2 A formal conflict score of D according to NVEA natural starting point was to get primary information from the top of the decisionchain, speaking to Ms. Henriette Haavik, the person in charge of the process in NVE.She gave a general view on the current application process concerning AndmyranVindpark A/S. Her opinion was that the conflict level was quite normal. However, sheasked not to be publicly cited on this and especially not in any newspaper20. However, inthe official papers from NVE, the conflict has a formal conflict score of D21, on a scalewhere E is the highest level of conflict and A the lowest. The main reason for the highscore is the valued landscape on the island as a whole, evaluated as having very highlandscape value. The potential for conflict is high because of the sum of the impacts.Analysing the landscape as well as new visualisations may change the potential forconflict.6.1.2 The local politicians and planning authoritiesThe local authorities were contacted several times; they were pleased to get a lot ofinformation from both the opposition and AVAS. As they had no experience with windenergy, they found the discussions useful. They acknowledged the work done by givingB. N. 5000 NOK for his expenses in collecting information. The local council hasdecided not to have a referendum, because they view the effects to be local, and20 This sentence will be removed from the text when the dissertation is published on the internet.21 http://www.dirnat.no/multimedia.ap?id=28540#search=%22And%C3%B8y%20konflikt%20D%22.26.8.2006
  36. 36. 35dependent on the stakeholders. According to the newspaper Andøypostens informalsurvey22, 70% of the inhabitants on the island are positive to wind power. There areeconomical benefits for the municipality but this is also a problematic case, and localelections are due next year.6.1.3 Applying for a licence; concession plans and assessmentsAs mentioned in chapter 3 there are two major laws involved in the concessions; thelocal Law of Planning and Built Environment and the national Law of Energy.According to the process 7 formal objections to the plans have been raised. I will not gointo these as they are repeating many of the views put forward earlier. They arehowever important, as they can make another round in the wheel of applications.6.2 Informal interviews with AVAS and the oppositionIn all of the interviews I will try to use the language of my informants to keep theauthenticity and meaning intact through the translation. The open ended interviews withMr. Asgeir Andreassen (AA) the Director of AVAS, and Mr. Bjørnar Nicolaysen (BN)representing the opposition covered a lot of material; I will extract the informationrelevant for the research questions asked: Fear of loss when the landscape changes,aspects of local knowledge in the conflict, and the problem of representing thelandscape changes through visualisations.6.2.1 The concession process and the dialogue according to AVASThe first interview was with Mr. Asgeir Andreassen, the director of AVAS. From AA’spoint of view the process had been going well and cooperation had been good betweenAVAS and the stakeholders. There had been meetings with the land owners, for thepurpose of negotiating a contract for monetary compensation concerning the placing ofwind turbines. The site for the wind farm was chosen because this is the most feasible.Other possible sites conflicted with different formal defined interest; cultural heritage,flora and fauna, tourism etc. The work done by AVAS was held up as being a goodexample of a sustainable plan. The turning point came on a meeting in May 2005, whenthe protests started fronted by Mr. Bjørnar Nicolaysen (BN) who engaged himself in thematter. From AA’s opinion there is one major factor driving the conflict. Land ownersget monetary compensation, home owners do not. This is a weakness in the Norwegiansystem. It ought to be a monetary compensation, due to the fact that the whole societywill be influenced by negative visual intrusion e.g. all the people living in the proximity22 According to Mr. Asgeir Andreassen, AVAS
  37. 37. 36of the wind turbines. He fully acknowledges the visual conflict due to the proximity todwellings. On the other hand, wind energy is a “window of opportunity” for thecompany and might give income to the society of Andøya. Work and agglomerationeffects will be a positive effect in the construction period of 2 years. The rest of thepopulation is positive, as 75 % supports wind power on Andøya according to a surveydone by the local newspaper Andøyposten (source AA).6.2.2 On aesthetics and landscape lossAccording to AA the Andøya population view the landscape as a productive one, filledwith activities; it must be used in order to sustain the society. This is a part of the wayof life on the coast. The smell from fish factories is accepted because this is “the smellof money”. The beach is often used for storing or burning garbage. There is a longtradition on turfing and the turf industry in the area, which now sustains 20 – 30 jobs,leaves scars in the landscape. Aesthetics is an aspect of lesser importance for people,progress and earning a living must be put first for the society to survive. People rapidlyaccept new ideas and changes in the landscape when they are a reality.Photo 1. Storing garbage on the beach for making a bonfire later. Source. B. Pettersen, 2006.Sustainability is a positive factor and is an important motive in raising the production ofclean wind energy. Even if the site is close to dwellings, there will probably be lesspeople living in the area in 10-15 years because of the ongoing centralisation in thenorth. From his point of view, it is a lot of feelings involved in this case. He sitedresearch on wind energy and acceptance and he mentioned the NIMBY effect (Not inMy Back Yard). Once the construction period is over and the production starts,
  38. 38. 37acceptance will be achieved. There are many examples of people accepting wind powerin countries like Denmark and also in Norway and the protesters are creating a scenariothat is far too scary and this stirs up the population. Before the protests started in may2005, there was no opposition, and the land owners had almost agreed to sign.6.2.3 Aspects of local knowledgeTo use local contractors was important. It is a positive factor that a local contractor hasmade the plans for the construction of infrastructure and fundaments on the site. This isa well known and experienced company; used to the conditions in the area as well as theextreme conditions in the Arctic and Svalbard. This should be a guarantee for a properhandling of the problems with constructing the site on the moor. AA and AVAS has been taking measures to inform politicians; because windenergy is a new phenomenon and must be experienced. He took politicians and otherson a trip to the wind farm on Smøla, in “the midlands” of Norway, on the coast23. It isnecessary with a real life experience, because the myths on wind energy are many AAstates that AVAS are trying to do the right thing; keep improving plans and keepinforming the public.6.2.4 Photo visualizations and informationThe local opposition had complained about the lack of photo visualisations, but they arenow present in the concession application as they are compulsory (Andreassen andThorkildsen 2005). AA informed about the view points for photo visualizations; all fiveof them have been chosen by the stakeholders. AVAS wanted to show three differentsizes of turbines to give an impression of how the different sizes would appear in thelandscape. This was also done to make way for a flexible solution e.g. taking intoaccount that the technology of wind turbines are evolving and higher turbines with moreeffect are produced. The pink dots are the points chosen for photo visualisations (figure11). The largest alternative in the visualisation is the most probable option, hence shownon the next pages (figure 12 a, b and c) with 40 turbines at 5MW (Andreassen andThorkildsen 2005; Andmyran Vindpark A/S 2006)23 Statkraft, Smøla, http://www.statkraft.no/pub/vindkraft/vindparker/Smola/index.asp, 20.9.2006
  39. 39. 38Figure 11. Choosen vantage points for photo visualisations. Source,AVAS 2006
  40. 40. 39Photo standpoint 2. Skarstein 40 turbines/ 5Mw Intercon A/S Ingvild HolannThe photo is taken from RV 82 by the sign to Skarstein, seen from Fiskenes and south in the direction of thewind farm. The nearest turbine is ca 2 km away. The plant is assessed to have a large negative influence alongthe road in the closest zone.Photo standpoint 3. Ramså 40 turbines/ 5Mw Intercon A/S Ingvild HolannThe photo is taken from RV 82 between Ramså and the south sign to Breivik, looking north against the windfarm.The nearest turbine is ca 700 meters away.Very large negative influence.Fotopoint 5. Ramsanakken 40 turbines/ 5Mw Intercon A/S Ingvild HolannThe photo is taken from Ramsånakken, 214 m. with free view north east against the wind farm.and The nearestturbine is ca 700 meters away. Very large negative influence from this viewpoint.Figure 12. A, B and C. Photo visualisations made by AVAS. Ramså (2), Skarstein (3),Ramsanakken (5). Source AVAS, 2006
  41. 41. 406.3 Interview with a representative of the opposition to the wind farm6.3.1 The concession process and the dialoguePeople did not understand the consequences of the project at first. Many thought therewas no possibility of stopping the plan and that the matter was already decided. Thedeadline for handing in protests against the plan was short. With no previous experiencewith wind power he/they had to do a lot of work to gain knowledge. NVE was presentat the meetings to guarantee that everything was done by the book. This gave a falsesense of security. I feel that their (NVE) real purpose was to limit the protest, so thateverything is pushed through the decision mill. I will call this “information rape”.People did not know what this really was all about. Everybody elsewhere in Andøya isvery relieved they were not chosen. We here drew the shortest straw, when many of theother places had said no, including AA’s home place. We have to pay for others to earnmoney. On sustainability and economy BN had some critical remarks. The power linesmust be expanded as well as the infrastructure. Andøya municipality has to pay a part ofthis, and that is our money. We do not even get cheaper electricity; the only one makingmoney is Andmyran Vindpark A/S (AVAS) and its investors. BN also questioned whowill be the owners of the natural resources in the end; when they get the concession,they will sell it to foreign investors (Folkebladet.no, 24.12.2004)24. Locally we get allthe negative aspects. The owners of land and common land will get a yearlycompensation, but their as well as our homes and second homes (cabins) will bereduced in value. People have stopped spending on their houses. Everybody will want tomove because of psychological reasons. People expect to feel like prisoners in their ownhome, because they are not able to sell the house being 500 to 700 meters from thenearest wind turbines.6.3.2 Aspects of local knowledge, according to the oppositionFrom BN’s opinion AVAS’s knowledge of the moor is not sufficient, even if they areusing local contractors. It is difficult to build anything there because it is very deep;locals have reported 15 – 20 meters or more25. He was concerned that the layer of gravelthat holds the groundwater called “Aurhella”, a moraine layer, would be damaged.What if the project fails and disturbs the groundwater balance?24 Sites Geir Skoglund, Vindkraft NOR, the company owns 50% of AVAS.25 20 meters = 65feet.
  42. 42. 41Another scientific fact we do not believe in is the theory on O (zero) icing on the bladesdue to our knowledge on the climate here. The polar low pressures and unstable weathercondition will be even more extreme in the years to come, because of global warming. BN also talked about acceptance: acceptance is giving up our landscape, natureand freedom because of other people’s environmental sins. We protect nature and livein the nature, fish our fish. “This constant need to travel,.. if the environment isdamaged, should we travel elsewhere and polluting thereby. What is won then? Nomatter the local cost, a higher goal is pursued”. No human consideration is taken. The opposition had also done some lobbying as the main decision lies with thecounty council. To influence them is Alfa and Omega. The protesters had taken adelegation of politicians on a trip to a wind power plant. They had also discussed withthe people who are land owners, pointing to that not everybody agreed on selling out toAVAS. There is a 50/50 balance against the plans in his opinion.6.3.2 On aesthetics and landscape lossFrom BN’s opinion the photo visualisations are from points at a distance where you canhardly see houses. AVAS is painting a pretty picture of the future in the plans, not a realone. The dimensions of the project and the intrusion are not shown. The wind turbinesare very big and they do not make good neighbours. It is not about aesthetics. “Youknow how we are in the North; everything does not have to be pretty”. He stressed thatthe people here are quick to pick up new ideas, like windmills, and mentioned fishfactories and “The smell of money”. Closeness and use of nature is important. We wantto use nature, and live from it. The military landscape is the landscape of Andøya, withhigh towers and firing ranges, and the airfield. Expropriations have been normal in the past, and Haugnesbygda is one exampleof this. Many of them live here in Skarstein and Breivika now. They had to move butthey got something back; compensation, work and prosperity. It is hard for those oldpeople from there you know, experiencing this. On choosing to live in the rural north;we want to live in freedom and natural silence. If we had interest in making big money,or doing a career we would have moved to Oslo. Here we have the moor, the horizon,our paradise is here.6.3.3 Photo visualisations and informationThe protesters had made a different visualisation close to the house (see fig. 13). Theymade this visualisation to make people realize how high the turbines will be. BN had
  43. 43. 42also made a list with 20 comparisons referring to well known land marks; high towers,like the lighthouse in Andenes, which is 40 meters, (131 feet).Figure 13. Photo visualisation, the opposition. Source: B. Nicolaysen. 2006.
  44. 44. 436.4 Ground truth, a first field trip in the landscapeDuring the interview BN had suggested to take the student (me) on a walking tour. Thenext day we drove up to the mountains, a short 10 minutes drive, and went for a hike inthe surrounding area in order to get an impression of the landscape surrounding thewind farm. He showed me the mountain paths of importance, the fishing waters (lakes)and the places to rest, camp and to build fires and pointed out the cottages in the area. On the hike we could observe how people came walking down the mountainsfrom the other side of the island. As the weather was changing from sunny to rainy,cold, foggy and windy I got a first lesson in using the area, as well as getting to seeimportant places and learning geographical names. BN pointed out objects in thelandscape in relation to the conflicts with wind turbines like valuable marshlands andwe had quite close contact with another actor in the conflict, an eagle (fish hawk orosprey) looking for food. This walk with a local informant contributed to theunderstanding of the spatial dimensions in the landscape in relation to the height of thewind turbines.
  45. 45. 447.1 Interviews with informants from Ramså, Breivika and SkarsteinThe local opposition had already undertaken two surveys on people being for or againstthe wind power plant. They had also asked the people who owned second homes(cabins) in the influence area. Between 70-80 % of the home owners and almost 100%of the people who have second homes had stated that they were against the projectbeing realized. It is not a scientific method as such, but I acknowledged the fact that ithad been done and did not ask people this question again in the interviews.On the first question the goal was to collect information on how people used thelandscape and terrain. The informants draw their places and paths on an aerial photocombined with a base map, using a transparent sheet on top. Each informant chose herown colours and patterns. They were asked to draw the most “important” places first,and as many as they wanted.1. Are there places in the area you use frequently in your leisure time? No Where or place name, What activities are usually going on there? Winther Summer code Color . approximately 1 The river (example) Fishing for salmon etc. Walking on the riverbank, x Red often thinking of problems or doing some “philosophical” reasoning.7.2 The map of places and activities for people living in the areaAs we can see from the map (figure 14), the informants are using the terrain for manydifferent activities. Generally one goes or drives from the home, over the moor and upto the waters. Or they just go for a walk on the beach or along the road. But there arealso more extensive trips when going for a hike, fishing or hunting. People often driveover the moor and park the car, and continue into the terrain overlooking the villages. Inthe winter one might do cross country skiing or use snowmobiles on special tracks toreach the same terrain. The distances are not long, and the area is accessible, with lots ofpaths, marked and unmarked. The activities mentioned were of course varied but beingin the fall most people mentioned the most important activities in this season; pickingberries; cloudberries, blueberries and mountain cranberries (orange). Some pickedmushrooms, and especially chantarelle was the best catch. In some of these areasinformants put a secret mark (S), or just marked it berries or mushrooms. Everybodypicked berries, but some men told me that while they went fishing in this area, overthere was her special berry picking spot (e.g. the wife or partner). Going with family, orchildren going with grandparents is common and appreciated as a relaxing leisure
  46. 46. 45Figure 14. Informant’s use of the terrain in Ramså, Skarstein and Breivika.Map source: Norge Digitalt. Koordsys: UTM 33, Euref 89.
  47. 47. 46activity. For older people but also in general the cloudberry picking was the mostcherished activity. It has traditions as a trade in the area, and is for many still a privateresource on their land or on the common land belonging to the local hamlet or place. Fishing places were mentioned by 6 persons, and the men were more engaged inthis activity and had more places on their maps than women (blue colour). But womendid fish, but sometimes the man was fishing while the woman went for berries. Thefishing places included both rivers and lakes. Many places had been named after the people (just men) who usually fished on that particular spot. You could name a “place” and then other people started to use it too in an informal way, like the NN’s place. Quite a few of the informants had built places to rest or camp or make fire places close to theirFigure 15. Fishing. Photo B. Nicolaissen favourite fishing spot or bythe lakeshore. Nobody hesitated to show their favourite fishing places, because it wasnot shown exactly on the map. As one of them said; “... you have to know exactly on thepoint where to go if you want fish, if you are 20 meters away you will not get any. Andanyway, if you do not know how to fish in that place you will not get anything either.”Man 40+Fishing grounds at sea was mentioned by one man, and two of the women; both namedMyrflæsa as the best place. The women talked extensively about nice fishingexperiences at sea. They described how enjoyable it was to go ‘out on the sea with theboat’ when the sun was shining all night and do some fishing and have a barbecue if theweather was nice. I asked why all the men did not talk about this, and they respondedthat they probably viewed it as gathering food for the family. ‘And this is a goodconcept to keep up.. laughter.., because then you have a good excuse to get away for awhile, from the wife.’ Some of the men I talked to had to finish the interview and gofishing or collect their fishing nets, but did not mention the sea as a special place to gofor leisure activities.

×