Msc_GIS_Landscapes_WindPower_2006

The transition of the coastal landscape of Northern Norway:
Using landscape approaches and GIS to understand local opposition to
wind power.

By

Bjørg Elsa Pettersen

A thesis submitted to the Department of Geography, University of Leicester
In partial fulfilment of the degree of
Master of Science

1

Preface

This is a thesis in Human Geography and Geographical Information Systems at the
University of Leicester, UK. To stay in another culture can be inspiring, and give new
views upon your own culture. On the background of some discussions on landscape I
wanted to go back to my own country and look at current issues. I heard about the
conflict on wind power at the island of Andøya in the North of Norway and decided to
study the case.

Doing this project has been quite different from what I expected, in a positive way. The
people I met on the road to knowledge have learnt me a lot. I am grateful for the
friendliness 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 a
stranger. And thank you for all the coffee and mulberry jam.

My supervisors Claire Jarvis and James Ryan have been supportive all the way, thank
you so much.

A lot of people have helped me with advice and support; Einar Berg with the WindPro
program and the photo visualisation of the wind turbines and Kurt Olsen with advices
on language. I would also like to say thanks to my friends and colleagues and my family
in 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 I
could be able to study.

Oslo 29.9.2006

Bjørg Pettersen

The photo on the cover is the wind turbine at Kvalnes, Andøya by Camilla Indregård

2

Summary

Wind energy is a new phenomenon in Norway and wind farms are currently emerging
on the coast. In many places, conflicts occur. This is a case study from Northern
Norway of local opposition to a wind farm project. Through the ongoing conflict I
wanted to gain knowledge of subjective or collective less expressed aspects of
landscape views, if these views exist. I have tried to investigate what people fear they
are loosing or gaining when their everyday landscape changes as a consequence of
building wind turbines in the area.
The methods used are from human geography and it is a case study based on
qualitative methods. In addition, participatory GIS have been used for mapping people’s
use of the landscape and everyday environment.
I have looked at aspects of local knowledge and views on expected effects and
impacts from the wind power plant. The local knowledge related to the effects is often
in conflict with the ones in the concession reports, or there are other concerns that are
more important to people locally. I have tried to uncover these views by looking at the
content in discussions about expected impacts of wind power plants on the everyday
landscape.
A main point has been to investigate the way visualisations and maps are used in
the communication process. One aspect is to see if the concession reports are in
accordance 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 visualisations
and do they find them useful Some alternative visualisations have been made, based on
the 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 of
communicating landscape changes.

3

PREFACE ............................................................................................................................................ 1
SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................................... 2
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES .................................................................................................... 5
1.1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 6
1.2 Discussions on wind power and landscape............................................................................... 6
1.3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS ........................................................................................................... 7
1.4. Rationale ............................................................................................................................... 8
2.1 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................................................................................ 13
3.1 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 .................................................................. 21
4.1. 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.................................................................................................... 30
5.1 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 ............................................................................... 34
6.1 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................................................... 35
6.2 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

4
6.4 Ground truth, a first field trip in the landscape ...................................................................... 43
7.1 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 ......................................................................................................................... 54
8.1 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 ...................................................................................... 61
9 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 63
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 64

APPENDIX
Appendix 1: Interview guide
Appendix 2: Sources from local newspaper and coding scheme
Appendix 3: Photo visualisation from Tordalsvatnet
Appendix 4: Photo visualisation from Breivika harbourt
Appendix 5: 3D Model of terrain use

5

List of figures and tables
Figure 1. Andøya. ................................................................................................................................ 19
Figure 2. Andøy. Source: Andøya Tourist Board................................................................................... 16
Figure 3. The “inner side” of Andøya, the view from the east ............................................................. 167
Figure 4. Satelite image of Andøya. Source Norge Digitalt, 2006.......................................................... 19
Figure 5. Influence zones. .................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 6. Otho photo of the Breivika area, with harbour East, concentric moor on lower left ................ 24
Figure 7. Base map of the Ramsa, Breivik and Skarstein, with borders on landed property.................... 25
Figure 8 Lines and points, the coding process of the PPGIS data. ....................................................... 257
Figure 9. Example of PPGIS map, rectified and ready for coding the data on the vector map ........ 258
Figure 10. Economic map, common propery, "felleseie" ..................................................................... 259
Figure 11. Choosen vantage points for photo visualisations. Source,AVAS 2006 ................................... 38
Figure 12. A, B and C. Photo visualisations by AVAS. ......................................................................... 39
Figure 13. Photo visualisation, the opposition. Source: B. Nicolaysen. 2006. ........................................ 42
Figure 14. Informant’s use of the terrain in Ramså, Skarstein and Breivika........................................... 45
Figure 15. Fishing. ............................................................................................................................ 256
Figure 16. Lavvo,Tordalsvatnet............................................................................................................ 47
Figure 17. The Lavvo, marked on the map by the informant. Source: B. Pettersen................................. 47
Figure 18. On the veranda West, the good side. . .................................................................................. 48
Figure 19. A and B. Photo visualisation, Breivika harbour ................................................................... 57
Figure 20. Photo standpoints, for visualisations .................................................................................. 59
Figure 21. From Tordalsvatnet. Turbines 4.5 MW, 155 meters. See fig 19 for standpoint. ..................... 62
Figure 22. The same terrain, 3D model with 180 meter wind turbines. ................................................. 63

Table 1. The consultative process. Sources. .......................................................................................... 20
Table 2.Maps and geo- referenced sources ........................................................................................... 23

6

1.1 Introduction
Wind farms are currently emerging on the Norwegian coast and these constructions
change the visual impression of the landscape. Norway has one of the best conditions
for wind power in Europe, and the coast has by far the highest mean wind-speed and the
most stable conditions (Selfors and Sannem 1998). Wind energy is a new phenomenon
in Norway as hydroelectric power has been the main source of energy until today. The
national authorities have chosen not to have a national plan on wind power
development, but encourage the use of wind energy as a source of clean and renewable
energy. Many projects and developers try to get concessions for building wind power
plants and this has created a ‘Klondike’ like situation. Clean sources of energy are in
demand and wind power is currently one of the choices most easily available and is
viewed as a profitable investment. The search for suitable sites for producing this new
energy is now at its peak in the north of Norway. The new global industry is highly
welcomed in many areas as it creates new opportunities. But there are also conflicts at a
local level, as the vulnerable coastal zone is under pressure from eager developers.
Matters of concern locally are visual intrusion, noise, flickering, ice throwing and
changing the aesthetic experience of the landscape; all of these perceived negative
aspects of the turbines. In most of these conflicts views and discussions on landscapes
evolves, as these large constructions are highly visible in the landscape.

1.2 Discussions on wind power and landscape
Can the discussions grounded in conflicts on wind power plants help us gain knowledge
on how people view and value their everyday landscape and environment? How
people perceive and evaluate expected changes in the coastal landscape caused by wind
farms will be investigated using methods from human geography and geographic
information systems (GIS). The study aims at finding out more on the aspect of how
the locals value and use the landscape, environment and nature. The focus in the text is
on representing the active use of the landscape; to interrogate how people look upon and
value the landscape in relation to how it is used on a daily basis, the local and subjective
view. Because the subjective and personal view is often about emotions my theory is
that 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 less
expressed values in the landscape, like places of collective memories, fishing grounds,

7
terrain for berry picking, skiing and places of traditional use and meaning. I will try to
represent this aspect by the use of participatory GIS methods and represent this on a
map.
A second aspect is looking at views on transition of the local and everyday
landscape, environment and place. What people expect of changes in the cultural
landscape caused by large wind turbines; the local view. What consequences do they
see of having a wind park close to their home? Are these views represented as an aspect
in the assessment reports?
A third question is how these local values, knowledge and views emerge in the
discussion on wind power, pro and con’s. Where there are contested truths some values
are 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 questions
Through the ongoing conflicts we may gain knowledge of subjective or collective less
expressed aspects of landscape views, if these views exist (Abrahansson 1999). Three
different 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 take
the local view and use of landscape into consideration by trying out a method of mapping
the local use of the everyday, landscape?

8

1.4. Rationale
Why is it this important to investigate this phenomenon? Looking at the European
Landscape 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)1

From my opinion, the landscape, the natural as well as the human-made environment, is
a basic resource for the local economy. In rural, remote communities the economic and
cultural potentials in the landscape are even more important resources for a sustainable
development.
What can be achieved at best is to improve the exchange of different types of
knowledge in relation to the planning process; and recognise local knowledge as a
resource in planning the use and development of coastal cultural landscapes. And to
promote the use of visualisations and maps that are relevant to enhance participation in
the decision process. To communicate with the public is a challenge for the wind energy
developers, as most projects will meet some opposition.
My focus will be on the everyday use of landscape and how the people that
belong to the area experience the expected changes. We all have to live in our
landscapes; for some people the close environment is very important for their life and
wellbeing, others have less of an emotional investment in theirs. In the wind power
conflicts people object to the altering of their environment (Pasqualetti, Gipe et al.
2002). Wind turbines are indeed very visible, built constructions in the landscape and
they can not be hidden. Wind power discussions are very much about landscape and
aesthetics so a definition of landscape is the starting point in the following literature
review and theory chapter.

1
From the Convention No.176, signed by the Member States of the Council of Europe on 20 October
2000.. http://www.coe.int/t/e/Cultural_Co-operation/Environment/Landscape/ , 27.9.2006

9
2.1 Literature and theory
Wind turbines must be placed somewhere and often this somewhere is labelled
landscape (Pasqualetti, Gipe et al. 2002). However, landscape is a slippery word, and
some clarification of the notion is necessary. In our everyday language landscape, the
view, environment, place and nature can all refer to landscape. In human geography and
especially cultural geography landscape is a central concept and has produced numerous
debates, theories and approaches (Tuan 1974; Relph 1976; Cosgrove 1984; Olwig
2002). In this chapter I will start with looking at some central concepts from cultural
and human geography concerning landscape. I will then go on to look at some concepts
that may be useful in analysing wind power conflicts in relation to our experience of
landscape. In the last section I will discuss some central theories on wind power
conflicts in relation to why and how we relate to this technology that creates changes in
our environment.

2.2. Theoretical approaches to landscape
The North American “Berkeley school” of cultural geography in the 50ties, represented
by Carl Sauer, put emphasis on how the material landscape is shaped by the human
beings that reside in it (Winchester, Kong et al. 2003). People express their relation to
the landscape by using it and shaping it; landscape is a result of resource use and culture
is imprinted on it. This defines landscape from the morphological perspective as a given
physical entity, like the “Muslim City” (Johnston, Gregory et al. 2001). The theory has
been criticised the last 20 years from the “new” cultural geographers for being too
deterministic or superorganic when it comes to culture. (Winchester, Kong et al. 2003).
Humans relate to their physical environment and interact with it. The distinctiveness of
the 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 the
landscape as a scenic perspective, ‘a landscape way of seeing’ (Cosgrove 1984). The
development of perspective drawing facilitated the representations of landscapes as
maps and paintings. Cosgrove focuses on the meaning of landscape and the role of
graphic representations as a reflection of power relations in society. Power relations can
be mirrored in the way the landscape is represented visually to disarm contested social
relations in the landscape; for the elite of landowners to define their land as a
commodity and the people who work on the land as outsiders (Harley 1988).
A different concept of landscape is used by Olwig who interrogates the
construction of landscapes in a social and juridical way related to place, dwelling and

10
society, and emphasises how the definition has been used as a political tool (Olwig
2002). Masking diversity in landscapes can be a power strategy, when it comes to
governing over resources. The landscape can be seen as an image but also as an ongoing
process, influenced by changes both in nature and society
Olwig is focusing his theories on the meanings of landscape and nature and
discusses the two contradictory terms of nature and culture (Olwig 2002). He defines
landscape in the meaning of an area belonging to and shaped by people (Hammarlund
1998).
Even if the two views differ, Olwig and Cosgrove agree in the use of the linear
perspective and the ideological function of landscape and representation. The concepts
on landscape and power and maps and graphics as constructed realities are useful. It is
relevant in the context of analysing contested truths and conflicts; to evaluate how
landscapes are represented in photos, maps and drawings. It is a circular relationship
between the representation (the map) and the represented (the landscape) with the aim
of shaping “a new truth” of the landscape as it is represented.

2.2.1 Landscape representations and maps in concession plans
Representing landscapes is not a neutral task. Olwig (2005) describes the evolving
power of the English monarchs in the 17th century, uniting divided areas into one
landscape, the English one as body politics. The perspective is important, as both
Cosgrove and Olwig emphasised (Cosgrove and Daniels 1988; Olwig 2002). How does
the state and private actors present their views in plans and assessments? This also
brings 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 at
maps in concession plans for wind power plants.

2.2.2 Time and landscape in accepting change
The individual actors and their relation to the landscape evolve over time (Hägerstrand
1970). We need places to be and we need space for our activities over a certain period
of time. Time and space are common denominators and important factors concerning
the concept of landscape and the acceptance of change. Views are dependent on factors
of 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 the
occasional user; the tourist or the visitor or the stranger. Her relation is highly based
upon the amount of time she has spent on being in it or looking at it. In our case, the

11
different actors view wind turbines in light of what relations they have to the landscape
and the amount of time they spend in it. Locals and outsiders perceive expected changes
from different viewpoints.

2.2.3. Landscape emotions and inner maps
Yi-Fu Tuan, and his humanistic geographies centres around the love of places or
landscapes or fields of care, and how this care is becoming stronger under threat (Tuan
1974). 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 person
whose body resides in the landscape.
These concepts and views are close to the environmental psychologist’s
questions of who we are related to where we are . The landscape belongs to people who
live in it and therefore it is about our emotions. This is a useful link between
environment, emotions and time? Land use is interaction with landscape. The concept
of mental maps represents our inner picture of the landscape. The more familiar the
landscape, the more we interact and spend our time in the landscape, the more detailed
the inner map.

2.2.4 Gender, culture and landscape
The landscape is often looked upon as something clearly defined within borders, and
something different from the self. Feminist geographers has turned to the Greek concept
of Cora in a search for a more open concept, (from choreography) and to define no strict
borders between the self and the landscape (Birkeland 2001; Olwig 2002). They aim to
reinterpret the landscape in a less gendered way. Place can be seen as not necessarily a
fixed 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 rural
culture. The central European culture, including the British is described by many as
having a complementary ideal of rural idyll; with women working at home, and men as
providers of income. This gendered landscape is put forward in the feminist tradition as
described by Gillan Rose and others (Peet 1998; Kwan 2002). The Scandinavian rural
idyll is traditionally based on more egalitarian gender relations (Gunnerød-Berg and
Forsberg 2003). Today the norm is the two income family model with two equal
partners. Gender relations was traditionally more compound in the north, with ideals

12
like 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- and
fishing model, where the men where away at sea for long periods and the women were
in charge of the farming (Dyrvik 1997; Sevatdal 2006). In general Norwegian farmers
have been predominantly owners, not tenants. This has shaped the culture as well as the
identities for both men and women. And it mirrors the way she or he relates and interact
with the landscape and the environment.
For Olwig almost all landscapes are cultural, wilderness hardly exists (Olwig
2005). Forming landscapes is a two way process; landscapes both influences and are
influenced by culture. Cultural values influences how people interact with landscapes
and how they interpret and regard them (Winchester, Kong et al. 2003). Interpreting a
landscape requires understanding its meaning in the context of cultural values and
experiences.

2.3 Acceptance of technology in the landscape and NIMBY-ism
Wind turbines in the landscape are large constructions and it is not possible to hide
them. Robert Thayer and his team from California did some ground breaking work on
acceptance of power producing technology (Thayer and Hansen 1989). They found that
while 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 the
wind power was widely accepted in the region most people did not want it within 5
miles (8 kilometres) of their own home. This was called the “Not In My Back Yard” or
the NIMBY syndrome. The visual intrusion was the point of greatest concern. This
reflects a negative view on wind turbines in the landscape generally and the visual
aspect as the most significant negative factor for not accepting wind power. Wind
companies fail in ¾ of their proposals (Pasqualetti, Gipe et al. 2002). “If the industry is
interested in changing the public perception, it must be prepared to listen and
compromise.” (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 more
positive once the turbines are built (Pasqualetti, Gipe et al. 2002). If the plant is
gradually expanded, it is also easier to accept it. This reflects the points of space and
time is a factor, which is not so surprising from a human point of view. If this
acceptance is about time or about giving up and try to live with negative consequences,
is discussed.

13
Perception of landscape changes according to culture and place, the beauty is in
the eye of the beholder (Zube 1984). Landscapes are elements and carriers of regional
and local identity and they must be seen in this context. They have a physical reality but
at the same time a mental, social and cultural equally important side. Wind turbines are
large and not possible to hide, and not considered beautiful by all. They are good
sustainable sources of energy, but at the same time they represent an intrusive
technology if not placed with care and respect for the surroundings. Even if the
NIMBY 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 visual
wellbeing.
Many of the studies on wind power and acceptance are taken from other places
and landscapes than the one investigated in this text. This case is about a conflict, and
thus power relations. People make landscape by constructing or reconstructing,
organizing space and expressing power (Massey 2003). This case is concerned with the
Nordic 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 large
constructions on the coast raises special problems.

2.4 The use of concepts related to landscape
When I write about culture in this text I choose to use it as a dynamic concept, one
which is related to ways of life, individually lived, dynamic and unique, as well as
shared and reproduced (Berger and Luckman 1985; Winchester, Kong et al. 2003). It is
also a dynamic and active force. An example of this is how dominant groups can define
others (another cultural group) as a structural opposition. We are the norm and the other
group (they) are making politics (Winchester, Kong et al. 2003). Who is the mainstream
and who is the minority may change over time, and this is negotiated in discussions of
truth and knowledge and also about what is relevant to discuss at all. It is useful to have
this in mind when analysing a conflict.
I look at landscapes in a relational way, not only to have symbolic or textual
meaning but also to be about ownership (juridical) and control. One might say that this
is what Olwig calls the North European tradition (Olwig 1984; Olwig 2002). In this
matter I also agree with both Olwig and Cosgrove who defines landscape as a relation
between the function of a landscape and the political organization of society (Cosgrove
1984; Olwig 1984; Olwig 2002). In the discussions in this text the landscape is

14
described more in the way of the social and political context, with lesser emphasis on
the ecological.

Landscape and also the everyday landscape, built environment and places are something
fluid and changing as are cultural identities and individuals. At the same time identities
can be reinforced through the landscape by traditions, nature and the home (Dixon
2003). Landscapes and especially landscape conflicts can create and also challenge
power 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 discursive
representations 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 in
Norway is a new industry and people do not know much about it in general. This might
give 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? The
answer 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

15

3.1 The place and the case of Andmyran Wind Power Plant

The borough of Andøy is situated in the north of
Norway, in Nordland County in the Vesterålen
region2. The Andøy Municipality covers an area of
659, 3 km2, and has a population of 5.134
inhabitants. The municipal centre is Andenes with
about 2.900 inhabitants. At 69 degrees north latitude,
300 km above the Arctic Circle and overlooking the
ocean, we find the island of Andøya with its wide
open 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 by

an open, wide fjord (Andfjorden) and to the west
Figure 1. Andøya
there is only ocean as far as to Greenland,
(Norishavet). Nearly half of the island is covered with marches which is unique in a
Norwegian context. Thanks to the Gulf Stream, the climate is milder than its northerly
position might suggest. Andøya is also well known for its windy climate. The area has
the midnight sun from 19th of March to 25 of July and the dark season is from 25th of
November to 15th of January.
The main occupation is fishery and service industries: A rocket base3, the only
instrumented sea- test range in the northern parts of Scandinavia4 , a large military base
and activities and a military airfield. The military has been dominating the island after
the Second World War. This has produced economic activity and growth but also led to
expropriation of land, as roads and firing ranges as well as other installations have been
constructed all over the island. In the summer season Andøya has a thriving tourist
business, the major attraction is whale-watching safaris, but nature safaris also provide
adventures and the white sandy beaches on west, “the outer side” are quite famous5.
The landscape of Andøya has large dimensions and visual depth (Nordland
Fylkeskommune 2003). It is a flat landscape with large, flat marshland, steep
mountainsides and large mountain plateaus stretching against the sea in the west on the

2
www.visitnordland.no, accessed 12.8.2006
3
http://www.rocketrange.no/arr/index.html
4
http://www.testcenter.no/
5
www.andoyportalen.no, accessed 12.7.2006

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.

17
The roads and the settlement are situated close to the sea shore. It is on the mores
between the sea and the mountains the planned wind power plant will be situated. There
is some 1 to 3 km between the mountains and the sea in a long coastal strip of old sea
bed, now covered with marshland. Here the Ramsåfeltet range hides fossils of giant
amphibians that lived 150 million years ago.6 The great expanses of marshland are
abundant with cloudberries. It is a rich birdlife here and every year the national
championship for hunting with bird dogs takes place here. There are lakes rich with
trout 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 culture
The County of Nordland is the cradle of the coastal fisheries, and fisheries traditions
and coastal traditions permeate the whole society. Nordland’s island realm has a total of
14000 islands and is a coastline unparalleled anywhere else in the world. Use of space
and landscape has not been restricted as it has mainly been owned by the people who
inhabited the land (Sevatdal 2006). As long as you do not disturb others you can walk
and camp even on private land according to the Norwegian tradition and laws of “Every

6
www.nordlandreiseliv.no

18
Man’s Basic Rights” to access (Abrahansson 1999). This works as a positive a factor for
pursuing 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 in
Norway on shore was Dahle’s "Vindkraftverk” at Andøya. The power plant was put
into 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".7

3.2 The wind power plant, Andmyran Vindpark A/S (AVAS)
Today the society is still innovative and wind power is again a topic. There have been
several 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 funding
or legal conflicts with protected areas of nature or cultural heritage, military
installations etc. In 2004 two companies started to prepare for concessions. The first
one, Skavdalsheia Vindpark is now “put on ice” and one serious actor, Andmyran
Vindpark A/S (AVAS) is in the process of applying for concession to build a wind
power plant. The chosen site is the Skarstein, Breivika and Ramså area which consists
of three small villages on the eastern side of Andøya with 120 – 150 households.
Andmyran Vindpark (AVAS) applied for concession for building and running a
wind power plant in the vicinity of the hamlets of Ramså, Breivik and Skarstein with
the permission to produce at most 200MW effect of electricity8. The area consists of
moor- and marchland, with an altitude of 20-25 meters above sea level stretching over
an area of 11km2. Apart form a few visible moraines the area is flat. Measurements of
wind in the area showed 8.8 m/s mean wind 105 meter above the ground. The original
sketch of the wind power plant showed 10-12 rows of turbines with 2-6 turbines in each
row in the direction of SE-NE. The distance to the nearest houses will be approximately
500 meters. In addition to 40-80 wind turbines roads and infrastructure, new power lines
and a transforming station will be built (Bjerke, Strann et al. 2004; Andreassen and

7
http://www.vindteknikk.no/fakta/historie.html
8
www.avas.no, accessed 4.5.2006

19
Thorkildsen 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 and
as large turbines as possible.

S
Ø W
N

Figure 4. Satelite image of Andøya. Source Norge Digitalt, 2006.

20

Andmyran Ministry OED/ Involved The public Date ca
Vindpark A/S NVE authorities
(AVAS)
Report Assessment Hearing Hearing 2005
Assesment Public meeting
app.(KS)/plan
(KU)
Application Law of KU-progam Submit to 2005
Energy stated Ministry of
----------------- Environm.
Concession process (MD)
Local Law of Evaluation of Hearing Hearing 2005
Planning- and Built Application/KU Hearing Public meeting 2006
Environment KU-approval
The Energy Act Total evaluation/
Final conclusion
Possible e-
concession
Production/ tender/ 2006
order
Development 2007-
2008
Operation 2007-
2008

Table 1. The consultative process. Sources. NVE, OED, MD. AVAS. 2006

3.2.1 Current laws and regulations concerning wind power in Norway
To get the permission for building a power plant it is necessary to apply at a local level
according to the Law of Planning of Built Environment9 and a to get a concession for
production of energy according to the Law of Energy10. Several other special laws and
regulations must be clarified, such as the Law of Protection of Cultural Heritage
(Kulturminneloven). The process is complicated as well as expensive. In 2005 AVAS
put forward an orientation to the Directorate of Oil and Energy (OED), the Norwegian
Water 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 public
hearings and orientation. NVE adapts the report into a KU11-program to be approved by
MD, this is then returned to AVAS. In the decision process the local view on landscape

9
Norwegian:Plan og bygningsloven
10
Norwegian: Energiloven
11
Program assessing consequences

21
and their views upon the expected changes shall be taken into consideration as well as
the right to take part in the decision process

3.2.2. The influence zones from the wind power plant
The wind farm and the influence of the site is shown on the map below, with 4 visual
influence 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 and
Figure 5. Influence zones. Source, AVAS, 2006
tourist areas on the
north of the island will be partly sheltered by the mountains. The visual influence will
be dependent on the size and number of turbines chosen.
Reviewing concessions and assessment plans were undertaken to collect
background material. Mainly maps, visualisations as well as facts about the project are
collected from these plans. As used through the text, these reports and documents will
be referred. The plans were discussed during the interviews and I will use some
illustrations in regards to issues raised.
The next chapter is about material and methods, followed by an examination of
secondary and primary 5 before discussing and analysing the findings in the last two
chapters.

22

4.1. Material and methods
Wind power is a multi-disciplinary and complex area to investigate, and it is therefore
necessary 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 investigating
what is the reason for this particular conflict, the method of a case study was chosen as
a step by step explorative approach for gaining knowledge (Thaagard 2004). The main
approach taken is qualitative, but I use quantitative data as background variables and to
measure visibility. Some of the methods and techniques in this case are inspired from
participatory mapmaking where local people contribute to create maps (PPGIS) (Kwan
2002)12. The investigation of this phenomenon in the field calls for using methods both
from human geography and geographical information systems (GIS), hence the mixed
method approach.

4.2. Secondary data
4.2.1 Newspapers and formal assessment plans
The first insight and how the case of “Andmyran Vindpark” was brought to my
attention were through the local newspaper articles in Andøyposten (the Andøya
Gazette). To gain insight into the conflict and views, the general discussion and articles
on the case was collected as well as the reader’s letters. To get to know the case and the
ongoing process the next step was to collect and read all formal documents concerning
the case of Andmyran Windfarm A/S (AVAS). Some documents and the formal
concession statement were available from the official site of The Norwegian Water
Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE)13 others had to be collected from AVAS and
the opposition.

4.2.2 Maps, aerial photos and drawings
Geo-referenced sources used are base maps and digital elevation models (DEM) from
the national geo-portal, Norge Digitalt 14. A visit to the local council planning office was
necessary to collect detailed maps and aerial photos of the wind farm area as well as
local plans. AVAS gave me drawings of the influence area. The material will be used in
geographical analysis and techniques like line of sight, view-sheds and simple
visualisations.

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 is
13

responsible for the administration of Norway´s water and energy resources. www.nve.no
14
ftp://ftp.statkart.no/pub/ 12.6.2006

23

Data Source Datum/Type Projection Resolution
Base map Norge Euref89/WGS84 UTM33 N 1:50000
(Roads, elevation, water, Digitalt
buildings, vegetation type,
place names)
Base map Andøy WGS1948 NGO Zone N 1:5000
(Roads, elevation, water, kommune 5
buildings, vegetation type,
borders, place names)
CAD drawings of AVAS CAD Drawing
influence area with
property borders
Raster map of area AVAS WGS1948, ØK NGO Zone N 1:50000
Economic Map of 5
Norway,
Aerial photos (Digital Andøy WGS1948 NGO Zone .jpg and
Ortho Photos) kommune 5 SOSI
Coordinates for wind AVAS WGS84 UTM33 .xls
turbine placement
Digital Elevation Model, Norge WGS84 UTM33 25 x 25
DEM Digitalt meter
Constructions in influence AVAS Scanned
area of wind power plant raster
Data preparation was undertaken for the purposes of making maps with Ortho-photos
for the interviews and prepare for photo visualizations and 3D animations. This
included making a Triangulated Digital Elevation Model (TIN). The original GRID
DEM had to be clipped to a size that could be manageable, but large enough to avoid
edge 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
.

24
.

Figure 6. Ortho photo of the Breivika area, with harbour east, concentric moor on lower SW.
Source: Andøy municipality, 2006.

25

Figure 7. Base map of the Ramsa, Breivik and Skarstein, with borders on landed property.

26
4.2.3. Informal talks and personal interviews, telephone and e-mail
The first contact was made with the responsible person at the national level (NVE) in
charge of the case Ms. Henriette Haavik15. To gain further knowledge of the case and
the actors at the local level, several phone calls were made to informants at the local
administrative level (Andøy municipality). Both the business adviser in the municipality
as well as the council manager gave me valuable information on the case as well as
references and telephone numbers to key informants on either side in the conflict. One
might say this was a “snowball method” and it worked even if it was quite time
consuming.

4.2.4. Field trip and data collection
In the beginning of July 2006 I travelled to the island of Andøya with the goals of
gaining further insight into the case and getting to know the area. Being situated 1500
km from Oslo clear appointments were necessary. The director of AVAS, Asgeir
Andreassen and Bjørnar Nicolaysen from the “opposition” stated that they had the time
to talk about their views and opinions. I could phone them as soon as I arrived to
Andøya. The first two interviews were quite extensive. In addition to the oral
information, the general manager of AVAS, Mr. Asgeir Andreassen provided a lot of
secondary material; power point presentations and visualizations as well as geo-data
from the assessment plans (see section on secondary data).
Also Mr. Bjørnar Nicolaysen gave me a lot of printed information, photos and
background for the view of the local opposition. Both informants very generously and
openly shared their views and opinions with me. And in a friendly way they both
warned me about what was ahead; “you will be used by all involved parties as well as
the newspaper so you might as well be prepared for that”. These two informants did not
mind being cited, as they felt that their views were generally very well known because
of the public discussion that had taken place in the area. This trip to Andøya also
included collection of “ground truth” e.g. getting to know the area.

4.2.5. Collecting photos of the terrain
Having collected the first material and gotten a general knowledge of the case, the next
step was to construct an interview guide for the final questions. There was little
possibility 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 with
colleagues 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, 10.5.2006
15

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.

28

Figure 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. Questions
where then asked if they thought the same places would gain more value or loose value
if the wind farm were built, and if the project would improve access to some areas.

29
Some background information on age, occupation, attachment to the place and
ownership was collected. One section covered the positive and negative aspects of
living in the area. Some questions that directly asked people to assess influence from the
wind turbines. This was used as a check on knowledge about effects.
Another section was about their knowledge of the case; had they attended
meetings and did they know of plans and documents and photographic visualisations
concerning the case? The last questions were about acceptance of wind power and how
close the planned turbines would be to their house or cabin. As the second last question
they were asked if they thought they would continue to live in their house if the project
was done and they got compensation for their houses. As a conclusion all the informants
were asked if there were anything else they would like to add to the case in regards to
the personal interview. Special care was given to the staging and sequence of the
questions to make the informants feel more at ease including having this general
question as the last one.

4.4 Photo documentation
During my stay I set out to investigate special places of importance that the informants
had pointed out, taking photos of the terrain. The photos were geo-referenced in a small
database on a PDA. To control the input, a simple map was generated in ArcGis and
transferred to ArcPad on the PDA. Photographs were taken with a digital 35 mm reflex
camera as basis for photo visualisation of the wind turbines. The pictures will be
stitched to panoramic images using The Panorama Factory shareware16. The vantage
points of the panoramas were geo-coded in the database.

4.5. Shortcomings and limitations
There are some weaknesses in the material. First of all it was not easy to make
appointments with people. Because it was summer people were out in the nature, fishing
at sea, walking in the mountains, staying on their cabins etc. On the other hand I god a
good mix of men and women from the whole area, but the age group from 25 to 35 is
not represented.
The interviews were long and I got more information from each informant than I
expected. Drawing on maps was enjoyable for most respondents, and in this process
there was a lot of information, good stories and laughter. Most informants needed time
and to look at several maps at the start. It was important not to rush people in this
process. Eight interviews were undertaken before I had to leave. By then, the snowball

16
The Panorama Factory, www.panoramafactory.com (20.6.2006)

30
effect was working again and several people were willing to talk about their doings and
views. However, the amount of information was overwhelming when it came to coding
and analyzing the material. I learned that tracing people’s movements and doings in the
landscape is time consuming. Another concern is reliability. I noticed some errors and
lack 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 favourite
places, but in the situation I felt that this would only be possible to do with people I got
to know better. Pictures are personal belongings and one should have a good reason to
share ones own memories with a stranger. Some of the informants showed me pictures
from their favourite places, and I got some for use in the project. However, on my walks
in the landscape there were plenty of opportunities to take photos from the places
mentioned in the interviews.

4.6. Ethical considerations
The 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 was
somehow an unpleasant situation for both sides. The area in the vicinity of the planned
wind park has a population of approximately 120 to 150 households, a small society
where ethics were even more important. Privacy is the most important one, and
measures 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 repeating
activities (Chambers 1998).
I decided not to ask some questions that I expected would upset the informants
or stir up more conflicts or tensions in society. The views of the local politicians and of
people that already are sited on the matter may be used, but under no circumstances will
person’s views be sited without explicit permission. Returning favours were also a
matter of concern: Giving back knowledge and information, returning photos and
favours has been done as far as possible. I also informed all my contacts of my normal
job and gave my address and telephone number.

4.7. Reflections on information
On my first trip to Andøya I had rented a room close to the influence area on the
Kvalnes 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 got
to talk to quite a few local people on a more general level about the case. With the

31
windmill in view, we could compare and discuss heights and visibility in relation to the
new 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 be
defined as a kind of participant observation, even if it was not planned.

Figure 10. Economic map, common propery, "felleseie". Source AVAS, 2006.

32
5.1 The results
5.2 The public discussion on the case in the local newspapers
As foreseen a conflict arouse also in this area, but not until may 2005. The referred
discussions are based on readers’ letters in the newspaper Andøyposten and local and
regional 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 visual
intrusion, landscape, and local knowledge but also refer to the general context of the
case.

5.2.1 Visual intrusion, consequences on people and society
The first public meting on wind power was attended by almost 100 people from
Andøya (Andøyposten 11.3.2004). The newspaper heading says; “Divided opinions on
wind power” with the subtitle: “A gap between expectations and the content (innhold)
of the meeting”. All stakeholders were present; land owners, AVAS, NVE and the
managers of the other project, “Skavdalsheia Vindpark”, Fred Olsen Renewables.
Questions asked from the public were; “how much noise will it be” and “how will the
turbines look like”? When asked for visualisations and details the developers stated it
was too early in the process. One of the people attending the meeting being a landscape
architect argued that “It is a lack of respect to come here without anything to show us. It
is not so difficult to make visualisations or animations. It would have made the
discussion much more rewarding for all of us.” (Andøyposten 11.3.2004).
Proximity to the built environment in the three places, Ramså, Breivika and
Skarstein is and was the greatest concern; the visual and audio influence from the
turbines on the general wellbeing and livelihood of the inhabitants in the area. AVAS
can not overlook this intrusion “by researching themselves away from the fact” of the
enormous dimensions of the turbines that will influence the people living there. “Not a
single word has been mentioned concerning the most important individuals in the
vicinity of the planned wind farm, the human beings living there” (Andøyposten
19.5.2006). The fact that 150 people are living close to the site is not mentioned in the
concession plans (Vesterålen Online, 30.5.2006). It was also mentioned historical
events; some of the people living in the Ramså, Breivika and Skarstein were forced to

33
move 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 moor
The influence on birds and especially the eagle were stressed; the wind farm is planned
in the area where they fly from the mountains to the sea to catch food. There are
concentric 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, stemming
from the Jura period, 146 million years ago (Vol.no 24.1.2006).
Concerns were raised on the practicalities of building the roads and transporting
and erecting the turbines on the moor and the marshland. The landscape on the moor is
expected to change as vegetation will quickly grow if the soil is mixed with sand and
drained. There were arguments for proving the project technically impossible because
of the conditions on the moor, the deep ponds and the marshy area.
It could cause serious local effects if the isolating layer called Aurhella, covering
the groundwater is damaged; and what about flooding when the moor is drained? If the
project should fail to complete, would there be a proper restoration and removal of the
remains of the turbines (Vol.no 24.1.2006)?

5.2.3 Local knowledge
Local knowledge of the area and local views concerning the viability and realization of
the project was put forward (Andøyposten 19.5.2006). The weather and the
sustainability of the project were questioned. Will the turbines fail to function in the
climate with the well known extreme weather conditions on the island? If the turbines
does 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 lost
irreversibly.

5.2.4 Local ownership
The 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 the
community as the developer will probably sell concession to foreign companies. The
project is “terrorising 3 societies to total destruction” and seducing the politicians by
promising 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, 21.9.2006
18
The history of Andøya Airfield, http://www.mil.no/luft/start/omlf/stasjoner/andoya/#historikk,
22.9.2006
19
1NOK = 12.8GBP or 6.7USD

34
5.2.5 The dialogue with the local community
Words used from the protesters were; no gain from the meetings, lack of information is
disinformation and simplifying the truth (nrk.no, 24.4.2006). A concern about being
biased was raised, as two assessment reports were produced by co-owners and a share
holder 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 urging
the public to read the assessment reports and information on the case (Andøyposten
8.11.2005). And informing in the paper on facts on how many wind turbines will be
erected, practical problems, the pace of the work, schedule and funding plan and
available technology. AVAS puts forward the sustainability of clean energy as a
positive factor and their efforts to make a good and sustainable plan. AVAS recognizes
the problem with visual effects and have the opinion that the visual intrusion is the only
serious problem for the concession to pass.

6.1 Findings and results primary data
6.1.2 A formal conflict score of D according to NVE
A natural starting point was to get primary information from the top of the decision
chain, 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 Andmyran
Vindpark A/S. Her opinion was that the conflict level was quite normal. However, she
asked not to be publicly cited on this and especially not in any newspaper20. However, in
the official papers from NVE, the conflict has a formal conflict score of D21, on a scale
where E is the highest level of conflict and A the lowest. The main reason for the high
score is the valued landscape on the island as a whole, evaluated as having very high
landscape 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 for
conflict.

6.1.2 The local politicians and planning authorities
The local authorities were contacted several times; they were pleased to get a lot of
information from both the opposition and AVAS. As they had no experience with wind
energy, they found the discussions useful. They acknowledged the work done by giving
B. N. 5000 NOK for his expenses in collecting information. The local council has
decided not to have a referendum, because they view the effects to be local, and

20
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

35
dependent on the stakeholders. According to the newspaper Andøypostens informal
survey22, 70% of the inhabitants on the island are positive to wind power. There are
economical benefits for the municipality but this is also a problematic case, and local
elections are due next year.

6.1.3 Applying for a licence; concession plans and assessments
As mentioned in chapter 3 there are two major laws involved in the concessions; the
local 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 go
into these as they are repeating many of the views put forward earlier. They are
however important, as they can make another round in the wheel of applications.

6.2 Informal interviews with AVAS and the opposition
In all of the interviews I will try to use the language of my informants to keep the
authenticity and meaning intact through the translation. The open ended interviews with
Mr. Asgeir Andreassen (AA) the Director of AVAS, and Mr. Bjørnar Nicolaysen (BN)
representing the opposition covered a lot of material; I will extract the information
relevant for the research questions asked: Fear of loss when the landscape changes,
aspects of local knowledge in the conflict, and the problem of representing the
landscape changes through visualisations.

6.2.1 The concession process and the dialogue according to AVAS
The first interview was with Mr. Asgeir Andreassen, the director of AVAS. From AA’s
point of view the process had been going well and cooperation had been good between
AVAS and the stakeholders. There had been meetings with the land owners, for the
purpose of negotiating a contract for monetary compensation concerning the placing of
wind 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 good
example of a sustainable plan. The turning point came on a meeting in May 2005, when
the protests started fronted by Mr. Bjørnar Nicolaysen (BN) who engaged himself in the
matter.
From AA’s opinion there is one major factor driving the conflict. Land owners
get monetary compensation, home owners do not. This is a weakness in the Norwegian
system. It ought to be a monetary compensation, due to the fact that the whole society
will be influenced by negative visual intrusion e.g. all the people living in the proximity

22
According to Mr. Asgeir Andreassen, AVAS

36
of the wind turbines. He fully acknowledges the visual conflict due to the proximity to
dwellings. On the other hand, wind energy is a “window of opportunity” for the
company and might give income to the society of Andøya. Work and agglomeration
effects will be a positive effect in the construction period of 2 years. The rest of the
population is positive, as 75 % supports wind power on Andøya according to a survey
done by the local newspaper Andøyposten (source AA).

6.2.2 On aesthetics and landscape loss
According to AA the Andøya population view the landscape as a productive one, filled
with activities; it must be used in order to sustain the society. This is a part of the way
of life on the coast. The smell from fish factories is accepted because this is “the smell
of money”. The beach is often used for storing or burning garbage. There is a long
tradition 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 rapidly
accept 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 of
clean wind energy. Even if the site is close to dwellings, there will probably be less
people living in the area in 10-15 years because of the ongoing centralisation in the
north.
From his point of view, it is a lot of feelings involved in this case. He sited
research on wind energy and acceptance and he mentioned the NIMBY effect (Not in
My Back Yard). Once the construction period is over and the production starts,

37
acceptance will be achieved. There are many examples of people accepting wind power
in countries like Denmark and also in Norway and the protesters are creating a scenario
that is far too scary and this stirs up the population. Before the protests started in may
2005, there was no opposition, and the land owners had almost agreed to sign.

6.2.3 Aspects of local knowledge
To use local contractors was important. It is a positive factor that a local contractor has
made the plans for the construction of infrastructure and fundaments on the site. This is
a well known and experienced company; used to the conditions in the area as well as the
extreme conditions in the Arctic and Svalbard. This should be a guarantee for a proper
handling of the problems with constructing the site on the moor.
AA and AVAS has been taking measures to inform politicians; because wind
energy is a new phenomenon and must be experienced. He took politicians and others
on a trip to the wind farm on Smøla, in “the midlands” of Norway, on the coast23. It is
necessary with a real life experience, because the myths on wind energy are many AA
states that AVAS are trying to do the right thing; keep improving plans and keep
informing the public.

6.2.4 Photo visualizations and information
The local opposition had complained about the lack of photo visualisations, but they are
now present in the concession application as they are compulsory (Andreassen and
Thorkildsen 2005). AA informed about the view points for photo visualizations; all five
of them have been chosen by the stakeholders. AVAS wanted to show three different
sizes of turbines to give an impression of how the different sizes would appear in the
landscape. This was also done to make way for a flexible solution e.g. taking into
account that the technology of wind turbines are evolving and higher turbines with more
effect are produced. The pink dots are the points chosen for photo visualisations (figure
11). The largest alternative in the visualisation is the most probable option, hence shown
on the next pages (figure 12 a, b and c) with 40 turbines at 5MW (Andreassen and
Thorkildsen 2005; Andmyran Vindpark A/S 2006)

23
Statkraft, Smøla, http://www.statkraft.no/pub/vindkraft/vindparker/Smola/index.asp, 20.9.2006

38

Figure 11. Choosen vantage points for photo visualisations. Source,AVAS 2006

39

Photo standpoint 2. Skarstein 40 turbines/ 5Mw Intercon A/S Ingvild Holann
The photo is taken from RV 82 by the sign to Skarstein, seen from Fiskenes and south in the direction of the
wind farm. The nearest turbine is ca 2 km away. The plant is assessed to have a large negative influence along
the road in the closest zone.

Photo standpoint 3. Ramså 40 turbines/ 5Mw Intercon A/S Ingvild Holann
The photo is taken from RV 82 between Ramså and the south sign to Breivik, looking north against the wind
farm.The nearest turbine is ca 700 meters away.Very large negative influence.

Fotopoint 5. Ramsanakken 40 turbines/ 5Mw Intercon A/S Ingvild Holann
The photo is taken from Ramsånakken, 214 m. with free view north east against the wind farm.and The nearest
turbine 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

40
6.3 Interview with a representative of the opposition to the wind farm
6.3.1 The concession process and the dialogue
People did not understand the consequences of the project at first. Many thought there
was no possibility of stopping the plan and that the matter was already decided. The
deadline for handing in protests against the plan was short. With no previous experience
with wind power he/they had to do a lot of work to gain knowledge. NVE was present
at the meetings to guarantee that everything was done by the book. This gave a false
sense of security. I feel that their (NVE) real purpose was to limit the protest, so that
everything 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 is
very relieved they were not chosen. We here drew the shortest straw, when many of the
other places had said no, including AA’s home place. We have to pay for others to earn
money.
On sustainability and economy BN had some critical remarks. The power lines
must be expanded as well as the infrastructure. Andøya municipality has to pay a part of
this, and that is our money. We do not even get cheaper electricity; the only one making
money is Andmyran Vindpark A/S (AVAS) and its investors. BN also questioned who
will 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 all
the negative aspects. The owners of land and common land will get a yearly
compensation, but their as well as our homes and second homes (cabins) will be
reduced in value. People have stopped spending on their houses. Everybody will want to
move because of psychological reasons. People expect to feel like prisoners in their own
home, because they are not able to sell the house being 500 to 700 meters from the
nearest wind turbines.

6.3.2 Aspects of local knowledge, according to the opposition
From BN’s opinion AVAS’s knowledge of the moor is not sufficient, even if they are
using 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 gravel
that 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.

41
Another scientific fact we do not believe in is the theory on O (zero) icing on the blades
due to our knowledge on the climate here. The polar low pressures and unstable weather
condition 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, nature
and freedom because of other people’s environmental sins. We protect nature and live
in the nature, fish our fish. “This constant need to travel,.. if the environment is
damaged, should we travel elsewhere and polluting thereby. What is won then? No
matter 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 the
county council. To influence them is Alfa and Omega. The protesters had taken a
delegation of politicians on a trip to a wind power plant. They had also discussed with
the people who are land owners, pointing to that not everybody agreed on selling out to
AVAS. There is a 50/50 balance against the plans in his opinion.

6.3.2 On aesthetics and landscape loss
From BN’s opinion the photo visualisations are from points at a distance where you can
hardly see houses. AVAS is painting a pretty picture of the future in the plans, not a real
one. The dimensions of the project and the intrusion are not shown. The wind turbines
are very big and they do not make good neighbours. It is not about aesthetics. “You
know how we are in the North; everything does not have to be pretty”. He stressed that
the people here are quick to pick up new ideas, like windmills, and mentioned fish
factories and “The smell of money”. Closeness and use of nature is important. We want
to use nature, and live from it. The military landscape is the landscape of Andøya, with
high towers and firing ranges, and the airfield.
Expropriations have been normal in the past, and Haugnesbygda is one example
of this. Many of them live here in Skarstein and Breivika now. They had to move but
they got something back; compensation, work and prosperity. It is hard for those old
people 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 information
The protesters had made a different visualisation close to the house (see fig. 13). They
made this visualisation to make people realize how high the turbines will be. BN had

42
also 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.

43

6.4 Ground truth, a first field trip in the landscape
During the interview BN had suggested to take the student (me) on a walking tour. The
next day we drove up to the mountains, a short 10 minutes drive, and went for a hike in
the surrounding area in order to get an impression of the landscape surrounding the
wind 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 mountains
from 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 see
important places and learning geographical names. BN pointed out objects in the
landscape in relation to the conflicts with wind turbines like valuable marshlands and
we had quite close contact with another actor in the conflict, an eagle (fish hawk or
osprey) looking for food. This walk with a local informant contributed to the
understanding of the spatial dimensions in the landscape in relation to the height of the
wind turbines.

44

7.1 Interviews with informants from Ramså, Breivika and Skarstein
The local opposition had already undertaken two surveys on people being for or against
the 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 project
being realized. It is not a scientific method as such, but I acknowledged the fact that it
had 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 the
landscape and terrain. The informants draw their places and paths on an aerial photo
combined with a base map, using a transparent sheet on top. Each informant chose her
own 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 area
As we can see from the map (figure 14), the informants are using the terrain for many
different activities. Generally one goes or drives from the home, over the moor and up
to the waters. Or they just go for a walk on the beach or along the road. But there are
also more extensive trips when going for a hike, fishing or hunting. People often drive
over the moor and park the car, and continue into the terrain overlooking the villages. In
the winter one might do cross country skiing or use snowmobiles on special tracks to
reach the same terrain. The distances are not long, and the area is accessible, with lots of
paths, marked and unmarked. The activities mentioned were of course varied but being
in the fall most people mentioned the most important activities in this season; picking
berries; cloudberries, blueberries and mountain cranberries (orange). Some picked
mushrooms, and especially chantarelle was the best catch. In some of these areas
informants put a secret mark (S), or just marked it berries or mushrooms. Everybody
picked berries, but some men told me that while they went fishing in this area, over
there was her special berry picking spot (e.g. the wife or partner). Going with family, or
children going with grandparents is common and appreciated as a relaxing leisure

45

Figure 14. Informant’s use of the terrain in Ramså, Skarstein and Breivika.
Map source: Norge Digitalt. Koordsys: UTM 33, Euref 89.

46
activity. For older people but also in general the cloudberry picking was the most
cherished activity. It has traditions as a trade in the area, and is for many still a private
resource 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 in
this activity and had more places on their maps than women (blue colour). But women
did fish, but sometimes the man was fishing while the woman went for berries. The
fishing 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 their
Figure 15. Fishing. Photo B. Nicolaissen
favourite fishing spot or by
the lakeshore. Nobody hesitated to show their favourite fishing places, because it was
not shown exactly on the map. As one of them said; “... you have to know exactly on the
point where to go if you want fish, if you are 20 meters away you will not get any. And
anyway, 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 named
Myrflæsa as the best place. The women talked extensively about nice fishing
experiences at sea. They described how enjoyable it was to go ‘out on the sea with the
boat’ when the sun was shining all night and do some fishing and have a barbecue if the
weather was nice. I asked why all the men did not talk about this, and they responded
that they probably viewed it as gathering food for the family. ‘And this is a good
concept to keep up.. laughter.., because then you have a good excuse to get away for a
while, from the wife.’ Some of the men I talked to had to finish the interview and go
fishing or collect their fishing nets, but did not mention the sea as a special place to go
for leisure activities.

47
Hunting is an activity that is enjoyed, but this was only mentioned to be an activity done
by the men I interviewed (black, symbol and - - -). All of the men spoke about hunting,
but one did not mark any particular place, as it was “all
over the place”. When I asked if women did hunt it was
confirmed, but none of my female informants were
active hunters as to my knowledge. Hunting rights are
leased in the period from the 10th of September, and
gives some income. Hunting takes place on the
marshland as well as in the mountains, or “in the whole
area” as one of my informants stressed. Elk and grouse
are the most common catch. People hunt with dogs, as it
is a long standing tradition in the area to hunt with bird-

Figure 16. Lavvo,Tordalsvatnet. dogs. When you go in the mountains it is convenient to
Photo B. Pettersen
have a place to sleep or rest, and many marked these
places. Some had built ‘lavvos’ for the purpose of resting, and sleeping in during the
hunting season. A lavvo or lavvu is a semi-permanent constructed shelter, of Sábmi
(Lappish) tradition, a bit like the Indian tipi. Some of the lavvo’s are situated by the lake
of Torddalsvannet, quite close to the shore and is marked with a purple circle on the
map.

Figure 17. The Lavvo, marked on the map by the informant. Source B. Pettersen. 2006

Msc_GIS_Landscapes_WindPower_2006

Msc_GIS_Landscapes_WindPower_2006

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (18)

Similar to Msc_GIS_Landscapes_WindPower_2006

Similar to Msc_GIS_Landscapes_WindPower_2006 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Msc_GIS_Landscapes_WindPower_2006