Monitoring mountain summer farminglandscapes in Norway: Temporal andregional patterns of continued farming,leisure use, an...
Questions> What is the ’state of the nation’ in terms of the  agricultural landscape?> How has landscape changed, how is i...
Material available> Agricultural statistics> Case studies: numerous, fine-scale, from different  disciplines: archaeology,...
Recent statistics> Approx.1200 mountain  summer farms receiving   Farm unit                           Single  subsidies fo...
Historical statistics and estimates                  > Decline of mountain                    summer farms with dairy     ...
Case studies:Regional differences and changes over time                 (Eiter & Potthoff 2007)
Different farmsteads and types ofbuildings in west and east(1960s/70s and 2009/10)         (Fylkeskonservatoren i Hordalan...
Development I (1960s-2010):Continued/modernised farming use          (Christensen 1981 [1969])       (Christensen 1981 [19...
Development II (1970s-2009):Transition towards leisure use         (Fylkeskonservatoren i Hordaland 1979)             (Fyl...
Development III (1970s-2009):Abandonment and decay     (Fylkeskonservatoren i Hordaland 1979)   (Fylkeskonservatoren i Hor...
Database of landscape monitoring> 5 x 5 km2 nationally  standardised grid net:  c.20,000 cells> Random selection among gri...
Registration criteria> Farm unit   >   Organisation   >   Infrastructure   >   Access: e.g., walking time needed   >   Rec...
Results of 2009Visited:>41(+2) grid cells                                      /Registered:                            M>3...
Regional differences I: Farm units                                                                                        ...
Regional differences II: Buildings                                            Condition of buildings in Mid-Norway        ...
Conclusion and OutlookPreliminary conclusion for policy makers> Regional differences in policies seem adequateFuture work>...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Monitoring mountain summer farming landscapes in Norway: Temporal and regional patterns of continued farming, leisure use, and abandonment [Sebastian Eiter]

516 views

Published on

Monitoring mountain summer farming landscapes in Norway: Temporal and regional patterns of continued farming, leisure use, and abandonment. Presented by Sebastian Eiter at the "Perth II: Global Change and the World's Mountains" conference in Perth, Scotland in September 2010.

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
516
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Monitoring mountain summer farming landscapes in Norway: Temporal and regional patterns of continued farming, leisure use, and abandonment [Sebastian Eiter]

  1. 1. Monitoring mountain summer farminglandscapes in Norway: Temporal andregional patterns of continued farming,leisure use, and abandonmentSebastian Eiter, Norwegian Forest and Landscape Institute”Global Change and the World’s Mountains” Conference , Perth, 27-30 September 2010
  2. 2. Questions> What is the ’state of the nation’ in terms of the agricultural landscape?> How has landscape changed, how is it changing?> Why does it change (”driving forces”)?> How do recent policies work?> Which new policies might be needed or desirable?
  3. 3. Material available> Agricultural statistics> Case studies: numerous, fine-scale, from different disciplines: archaeology, biology, ethnology, geography, history, etc.> National landscape monitoring programme (since 2009)
  4. 4. Recent statistics> Approx.1200 mountain summer farms receiving Farm unit Single subsidies for dairy Cooperative production in 2008 / (Rekdal 2009, Illustration: M. Angeloff)
  5. 5. Historical statistics and estimates > Decline of mountain summer farms with dairy production ? (Rekdal 2009)
  6. 6. Case studies:Regional differences and changes over time (Eiter & Potthoff 2007)
  7. 7. Different farmsteads and types ofbuildings in west and east(1960s/70s and 2009/10) (Fylkeskonservatoren i Hordaland 1979) (Christensen 1981 [1969])
  8. 8. Development I (1960s-2010):Continued/modernised farming use (Christensen 1981 [1969]) (Christensen 1981 [1969]) ?
  9. 9. Development II (1970s-2009):Transition towards leisure use (Fylkeskonservatoren i Hordaland 1979) (Fylkeskonservatoren i Hordaland 1979) Public tourist cabin Restoration for private use
  10. 10. Development III (1970s-2009):Abandonment and decay (Fylkeskonservatoren i Hordaland 1979) (Fylkeskonservatoren i Hordaland 1979)
  11. 11. Database of landscape monitoring> 5 x 5 km2 nationally standardised grid net: c.20,000 cells> Random selection among grid cells with buildings for seasonal farming purpose, according to the national register of real estate
  12. 12. Registration criteria> Farm unit > Organisation > Infrastructure > Access: e.g., walking time needed > Recent use > Fence > Curtilage: woodland regrowth > View > Photos> Buildings > Type: people, livestock, milk, miscellaneous > Walls: construction, coating, color > Roof: coating > Condition > Visibility > Photos Photo: Tor Erik Alræk
  13. 13. Results of 2009Visited:>41(+2) grid cells /Registered: M>327 seasonally inhabited farm units Regional distribution>1596 buildings Ca. % E W M Grid cells 56 28 16 W Farm units 50 25 25 E Buildings 59 26 15
  14. 14. Regional differences I: Farm units Accessibility 70 Western Norway 60 Eastern Norway 50 Mid-Norway % of farm units 40 Recent use of farm units 30 20 60 Western Norway 10 50 Eastern Norway 0% of farm units 40 Mid-Norway 0 min. 1-15 min. 16-30 min. 31-60 min. >60 min. Walking time from nearest road 30 20 Woodland regrowth 10 45 Western Norway 0 40 Eastern Norway Mid-Norway ne e g g m 35 re y g m in in ur in eu isu No dg ow ilk no ns % of farm units us Le M Lo ro /u 30 M M er t g/ as th zin G O 25 ra G 20 15 10 5 0 0-5% 5-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Share of curtilage regrown
  15. 15. Regional differences II: Buildings Condition of buildings in Mid-Norway In good repair Initial decay Decay Ruin Foundation w alls only Registered building disappeared Registered building replaced Condition of buildings in Western Norway Condition of buildings in Eastern Norway In good repair In good repair Initial decay Initial decay Decay Decay Ruin Ruin Foundation walls only Foundation walls only Registered building Registered building disappeared disappeared Registered building replaced Registered building replaced
  16. 16. Conclusion and OutlookPreliminary conclusion for policy makers> Regional differences in policies seem adequateFuture work> Extend database > Deal with challenges/uncertainties under registration, e.g., in terms of change in use of buildings> Analyse data in more detail > Integrate qualitatively different data fruitfully > Develop monitoring data into research projects

×