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.

1. Monitoring mountain summer farming
landscapes in Norway: Temporal and
regional patterns of continued farming,
leisure use, and abandonment
Sebastian Eiter, Norwegian Forest and Landscape Institute
”Global Change and the World’s Mountains” Conference , Perth, 27-30 September 2010

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. 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. Recent statistics
> Approx.1200 mountain
summer farms receiving Farm unit
Single
subsidies for dairy Cooperative
production in 2008
/
(Rekdal 2009, Illustration: M. Angeloff)

5. Historical statistics and estimates
> Decline of mountain
summer farms with dairy
production
?
(Rekdal 2009)

6. Case studies:
Regional differences and changes over time
(Eiter & Potthoff 2007)

7. Different farmsteads and types of
buildings in west and east
(1960s/70s and 2009/10)
(Fylkeskonservatoren i Hordaland 1979) (Christensen 1981 [1969])

8. Development I (1960s-2010):
Continued/modernised farming use
(Christensen 1981 [1969]) (Christensen 1981 [1969])
?

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. Development III (1970s-2009):
Abandonment and decay
(Fylkeskonservatoren i Hordaland 1979) (Fylkeskonservatoren i Hordaland 1979)

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. 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. Results of 2009
Visited:
>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. 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. 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. Conclusion and Outlook
Preliminary conclusion for policy makers
> Regional differences in policies seem adequate
Future work
> Extend database
> Deal with challenges/uncertainties under registration, e.g., in
terms of change in use of buildings
> Analyse data in more detail
> Integrate qualitatively different data fruitfully
> Develop monitoring data into research projects