the contribution of organic agriculture to landscape ...directory.umm.ac.id/data...

Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 77 (2000) 125–141

The contribution of organic agriculture to landscape quality in theSogn og Fjordane region of Western Norway

Morten Clemetsena,∗, Jim van Laarba Dr. scient, Fjordsenteret, 5745 Aurland, Norway

b Wageningen Agricultural University, Leerstoelgroep Biologische Bedrijfssystemen, Haarweg 333, 6709 RZ Wageningen, The Netherlands

Accepted 19 July 1999

Abstract

To substructure the hypothesis that ecological agriculture positively contributes to landscape quality, a methodology hasbeen developed that evaluates a broad range of components of the cultural landscape based on sets of objective and subjectivecriteria. This methodology aims to be a feasible regional planning tool Europe-wide and has subsequently been testedand improved in several European regions, the latest in Western Norway. This article presents the results of the farm andlandscape quality assessments by an international group of experts of various disciplines and its possible implications forregional planning in a specific local situation. In an interdisciplinary approach two different organic farms in the impressiveNorwegian fjord landscape were comparatively studied, especially with respect to their contributions to landscape quality, withemphasis on sensorial perceptions (subjective appreciation) and landscape identity issues (objective appreciation). Moreover,the preservation of values at landscape level as well as the meaning of the cultural landscape values for the local population arediscussed. Landscape qualities in the study area are related to nature and cultural heritage values, but these values are decliningwithout active human involvement. The methodology as developed so far appeared useful in demonstrating the values of thelandscape and elements in the region to different stakeholder groups, especially with respect to local and regional planningprocesses. Both the organic farms, as part of the landscape, provide important contributions to the cultural and ecologicalvalues of the landscape, but according to the assessment results these contributions are different in quality. ©2000 ElsevierScience B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords:Ecological agriculture; Goat farming; Landscape assessment; Landscape values; Regional planning; Western Norway

1. Introduction

In the framework of the EU Concerted Action‘Landscape and nature production capacity of or-ganic and sustainable types of agriculture’ a 5 days’subgroup meeting took place in Aurland, WesternNorway, in the summer of 1997. Scientists of the Con-

∗ Corresponding author.Tel.: +47-57633629; fax: +47-57633378E-mail address:[email protected] (M. Clemetsen)

certed Action’s working group and local landscapeand agricultural experts discussed a methodology toassess the rural landscape quality as it was developedin the Concerted Action.

This article deals with the results of these assess-ments on landscape level and, based on a compari-son between the two visited ecological farms, on farmlevel. Finally, the feasibility of a checklist with sets ofcriteria’s and parameters as a general tool in landscapeplanning and agricultural practice will be discussed.

0167-8809/00/$ – see front matter ©2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.PII: S0167-8809(99)00098-5

126 M. Clemetsen, J. van Laar / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 77 (2000) 125–141

2. Goals and methods

The meeting’s main goal was to test the checklistas mentioned in Section 1 in a specific European ru-ral landscape for its feasibility in evaluating landscapequality on farms (van Mansvelt, 1997; Stobbelaar vanMansvelt, 1999; Rossi and Nota, 2000). More specif-ically, it was aimed to investigate in what ways thechecklist could be used as a tool for identifying keyissues useful in further planning on landscape and onfarm level.

The investigations were based on field observationsmade at two selected ecological farms in Undredal(Undredal farm) and Flåm (Fretheim farm), respec-tively and on one excursion to the Nærøyfjorden areato observe landscape features. Local experts were in-volved in order to discuss the feasibility of the check-list and to provide local data, general information andfeed back. The research must be seen as a rapid ruralappraisal.

On location, the two farmers informed the expertgroup and showed the relevant parts of their farms.Some literature on the Undredal farm was alreadyavailable. The description of the ‘Fretheim farm’ nearFlåm is mainly based on information given by thefarmer family and local experts during the visit. TheNærøyfjorden area was visited partly by boat andpartly on foot.

The impressions and information collected duringthe field visits were discussed in group sessions af-terwards, in which subjective appreciation (column 5of the general checklist, van Mansvelt, 1997) and ob-jective appreciation (column 6 of the general check-list, van Mansvelt, 1997) of the landscape were themain issues to discuss in the context of the followingkey-questions:1. How sustainable is the landscape?2. What are the contributions of the farms to land-

scape values?

3. The region

3.1. Geography, geology and climate

Sognefjorden is the largest fjordsystem in Norway,covering an area of more than 10,000 km2. The mainfjord has a total length of 200 km. The Aurlandsfjorden

and Nærøyfjorden are two of the innermost southernbranches.

The Sognefjorden area is situated in the southernpart of the Sogn og Fjordane County, and includes 12municipalities with an estimated population of 40,000people.

Results of glacial activity of 20,000 years ago isclearly visible in the landscape like U-shaped fjordsand valleys and large plateau’s consisting of morainedeposits in the lower parts of the valleys.

The climate is shifting from humid near the coastto a dry and slightly continental climate in the in-ner parts of the fjord area. The precipitation variesfrom 4000–5000 mm annually near the ocean to400–500 mm in some of the deep eastern valleys(Figs. 1–3).

3.2. Landscape features

The landscape has a natural appearance, with char-acteristic features like fjord arms, steep mountains upto 1800 m above sea-level, glaciers, rivers, waterfallsand forests. Small scale cultural landscapes with clus-ters of farms are spread out along the shoreline and inriver valleys. In some areas the traditional settlementpatterns and the cultivation systems are still rather in-tact, and are now a major part of the tourism attrac-tions of the area.

3.3. Agriculture in western Norway

The conditions for agriculture are limited in thelandscape of Sogn og Fjordane County. Not morethan 2.5% of the total area is in agricultural use, i.e.,46,000 ha. Agricultural land is scattered in patchesalong the fjords and lower parts of the valleys, of which95% of it is permanent or semi-permanent grasslandand pasture (see Fig. 4).

Agricultural production in the county is generallybased on cattle raising and small live-stock production.The most important is milk production, succeeded bythe production of beef and mutton. Goat and sheep arethe most common grazing animals. In some areas theclimate offers good conditions for fruit production likeapples (Malus domestica), pears (Pyrus communis),plums (Prunus domestica), raspberries (Rubus idaeus)and strawberries (Fragaria ananassa).

M.

Cle

me

tsen

,J.

van

La

ar/A

gricu

lture,

Eco

system

sa

nd

Enviro

nm

en

t7

7(2

00

0)

12

5–

14

1127


Fig. 2. Geography of Undredal farm and its surroundings.

In spite of less favourable conditions for farming, al-most 14% of the population in the county is employedin agriculture. The national average is less than 6%.There are 5500 farmers in the county, 1750 of themare full time farmers. The number of farmers is show-ing a declining trend of 1–2% per year. The averagesize of farms is 7.6 ha of private cultivated land.

3.4. Agricultural support system in Norway

Since the 1970s, agricultural policy in Norway hasbeen based on concentration of cattle, goats and sheepproduction in western Norway and cereal productionin the central eastern region.

In recent years, there has been a shift from bulkproduction based support to acreage based support.In general this was meant to improve landscape andenvironment. But at the same time adjustments toEU and world market competition have led to re-ductions in direct agricultural support to farmersover the last 3 years with about 20% and mar-ket prices have been frozen or reduced (Nestande,1997).

Support for organic agriculture contains both sup-plement of 6000 Norwegian crowns per hectare landunder conversion, and an annual acreage supplementof 1100 Norwegian crowns per hectare for alreadyconverted farmland.

M. Clemetsen, J. van Laar / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 77 (2000) 125–141 129

Fig. 3. Location of the Fretheim farm.

3.5. Ecological farming in the region

At the moment there are more than thousand certi-fied organic farms in Norway. The number increasesby about 300 new farms per year. In 1996, 4650 ha hadbeen certified as organic, and another 3300 ha were inconversion. Ecological farming is supervised by a na-tional certification body (called DEBIO), which cov-ers both organic and bio-dynamic farms.

In Sogn og Fjordane county there are 70 organicfarms land in conversion, with 420 ha of registeredinfield land. The farms are small and in general theproduction is based on raising sheep and goats. Thereis very little milk production for consumption, due tothe lack of a distribution system in the region. Con-

sequently, main products are meat and cheese. Alsosome vegetable and fruit production occurs.

Organic farming is generally regarded to have apositive effect on bio-diversity. A recent comparativestudy made on three conventional and three convertedfarms in Sogn indicates that there are differences be-tween farms in this region in terms of the level of bio-logical diversity on farms and number of plant speciesin meadows (Bøthun et al., 1996).

For a long time, ecological farmers and consumergroups have been criticising the lack of marketingstrategies for ecological products. There is also a lackof institutions that can promote ecological farming.However, an increasing trend of governmental sup-ported processing and marketing initiatives on regional


Fig. 4. Hay-making along the Aurlandfjorden is a labour-intensive activity.

level, mainly ecological milk and meat products canbe observed now.

3.6. Aurland and its economy

The municipality of Aurland is covering an area of1489 km2, including 70 km2 of fresh water. Eighty per-cent of the land is higher than 900 m above sea-level.The municipality has about 1850 inhabitants, mainlyliving in the four villages: Aurland, which is the ad-ministration centre, Flåm, Undredal and Gudvangen.The local economy is still based on farming and somesmall industry, but the main economic income is gen-erated from hydro-electric power production and agrowing international tourism industry. Tourism hasbecome more and more important in the last decades.Today at least 600,000 persons are visiting Aurlandeach year, most of them on day-trips in the monthsbetween May and September. The combination of out-standing natural and scenic qualities and a living cul-tural landscape is without doubt the most importantexperience offered to the visitor.

Approximately 100 farms are still in practice inAurland, but their number is decreasing every year.Live-stock production is based on low input grazingof extensive resources in the common outfields. Sixfarms (63 ha, nearly 10%) have been certified as or-ganic or are in conversion. Sheep and goat farming

are dominant. Aurland belongs to the municipalitieswith the highest numbers of goats in Norway. Next tolive-stock raising, there is also some fruit, berry andvegetable production.

Reindeer-and deer-hunting have ancient traditionsin Aurland and still play an important role in the localeconomy and social life. Formerly, salmon and troutfishing was an important income-source for the farms,but are at present of less economic importance.

3.7. Local landscape management strategies inAurland

Small scale farming in a fjord-region is generallydisfavoured in comparison with large scale agriculturein suitable areas in terms of production and compe-tition. There is a process of continuous reduction offarms still in practice. In the past 15 years the numberof active farms in Aurland has decreased upto 20%and the area has been partly abandoned. This is inconflict with the fact that the main attraction for theincreasing numbers of visitors coming to Aurland isthe experience of a unique cultural landscape in ac-tive use. Therefore, a major challenge for the futurewill be to create ways of supporting farmers and localcommunities in keeping agricultural production, tra-ditional landscape management techniques and scat-tered settlements alive.


Different strategies to support local landscape man-agement initiatives are being discussed in Aurland atthe moment. Development of high quality farmingproducts based on local traditions is one important wayto make the farms competitive. Other initiatives in-clude direct involvement from interested persons andvoluntary groups from outside. The conditions for con-version to ecological farming in terms of productionand economy are regarded as good and many farmersare now encouraged to start the conversion process.The School for Ecological Farming in Aurland is animportant source of inspiration in this process.

4. The study area

4.1. Nærøyfjorden and Aurlandsfjorden

The landscape area that surrounds the two fjordbranches (Fig. 1) is of high scenic beauty with a dra-matic relief. The steep mountain slopes are coveredwith a variety of deciduous trees, like Birch (Betulaverrucosa), Alder (Alnus incara), Hazelnut (Corylusavellana), Elm (Ulmus glabra), Ash (Fraxinus excel-sior), Lime tree (Tilia spp.) and herbs. Old settlementsare found mainly in the lower parts along the fjord oron mountain plateaus. Along the fjord active cultiva-tion and harvesting can be observed, but only a fewfarms are still in practice. Formerly, the land-use sys-tem has been dominated by grazing, hay-making andpollarding of trees. Nowadays, the agricultural activityhas decreased to a minimum level and the characteris-tic traditional cultural landscape is about to disappear.The landscape also contains many important heritagemonuments and cultural elements, like the old post-man’s road from the 17th century, which has recentlybeen restored. Parts of the Nærøyfjorden area has beendesignated as a nature reserve. Here traditional treemanagement was reintroduced, carried out by studentsof the School for Ecological Agricultural in Aurland.Local farmers have also been involved through man-agement agreements to keep some parts of the land-scape open by making hay and by animal grazing.Woods are a restricted and regulated resource for in-stance used for the famous brown cheese production.

The whole Nærøyfjorden, most of Aurlandsfjordenand the surrounding mountain plateau’s are in the pro-

cess of being designated as a ‘Landscape ProtectedArea’ and moreover, the area has been nominatedfor the UNESCO World Heritage List as a landscapeof outstanding geological significance, natural beautyand with unique farming traditions.

4.2. Characteristics of the Undredal farm and itssurroundings

4.2.1. The village and surrounding landscapeThe community of Undredal has 120 inhabitants,

and 10 farm units are still in practice. Originally thereused to be 20 farms in Undredal. The average size ofthe infields belonging to the farms is less than 5 ha.The production on six farms is based on goat farmingand cheese production. On four farms, sheep raising iscombined with other sources of income. Fruit and veg-etable production is also done on some of the farms.Undredal can be reached by car since 1988. Till then,boats were the only way of transportation.

Two summer farms, that are only used during thegrowing season by goat farmers, are situated in theUndredalen valley. The connection to the main roadsystem makes it easier for the farmers to reach thesummer farms, which are located along the road. Oldpastures are kept open by animal grazing and by cut-ting of firewood for the cheese-making process. Theseactivities contribute to the conservation of character-istic diversity of species in human-influenced vege-tation types (also see: Austad, 1988; Austad et al.,1993). Soil types around Undredalen belong mainlyto Rankers (Umbric Regosols), Lithosols and OrthicPodzols, according to the FAO soil classification 1974.

4.2.2. The farmThe only ecological goat farm in Undredal started

the conversion process by the end of the 1980s (Fig. 2).The woman farmer is responsible for the farm. Herhusband is currently working full-time outside thefarm. The live-stock represents 45 milking goats, hens,two horses and a few pigs.

The main farm building of the ecological farm ‘Un-dredal’ is located at the edge of the small village,within the designated area of the Valuable Landscapeand facing the Aurlandsfjorden. Adjacent to the farmhouse, a modern stable has been built, with a placeto store hay and a place to accommodate about 50


goats and their kids. Inside, additional proteins fromfish products, sea-weed and cereals (barley, oats) arestored and will be fed to the goats when necessary.There is some horticulture production.

There are two summer farms in regular use by allthe goat farmers in Undredal; one in Melhus, located3 km upstream in the Undredalen valley, and the otheris Langhuso, 3 km further on.

4.2.3. Economy of the farmDuring the field visits, milking of goats and the

production of the cheese took place in the modernstable at Melhus, about 3 km outside Undredal. Themilking process is mechanised. Six goats can bemilked at the same time. The cheese production takesplace in big metal tubs which are heated with fuel-wood of Alder (Alnus sp.). One horse chart load ofwood is sufficient for 2 days of energy supply. Afterevaporation, the cheese is taken out and put into lit-tle wooden boxes, containing 1.5–2.0 kg of cheese.The light-yellow unboiled cheese is considered as aby-product. The famous regional goat cheese has acaramel like colour. Seasonal young workers assistedin milking and cheese production. Here, 40 goats pro-duce 22,000 l per year. 14,000 l is being delivered, therest is being used for home-made cheese production.It seems that inappropriate hygienic regulations fromthe national health authorities has been a problemfor this kind of local production. Norwegian smallscale cheese producers are now working hard to findacceptance for more appropriate regulations.

As a conclusion, ecological farming and a certainamount of extra income from tourism provide for themeans of subsistence. Besides, the female farmer’sinnovative enthusiasm contributes to successful goatfarming in Undredal.

4.2.4. The society of UndredalThe cheese-production on the summer farms is a

key factor to the farm economy, but is also an impor-tant part of the identity of the society as well. Thepeople in the village of Undredal are proud of theirbrown and white goat cheese which is produced fromMay until the end of September. Summer farming in-volves the farmers socially and personally in an activ-ity which have important effects both in maintainingtraditional knowledge and in developing new produc-

tion techniques. As a result of a local developmentproject, the farmers have founded a co-operative or-ganisation for marketing and sale of the cheese prod-ucts. Concerning this, there is no distinction betweenthe ecological farm and the conventional ones.

4.2.5. The fieldsFour hectares of private cultivated fields are mainly

located in the lower part of the Undredalen valley, andon terraces of glacifluvial moraine deposits at an alti-tude of 150 m above sea-level. Some meadows alongthe fjordside are still in use on places only accessibleby boat. From the settlements, the mountain slopes riseup steeply to 900 m, where the fertile summer pasturesfor sheep can be found.

In order to produce enough hay, some fields-coveringtotally 10 ha are rented. One field had a very steeptopography. Hay-making under these conditions in-cludes a lot of labour with low yields. Light mowingmachines, as well as a scythe are used. After collect-ing, the hay is mainly transported by horse tractionand to a lesser extent by two-wheel tractor and is sub-sequently stored. Solid manure as traditional fertiliserhas been reintroduced.

A hayfield nearby, located on a natural terrace andformer arable land (Fig. 5) had a rather flat topog-raphy and some improvements have been carried outlike ploughing, removing boulders (in 1982) and usingbetter producing grass species and clover, all aimed atobtaining good yields of hay. An avalanche disturbedone of the irrigation tubes in the winter of 1997, butdid not harm the fields.

Since the in-fields are so limited in size, the workingrhythm on the farm is more related to the continuousshifting of grazing and milking places than the work-ing operations on the cultivated fields. Grazing goatsand sheep and to some extent hay-making, is the onlypossible way of using the vast outfield resources foragricultural purposes.

The system of shifting grazing several times dur-ing the summer, indicates that this farming system ishighly adapted to the landscape conditions and restric-tions. Until the end of the 1980s, several farmers inUndredal were involved in the traditional transporta-tion of goats to the other side of the fjord where theywere milked by hand. At present, only the ecologi-cal farm has continued this labour-intensive operation.


Fig. 5. Managed and improved pastures belonging to the Undredal goat farm.

Table 1The seasonal cycle of goat farming at the Undredal organic goat farm

Period of the year Production Grazing area Comments

January–March Milking, milk delivered to centraldairy

Indoor, winter foddering Kidding period

April–May (3 weeks) Milking/cheese-production Along the fjord, farmside Goats brought home for milking.Fresh grazing area

Mid-May–July Milking/cheese-production The other side of the fjord. Steepmountain side, up to 600 m a.s.l.

The milk brought home by boattwice a day. Fresh grazing area.More than 30% of the total milkproduction

August–September Cheese-production Summer farming in the valley ofUndredal (450 m a.s.l., 6 km fromthe village. The goats graze upto 900 m a.s.l.

Traditional summer farming.Direct sale to tourists. Freshgrazing area

October–mid November No milking Grazing at the other side of thefjord

Good grazing quality

November–December No milking Indoor feeding

The same happens to the milk twice a day. On theslope, lime trees (Tilia sp.) grow and their leaves aregrazed by the goats as good fodder. The carrying ca-pacity does not exceeded, since natural erosion of therocks provides for new minerals.

According to the farmer’s family, maintenance andeven extention of the traditional use of the outfieldresources has been essential for the result of theconversion process. By extending the grazing period(see Table 1), the level of added concentrates couldbe kept within acceptable limits without reduction ofthe amount of milk produced (Clemetsen and Kerner,

1992). From the beginning of April until Novemberthe goats are systematically grazing the surround-ing outfields of the farm (see Table 1). In this way,the milk goats will always have access to fresh andtasteful, energy-rich fodder.

4.3. Characteristics of the Fretheim farm

4.3.1. The surrounding landscapeDuring the last four centuries, agriculture has been

the main means of subsistence for the people in the


Fig. 6. The Fretheim farm operates as an organic mixed farming system in the Flåm Valley.

Flåm valley. Originally there were 13 ‘named farms’(including Fretheim) in the Flåm valley (Indrelid,1988). Each farm was divided into several separatefamily holdings and cotter’s places. Today 20 of theseunits are in production. One of them is the Fretheimfarm, converted to ecological agriculture quite re-cently (Fig. 3). Now that the number of sheep ingeneral has decreased, the vegetation on the slopeshas changed. An increase of tree vegetation, mainlybirch (Betula spp.) woodlots, can be observed.

4.3.2. The farmThe farm is located at the inner end of the Au-

rlandsfjorden, close to the tourism village of Flåmand just outside the borders of the designated Land-scape Protected Area. The farmyard and major partsof the infield are situated on a plateau of moraine andmarine deposits, belonging to the Dystric Fluvisols,Cambisols and Lithosols in terms of the FAO soil clas-sification 1974. The high degree of clay soils is ratherseldom in this region and provides the infield witha high level of natural fertility. A young family tookover the farm in 1991 and started conversion to eco-logical agriculture in 1993. The whole farm was cer-tified organic in 1997. The farm has belonged to thesame family since the 17th century. The farmyard wasmoved to a better location after a land consolidationprocess in the last century. Remains of the old farm-

yard are still perceptible in the landscape. The place issurrounded by a woodlot of old pollarded birch treesand represents an important visual element in the farmlandscape. The Fretheim farm can be characterised as amixed, organic farm with live-stock, grass land, arableland and horticulture, grazed wood pastures and com-mon, extensively grazed lands, the so-called ‘utmark’(see Fig. 6).

4.3.3. Economy of the farmThe infields represent 12 ha, which is above the av-

erage in the area. In the adjacent hillside 200 ha ofrather steep and wooded pastures are used for ani-mal grazing in spring and autumn. 1500 ha of moun-tain pastures (outfields) are grazed by sheep during 3months in the summer. The total grazing period is 20weeks. More than 40% of the fodder comes from graz-ing on natural pastures. The production on the farmconsists of sheep, a few beef cattle, 0.3 ha of horticul-ture and fruit growing. The income of the family isgenerated from activities related to the farm.

The farmer’s family has not made heavy invest-ments in stable buildings and machinery. For instance,special equipment for spraying manure is rented. Themanure is not composted. The farm was converted ina short period of time, 3 years. This was possible be-cause of the good soil condition, traditionally littleuse of chemical fertilisers and a production mainly


Table 2Differences in motivation and strategies in ecological farming

Undredal farm Fretheim farm

Main approach to ecological farming Ideological PragmaticFarmer’s motivation Ecological goat farming is the only

possible alternative. Aiming at reaching anecological and economical optimum withinthe production

Ecological farming as common sense: thebest way of getting an economic returnfrom the farm

Strategies for diversification in order tomeet changes in future market situation

Continuity: developing traditional, existingknowledge, based on stability in the market

Trying out and making improvements ona wider range of products

Highly specialised knowledge giving aunique position in todays market

Building up a broader knowledge of what ispossible to produce on the farm. Creativitytowards uncertain market situation

based on grass for silage. The soils consist mainly ofclay.

In June, 150 sheep graze in the mountains, which arevery important for summer grazing. The sheep meatis approved for organic meat. The farmer and his wifehave started to build up a beef cattleherd. At the timeof the farm visit they had one grown-up cow and threeyoung cows.

Oats and peas are grown for silage and the samecounts for grass. The products from the fields are usedfor winter fodder. The farmers consider traditionalhay-making to be too labour intensive. In their opin-ion, it is quite easy to obtain reasonable yields in or-ganic farming on the property, because the cold winterkills crop affecting insects. The birch woodlots on theslopes are used for firewood.

Today tourist rental of two recently built cabinsalong the fjordside is an important part of the incomeof the farm. In addition there is some income fromsalmon fishing in the river.

4.3.4. PressureThe property meets continuous stress due to expan-

sion in nearby tourism facilities and tunnel construc-tion. But the location also offers opportunities for extrafinancial income to the farm’s economy. The farmyardand major parts of the infields are situated on a plateauof moraine and marine deposits. The high degree ofclay soils is rather seldom in this region and providesthe infields with a high level of natural fertility. Still,there is no need for irrigation-which in general is nec-essary in the area-, but since a road tunnel was con-structed underneath the fields some 10 years ago, thesoils have rather dried out due to the drainage effects.

This is observed as a problem, but so far there is noneed for irrigation.

4.4. Comparison between the two farms

Both the Undredal and the Fretheim farms have suc-ceeded in converting to ecological farming, but theyappear different in terms of farming motivation andfarm strategies. This has been described in Table 2.

5. Results of the assessment studies

Three expert subgroups were dealing separatelywith the three main issues of the checklist: the qual-ity of the (a)biotic environment, the quality of thesocial environment and the quality of the culturalenvironment. In this article emphasis has been laidon columns 5 and 6 concerning the quality of thecultural environment. The results are presented andelaborated in detail in Tables 3 and 4.

5.1. Sensorial perceptions (Table 3)

Questions were used to structure the research ofsubjective and sensorial perceptions (Kuiper, 1997;Kuiper, 2000; Stobbelaar and van Mansvelt, 2000):1. What is your appreciation of the natural environ-

ment like relief, water, soil and climate?2. What is your appreciation of the land use?3. What is your feeling about the naturalness?4. Do you like the range of sensorial information like

colours, smells and sounds?– are any sensorial aspects disturbing?


Table 3Assessment of subjective appreciation of the landscape (++ = best,−− = lowest)

Landscape Motivation Undredal Motivation Fretheim Motivationlevel farm farm

1 ++ No elements missing ++ Impressive relief, flowingwater, great variety ofnatural elements

+(+) Different relief, but stillattractive. Well organised,easier to access

2 + Difficult to range, butthere is somethingmissing, an impression ofabandonment

+(+) Land-use less diverse.Mainly goat husbandry,little other agriculturalproduction

+(+) Coherent, but not verydiverse

3 ++ The naturalness is adominating impression

++ Strong feeling ofnaturalness

++ Slightly weaker position

4 ++ Wide range ofnatural sounds.Little bird-sounds. Somenoise from boatspassing by (experiencedfrom land-side)

++ No missing elements + Enough, but not complete

5 ++ No disturbing landscapeelements

(+) Abandonment of fieldsand lack of maintenanceof retaining stone walls.Gives a feeling of some-thing missing. Little con-cern about giving a goodimpression of the farm

(+) Some elements in thesurroundings can disturb(tourism)

6 ++ The landscape offers a lotof information about thenatural and culturalhistory

++ Plenty of informationabout the past. Struc-tures of parcels, infields/outfields, buildings canbe recognised and under-stood

+ Less information aboutthe past. More cultivatedfields, less traditionalelements like stone-walls,old buildings

7 ++ Natural vegetation, farm-ing activity in thelandscape

++ Plenty of experiencespossible

+ Less details that canexpress the differentseasons

8 +(+) The old postroad is notwell kept. As a landscapein abandonment, lots ofsigns of lacking manage-ment can be observed.Modern farms are wellkept

+ Well kept in general, butsince the animals (goats)are around the houses allthe time, it gives a little‘messy’ impression

+ A little ‘sterile’impression

5. Do you get a feeling of unity in the landscape?– are any landscape components missing? (com-

pleteness)– are any landscape components disturbing?

(wholeness)6. Does the landscape give information (or sensa-

tions) about the past?– which elements?

7. Does the landscape offer you experiences of theseasons?

8. Is the landscape well-kept?

5.2. Landscape identity (Table 4)

The questions used for evaluating the objectivelandscape identity are listed below. From the mainquestion that is related to the general impression ofthe landscape four subquestions are posed.‘Does thearrangement of landscape components express thenatural heritage, the cultural heritage and the presentmeaning?’1. Diversity (vertical coherence in favour of orien-

tation in space): ‘Does the diversity of landscape


Table 4Assessment of objective appreciation of the landscape (++ = best,−− = lowest)

Landscape Motivation Undredal Motivation Fretheim Motivationlevel farm farm

General impression +(+) The structure of thetraditional culturallandscape is stillintact, but vanish-ing. Due to reducedfarming in generaland less products perfarm, the diversityhas been reduced

++ Based on localresources anddevelopment oftraditional knowledge

+(+) Modernising makesthe farm ‘a livingplace’. The culturalheritage is not amajor concern

1. Diversity: Verti-cal relationshipsbetween land-use andabiotic features(orientation in space)

+(+) Landscape in decline.The landscape todayis a weaker reflectionof the former finegraded diversity ofland-use (e.g. har-vesting methods ofdifferent tree species).Farming today ismainly specialised(on goats or sheep)

++ Due to a high level ofgrazing based on ro-tation between areas,the pattern of parcelsand the species diver-sity of humaninfluenced vegetationtypes is maintained

+ Mainly modern, cul-tivated pastures andmeadows with littlebiodiversity. Grazedoutfields with higherdiversity. Some plant-ings in and close tofarmyard are alsopositive contributions

2. Coherence: Hori-zontal: functional,social, ecological(orientation in space)

++ The position of farm-steads and infieldsreflects the abioticconditions (protectionfrom landslides)

++ The use of the re-sources is stronglyrelated to the nat-ural production ca-pacity. The structureof common outfieldgrazing is clearly vis-ible in the landscape

+(+) Production is moremarket oriented, butstill based on the localresources. More of thelandscape has beenchanged (levelled andcultivated)

3. Continuity: Tem-poral (orientation intime)

+(+) Deterioration of farm-ing and landscape, butstill some of the tradi-tional land-use is leg-ible in the landscape(for instance, thesystem of hay-makingon small parcels alongthe fjord, north ofUndredal

+(+) The modern road andriver embankmentsthrough the valley areabrupt. Goat-cheeseproduction is follow-ing the traditions,including the seasonalrhythms of the year

+(+) Modernisation of thefarm is done grad-ually. The barn andstable is a functionalrenovation of the oldbuilding. The site ofthe old farmyard hasnot been cultivated,some birch trees aremarking the site

4. Perspectives for thelandscape and farmsin the future

+- In general there isa declining trend forthese types of landscape. Old farmersare not willing tosell their farms toyoung farmers.Relatives keep themfor holiday-purpose

+(+) Today almost allenergy is used forone product (goat-cheese). A lot of inno-vation and creativityis brought into this.But a changing mar-ket situation or healthregulations mightfrustrate this on theshort term and it willnot be easy to facethese problems

++ The farmer is veryaware of the needof diversification ofhis production, basedon the availableresources of the farm,to meet an uncertainmarket situation in thefuture. The ecologi-cal and landscape po-tentials (climate, soils,scenery, location ver-sus market) are good


components express the relationship between theland-use and the abiotic features?’

2. Coherence (horizontal coherence in favour of ori-entation in space): ‘Does the arrangement of land-scape components and patterns reflect the abioticfeatures?’

3. Continuity (temporal coherence in favour oforientation in time): ‘Does the arrangement oflandscape components reflect (passive) and/orcorrespond with (active) the cultural heritage?’

4. Potentials: ‘Imagine what the landscape will looklike in 20 years and are there any indications ofcontinuation in the future?’

6. Discussion

6.1. Feasibility of criteria and parameters

The discussion is directed at the feasibility of crite-ria’s and parameters of column 5 and 6 of the generalchecklist. Perception and evaluation are consideredcontext related: the farms are evaluated in compari-son with each other and with the landscape/regionalsituation. This means that the Fretheim farm perhapswould have been ranked higher if evaluated with arandomly chosen farm. The visit to the Fretheim farmhas been restricted to the infields around the farm. Thesurrounding outfields and landscape were not deeplyinvestigated.

To some extent it was felt difficult to separate thepersonal, subjective approach in column 5 from theobjective one in column 6. A reason might be that itis difficult not to use one’s ‘professional eyes’ in col-umn 5.When comparing different farms in a region likeSogn, it appears difficult in using the checklist to rankthem. Most farms are more or less in the same situa-tion, whether they are ecological or not. In many sit-uations, like Undredal, the single farms are so closelyrelated to each other (e.g. the summer farming sys-tem) that it is justified to evaluate the whole farmingsystem of the village.

The general impression is that column 5 and 6 func-tion well as a basis for communication between pro-fessionals to provide a common understanding of aspecific landscape situation. However, the criteria can

be understood more easily by formulating questionsas demonstrated in Section 4.2.

The landscape and farm assessments in Aurlandoffered new views on the feasibility of the con-certed action’s method, especially regarding to theimplementation of the criteria’s to local and regionallandscape planning and management strategies. Themethod as developed so far can be of basic use indefining problems and finding solutions from a moreholistic approach. This should be of interest for thelocal community, which will not accept a pure con-servation regime in the fjord. The future of localcommunities in the fjord area will be dependent ona planning process that includes a dynamic integra-tion of both conservation and economic progress,based on the existing broad range of natural, cul-tural and social resources is required. The checklistappears to be especially useful in a ‘rapid ruralappraisal’.

The importance of the checklist, especially column6, as a tool for identifying essential issues for futureplanning and development of a region was discussed.To make these essential issues clear, questions shouldbe posed on the potential developments related tothe natural environment, cultural (heritage) environ-ment and the existing social structures for future de-velopment as given in Table 4. Identification of keyissues can be used in planning of future develop-ment of the Nærøyfjorden area and in other regions aswell. The following questions might be helpful withthat:• What are the values of the landscape?• Who are the beneficiaries of these values?• What are the threats of these values?• How can these values be preserved and developed?

This set of questions might give an additional toolin regional landscape planning, especially when allstakeholders are consulted.

7. Recommendations

By including ‘potential developments’ as a crite-rion in the table, it will be possible to develop a com-mon understanding on values, threats and potentialsof the landscape as an input to a landscape develop-ment plan. This can be useful in situations when mu-tual understanding and communication of values and


threats in a local or regional context is needed amongthe several persons and institutions involved. This isalso useful for the development of political strategieson regional and local levels for landscape conservationand economic development as a part of local planningprocesses. Participation and empowerment in planningthrough the concept of ‘Local Agenda 21’ is currentlygiven high priority. Implementation of the method de-veloped by the Concerted Action in conservation anddevelopment plans on municipal or landscape level,can, therefore, trigger economic support from nationaland regional authorities.

The future of the Nærøyfjorden as an agriculturallandscape depends on finding creative ways of usingthe natural resources in agricultural production, forinstance co-operative initiatives for the use of aban-doned pastures and wood-pastures or keeping grazinganimals during the summer period.

8. Conclusions

The landscape and farm assessments in Aurland of-fered new views on the feasibility of the checklist,especially regarding to the implementation of the cri-teria’s to local and regional landscape planning andmanagement strategies. Based on the assessments de-scribed in this article, some conclusions can be drawnboth on landscape level and on farm level. These con-clusions are related to the key-questions:– Is the landscape sustainable?– What are the contributions of the farms to landscape

values?

8.1. Landscape level: Nærøyfjorden

Landscape qualities of the Nærøyfjorden are relatedto nature and cultural heritage values. However, thereare few signs of destructive land-use like modern roadsthat do not fit into the landscape scenery or have anegative influence on nature. The cultural elementslike the old post-road should be kept in a better con-dition. There are clear evidences of abandonment offarms and dereliction of the traditional cultural land-scape. Consequently, the Nærøyfjorden as a culturallandscape can not be regarded sustainable under thepresent conditions. Diversity is declining and conti-

nuity will disappear. Most people living in the fjordare old and nobody within the family is willing totake over as a farmer. There are very few signs ofprogress.

The future of the Nærøyfjorden is a matter of ac-tive involvement. A passive attitude might lead to totalabandonment of the land and then the fjord will onlybe used for transportation of tourists. Here it must beadded that even without any human activity in the re-gion, the fjord will still be impressive and unique asa natural scenic attraction. However, this scenario ishardly politically acceptable, because of the integratedvalues of man–nature relations in this Landscape Pro-tected Area. Both the conservation authorities and thetourism industry are involved in planning for the fu-ture of the fjord system which requires a certain levelof traditional activities in the fjord (see Fig. 7). Thereis an urgent need for appropriate planning tools to ini-tiate sustainable development.

8.2. Farm level

It is quite obvious that both the farms make impor-tant contributions to the cultural qualities of the land-scape. Both farms keep parts of the fjord landscapeopen and provide for landscape variety. According toTables 3 and 4, the Undredal farm contributes more tolandscape quality in both the subjective and objectivesense than the Fretheim farm, because of better scoreson some of the sensorial criteria and for diversity andcoherence. For instance, the local cheese productionin Undredal contributes to the spatial and experien-tial diversity of the landscape. It is also important foraestethic, visual and other sensorial perceptions, likethe smell of goats and cheese on the farm landscape.Goat farming is of great importance for the quality ofthe landscape in the study area.

The Fretheim farm has a variety of on-farm ac-tivities and agricultural products, including extensivetourism, brought together in a mixed farming sys-tem. This farming type also contributes positively tolandscape values, but as evaluated in Tables 3 and 4to a slightly lesser extent. Moreover, with respect toperspectives for the future, social sustainability looksbetter on the Fretheim farm, regarding its aim at diver-sification of the production and anticipating uncertainmarket situations.


Fig. 7. Traditional tree management and wood pasture along the Nærøyfjorden are reintroduced to maintain cultural and ecological values.

Consequently, the contributions of the two farms tothe landscape quality are both positive but different,which depends much on the personal strategy of thefarmers as described in Table 2.

Acknowledgements

The last Subgroup Meeting of the Concerted Actionwas held from 12 to 17 July 1997 in Aurland, Sogn andFjordane, Norway and was organised by Dr MortenClemetsen. Accommodation and meetings were in theSchool for Ecological Agriculture and Horticulture.The following members of the Concerted Action par-ticipated: Morten Clemetsen (Norway), Thomas vanElsen (Germany), Jim van Laar (the Netherlands), JanDiek van Mansvelt (the Netherlands), Finnain Mac-Neidhe (Ireland), Roberto Rossi (Italy), Kees Volker(the Netherlands). Experts from Norway who joinedthe meeting (partly) were: Anders Anderssen, CountyGovernor of Sogn and Fjordane; Maria Bjune, direc-tor of the School for Ecological Agriculture, Aurland;Anne Elgersma, Norwegian Institute of Land Inven-tory, Ås; Anne Karin Hatling, School for EcologicalAgriculture, Aurland; Eli Heiberg Sogn and FjordaneCollege, Department of Landscape Ecology, Sogn;Karl Kerner, Agricultural University of Norway, Ås;Nat Mead, School for Ecological Agriculture, Aur-

land; Christian Zurbuchen, Advisory service for eco-logical farmers in Sogn.

References

Austad, I., 1988. Tree Pollarding in Western Norway. In: Birks,H.H., Birks, H.J.B., Kalard, P.E., Moe, D. (Eds.), The CulturalLandscape Past, Present and Future, p. 13–29, CambridgeUniversity Press.

Austad, I., Hauge, L., Helle. T., 1993. Maintenance andconservation of the cultural landscape in Sogn og Fjordane,Norway. Final report. Department of Landscape Ecology, Sognog Fjordane College, p. 60.

Bøthun, M., Gladsø, J.A., Røysum, M., 1996. Bio-diversity in theagricultural landscape-a comparative study between ecologicaland conventional farming. Sogn og Fjordane College, Sogndal,p. 115 (in Norwegian).

Clemetsen, M., Kerner, K., 1992. Outfield resources and landscapeexerience (Utmaksressurser og kulturlandskap). Rapport 8.30-bruks prosjektet NORSØK, Tingvoll. Report, p. 35 (inNorwegian).

Indrelid, S., 1988. The Farming system and its History in the FlåmValley, Western Norway. In: Birks, H.H., Briks, H.J.B., Kalard,P.E., Moe, D. (Eds.), The Cultural Landscape Past, Present andFuture, pp. 11–45, Cambridge University Press.

Kuiper, J., 2000. A checklist approach to evaluate the contributionof organic farms to landscape quality. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.77, 143–156.

Nestande, E., 1997. Agricultural Support In Norway, The CountyGovernor of Sogn og Fjordane, p. 4 (unpublished).

Rossi, R., Nota, D., 2000. Nature and landscape productionpotentials of organic types of agriculture: A check of evaluation


criteria and parameters in two Tuscan farm-landscape. Agric.Ecosyst. Environ. 77, 53–64.

Stobbelaar, D.J., van Mansvelt, J.D., 2000. The process oflandscape evaluation. Introduction to the 2nd special issueof the Concerted Action: The landscape and nature capacity

of organic/sustainable types of agriculture. Agric. Ecosyst.Environ. 77, 1–15.

van Mansvelt, J.D., 1997. An interdisciplinary approach to integratea range of agro-landscape values as proposed by representativesof various disciplines. Agric. Ecosys. Environ., 63, 233–250.

the contribution of organic agriculture to landscape ...directory.umm.ac.id/data...

Documents