Managing historic resources in active farming landscapes

Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development Managing hist oric resources in act ive f arming landscapes: Nat ional priorit ies and local pract ices Grete Swensen Anne Sætren Article information: To cite this document: Grete Swensen Anne Sætren , (2014),"Managing historic resources in active farming landscapes", Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, Vol. 4 Iss 1 pp. 80 - 94 Permanent link t o t his document : Downloaded by 158.36.76.2 At 02:05 29 June 2015 (PT) http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JCHMSD-12-2012-0072 Downloaded on: 29 June 2015, At : 02: 05 (PT) Ref erences: t his document cont ains ref erences t o 32 ot her document s. To copy t his document : permissions@emeraldinsight . com The f ullt ext of t his document has been downloaded 115 t imes since 2014* Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: Ioannis Poulios, (2014),"Discussing strategy in heritage conservation: Living heritage approach as an example of strategic innovation", Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, Vol. 4 Iss 1 pp. 16-34 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JCHMSD-10-2012-0048 Monika Murzyn-Kupisz, Jaros#aw Dzia#ek, (2013),"Cultural heritage in building and enhancing social capital", Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, Vol. 3 Iss 1 pp. 35-54 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/20441261311317392 Davide Settembre Blundo, Anna Maria Ferrari, Martina Pini, Maria Pia Riccardi, José Francisco García, Alfonso Pedro Fernández del Hoyo, (2014),"The life cycle approach as an innovative methodology for the recovery and restoration of cultural heritage", Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, Vol. 4 Iss 2 pp. 133-148 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JCHMSD-05-2012-0016 Access t o t his document was grant ed t hrough an Emerald subscript ion provided by All users group For Authors If you would like t o writ e f or t his, or any ot her Emerald publicat ion, t hen please use our Emerald f or Aut hors service inf ormat ion about how t o choose which publicat ion t o writ e f or and submission guidelines are available f or all. Please visit www. emeraldinsight . com/ aut hors f or more inf ormat ion. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and pract ice t o t he benef it of societ y. The company manages a port f olio of more t han 290 j ournals and over 2, 350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an ext ensive range of online product s and addit ional cust omer resources and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. *Relat ed cont ent and download inf ormat ion correct at t ime of download. The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/2044-1266.htm JCHMSD 4,1 Managing historic resources in active farming landscapes National priorities and local practices 80 Grete Swensen and Anne Sætren Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Research, Oslo, Norway Abstract Downloaded by 158.36.76.2 At 02:05 29 June 2015 (PT) Purpose – To counteract processes of landscape deterioration, marginalisation and loss of cultural heritage due to rural restructuring of farming in late-modern Norwegian society, an agricultural landscape scheme started up in 2009. The purpose of this paper is to examine the way this recently introduced strategy of directing particular resources to a group of selected agricultural landscapes contributes in instigating integrated landscape management and to gain insight in the role cultural heritage play. Design/methodology/approach – The authors ask how potential conflicts between local interpretations of cultural heritage and the assessments made by authoritative heritage managers are expressed in the initial planning documents. Findings – While the reasoning and selection of the two areas are strongly influenced by the authoritative heritage discourse, the agricultural landscape scheme is nonetheless open to local adaptations and adjustments, and the two plans vary both in form and contents due to the major stress put on active involvement of farmers to render long-term management feasible. Research limitations/implications – Examination of the role cultural heritage plays is part of a larger research project where problems related to biodiversity, legal implication and public participation are dealt with separately. Originality/value – The study will provide important results for future adjustments and potential enlargement and has transfer value to conservation schemes in other European countries. Keywords Sustainability, Cultural heritage, Cultural resource management, Rural cultural heritage, Assessement and evaluation, Conservation planning Paper type Research paper 1. Introduction Farming in Norway has provided an essential means of subsistence through manifold adaptations. The centralisation and urbanisation of the twentieth century have, however, affected farming significantly. The farm census of 2010 shows that the number of active farms has fallen by 34 per cent since the last census in 1999. To counteract processes of landscape deterioration – marginalisation and loss of cultural heritage due to rural restructuring of farming in late-modern Norwegian society – an agricultural landscape scheme was started in 2009. Based on an examination Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development Vol. 4 No. 1, 2014 pp. 80-94 r Emerald Group Publishing Limited 2044-1266 DOI 10.1108/JCHMSD-12-2012-0072 The study presented in this paper is part of a larger interdisciplinary research project funded by The Norwegian Research Council, “Conservation Covenants in Norway (CoCoviN) – moderating conflict, reducing biodiversity loss and improving resource management” (2009-2012). Project leadership is held by researchers in the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research. This paper is part of a sub-study focusing on cultural heritage and biodiversity management, carried out in cooperation between NIKU researchers and Ann Norderhaug, Bioforsk (Norwegian Institute for Agricultural and Environmental Research). The authors would like to give special thanks to the anonymous reviewers for helpful comments. of this scheme, it will be discussed how broader national and regional strategies in heritage management interact with local practices and interpretation of heritage. The initial phase of the Selected Agricultural Landscape (SAL) (Statens landbruksforvaltning, 2000, p. 20) scheme was started in 2006 as a result of cooperation on ministerial level, with the intension of ensuring long-term management of a representative group of Norwegian cultural landscapes. The final list (2009) included 22 cultural landscapes with a combination of biological and cultural historic values, where long-term management was feasible. The process will be illustrated by presenting two of the selected farming landscapes and comparing the different management models which have been discussed to ensure sustainable future management. The examination includes only the initial planning phase of the scheme (2006-2009). In this study we consider: Downloaded by 158.36.76.2 At 02:05 29 June 2015 (PT) . . how the concept of cultural heritage is expressed in the SAL policy, and how it relates to authoritative heritage discourse (AHD); how the concept of cultural heritage is adapted locally and whether the new SAL policy introduced new approaches to assessing cultural heritage, thus extending the AHD on a national level. 2. Background and approaches 2.1 Cultural landscapes as part of the heritage discourse The agrarian landscapes in question are landscapes formed through nature-human interaction over thousands of years. The importance that landscape researchers have put on the cultural dimension in landscapes has varied. In his well-informed review of the emerging trends in the cultural landscape approach, Ken Taylor presents the landscape view of some of the most prominent cultural geographers and anthropologists in this field of studies. An important change is identified in the late 1970s, when a shift took place in landscape studies from viewing the landscape primarily as a physical cultural product to including “cultural process reflecting human action over time” (Taylor, 2012, p. 21). Taylor himself stresses this importance when he maintains that cultural landscapes “tell the story of people, events and places through time, offering a sense of continuity: a sense of stream of time” (Taylor, 2012, p. 31). Increased environmental concern has turned the attention to the effects rapid economic and social changes have on landscapes. The interest in cultural landscapes both from a management and a research point of view widened in the 1990s (Taylor and Lennon, 2012, p. 1). The interest coincides with the decision the World Heritage Committee made in 1992 to include cultural landscapes on the World Heritage list. The World Heritage Convention was the first international legal instrument developed with an articulated aim to identify, protect and conserve cultural landscapes of outstanding universal value (Fowler, 2004, p. 18). As a consequence, more attention has been paid to develop and test out management plans of all sorts. Cultural landscapes have themselves become recognised as “category of sites, requiring different and innovative conservation and management concepts” (Droste et al., 1995, p. 16). Through the focus on World Heritage Sites, important discussions have been raised concerning how to assess and evaluate landscapes. One example of basic framework for assessing and sustaining authenticity of cultural landscapes has been formulated by Mitchell (2008). It is meant to make it easier to identify central landscape Managing historic resources 81 JCHMSD 4,1 Downloaded by 158.36.76.2 At 02:05 29 June 2015 (PT) 82 characteristics that are what she labels “manifestations of significance” (Mitchell, 2008, p. 27). These are the landscape characteristics that must be protected and safeguarded for the future by means of a thought-through management strategy (Mitchell, 2008, p. 27, see also Mitchell et al., 2009). There is a fine line between ensuring vital productive landscapes and protection. The landscape ecologist Wolfgang Haber pays attention to what he calls a “fundamental problem to overcome”, namely the contradiction between the static character of protection or conservation measures, and the dynamic processes of landscape development (Haber, 1995, p. 39). Change is an inherent characteristic of any landscape, regardless of whether the changes are fast or slow. It is this dynamic aspect of any landscape he has in mind when he considers the process of being assigned national or even World Heritage status (Haber, 1995, p. 39). Since cultural landscapes were included as a category in the convention, there has been a growing amount of literature within this field of studies. At the risk of oversimplification, we can divide these works into two major groups: the first group focuses on how to develop useful instruments and assessment methods, such as guidelines and management plans with international transfer value (for further references see Mitchell et al., 2009); and the second group includes in-depth studies in which critical approaches consider the effects that the nomination and inscription can have on local communities. In such studies more attention is directed to the WHS as a constructed phenomenon, frozen in time and organised to adhere to a “World Heritage version” of lived life (Evans, 2002; Harrison, 2005; Kirschenblatt-Gimblett, 2006; Pendlebury et al., 2009; Ronström, 2008). In this study, the attention is directed to the cultural heritage dimension in the two SALs. We focus on the interaction that takes place between the authorised heritage discourse and local understandings and implementations of heritage qualities. There have been counterarguments to the long-established hegemonic discourse in cultural heritage, and when Smith (2006) refers to “Authorised Heritage Discourse” (AHD), she uses it as a label to describe a nation’s official heritage understanding in a condensed form. It is seen as a set of texts and practices that dictate the ways in which heritage is defined and employed within any contemporary western society (Smith, 2006; Benton, 2010). An aspect she has given much attention to in her own studies is the local potential involved in working with heritage. “Individuals and interest groups outside professionals are rarely acknowledged as playing any sort of active role in defining, conserving and maintenance of heritage, and are instead characterised as audience, visitor or consumer” (Smith and Waterton, 2009, p. 29). Heritage production can be viewed as a process by which regular use of one’s everyday surroundings leads to appreciation of special features. National priorities and local practices relate to value adding processes, respectively, referred to as “heritage by designation” and “heritage by appropriation” (Rautenberg, 1998: cit. Tweed and Sutherland, 2007), which are used to elaborate what qualifies as cultural heritage and to explain why it is so. It is a way of deepening the understanding of heritage by recognising the socially constructed nature of heritage values and that heritage is instrumental and valued for something. This approach highlights the relation between public value and heritage, established values and socially constructed values (Pendlebury, 2009, p. 202; Smith, 2006, see also Mydland and Grahn, 2011). We will discuss the degree of inclusion of alternative, local perspectives that has taken place in relation to the notion of “appropriation”. When we later return to these concepts and discuss them in view of the “Selected Agricultural Landscapes Scheme”, we look more Downloaded by 158.36.76.2 At 02:05 29 June 2015 (PT) closely at the nature of the relationship between the official definitions of heritage and the local understandings and implementations. We discuss whether the arguments in use are in accordance with what can be labelled the Norwegian AHD, or whether such arguments are mirroring local value assessments more than concepts borrowed from the experts’ toolkit. Managing historic resources 2.2 Norway as part of the European context There has been rapid growth in nationally designated protected areas worldwide, with a tenfold increase in the number of protected areas over the past four decades. Although a rather comprehensive body of literature exists on the environmental, social and political aspects of conservation policies in general and protected areas in particular, the effects of such schemes on management and of the farms involved have not received the same attention (Selman, 2009, p. 145; Mittenzwei et al., 2010, p. 861). The prime objective of such schemes is “to channel payment and advice to target areas” (Selman, 2009, p. 143). The success of these voluntary agro-environmental schemes in promoting sustainable attitudinal and environmental change is, however, being increasingly questioned. Critics have claimed that protected areas fail “to integrate the requirements into wider politics, such as agriculture”. There is also a lack of recognition of the needs, interests and knowledge of local people within such protected areas (Selman, 2009, p. 150). It has been argued that such policies are not “culturally sustainable”, which here is identified as “failing to become embedded within the culture of local communities” (Burton and Paragahawewa, 2011, p. 96). Partly, as a result of such criticism, more emphasis is put on community involvement in protected areas, including the direct management of land. Active engagement of stakeholders and the wider public is seen as essential (Selman, 2009, p. 143, 145). The Norwegian situation mirrors discussions in other European countries. Potential conflict between development and preservation of cultural landscapes has gained increased focus in the Norwegian agricultural policy debate, where worries about lost cultural landscapes and viable farming are voiced (Daugstad et al., 2006). SAL should be considered against this background. 83 3. Material and methods The discourse analyses of this paper are based mainly on the initial plan for SAL, as well as local documents concerning two selected areas. Basically, two types of material have been included in the examination: (1) Studies of the initial planning documents on national and regional level, supplemented by examination of heritage plans and documents on a local level. (2) Main data index for cultural heritage, i.e. Askeladden (the national database management system for listed heritage) and SEFRAK register (the national database management system for all buildings constructed before 1900). White paper/other national documents: . . Jordbruksavtale 2011-2012. Inngått mellom Staten og Norges Bondelag 23. Juni 2011. Selected agricultural landscapes. The Norwegian Agricultural Authority, Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management, and the Directorate for Cultural Heritage, Oslo, 28th June 2009. JCHMSD 4,1 . . 84 . . Statistisk sentralbyrå. Jordbrukstelling, tabell 5: Jordbruksbedrifter med tilleggsnæringar, etter fylke og jordbruksareal i drift. 1998/1999 og 2009/2010. www.ssb.no/landt/tab-2011-07-04-05.html Uvalgte kulturlandskap i jordbruket. Endelig rapport, 1. juli 2007. Statens landbruksforvaltning, Direktoratet for naturforvaltning og Riksantikvaren, Oslo. Uvalgte kulturlandskap i jordbruket. Tilråding til Landbruks- og matdepartementet og Miljøverndepartementet. Statens landbruksforvaltning, Direktoratet for naturforvaltning og Riksantikvaren, Oslo, desember 2008. Utvalgte kulturlandskap i jordbruket. Statens landbruksforvaltning, Direktoratet for naturforvaltning og Riksantikvaren, Oslo, 28. juni 2009. Local planning documents – Leka: Downloaded by 158.36.76.2 At 02:05 29 June 2015 (PT) . . . . . Uvalgte kulturlandskap i jordbruket. Områdeplan for kandidatområdet. Skei og Skeisnesset i Leka kommune. Fylkesmannen i Nord-Trøndelag. Se spesielt vedlegg med tilstandsrapport for bygninger i området Skei og Skeisnesset (2008). Regionalt miljøprogram for jordbruket i Nord-Trøndelag 2009-2012. Forskrift om miljøtilskudd til jordbruket i Nord-Trøndelag. Fastsatt av Fylkesmannen i Nord-Trøndelag 6.mai 2009. Mal for forvaltningsavtaler (for bolig/fritidseiendom – for jordbrukseiendom) (u.å). Handlingsprogram for kulturminnepolitikk. Plandokument for Nord-Trøndelag fylkeskommune Juli 2009. Local planning documents – Nordherad: . . . . . Forvaltningsplan for “utvalgte kulturlandskap” i Nordherad i Vågå; forslag pr. 6.11.2008, Fylkesmannen i Oppland, landbruksavdelingen. Områdeplan for Nordherad. Kulturminner i nasjonalt verdifulle kulturlandskap: Nordherad, Vågå i Oppland (Hage, H.) Oppland fylkeskommune. Kriterier for prioritering og fastsetting av tilskuddsprosent for bygninger og andre investeringstiltak i Nordherad (vedtatt 17.02.10). Aktivitets- og informasjonsplan 2010. Forlag til årsplan 2010 for Nordherad som utvalgt kulturlandskap (versjon 15.02.10). Aktivitets- og informasjonsplan 2010 Nordherad (versjon 15.02.10). In addition, four semi-structured interviews with key informants have been carried out (case handlers in the municipal administration and, from the cultural heritage management at county level, active farmers), supplemented by field observations and photos. Information from secondary sources, i.e. primarily local historic literature, has played a minor role. Discourse analysis can refer to many different approaches of investigation of written texts. In the study, we use discourse as a method of close-up reading of the planning documents. They are used as examples of the form of knowledge and system of meaning the institutions behind the documents pass on to the users. In a critical discourse analysis the knowledge system which is passed on is perceived as a way of making others Downloaded by 158.36.76.2 At 02:05 29 June 2015 (PT) understand the world from a particular angle; as an element in a wider power structure (Fairclough, 1995; Peräkylä, 2005). From this perspective, the mediated cultural heritage values in the planning documents can be understood as a way of trying to make others see the world from the involved official departments’ and directorates’ point of view. 4. Results 4.1 The planning background The scheme under focus is a result of cooperation between The Ministry of Environment and The Ministry of Agriculture and Food and Norwegian Agricultural Authority and can be interpreted as part of the government’s strategy to take responsibility for national environmental goals within the agricultural sector. In 2006, The Ministry of Agriculture and Food and The Ministry of the Environment gave an assignment to the Norwegian Agricultural Authority, Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management and the Directorate for Cultural Heritage. The mandate stated that “Cultural landscapes of special historical and biological value are to be registered, and a plan for their management effected before the end of 2010” (Statens landbruksforvaltning (SLF), 2007). This decision was partly a follow-up on the nationwide project involving registration and documentation of cultural landscapes (National registration of “Exceptional Valuable Cultural Landscapes”, started in 1992), a project analysed in details elsewhere (Hansen, 1998). The work involved the selection of relevant areas and suggested inclusion of 20 (later extended to 22). This amount represented approximately one cultural landscape per each county. The final selected group should constitute a representative selection of areas from the country and be based on suggestions of two to three alternatives from each county (Direktoratet for naturforvaltning (DN), 2008, p. 4). The motion to start up the scheme was passed by the two cooperating ministries in 2009. The cooperation between the agricultural and the heritage sector is well established in Norway, and several of the schemes resulting from such cooperation are considered essential to cultural heritage in farming communities. There has been financial aid for restoration of buildings on farms since 1993, later integrated with other economic excitants in conservation and rehabilitation. The administration of its funding was handed over to the local agricultural authority within the municipality (2005), thereby managing to decentralise decision making within the agricultural sector to a larger extent than that found in nature and cultural heritage management. That this scheme goes beyond the documentation phase to a binding and long-term management phase has been considered new and unique. A factor assigned high importance was that cultural landscapes had to include both high biological and cultural historic values. The realism of securing long-term maintenance and management of the areas was considered essential. The farmers and managers have been ascribed a key function in the project, and area management and maintenance are based on voluntariness. Other criteria of crucial significance were holistic landscape, continuity and time depth, representativity or uniqueness and communicative value (Direktoratet for naturforvaltning (DN), 2008, p. 5, 6). From a cultural heritage perspective, the scheme can be interpreted as a supplementary instrument to ensure protection, while the formal responsibility is still based on the legislation. According to the Norwegian Cultural Heritage Act (CHA), all remains of cultural heritage from before 1537 are automatically protected (listed), while younger remains must be listed individually. No decisions concerning such heritage can be made Managing historic resources 85 JCHMSD 4,1 86 without the consent of cultural heritage management. On a municipal level, the Plan and Building Act (PBL) is legislation protecting cultural heritage, but how actively it is used for such purposes differs between the municipalities. With the revision in 1992 of the CHA, “cultural environment (context)” was introduced as a new legal concept to ensure that more attention was paid to contexts, i.e. buildings as parts of a broader cultural environment (Hegard and Algreen-Ussing, 1995; Myklebust, 1999; Skår et al., 2008). To ensure protection through this clause, however, is a long and extensive process. SAL partly represents an alternative approach to the same considerations. Downloaded by 158.36.76.2 At 02:05 29 June 2015 (PT) 4.2 Case 1: Skei and Skeisnesset on the island of Leka in the county of Nord-Trøndelag Short description of the area and the present situation. The SAL is situated on the island of Leka off the west coast of Norway, in Nord-Trøndelag County in Mid-Norway. The island and a small part of the mainland constitute the municipality of Leka. The total number of inhabitants in the municipality is 589, and the number is slowly falling. The municipal administration itself is the most important employer, and farming the most important trade. The farming products are mainly milk and some meat, as well as fodder, cereal and potatoes. Fishing used to be a major source of income, but has today less importance, even though salmon farming has grown in recent years. Tourism is looked upon as a new line of business. The SAL is in the northern part of the island, and covers an area of 520 hectares, including approximately 353 hectares of coastal heather moorland. The landscape consists of farmsteads and associated agricultural buildings, inlying fields cultivated for modern farming and outlying fields of coastal heather-clad moors on the Peninsula. There are 12 landowners and 66 residents within the SAL and Leka Rural Museum is situated within the area. The island’s main ferry quay is also situated within the SAL (Figure 1 and Plate 1). Figure 1. Map of Leka Municipality Managing historic resources 87 Downloaded by 158.36.76.2 At 02:05 29 June 2015 (PT) Plate 1. The largest farm at Skei Cultural history of the area. Today the island of Leka may be viewed as marginal, but it was historically centrally situated and economically significant. The pre-industrial farmers of Norway were dependent on utilising multiple economic sources for survival. Situated close to rich fishing locations as well as right by the main coastal “highway” between the rich fishing areas of Lofoten and the ports of Trondheim and Bergen, this gave opportunities and provided for more inhabitants than the limited areas of arable land. The oldest traces of human habitation date from the Stone Age, at least 10,000 years. From the Bronze Age and especially the Viking Age, there is clear evidence of centralised power on the island. The SAL area was originally one relatively large farm, Skei, and some of the buildings today date back hundreds of years. During the period of major population growth in the nineteenth century, land for approximately 40 crofts was cleared. The system of crofts was abolished during the twentieth century and the land was sold to the tenants. Today, these crofts are farms within the SAL, mainly located on the western side of the peninsula. Value assessment in official plans. In national, official white papers concerning the heritage values within the SAL, the prime cultural heritage assets are the archaeological findings. Herlaugshaugen is believed to be a king’s grave and is the second largest burial mound in Norway dating from the Viking Age. The fact that it was mentioned in Snorre’s Saga is assumed to give identity and symbolic value to the site. Many archaeological findings are registered on the Heritage List and include Stone Age settlements, burial mounds and building remains from the Middle Ages. Historic landscape features from after the reformation (1537) are not automatically listed according to CHA. However, explicitly mentioned and referred to as worth preserving are the varied settlements from the seventeenth up to the twentieth century. “Cultural heritage and landscape structures show the balance of power in the agricultural community as well as the inequality in social conditions between larger farms, crofts and smallholdings” (Selected agricultural landscape SALs; Statens landbruksforvaltning (SLF), 2007, p. 20). In the county of Nord-Trøndelag’s statement to national authorities in the spring of 2008, the wide range of archaeological remains within the area are described, but it is also stated that there is little knowledge about cultural heritage from the seventeenth century onwards. JCHMSD 4,1 Downloaded by 158.36.76.2 At 02:05 29 June 2015 (PT) 88 Management plans for the future. Planned future activity is connected to the management and restoration of the heather-clad moors, the restoration of buildings, management and dissemination of knowledge for the area as a whole. Herlaugshaugen is mentioned especially, both because of its heritage quality and for the role it plays in identity building. Increased tourism is stated as a vital goal in the plans. The farmers have entered into a contract making them responsible for the upkeep of their buildings and gardens, in keeping with local tradition, the maintenance of areas along roads and so on. They must also cooperate with official authorities to avoid the introduction and spread of alien species. According to this deal, they receive the yearly amount of approximately 250 euros and they are also entitled yearly to financial aid for haymaking, grazing and restoration related to the number of animals they have grazing, or per decare (1/4 acre) outlying field. The farmers can also apply for financial support for restoration of buildings, restoring pastures and hay meadows, establishing paths, information measures and so on. 4.3 Case 2: Nordherad in the municipality of Vågå, Oppland County Short description of the area and the present situation. The SAL of Nordherad is situated in the municipality of Vågå in the Ottadalen valley, Oppland County. The agricultural region is characterised by a dry inland climate as part of the highland districts of Southern Norway. The number of inhabitants in the municipality is 3,718, and is slowly falling. As in Leka, public administration is the main employer. Farming is of major importance. Oppland is the county in Norway with the highest number of farms, but 57 per cent of these farms depend on an additional income and 27 per cent have been abandoned or the farmland has been let out in the last ten years (SSB, Jordbrukstelling, tabell 5). Tourism is directly and indirectly an important source of income for both the municipal and the mountain region as a whole; it is seen as a trade to be further developed in the future. The SAL is close to the administration centre of Vågå. It covers an area of 1,400 hectares stretching from Lake Vågåvatnet at 360 metres above sea level to the high mountain area at 1,100 metres above sea level. The farms are mainly on two different terraces above the Vågåvatnet. There are 49 farms within the SAL, although 15 of these are disused. The farming products are mainly milk and most of the farms keep livestock for grazing. In 1999, the farmers in Nordherad started a local project based on voluntary work to promote local life through protection of the historical landscape, and to facilitate leisure activities and tourism (Figure 2 and Plate 2). Cultural history of the area. Within this region of Norway, the resources in the mountains constituted an important part of the farms’ economic resources. The high mountains provided opportunities for hunting and, in some areas also, iron blasting and stone quarries. The vast grazing land for domestic animals and the summer farms have also been of major importance. In this valley there has been traffic in all directions for many centuries. This fertile arable land has been used for cultivation for thousands of years with traces of human activity dating back at least 5,000 years; the high number of saucer-shaped hollows carved in stone are evidence of Bronze Age cultural activity. The number of farms expanded in the Iron Age and in the medieval period. As in many parts of Norway, there was a contraction in the number of farms in the late medieval period due to the plague, but less so in Nordherad. This indicates that farms within the Managing historic resources Downloaded by 158.36.76.2 At 02:05 29 June 2015 (PT) 89 Figure 2. Map of Nordherad Plate 2. Valbjør gård in Nordherad, Vågå area were regarded as among the most valuable. From the seventeenth century onwards, the population grew and during the eighteenth and nineteenth century, many crofts and small farms were cleared in the more marginal areas. Value assessment in official plans. Official reports concerning this area have been made since 2004. All three reports, actuated at the county level of administration, can be regarded as expert opinion even though a local group has been involved in at least one of the plans. The reports emphasise listed objects and legal obligations. The Cultural heritage report of 2004 especially interprets the area from a historiographical viewpoint with special regard to place names and written sources from the medieval period. JCHMSD 4,1 Downloaded by 158.36.76.2 At 02:05 29 June 2015 (PT) 90 Vågå is the rural municipality in Norway with the largest number of listed buildings. Within the SAL as many as six farms have all or some of their buildings listed. One way of understanding this situation is the special national value assigned to this type of wooden architecture and building tradition during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. In this period, Norway had to create an identity for the future as an independent national state. The clusters of large, brown timber buildings in these inner valleys of Norway were interpreted as unique, constructed in the medieval period when Norway was a free country. Management plans for the future. In the report “Plan for the area”, six principal goals are listed; three of these concern cultural heritage. The first deals with the built environment alone, and states that the maintenance of all kinds of older buildings shall reach an acceptable level, which equals the national environmental goal within the field of cultural heritage. The second states that all other kinds of cultural heritage such as archaeological sites, stone quarries, fences, old irrigation systems and traditional areal use shall be secured and maintained. The last goal also concerns natural values, and emphasises communication with the public, partly directed towards tourists. 5. Discussion We will now return to the research questions and begin by discussing to what extent the argumentation behind the selection and interpretation of these landscapes in the SAL scheme has its origin in what rightly can be labelled the Norwegian AHD. There is an underlying assumption in the initial documents that a series of local landscape adaptations are threatened, and therefore a need for introduction of particular measures to uphold a series of representative landscape types from an environmental, cultural historic and nature preservation point of view. The selected landscapes include several summer mountain farming areas, coastal landscapes both along the western and eastern coastline, cotters’ landscapes and representative types of landscape from prosperous farmers in the eastern part as well as areas in the North of Norway which are representative of Sami agrarian landscapes (Direktoratet for naturforvaltning (DN), 2008, p. 9). The final group of selected landscapes was meant to give insight into manifold representative landscapes on a national level. It should be added, however, that some landscape types are missing, while some might be considered overrepresented. The secretariat also commented on the fact that a relatively large portion of the landscapes in the selection belongs to what they labelled “marginal” areas; areas with more intact grazing fields and older and less altered buildings, due to external conditions which have led to less intensive farming. Such conditions can also have made the owners more motivated to join the project because their options are rarer. They are more in need of motivating factors and assistance to be able to continue farming than farmers situated in the more prosperous parts of the country (Direktoratet for naturforvaltning, 2008, p. 9). We can derive that the combination of the generally shared set of value criteria for cultural heritage and the use of economic incentives to uphold active farming has led to a certain asymmetry. Representativity has not been given the same importance as probability for success. As stated in the initial documents, the reality of realism in feasibility, motivated parties and thought-through management plans were weighing heavily. Although standard heritage criteria such as age, representativity, symbolic value and uniqueness were used when the initial framework was drawn, other factors Downloaded by 158.36.76.2 At 02:05 29 June 2015 (PT) of economic and political character seem to have influenced the scheme just as much later in the processes. This leads to the second question: to what extent do the local plans exceed AHD and introduce local perceptions of heritage values? Appropriation can be used as a description of the process that takes place when people build a particular relationship with certain aspects of their environments – a way of including a set of aspects in one’s own life-world. There are several ways that the building of this relationship can take place. Certain aspects, artefacts or material structures will gain a particular meaning due to incidents – episodes which take place in people’s personal lives – and lead to situations where special memories are attached to such sites. This has not necessarily anything to do with heritage as such. When Ingold, for instance, refers to “taskscapes” (Ingold, 2000), it is an example of a relationship that individuals build with landscapes through practical activities in a landscape. On the other hand, the fact that certain aspects of the structures in the environment have been ascribed with special status – designated heritage – can also affect the relationship people have with a place. A building which was formerly ignored can, for instance, be viewed in a new light when heritage experts point out its particular qualities. As a result of local activities at community level, new relationships can be built both with other people and heritage structures through involvement in restoration work. In this way, heritage is appropriated by individuals and gains special values on an individual level. It is through various forms of community work that this latter relationship with the heritage context develops and that appropriation of one’s surroundings takes place. After this discussion of “appropriation at work”, we will continue to consider the degree of inclusion of alternative, local perspectives that have taken place. The fact that each landscape has its own characteristics, has necessarily influenced the perspectives and assessments of heritage values made at local level, in addition to the degree of influence of cultural heritage managers representing AHD. As regards Leka, the county administration has, to a limited degree, been involved in the shaping and framing of the steering documents. The small municipal administration in Leka has adapted to the SAL by using local, skilled people in the formulation of a municipal management plan, and in making the agreements as simple as possible. The interpretation of the local cultural heritage in Leka is broad, as well as based on a thorough knowledge of places, areal use and narratives. Recent history, mainly within living memory, is given most attention. The Bronze Age and the Viking Period with the high number of burial mounds are given little space in the final plan (“Plan for the area”). The steering documents from Nordherad can be said to include expert statements, in line with national politics and goals. The documents are mainly based on different kinds of official cultural heritage index. The interpretation of local cultural heritage is mainly based on professional knowledge, with fewer supplements from local informants. The report is not organised spatially, and the descriptions of places, areal use and narratives are lacking in these documents. This may be partly explained by the size of the area. When the management plans and agreements are completed in Nordherad, there is possibility that they will be more adapted to the individual farm, and the concept of cultural heritage might vary and reflect both the history of the farm and the farmer’s conception of the history of his farm. Both areas include a social perspective on the landscape on all levels. In Nordherad this was the main reason for including a larger area than the first proposition. The demarcation of the area has been open for discussion since the cultural heritage Managing historic resources 91 JCHMSD 4,1 Downloaded by 158.36.76.2 At 02:05 29 June 2015 (PT) 92 plan was written in 2004, to 2008, when the newest area plan was finished. Today’s boundaries encompass a larger area than the first proposition, which included the steep and stony, marginal hillside where the younger and smaller farms and crofts are located. A wish to uphold active farming combined with safeguarding heritage of importance to local identity has been the motivation for local farmers to join in the scheme, which has given the heritage argumentation a new actuality and relevance. The research presented in this paper deals only with the initial period of 2006-2009. Since then, the work establishing formal agreements with each farmer for a ten-year period and the signing of binding contracts has taken its course. In both of the studied SALs this process is now in its final stage. A series of restoration measures on the farm buildings has been carried out, and, in addition, the activating of long-term landscape restoration plans has started. A mid-way evaluation of the SAL-programme will shortly start on behalf of the Norwegian Agricultural Authority, with the intension of summarising results from all the 22 selected landscapes, to be able to suggest alteration of course if necessary. International studies referred to earlier point to lack of emphasis on cultural sustainability. In the scheme presented here, ways to ensure active sustainable farming, cultural heritage and biodiversity are tested out and adapted to local needs. It can prove to be a model of relevance for other European countries where rural areas are facing rapid changes and threats of either fragmentation or neglect. 6. Conclusion The form of preservation which involves a high degree of collaboration between owners and local community is still new in Norway, especially within the cultural heritage sector. This may challenge AHD because cultural heritage, to a larger degree, is defined locally. The stressing of specific value of the AHD-objects may also trigger immanent conflict, emerging from other interpretations and evaluations of history and objects in today’s landscape. The SAL stresses the importance of the farmer’s contribution as well as local involvement; therefore, SAL may challenge a top-down management. This can give way to a more integrated management in the future, in answer to some of the criticism against the failure of the management of protected areas. If the results from the SAL prove satisfactory, it can be seen as a new form of protection, which can be implemented in different forms of cultural heritage preservation. Another possible future effect is that while certain areas are selected, prioritised and highly regulated, the rest are considered “free” to develop or abandon. Although this may increase the pressure on some areas and lead to unwanted development, other more marginal farmland might be abandoned and left to forest expansion. References Benton, T. (2010), Understanding Heritage and Memory, Manchester University Press, Manchester. Burton, R.J.F. and Paragahawewa, U.H. (2011), “Creating culturally sustainable agri-environmental schemes”, Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 95-104. Daugstad, K., Rønningen, K. and Skar, B. (2006), “Agriculture as an upholder of cultural heritage? Conceptualizations and value judgements – a Norwegian perspective in international context”, Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 67-81. Downloaded by 158.36.76.2 At 02:05 29 June 2015 (PT) Direktoratet for naturforvaltning (DN) (2008), “Selected agricultural landscapes”, Published in cooperation by The Norwegian Agricultural Authority, Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management, and the Directorate for Cultural Heritage, Oslo. Droste, B.V., Plachter, H. and Rössler, M. (Eds) (1995), Cultural Landscapes of Universal Value, Gustav Fischer Verlag, UNESCO, Jena. Evans, G. (2002), “Living in a world heritage city: stakeholders in the dialectic of the universal and particular”, International Journal of Heritage Studies, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 117-135. Fairclough, N. (1995), Critical Discourse Analysis. The Citical Study of Language, Longman, Harlow. Fowler, P. (2004), Landscapes for the World. Conserving a Global Heritage, Windgather Press, Cheshire. Haber, W. (1995), “Concept, origin and meaning of ‘landscape’”, in Droste, B.V., Plachter, H. and Rössler, M. (Eds), Cultural Landscapes of Universal Value, Gustav Fischer Verlag, UNESCO, Jena, pp. 38-41. Hansen, B.L. (1998), “Values, ideology and power relations in cultural landscape evaluations”, dissertation, Department of Geography, University of Bergen, Bergen. Harrison, D. (2005), “Introduction. Contested narratives in the domain of world heritage”, in Harrison, I.D. and Hitchcock, M. (Eds), The Politics of World Heritage. Negotiating Tourism and Conservation, Channel View Publications, Clevedon, pp. 1-10. Hegard, T. and Algreen-Ussing, G.I. (1995), Scandinavian Heritage Management, Directorate for Cultural Heritage, Oslo. Ingold, T. (2000), The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill, Routledge, London. Kirschenblatt-Gimblett, B. (2006), “World heritage and cultural economics”, in Karpet, I. et al. (Eds), Museum Frictions. Public Cultures/Global Transformers, Duke University Press, Durham, NC, pp. 161-202. Mitchell, N. (2008), “Considering the authenticity of cultural landscapes”, APT Bulletin, Vol. 39 Nos 2-3, pp. 25-31. Mitchell, N., Rössler, M. and Tricaud, P.-M. (Eds) (2009), “World heritage cultural landscapes, a handbook for conservation and management”, World Heritage Papers No. 26, UNESCO, Paris. Mittenzwei, K., Lien, G., Fjellstad, W., Øvren, E. and Dramstad, W. (2010), “Effects of landscape protection on farm management and farmers income in Norway”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 91 No. 4, pp. 861-868. Mydland, L. and Grahn, W. (2011), “Identifying heritage values in local communities”, International Journal of Heritage Studies, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 1-24. Myklebust, D. (1999), “Utviklingen av kulturminnevernet gjennom 1900-tallet. Noen hovedtrekk og noen fremtidsvyer (The development of the protection of historic sites during the 1900s. Some main impressions and some visions for the future)”, Fortidsminneforeningens Årbok, Oslo, Vol. 153, pp. 9-34. Pendlebury, J. (2009), Conservation in the Age of Consensus, Routledge, London and New York, NY. Pendlebury, J., Short, M. and While, A. (2009), “Urban world heritage sites and the problem of authenticity”, Cities, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 349-358. Peräkylä, A. (2005), “Analyzing talk and text”, in Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 869-887. Ronström, O. (2008), Kulturarvspolitik: Visby, från sliten småstad till medeltidsikon, Carlssons, Stockholm. Managing historic resources 93 JCHMSD 4,1 Downloaded by 158.36.76.2 At 02:05 29 June 2015 (PT) 94 Selman, P. (2009), “Conservation designations – are they fit for purpose in the 21st century?”, Land Use Policy, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 142-153. Skår, M., Swensen, G., Dervo, B.K. and Stabbetorp, O. (2008), “Diversity in an agrarian cultural landscape. Integrating biodiversity, cultural and social perspectives in landscape management”, International Journal of Biodiversity and Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 15-31. Smith, L. (2006), Uses of Heritage, Routledge, London. Smith, L. and Waterton, E. (2009), Heritage, Communities and Archaeology, Duckworth, London. Statens landbruksforvaltning (SLF) (2007), “Direktoratet for naturforvaltning og Riksantikvaren 2007”, Endelig rapport, 1, Uvalgte kulturlandskap i jordbruket, Oslo, juli. Taylor, K. (2012), “Landscape and meaning: context for a global discourse on cultural landscape values”, in Taylor, K. and Lennon, J.L. (Eds), Managing Cultural Landscapes, Routledge, London, pp. 21-45. Taylor, K. and Lennon, J.L. (Eds) (2012), Managing Cultural Landscapes, Routledge, London. Tweed, C. and Sutherland, M. (2007), “Built cultural heritage and sustainable urban development”, Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 83 No. 1, pp. 62-69. Further reading Statistisk sentralbyrå (Statistics Norway), “Jordbrukstelling tabell 5: Jordbruksbedrifter med tilleggsnæringar, etter fylke og jordbruksareal i drift. 1998/99 og 2009/10”, available at: www.ssb.no/landt/tab-2011-07-04-05.html (accessed 4 July 2011). Corresponding author Dr Grete Swensen can be contacted at: grete.swensen@niku.no To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints This article has been cited by: Downloaded by 158.36.76.2 At 02:05 29 June 2015 (PT) 1. Ana Pereira Roders, Ron Van Oers. 2014. Wedding cultural heritage and sustainable development: three years after. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development 4:1, 2-15. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]