The transition of the coastal landscape of Northern Norway:

Using landscape approaches and GIS to understand lo cal opposition to wind power.

By

Bjørg Elsa Pettersen A thesis submitted to the Department of Geography, University of Leicester

In partial fulfilment of the degree of Master of Science

1

Preface This is a thesis in Human Geography and Geographical Information Systems at the

University of Leicester, UK. To stay in another culture can be inspiring, and give new

views upon your own culture. On the background of some discussions on landscape I

wanted to go back to my own country and look at current issues. I heard about the

conflict on wind power at the island of Andøya in the North of Norway and decided to

study the case.

Doing this project has been quite different from what I expected, in a positive way. The

people I met on the road to knowledge have learnt me a lot. I am grateful for the

friendliness you showed and for taking the time to speak with me. Thanks to all of you,

people from Andøya on both side of the conflict for sharing your views so openly with a

stranger. And thank you for all the coffee and mulberry jam.

My supervisors Claire Jarvis and James Ryan have been supportive all the way, thank

you so much.

A lot of people have helped me with advice and support; Einar Berg with the WindPro

program and the photo visualisation of the wind turbines and Kurt Olsen with advices

on language. I would also like to say thanks to my friends and colleagues and my family

in all corners of the world for good advice and help. A special thanks to my partner,

Roy for being very supportive and in charge of the “administration” in Norway so I

could be able to study.

Oslo 29.9.2006 Bjørg Pettersen

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

2

Summary Wind energy is a new phenomenon in Norway and wind farms are currently emerging

on the coast. In many places, conflicts occur. This is a case study from Northern

Norway of local opposition to a wind farm project. Through the ongoing conflict I

wanted to gain knowledge of subjective or collective less expressed aspects of

landscape views, if these views exist. I have tried to investigate what people fear they

are loosing or gaining when their everyday landscape changes as a consequence of

building wind turbines in the area.

The methods used are from human geography and it is a case study based on

qualitative methods. In addition, participatory GIS have been used for mapping people’s

use of the landscape and everyday environment.

I have looked at aspects of local knowledge and views on expected effects and

impacts from the wind power plant. The local knowledge related to the effects is often

in conflict with the ones in the concession reports, or there are other concerns that are

more important to people locally. I have tried to uncover these views by looking at the

content in discussions about expected impacts of wind power plants on the everyday

landscape.

A main point has been to investigate the way visualisations and maps are used in

the communication process. One aspect is to see if the concession reports are in

accordance with the local view when it comes to representing the landscape changes.

Do the people who are involved in the process understand the maps and visualisations

and do they find them useful Some alternative visualisations have been made, based on

the local use of landscape, with viewpoint taken from important places in the terrain.

The reason for this is to see if some alternative methods may be useful in the process of

communicating landscape changes.

3

PREFACE ............................................................................................................................................ 1

SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................................... 2

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES .................................................................................................... 5

1.1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 6

1.2 Discussions on wind power and landscape............................................................................... 6

1.3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS........................................................................................................... 7

1.4. Rationale ............................................................................................................................... 8

2.1 LITERATURE AND THEORY..................................................................................................... 9

2.2. Theoretical approaches to landscape...................................................................................... 9 2.2.1 Landscape representations and maps in concession plans ................................................... 10 2.2.2 Time and landscape in accepting change ............................................................................ 10 2.2.3. Landscape emotions and inner maps.................................................................................. 11 2.2.4 Gender, culture and landscape ........................................................................................... 11 2.3 Acceptance of technology in the landscape and NIMBY-ism................................................... 12 2.4 The use of concepts related to landscape................................................................................ 13

3.1 THE PLACE AND THE CASE OF ANDMYRAN W IND POWER PLANT............................. 15

3.1.2 History and culture............................................................................................................. 17 3.2 The wind power plant, Andmyran Vindpark A/S (AVAS)......................................................... 18 3.2.1 Current laws and regulations concerning wind power in Norway ........................................ 20 3.2.2. The influence zones from the wind power plant .................................................................. 21

4.1. MATERIAL AND METHODS................................................................................................... 22

4.2. Secondary data..................................................................................................................... 22 4.2.1 Newspapers and formal assessment plans ........................................................................... 22 4.2.2 Maps, aerial photos and drawings ...................................................................................... 22 4.2.3. Informal talks and personal interviews, telephone and e-mail............................................. 26 4.2.4. Field trip and data collection............................................................................................. 26 4.2.5. Collecting photos of the terrain.......................................................................................... 26 4.3 Structured interviews............................................................................................................. 27 4.4 Photo documentation............................................................................................................. 29 4.5. Shortcomings and limitations................................................................................................ 29 4.6. Ethical considerations.......................................................................................................... 30 4.7. Reflections on information.................................................................................................... 30

5.1 THE RESULTS............................................................................................................................ 32

5.2 The public discussion on the case in the local newspapers...................................................... 32 5.2.1 Visual intrusion, consequences on people and society ......................................................... 32 5.2.2 Landscape, environmental aspects and the moor................................................................. 33 5.2.3 Local knowledge................................................................................................................. 33 5.2.4 Local ownership................................................................................................................. 33 5.2.5 The dialogue with the local community ............................................................................... 34

6.1 FINDINGS AND RESULTS PRIMARY DATA ......................................................................... 34

6.1.2 A formal conflict score of D according to NVE.................................................................... 34 6.1.2The local politicians and planning authorities...................................................................... 34 6.1.3 Applying for a licence; concession plans and assessments................................................... 35

6.2 INFORMAL INTERVIEWS WITH AVAS AND THE OPPOSITIO N...................................... 35

6.2.1 The concession process and the dialogue according to AVAS .............................................. 35 6.2.2 On aesthetics and landscape loss........................................................................................ 36 6.2.3 Aspects of local knowledge ................................................................................................. 37 6.2.4 Photo visualizations and information.................................................................................. 37 6.3.1 The concession process and the dialogue ............................................................................ 40 6.3.2 Aspects of local knowledge, according to the opposition...................................................... 40 6.3.2 On aesthetics and landscape loss........................................................................................ 41 6.3.3 Photo visualisations and information.................................................................................. 41

4

6.4 Ground truth, a first field trip in the landscape ...................................................................... 43

7.1 INTERVIEWS WITH INFORMANTS FROM RAMSÅ, BREIVIKA AND SKARSTEIN....... 44

7.2 The map of places and activities for people living in the area................................................. 44 7.3 Questions regarding the development process and the information given on the consequences of a new wind farm ......................................................................................................................... 54

8.1 DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS.................................................................................................. 56

8.1.2 What people fear they are loosing....................................................................................... 56 8.1.3 Aspects of local knowledge ................................................................................................. 56 8.1.4 On representing landscape changes in the plans ................................................................. 58 8.1.5 Is the conflict in the right place e.g. is it uncovered or veiled?............................................. 58 8.1.6 The consultative process..................................................................................................... 60 8.1.7 Visualising what will be the changes in the landscape ......................................................... 61 8.1.8 Yet another subjective perspective ...................................................................................... 61

9 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 63

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 64

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

5

List of figures and tables Figure 1. Andøya. ................................................................................................................................ 19 Figure 2. Andøy. Source: Andøya Tourist Board................................................................................... 16 Figure 3. The “inner side” of Andøya, the view from the east ............................................................. 167 Figure 4. Satelite image of Andøya. Source Norge Digitalt, 2006.......................................................... 19 Figure 5. Influence zones. .................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 6. Otho photo of the Breivika area, with harbour East, concentric moor on lower left ................ 24 Figure 7. Base map of the Ramsa, Breivik and Skarstein, with borders on landed property.................... 25 Figure 8 Lines and points, the coding process of the PPGIS data. ....................................................... 257 Figure 9. Example of PPGIS map, rectified and ready for coding the data on the vector map ........ 258 Figure 10. Economic map, common propery, "felleseie" ..................................................................... 259 Figure 11. Choosen vantage points for photo visualisations. Source,AVAS 2006 ................................... 38 Figure 12. A, B and C. Photo visualisations by AVAS. ......................................................................... 39 Figure 13. Photo visualisation, the opposition. Source: B. Nicolaysen. 2006. ........................................ 42 Figure 14. Informant’s use of the terrain in Ramså, Skarstein and Breivika........................................... 45 Figure 15. Fishing. ............................................................................................................................ 256 Figure 16. Lavvo,Tordalsvatnet............................................................................................................ 47 Figure 17. The Lavvo, marked on the map by the informant. Source: B. Pettersen................................. 47 Figure 18. On the veranda West, the good side. . .................................................................................. 48 Figure 19. A and B. Photo visualisation, Breivika harbour ................................................................... 57 Figure 20. Photo standpoints, for visualisations .................................................................................. 59 Figure 21. From Tordalsvatnet. Turbines 4.5 MW, 155 meters. See fig 19 for standpoint. ..................... 62 Figure 22. The same terrain, 3D model with 180 meter wind turbines. ................................................. 63 Table 1. The consultative process. Sources. .......................................................................................... 20 Table 2.Maps and geo- referenced sources ........................................................................................... 23

6

1.1 Introduction Wind farms are currently emerging on the Norwegian coast and these constructions

change the visual impression of the landscape. Norway has one of the best conditions

for wind power in Europe, and the coast has by far the highest mean wind-speed and the

most stable conditions (Selfors and Sannem 1998). Wind energy is a new phenomenon

in Norway as hydroelectric power has been the main source of energy until today. The

national authorities have chosen not to have a national plan on wind power

development, but encourage the use of wind energy as a source of clean and renewable

energy. Many projects and developers try to get concessions for building wind power

plants and this has created a ‘Klondike’ like situation. Clean sources of energy are in

demand and wind power is currently one of the choices most easily available and is

viewed as a profitable investment. The search for suitable sites for producing this new

energy is now at its peak in the north of Norway. The new global industry is highly

welcomed in many areas as it creates new opportunities. But there are also conflicts at a

local level, as the vulnerable coastal zone is under pressure from eager developers.

Matters of concern locally are visual intrusion, noise, flickering, ice throwing and

changing the aesthetic experience of the landscape; all of these perceived negative

aspects of the turbines. In most of these conflicts views and discussions on landscapes

evolves, as these large constructions are highly visible in the landscape.

1.2 Discussions on wind power and landscape

Can the discussions grounded in conflicts on wind power plants help us gain knowledge

on how people view and value their everyday landscape and environment? How

people perceive and evaluate expected changes in the coastal landscape caused by wind

farms will be investigated using methods from human geography and geographic

information systems (GIS). The study aims at finding out more on the aspect of how

the locals value and use the landscape, environment and nature. The focus in the text is

on representing the active use of the landscape; to interrogate how people look upon and

value the landscape in relation to how it is used on a daily basis, the local and subjective

view. Because the subjective and personal view is often about emotions my theory is

that it will not so easily be expressed (Birkeland 2001; Pasqualetti, Gipe et al. 2002).

What you see and use every day is not always described but is implicit in your thinking.

On assessing perceived loss or gain for the people in the area I am searching for the less

expressed values in the landscape, like places of collective memories, fishing grounds,

7

terrain for berry picking, skiing and places of traditional use and meaning. I will try to

represent this aspect by the use of participatory GIS methods and represent this on a

map.

A second aspect is looking at views on transition of the local and everyday

landscape, environment and place. What people expect of changes in the cultural

landscape caused by large wind turbines; the local view. What consequences do they

see of having a wind park close to their home? Are these views represented as an aspect

in the assessment reports?

A third question is how these local values, knowledge and views emerge in the

discussion on wind power, pro and con’s. Where there are contested truths some values

are expressed more clearly. If they exist, are they taken into the representations e.g.

maps, geographical analysis and photo visualisations in the concession plans?

1.3. Research questions Through the ongoing conflicts we may gain knowledge of subjective or collective less

expressed aspects of landscape views, if these views exist (Abrahansson 1999). Three

different objectives are equally important.

• To investigate what people fear they are loosing or gaining when their everyday

landscape changes as a consequence of building wind turbines.

• Are there aspects of local knowledge and views on effects and impacts of

building large constructions in the landscape? Can these be uncovered by

looking at content in discussions about impacts on the everyday landscape?

• Are the concession reports in accordance with the local view when it comes to

representing the landscape changes? Do they unveil the real conflicts? How are

the landscapes rendered in photo visualisations and maps?

The last objective is on the visual side and representation on maps. Is it possible to take

the local view and use of landscape into consideration by trying out a method of mapping

the local use of the everyday, landscape?

8

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

Landscape Convention it recognises landscape as;

…an important part of the quality of life for people everywhere: in urban areas

and in the countryside, in degraded areas as well as in areas of high quality, in

areas recognised as being of outstanding beauty as well as everyday areas. The

landscape contributes to the formation of local cultures and … is a basic

component of the European natural and cultural heritage, contributing to human

well-being and consolidation of the European identity.

(Main page, The European Landscape Convention)1

From my opinion, the landscape, the natural as well as the human-made environment, is

a basic resource for the local economy. In rural, remote communities the economic and

cultural potentials in the landscape are even more important resources for a sustainable

development.

What can be achieved at best is to improve the exchange of different types of

knowledge in relation to the planning process; and recognise local knowledge as a

resource in planning the use and development of coastal cultural landscapes. And to

promote the use of visualisations and maps that are relevant to enhance participation in

the decision process. To communicate with the public is a challenge for the wind energy

developers, as most projects will meet some opposition.

My focus will be on the everyday use of landscape and how the people that

belong to the area experience the expected changes. We all have to live in our

landscapes; for some people the close environment is very important for their life and

wellbeing, others have less of an emotional investment in theirs. In the wind power

conflicts people object to the altering of their environment (Pasqualetti, Gipe et al.

2002). Wind turbines are indeed very visible, built constructions in the landscape and

they can not be hidden. Wind power discussions are very much about landscape and

aesthetics so a definition of landscape is the starting point in the following literature

review and theory chapter.

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

9

2.1 Literature and theory Wind turbines must be placed somewhere and often this somewhere is labelled

landscape (Pasqualetti, Gipe et al. 2002). However, landscape is a slippery word, and

some clarification of the notion is necessary. In our everyday language landscape, the

view, environment, place and nature can all refer to landscape. In human geography and

especially cultural geography landscape is a central concept and has produced numerous

debates, theories and approaches (Tuan 1974; Relph 1976; Cosgrove 1984; Olwig

2002). In this chapter I will start with looking at some central concepts from cultural

and human geography concerning landscape. I will then go on to look at some concepts

that may be useful in analysing wind power conflicts in relation to our experience of

landscape. In the last section I will discuss some central theories on wind power

conflicts in relation to why and how we relate to this technology that creates changes in

our environment.

2.2. Theoretical approaches to landscape The North American “Berkeley school” of cultural geography in the 50ties, represented

by Carl Sauer, put emphasis on how the material landscape is shaped by the human

beings that reside in it (Winchester, Kong et al. 2003). People express their relation to

the landscape by using it and shaping it; landscape is a result of resource use and culture

is imprinted on it. This defines landscape from the morphological perspective as a given

physical entity, like the “Muslim City” (Johnston, Gregory et al. 2001). The theory has

been criticised the last 20 years from the “new” cultural geographers for being too

deterministic or superorganic when it comes to culture. (Winchester, Kong et al. 2003).

Humans relate to their physical environment and interact with it. The distinctiveness of

the place or landscape has a key role in culture.

In the 80ties and 90ties the concept of landscape was dominated by the Anglo-

American oriented landscape research. Central in this view, especially the British, is the

landscape as a scenic perspective, ‘a landscape way of seeing’ (Cosgrove 1984). The

development of perspective drawing facilitated the representations of landscapes as

maps and paintings. Cosgrove focuses on the meaning of landscape and the role of

graphic representations as a reflection of power relations in society. Power relations can

be mirrored in the way the landscape is represented visually to disarm contested social

relations in the landscape; for the elite of landowners to define their land as a

commodity and the people who work on the land as outsiders (Harley 1988).

A different concept of landscape is used by Olwig who interrogates the

construction of landscapes in a social and juridical way related to place, dwelling and

10

society, and emphasises how the definition has been used as a political tool (Olwig

2002). Masking diversity in landscapes can be a power strategy, when it comes to

governing over resources. The landscape can be seen as an image but also as an ongoing

process, influenced by changes both in nature and society

Olwig is focusing his theories on the meanings of landscape and nature and

discusses the two contradictory terms of nature and culture (Olwig 2002). He defines

landscape in the meaning of an area belonging to and shaped by people (Hammarlund

1998).

Even if the two views differ, Olwig and Cosgrove agree in the use of the linear

perspective and the ideological function of landscape and representation. The concepts

on landscape and power and maps and graphics as constructed realities are useful. It is

relevant in the context of analysing contested truths and conflicts; to evaluate how

landscapes are represented in photos, maps and drawings. It is a circular relationship

between the representation (the map) and the represented (the landscape) with the aim

of shaping “a new truth” of the landscape as it is represented.

2.2.1 Landscape representations and maps in concess ion plans

Representing landscapes is not a neutral task. Olwig (2005) describes the evolving

power of the English monarchs in the 17th century, uniting divided areas into one

landscape, the English one as body politics. The perspective is important, as both

Cosgrove and Olwig emphasised (Cosgrove and Daniels 1988; Olwig 2002). How does

the state and private actors present their views in plans and assessments? This also

brings memories of the colonial view; the empty landscape lying there for anyone to use

(Kwan 2002, Fox 2006). This perspective is a motivation for looking more closely at

maps in concession plans for wind power plants.

2.2.2 Time and landscape in accepting change

The individual actors and their relation to the landscape evolve over time (Hägerstrand

1970). We need places to be and we need space for our activities over a certain period

of time. Time and space are common denominators and important factors concerning

the concept of landscape and the acceptance of change. Views are dependent on factors

of use, the pace of change and the amount of visual intrusion (Pasqualetti, Gipe et al.

2002).

There is a difference between the permanent user of a landscape and the

occasional user; the tourist or the visitor or the stranger. Her relation is highly based

upon the amount of time she has spent on being in it or looking at it. In our case, the

11

different actors view wind turbines in light of what relations they have to the landscape

and the amount of time they spend in it. Locals and outsiders perceive expected changes

from different viewpoints.

2.2.3. Landscape emotions and inner maps

Yi-Fu Tuan, and his humanistic geographies centres around the love of places or

landscapes or fields of care, and how this care is becoming stronger under threat (Tuan

1974). He describes this phenomenon as topophilia; the bond between place and people,

and how this is a mutual process in the formation of values. It is all about perceptions,

attitudes and values (Tuan 1998). It is a subjective feeling, unique for every person

whose body resides in the landscape.

These concepts and views are close to the environmental psychologist’s

questions of who we are related to where we are . The landscape belongs to people who

live in it and therefore it is about our emotions. This is a useful link between

environment, emotions and time? Land use is interaction with landscape. The concept

of mental maps represents our inner picture of the landscape. The more familiar the

landscape, the more we interact and spend our time in the landscape, the more detailed

the inner map.

2.2.4 Gender, culture and landscape

The landscape is often looked upon as something clearly defined within borders, and

something different from the self. Feminist geographers has turned to the Greek concept

of Cora in a search for a more open concept, (from choreography) and to define no strict

borders between the self and the landscape (Birkeland 2001; Olwig 2002). They aim to

reinterpret the landscape in a less gendered way. Place can be seen as not necessarily a

fixed and bound area but something more fluid and an open ended field of experience.

The place is the body with no strict limits between the self and the landscape.

Dixon et al. (2000) states that; who we are is closely related to where we are.

Culture is important and this landscape conflict is set in a northern European rural

culture. The central European culture, including the British is described by many as

having a complementary ideal of rural idyll; with women working at home, and men as

providers of income. This gendered landscape is put forward in the feminist tradition as

described by Gillan Rose and others (Peet 1998; Kwan 2002). The Scandinavian rural

idyll is traditionally based on more egalitarian gender relations (Gunnerød-Berg and

Forsberg 2003). Today the norm is the two income family model with two equal

partners. Gender relations was traditionally more compound in the north, with ideals

12

like men and women struggling together to manage the farm or the land (Kramvig 1999;

Kramvig 2005). The coastal regions has been exceptional because of the farming- and

fishing model, where the men where away at sea for long periods and the women were

in charge of the farming (Dyrvik 1997; Sevatdal 2006). In general Norwegian farmers

have been predominantly owners, not tenants. This has shaped the culture as well as the

identities for both men and women. And it mirrors the way she or he relates and interact

with the landscape and the environment.

For Olwig almost all landscapes are cultural, wilderness hardly exists (Olwig

2005). Forming landscapes is a two way process; landscapes both influences and are

influenced by culture. Cultural values influences how people interact with landscapes

and how they interpret and regard them (Winchester, Kong et al. 2003). Interpreting a

landscape requires understanding its meaning in the context of cultural values and

experiences.

2.3 Acceptance of technology in the landscape and N IMBY-ism Wind turbines in the landscape are large constructions and it is not possible to hide

them. Robert Thayer and his team from California did some ground breaking work on

acceptance of power producing technology (Thayer and Hansen 1989). They found that

while only 9 % found wind plant unacceptable in their own region, 25% found fossil-

fired plant unacceptable and almost 50% found nuclear power unacceptable. Even if the

wind power was widely accepted in the region most people did not want it within 5

miles (8 kilometres) of their own home. This was called the “Not In My Back Yard” or

the NIMBY syndrome. The visual intrusion was the point of greatest concern. This

reflects a negative view on wind turbines in the landscape generally and the visual

aspect as the most significant negative factor for not accepting wind power. Wind

companies fail in ¾ of their proposals (Pasqualetti, Gipe et al. 2002). “If the industry is

interested in changing the public perception, it must be prepared to listen and

compromise.” (p. 53).

Some studies also show that once the power plant is in place, it is accepted.

Many different studies have shown that people tend change their attitude to a more

positive once the turbines are built (Pasqualetti, Gipe et al. 2002). If the plant is

gradually expanded, it is also easier to accept it. This reflects the points of space and

time is a factor, which is not so surprising from a human point of view. If this

acceptance is about time or about giving up and try to live with negative consequences,

is discussed.

13

Perception of landscape changes according to culture and place, the beauty is in

the eye of the beholder (Zube 1984). Landscapes are elements and carriers of regional

and local identity and they must be seen in this context. They have a physical reality but

at the same time a mental, social and cultural equally important side. Wind turbines are

large and not possible to hide, and not considered beautiful by all. They are good

sustainable sources of energy, but at the same time they represent an intrusive

technology if not placed with care and respect for the surroundings. Even if the

NIMBY effect is clearly there when it comes to opposition, it is not easily explained.

While the technology serves a higher cause, very few wish to sacrifice their visual

wellbeing.

Many of the studies on wind power and acceptance are taken from other places

and landscapes than the one investigated in this text. This case is about a conflict, and

thus power relations. People make landscape by constructing or reconstructing,

organizing space and expressing power (Massey 2003). This case is concerned with the

Nordic coastal landscape and culture. In his article “Wind power in Harmony”

Hammarlund stresses that it is difficult to define a criteria for location of wind turbines,

because each landscape is unique (Hammarlund 1998; Böhler 2004). Placing large

constructions on the coast raises special problems.

2.4 The use of concepts related to landscape When I write about culture in this text I choose to use it as a dynamic concept, one

which is related to ways of life, individually lived, dynamic and unique, as well as

shared and reproduced (Berger and Luckman 1985; Winchester, Kong et al. 2003). It is

also a dynamic and active force. An example of this is how dominant groups can define

others (another cultural group) as a structural opposition. We are the norm and the other

group (they) are making politics (Winchester, Kong et al. 2003). Who is the mainstream

and who is the minority may change over time, and this is negotiated in discussions of

truth and knowledge and also about what is relevant to discuss at all. It is useful to have

this in mind when analysing a conflict.

I look at landscapes in a relational way, not only to have symbolic or textual

meaning but also to be about ownership (juridical) and control. One might say that this

is what Olwig calls the North European tradition (Olwig 1984; Olwig 2002). In this

matter I also agree with both Olwig and Cosgrove who defines landscape as a relation

between the function of a landscape and the political organization of society (Cosgrove

1984; Olwig 1984; Olwig 2002). In the discussions in this text the landscape is

14

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

the ecological.

Landscape and also the everyday landscape, built environment and places are something

fluid and changing as are cultural identities and individuals. At the same time identities

can be reinforced through the landscape by traditions, nature and the home (Dixon

2003). Landscapes and especially landscape conflicts can create and also challenge

power relations. In text and discursions and representations of landscapes these “fights”

can be detected. Some has criticised the geographers for “dallying with text” (Johnston,

Gregory et al. 2001). But there is always a social reality behind texts and discursive

representations of landscapes are there for the human geographer to use (Winchester,

Kong et al. 2003).

Why choose to do a case study on a wind power conflict? The wind-power business in

Norway is a new industry and people do not know much about it in general. This might

give fresh perspectives on the technology and its potential impact on the landscapes,

environment and people’s lives. Why the focus on the coast of Northern Norway? The

answer is vulnerability.

” The coastline is a vulnerable zone, ecologically as well as visually. For this

reason there will normally be considerable conflicts triggered off by erecting

wind turbines very close to the coastline. In addition one must take special care

and consideration when placing wind turbines in the outer coastal areas”

(Selfors and Sannem 1998) p. 18

15

3.1 The place and the case of Andmyran Wind Power P lant The borough of Andøy is situated in the north of

Norway, in Nordland County in the Vesterålen

region2. The Andøy Municipality covers an area of

659, 3 km2, and has a population of 5.134

inhabitants. The municipal centre is Andenes with

about 2.900 inhabitants. At 69 degrees north latitude,

300 km above the Arctic Circle and overlooking the

ocean, we find the island of Andøya with its wide

open marshlands and sharp-pointed mountain peaks.

The island is 7 mile long and stretches from south-

west to north-east. To the east Andøya is enclosed by

an open, wide fjord (Andfjorden) and to the west

there is only ocean as far as to Greenland,

(Norishavet). Nearly half of the island is covered with marches which is unique in a

Norwegian context. Thanks to the Gulf Stream, the climate is milder than its northerly

position might suggest. Andøya is also well known for its windy climate. The area has

the midnight sun from 19th of March to 25 of July and the dark season is from 25th of

November to 15th of January.

The main occupation is fishery and service industries: A rocket base3, the only

instrumented sea- test range in the northern parts of Scandinavia4 , a large military base

and activities and a military airfield. The military has been dominating the island after

the Second World War. This has produced economic activity and growth but also led to

expropriation of land, as roads and firing ranges as well as other installations have been

constructed all over the island. In the summer season Andøya has a thriving tourist

business, the major attraction is whale-watching safaris, but nature safaris also provide

adventures and the white sandy beaches on west, “the outer side” are quite famous5.

The landscape of Andøya has large dimensions and visual depth (Nordland

Fylkeskommune 2003). It is a flat landscape with large, flat marshland, steep

mountainsides and large mountain plateaus stretching against the sea in the west on the

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

Figure 1. Andøya

16

“outer side”. On the eastern side of the island or “the inner side” as it is known locally,

there are flat mores and low mountains.

Figure 2. Andøy. Source: Andøya Tourist Board.

17

The roads and the settlement are situated close to the sea shore. It is on the mores

between the sea and the mountains the planned wind power plant will be situated. There

is some 1 to 3 km between the mountains and the sea in a long coastal strip of old sea

bed, now covered with marshland. Here the Ramsåfeltet range hides fossils of giant

amphibians that lived 150 million years ago.6 The great expanses of marshland are

abundant with cloudberries. It is a rich birdlife here and every year the national

championship for hunting with bird dogs takes place here. There are lakes rich with

trout and rivers with salmon on the island.

3.1.2 History and culture

The County of Nordland is the cradle of the coastal fisheries, and fisheries traditions

and coastal traditions permeate the whole society. Nordland’s island realm has a total of

14000 islands and is a coastline unparalleled anywhere else in the world. Use of space

and landscape has not been restricted as it has mainly been owned by the people who

inhabited the land (Sevatdal 2006). As long as you do not disturb others you can walk

and camp even on private land according to the Norwegian tradition and laws of “Every

6 www.nordlandreiseliv.no

Figure 3.The “inner side” of Andøya, the view from the east. Source. AVAS 2006.

18

Man’s Basic Rights” to access (Abrahansson 1999). This works as a positive a factor for

pursuing outdoor activities on Andøya but also puts pressure on the land and resources.

The culture on Andøya has always been innovative. The first wind power plant in

Norway on shore was Dahle’s "Vindkraftverk” at Andøya. The power plant was put

into operation in 1916 and provided electricity to 16 subscribers the first years.

Dahle’s windpowerplant at Andøya

was put into operation in 1916. Source: Odd Solhaug. "Det è glo i strengan".7

3.2 The wind power plant, Andmyran Vindpark A/S (AV AS) Today the society is still innovative and wind power is again a topic. There have been

several investigations aimed at finding a suitable site for a wind power plant on Andøya.

Most of the projects have stranded for several reasons; local resistance, lack of funding

or legal conflicts with protected areas of nature or cultural heritage, military

installations etc. In 2004 two companies started to prepare for concessions. The first

one, Skavdalsheia Vindpark is now “put on ice” and one serious actor, Andmyran

Vindpark A/S (AVAS) is in the process of applying for concession to build a wind

power plant. The chosen site is the Skarstein, Breivika and Ramså area which consists

of three small villages on the eastern side of Andøya with 120 – 150 households.

Andmyran Vindpark (AVAS) applied for concession for building and running a

wind power plant in the vicinity of the hamlets of Ramså, Breivik and Skarstein with

the permission to produce at most 200MW effect of electricity8. The area consists of

moor- and marchland, with an altitude of 20-25 meters above sea level stretching over

an area of 11km2. Apart form a few visible moraines the area is flat. Measurements of

wind in the area showed 8.8 m/s mean wind 105 meter above the ground. The original

sketch of the wind power plant showed 10-12 rows of turbines with 2-6 turbines in each

row in the direction of SE-NE. The distance to the nearest houses will be approximately

500 meters. In addition to 40-80 wind turbines roads and infrastructure, new power lines

and a transforming station will be built (Bjerke, Strann et al. 2004; Andreassen and

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

19

Thorkildsen 2005). The application is flexible on size and numbers of wind turbines,

due to the rapid change in technology in the field. But a main goal is to have as few and

as large turbines as possible.

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

S Ø W

N

20

Andmyran Vindpark A/S (AVAS)

Ministry OED/ NVE

Involved authorities

The public Date ca

Report Assessment Hearing Assesment app.(KS)/plan (KU)

Hearing Public meeting

2005

Application Law of Energy ----------------- Concession process

KU-progam stated

Submit to Ministry of Environm. (MD)

2005

Local Law of Planning- and Built Environment

Evaluation of Application/KU KU-approval

The Energy Act Total evaluation/ Final conclusion

Hearing Hearing

Hearing Public meeting

2005 2006

Possible e-concession

Production/ tender/ order

2006

Development 2007-2008

Operation 2007-2008

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

3.2.1 Current laws and regulations concerning wind power in Norway

To get the permission for building a power plant it is necessary to apply at a local level

according to the Law of Planning of Built Environment9 and a to get a concession for

production of energy according to the Law of Energy10. Several other special laws and

regulations must be clarified, such as the Law of Protection of Cultural Heritage

(Kulturminneloven). The process is complicated as well as expensive. In 2005 AVAS

put forward an orientation to the Directorate of Oil and Energy (OED), the Norwegian

Water Resource and Energy Directorate (NVE) and the Department of Environment

(MD). The proposal contains plans and a preliminary impact assessment program (KU).

The proposal was then sent to all parties to the case (stake holders), both for public

hearings and orientation. NVE adapts the report into a KU11-program to be approved by

MD, this is then returned to AVAS. In the decision process the local view on landscape

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

21

and their views upon the expected changes shall be taken into consideration as well as

the right to take part in the decision process

3.2.2. The influence zones from the wind power plan t

The wind farm and the influence of the site is shown on the map below, with 4 visual

influence zones (Statens vegvesen 1995). Zone 1 (red) is very large negative influence

and zone 4 (yellow) is

not visible (Ingham

and Ingam 2005). On

the road, RV 82, from

2 km south of the

wind farm to 2 km

north of the farm is

classified to have a

very large negative

influence (Zone 1,

red). The wind farm

will have a large

negative influence in

the zone to the north

and south, and to the

west up against the

top of the mountains.

The recreational and

tourist areas on the

north of the island will be partly sheltered by the mountains. The visual influence will

be dependent on the size and number of turbines chosen.

Reviewing concessions and assessment plans were undertaken to collect

background material. Mainly maps, visualisations as well as facts about the project are

collected from these plans. As used through the text, these reports and documents will

be referred. The plans were discussed during the interviews and I will use some

illustrations in regards to issues raised.

The next chapter is about material and methods, followed by an examination of

secondary and primary 5 before discussing and analysing the findings in the last two

chapters.

Figure 5. Influence zones. Source, AVAS, 2006

22

4.1. Material and methods Wind power is a multi-disciplinary and complex area to investigate, and it is therefore

necessary to use several different methods to gain knowledge (Pasqualetti, Gipe et al.

2002). I wanted to go into depth rather than scratching the surface. In investigating

what is the reason for this particular conflict, the method of a case study was chosen as

a step by step explorative approach for gaining knowledge (Thaagard 2004). The main

approach taken is qualitative, but I use quantitative data as background variables and to

measure visibility. Some of the methods and techniques in this case are inspired from

participatory mapmaking where local people contribute to create maps (PPGIS) (Kwan

2002)12. The investigation of this phenomenon in the field calls for using methods both

from human geography and geographical information systems (GIS), hence the mixed

method approach.

4.2. Secondary data

4.2.1 Newspapers and formal assessment plans

The first insight and how the case of “Andmyran Vindpark” was brought to my

attention were through the local newspaper articles in Andøyposten (the Andøya

Gazette). To gain insight into the conflict and views, the general discussion and articles

on the case was collected as well as the reader’s letters. To get to know the case and the

ongoing process the next step was to collect and read all formal documents concerning

the case of Andmyran Windfarm A/S (AVAS). Some documents and the formal

concession statement were available from the official site of The Norwegian Water

Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE)13 others had to be collected from AVAS and

the opposition.

4.2.2 Maps, aerial photos and drawings

Geo-referenced sources used are base maps and digital elevation models (DEM) from

the national geo-portal, Norge Digitalt14. A visit to the local council planning office was

necessary to collect detailed maps and aerial photos of the wind farm area as well as

local plans. AVAS gave me drawings of the influence area. The material will be used in

geographical analysis and techniques like line of sight, view-sheds and simple

visualisations.

12 See www.iapad.org, (21.3.2006) 13 The Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE) is subordinated to the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy, and is responsible for the administration of Norway´s water and energy resources. www.nve.no 14 ftp://ftp.statkart.no/pub/ 12.6.2006

23

Data Source Datum/Type Projection Resolution

Base map

(Roads, elevation, water,

buildings, vegetation type,

place names)

Norge

Digitalt

Euref89/WGS84 UTM33 N 1:50000

Base map

(Roads, elevation, water,

buildings, vegetation type,

borders, place names)

Andøy

kommune

WGS1948 NGO Zone

5

N 1:5000

CAD drawings of

influence area with

property borders

AVAS CAD Drawing

Raster map of area

Economic Map of

Norway,

AVAS WGS1948, ØK NGO Zone

5

N 1:50000

Aerial photos (Digital

Ortho Photos)

Andøy

kommune

WGS1948 NGO Zone

5

.jpg and

SOSI

Coordinates for wind

turbine placement

AVAS WGS84 UTM33 .xls

Digital Elevation Model,

DEM

Norge

Digitalt

WGS84 UTM33 25 x 25

meter

Constructions in influence

area of wind power plant

AVAS Scanned

raster

Data preparation was undertaken for the purposes of making maps with Ortho-photos

for the interviews and prepare for photo visualizations and 3D animations. This

included making a Triangulated Digital Elevation Model (TIN). The original GRID

DEM had to be clipped to a size that could be manageable, but large enough to avoid

edge effects in the areas of interest for analysis (Llobera 2001). N5-maps had to be re-

projected to UTM33 and the aerial photos had to be converted from Norwegian SOSI-

format to shape.

Table 2. Maps and geo- referenced sources

.

24

.

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

25

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

26

4.2.3. Informal talks and personal interviews, tele phone and e-mail

The first contact was made with the responsible person at the national level (NVE) in

charge of the case Ms. Henriette Haavik15. To gain further knowledge of the case and

the actors at the local level, several phone calls were made to informants at the local

administrative level (Andøy municipality). Both the business adviser in the municipality

as well as the council manager gave me valuable information on the case as well as

references and telephone numbers to key informants on either side in the conflict. One

might say this was a “snowball method” and it worked even if it was quite time

consuming.

4.2.4. Field trip and data collection

In the beginning of July 2006 I travelled to the island of Andøya with the goals of

gaining further insight into the case and getting to know the area. Being situated 1500

km from Oslo clear appointments were necessary. The director of AVAS, Asgeir

Andreassen and Bjørnar Nicolaysen from the “opposition” stated that they had the time

to talk about their views and opinions. I could phone them as soon as I arrived to

Andøya. The first two interviews were quite extensive. In addition to the oral

information, the general manager of AVAS, Mr. Asgeir Andreassen provided a lot of

secondary material; power point presentations and visualizations as well as geo-data

from the assessment plans (see section on secondary data).

Also Mr. Bjørnar Nicolaysen gave me a lot of printed information, photos and

background for the view of the local opposition. Both informants very generously and

openly shared their views and opinions with me. And in a friendly way they both

warned me about what was ahead; “you will be used by all involved parties as well as

the newspaper so you might as well be prepared for that” . These two informants did not

mind being cited, as they felt that their views were generally very well known because

of the public discussion that had taken place in the area. This trip to Andøya also

included collection of “ground truth” e.g. getting to know the area.

4.2.5. Collecting photos of the terrain

Having collected the first material and gotten a general knowledge of the case, the next

step was to construct an interview guide for the final questions. There was little

possibility of doing a pilot due to the distance, the summer holiday and limited time.

But the questions had been tested in an informal way on the first trip and discussed with

colleagues and friends. So I decided to return again in the first week of august to

15 http://www.nve.no/modules/module_111/netbasNVE.asp?iCategoryID=1403&script=9&objid=-41911, 10.5.2006

27

undertake the personal interviews and collect image data (panoramic photographs and

photos of important places in the landscape).

4.3 Structured interviews

The goal was to make as many personal interviews with people living in different parts

of the influence area as possible. An important factor was to get informants from all the

three places (hamlets) involved; Ramsa, Breivik and Skarstein. I aimed to get an even

distribution of men and woman and to ask different age groups. When contacting people

I gave them a letter of introduction, with explanations and background for the project

and statements of privacy (see Appendix1).

A more thoroughly explanation on each question will be presented in the

findings section. But the main questions were about how the public used the terrain and

how they personally imagined the wind farm would influence the local landscape and

their use of the area and their access to it (see appendix 1). To gain knowledge on use of

the landscape, aerial photos with map-overlays were used (figure 9).This made the map

easier to read as people recognized details by looking at known objects in the landscape.

The map was covered with a transparent sheet and use of the terrain drawn directly on

this. This map was used as basis for drawing places and activities. The map was then

rectified to over a base map, points and lines were made and information was coded to

show use of the terrain on a new map (figure7 and 8).

Figure 8. Lines and points, the coding process of the PPGIS data.

28

If there were places that were to be held secret they were marked with an S. Questions

where then asked if they thought the same places would gain more value or loose value

if the wind farm were built, and if the project would improve access to some areas.

Figure 9. Example of a PPGIS map, rectified and ready for coding the data on the vector map.

29

Some background information on age, occupation, attachment to the place and

ownership was collected. One section covered the positive and negative aspects of

living in the area. Some questions that directly asked people to assess influence from the

wind turbines. This was used as a check on knowledge about effects.

Another section was about their knowledge of the case; had they attended

meetings and did they know of plans and documents and photographic visualisations

concerning the case? The last questions were about acceptance of wind power and how

close the planned turbines would be to their house or cabin. As the second last question

they were asked if they thought they would continue to live in their house if the project

was done and they got compensation for their houses. As a conclusion all the informants

were asked if there were anything else they would like to add to the case in regards to

the personal interview. Special care was given to the staging and sequence of the

questions to make the informants feel more at ease including having this general

question as the last one.

4.4 Photo documentation During my stay I set out to investigate special places of importance that the informants

had pointed out, taking photos of the terrain. The photos were geo-referenced in a small

database on a PDA. To control the input, a simple map was generated in ArcGis and

transferred to ArcPad on the PDA. Photographs were taken with a digital 35 mm reflex

camera as basis for photo visualisation of the wind turbines. The pictures will be

stitched to panoramic images using The Panorama Factory shareware16. The vantage

points of the panoramas were geo-coded in the database.

4.5. Shortcomings and limitations There are some weaknesses in the material. First of all it was not easy to make

appointments with people. Because it was summer people were out in the nature, fishing

at sea, walking in the mountains, staying on their cabins etc. On the other hand I god a

good mix of men and women from the whole area, but the age group from 25 to 35 is

not represented.

The interviews were long and I got more information from each informant than I

expected. Drawing on maps was enjoyable for most respondents, and in this process

there was a lot of information, good stories and laughter. Most informants needed time

and to look at several maps at the start. It was important not to rush people in this

process. Eight interviews were undertaken before I had to leave. By then, the snowball

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

30

effect was working again and several people were willing to talk about their doings and

views. However, the amount of information was overwhelming when it came to coding

and analyzing the material. I learned that tracing people’s movements and doings in the

landscape is time consuming. Another concern is reliability. I noticed some errors and

lack of detail on the drawings; on the other hand, this was not an important factor.

At first my aim was to ask people for personal pictures from their favourite

places, but in the situation I felt that this would only be possible to do with people I got

to know better. Pictures are personal belongings and one should have a good reason to

share ones own memories with a stranger. Some of the informants showed me pictures

from their favourite places, and I got some for use in the project. However, on my walks

in the landscape there were plenty of opportunities to take photos from the places

mentioned in the interviews.

4.6. Ethical considerations The ethical considerations and problems with going into a conflict like this are many.

The conflict had been going on for two years and the public was getting tired. It was

somehow an unpleasant situation for both sides. The area in the vicinity of the planned

wind park has a population of approximately 120 to 150 households, a small society

where ethics were even more important. Privacy is the most important one, and

measures will be taken to protect people’s identity (Flowerdew and Martin 1997;

Thaagard 2004). I was careful not to; taking too much of peoples time and hospitality;

raising expectations; extracting information only for outsider’s benefits or repeating

activities (Chambers 1998).

I decided not to ask some questions that I expected would upset the informants

or stir up more conflicts or tensions in society. The views of the local politicians and of

people that already are sited on the matter may be used, but under no circumstances will

person’s views be sited without explicit permission. Returning favours were also a

matter of concern: Giving back knowledge and information, returning photos and

favours has been done as far as possible. I also informed all my contacts of my normal

job and gave my address and telephone number.

4.7. Reflections on information On my first trip to Andøya I had rented a room close to the influence area on the

Kvalnes quay (Kvalnesbrygga) where the only windmill on the island is situated.

Because there was a lot of activity at the place with the tourist season coming up, I got

to talk to quite a few local people on a more general level about the case. With the

31

windmill in view, we could compare and discuss heights and visibility in relation to the

new project. There were also a lot of jokes and philosophical notions about the project,

so staying with the tourist and talking to the owners were a lucky strike. This could be

defined as a kind of participant observation, even if it was not planned.

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

32

5.1 The results

5.2 The public discussion on the case in the local newspapers As foreseen a conflict arouse also in this area, but not until may 2005. The referred

discussions are based on readers’ letters in the newspaper Andøyposten and local and

regional newspapers. Reference to sources is found in appendix 2. The material is rich,

massive and varied; I will extract content relevant to my research questions on visual

intrusion, landscape, and local knowledge but also refer to the general context of the

case.

5.2.1 Visual intrusion, consequences on people and society

The first public meting on wind power was attended by almost 100 people from

Andøya (Andøyposten 11.3.2004). The newspaper heading says; “Divided opinions on

wind power” with the subtitle: “A gap between expectations and the content (innhold)

of the meeting”. All stakeholders were present; land owners, AVAS, NVE and the

managers of the other project, “Skavdalsheia Vindpark”, Fred Olsen Renewables.

Questions asked from the public were; “how much noise will it be” and “how will the

turbines look like”? When asked for visualisations and details the developers stated it

was too early in the process. One of the people attending the meeting being a landscape

architect argued that “It is a lack of respect to come here without anything to show us. It

is not so difficult to make visualisations or animations. It would have made the

discussion much more rewarding for all of us.” (Andøyposten 11.3.2004).

Proximity to the built environment in the three places, Ramså, Breivika and

Skarstein is and was the greatest concern; the visual and audio influence from the

turbines on the general wellbeing and livelihood of the inhabitants in the area. AVAS

can not overlook this intrusion “by researching themselves away from the fact” of the

enormous dimensions of the turbines that will influence the people living there. “Not a

single word has been mentioned concerning the most important individuals in the

vicinity of the planned wind farm, the human beings living there” (Andøyposten

19.5.2006). The fact that 150 people are living close to the site is not mentioned in the

concession plans (Vesterålen Online, 30.5.2006). It was also mentioned historical

events; some of the people living in the Ramså, Breivika and Skarstein were forced to

33

move from their homes when the airfield was built in 1952-5317. The village,

Haugnesbygda with its 350 inhabitants was expropriated and removed from the map18.

5.2.2 Landscape, environmental aspects and the moor

The influence on birds and especially the eagle were stressed; the wind farm is planned

in the area where they fly from the mountains to the sea to catch food. There are

concentric moors unique in a European context on the Ramså marchland (see figure 5).

Dinosaur remains might be found under the moor in the Ramså moraine, stemming

from the Jura period, 146 million years ago (Vol.no 24.1.2006).

Concerns were raised on the practicalities of building the roads and transporting

and erecting the turbines on the moor and the marshland. The landscape on the moor is

expected to change as vegetation will quickly grow if the soil is mixed with sand and

drained. There were arguments for proving the project technically impossible because

of the conditions on the moor, the deep ponds and the marshy area.

It could cause serious local effects if the isolating layer called Aurhella, covering

the groundwater is damaged; and what about flooding when the moor is drained? If the

project should fail to complete, would there be a proper restoration and removal of the

remains of the turbines (Vol.no 24.1.2006)?

5.2.3 Local knowledge

Local knowledge of the area and local views concerning the viability and realization of

the project was put forward (Andøyposten 19.5.2006). The weather and the

sustainability of the project were questioned. Will the turbines fail to function in the

climate with the well known extreme weather conditions on the island? If the turbines

does not work or are damaged by extreme weather, will one have to face a “churchyard”

e.g. will the company remove the remains? In any case, the moor will be lost

irreversibly.

5.2.4 Local ownership

The protesters points to lack of local ownership and control. We are selling out the gold,

with no benefits for the locals, e.g. for the people living near by. No real gain for the

community as the developer will probably sell concession to foreign companies. The

project is “terrorising 3 societies to total destruction” and seducing the politicians by

promising 8 millions NOK a year for a 10 year period19, (Vesterålen Online, 24.1.2006).

17 Memories from Haugnes, 3D model. http://home.no.net/haunes/minner/daniel_toften.htm, 21.9.2006 18 The history of Andøya Airfield, http://www.mil.no/luft/start/omlf/stasjoner/andoya/#historikk, 22.9.2006 19 1NOK = 12.8GBP or 6.7USD

34

5.2.5 The dialogue with the local community

Words used from the protesters were; no gain from the meetings, lack of information is

disinformation and simplifying the truth (nrk.no, 24.4.2006). A concern about being

biased was raised, as two assessment reports were produced by co-owners and a share

holder in AVAS: assessment on “Leisure- and recreational use” by Nor Vind A/S and

“Visual effects” by Intercon IS. Generally AVAS was focused on informing and urging

the public to read the assessment reports and information on the case (Andøyposten

8.11.2005). And informing in the paper on facts on how many wind turbines will be

erected, practical problems, the pace of the work, schedule and funding plan and

available technology. AVAS puts forward the sustainability of clean energy as a

positive factor and their efforts to make a good and sustainable plan. AVAS recognizes

the problem with visual effects and have the opinion that the visual intrusion is the only

serious problem for the concession to pass.

6.1 Findings and results primary data

6.1.2 A formal conflict score of D according to NVE

A natural starting point was to get primary information from the top of the decision

chain, speaking to Ms. Henriette Haavik, the person in charge of the process in NVE.

She gave a general view on the current application process concerning Andmyran

Vindpark A/S. Her opinion was that the conflict level was quite normal. However, she

asked not to be publicly cited on this and especially not in any newspaper20. However, in

the official papers from NVE, the conflict has a formal conflict score of D21, on a scale

where E is the highest level of conflict and A the lowest. The main reason for the high

score is the valued landscape on the island as a whole, evaluated as having very high

landscape value. The potential for conflict is high because of the sum of the impacts.

Analysing the landscape as well as new visualisations may change the potential for

conflict.

6.1.2 The local politicians and planning authoritie s

The local authorities were contacted several times; they were pleased to get a lot of

information from both the opposition and AVAS. As they had no experience with wind

energy, they found the discussions useful. They acknowledged the work done by giving

B. N. 5000 NOK for his expenses in collecting information. The local council has

decided not to have a referendum, because they view the effects to be local, and

20 This sentence will be removed from the text when the dissertation is published on the internet. 21 http://www.dirnat.no/multimedia.ap?id=28540#search=%22And%C3%B8y%20konflikt%20D%22. 26.8.2006

35

dependent on the stakeholders. According to the newspaper Andøypostens informal

survey22, 70% of the inhabitants on the island are positive to wind power. There are

economical benefits for the municipality but this is also a problematic case, and local

elections are due next year.

6.1.3 Applying for a licence; concession plans and assessments

As mentioned in chapter 3 there are two major laws involved in the concessions; the

local Law of Planning and Built Environment and the national Law of Energy.

According to the process 7 formal objections to the plans have been raised. I will not go

into these as they are repeating many of the views put forward earlier. They are

however important, as they can make another round in the wheel of applications.

6.2 Informal interviews with AVAS and the oppositio n In all of the interviews I will try to use the language of my informants to keep the

authenticity and meaning intact through the translation. The open ended interviews with

Mr. Asgeir Andreassen (AA) the Director of AVAS, and Mr. Bjørnar Nicolaysen (BN)

representing the opposition covered a lot of material; I will extract the information

relevant for the research questions asked: Fear of loss when the landscape changes,

aspects of local knowledge in the conflict, and the problem of representing the

landscape changes through visualisations.

6.2.1 The concession process and the dialogue accor ding to AVAS

The first interview was with Mr. Asgeir Andreassen, the director of AVAS. From AA’s

point of view the process had been going well and cooperation had been good between

AVAS and the stakeholders. There had been meetings with the land owners, for the

purpose of negotiating a contract for monetary compensation concerning the placing of

wind turbines. The site for the wind farm was chosen because this is the most feasible.

Other possible sites conflicted with different formal defined interest; cultural heritage,

flora and fauna, tourism etc. The work done by AVAS was held up as being a good

example of a sustainable plan. The turning point came on a meeting in May 2005, when

the protests started fronted by Mr. Bjørnar Nicolaysen (BN) who engaged himself in the

matter.

From AA’s opinion there is one major factor driving the conflict. Land owners

get monetary compensation, home owners do not. This is a weakness in the Norwegian

system. It ought to be a monetary compensation, due to the fact that the whole society

will be influenced by negative visual intrusion e.g. all the people living in the proximity

22 According to Mr. Asgeir Andreassen, AVAS

36

of the wind turbines. He fully acknowledges the visual conflict due to the proximity to

dwellings. On the other hand, wind energy is a “window of opportunity” for the

company and might give income to the society of Andøya. Work and agglomeration

effects will be a positive effect in the construction period of 2 years. The rest of the

population is positive, as 75 % supports wind power on Andøya according to a survey

done by the local newspaper Andøyposten (source AA).

6.2.2 On aesthetics and landscape loss

According to AA the Andøya population view the landscape as a productive one, filled

with activities; it must be used in order to sustain the society. This is a part of the way

of life on the coast. The smell from fish factories is accepted because this is “the smell

of money”. The beach is often used for storing or burning garbage. There is a long

tradition on turfing and the turf industry in the area, which now sustains 20 – 30 jobs,

leaves scars in the landscape. Aesthetics is an aspect of lesser importance for people,

progress and earning a living must be put first for the society to survive. People rapidly

accept new ideas and changes in the landscape when they are a reality.

Photo 1. Storing garbage on the beach for making a bonfire later. Source. B. Pettersen, 2006.

Sustainability is a positive factor and is an important motive in raising the production of

clean wind energy. Even if the site is close to dwellings, there will probably be less

people living in the area in 10-15 years because of the ongoing centralisation in the

north.

From his point of view, it is a lot of feelings involved in this case. He sited

research on wind energy and acceptance and he mentioned the NIMBY effect (Not in

My Back Yard). Once the construction period is over and the production starts,

37

acceptance will be achieved. There are many examples of people accepting wind power

in countries like Denmark and also in Norway and the protesters are creating a scenario

that is far too scary and this stirs up the population. Before the protests started in may

2005, there was no opposition, and the land owners had almost agreed to sign.

6.2.3 Aspects of local knowledge

To use local contractors was important. It is a positive factor that a local contractor has

made the plans for the construction of infrastructure and fundaments on the site. This is

a well known and experienced company; used to the conditions in the area as well as the

extreme conditions in the Arctic and Svalbard. This should be a guarantee for a proper

handling of the problems with constructing the site on the moor.

AA and AVAS has been taking measures to inform politicians; because wind

energy is a new phenomenon and must be experienced. He took politicians and others

on a trip to the wind farm on Smøla, in “the midlands” of Norway, on the coast23. It is

necessary with a real life experience, because the myths on wind energy are many AA

states that AVAS are trying to do the right thing; keep improving plans and keep

informing the public.

6.2.4 Photo visualizations and information

The local opposition had complained about the lack of photo visualisations, but they are

now present in the concession application as they are compulsory (Andreassen and

Thorkildsen 2005). AA informed about the view points for photo visualizations; all five

of them have been chosen by the stakeholders. AVAS wanted to show three different

sizes of turbines to give an impression of how the different sizes would appear in the

landscape. This was also done to make way for a flexible solution e.g. taking into

account that the technology of wind turbines are evolving and higher turbines with more

effect are produced. The pink dots are the points chosen for photo visualisations (figure

11). The largest alternative in the visualisation is the most probable option, hence shown

on the next pages (figure 12 a, b and c) with 40 turbines at 5MW (Andreassen and

Thorkildsen 2005; Andmyran Vindpark A/S 2006)

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

38

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

39

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

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

Fotopoint 5. Ramsanakken 40 turbines/ 5Mw Intercon A/S Ingvild Holann The photo is taken from Ramsånakken, 214 m. with free view north east against the wind farm.and The nearest turbine is ca 700 meters away. Very large negative influence from this viewpoint.

Figure 12. A, B and C. Photo visualisations made by AVAS. Ramså (2), Skarstein (3), Ramsanakken (5). Source AVAS, 2006

40

6.3 Interview with a representative of the oppositi on to the wind farm

6.3.1 The concession process and the dialogue

People did not understand the consequences of the project at first. Many thought there

was no possibility of stopping the plan and that the matter was already decided. The

deadline for handing in protests against the plan was short. With no previous experience

with wind power he/they had to do a lot of work to gain knowledge. NVE was present

at the meetings to guarantee that everything was done by the book. This gave a false

sense of security. I feel that their (NVE) real purpose was to limit the protest, so that

everything is pushed through the decision mill. I will call this “information rape”.

People did not know what this really was all about. Everybody elsewhere in Andøya is

very relieved they were not chosen. We here drew the shortest straw, when many of the

other places had said no, including AA’s home place. We have to pay for others to earn

money.

On sustainability and economy BN had some critical remarks. The power lines

must be expanded as well as the infrastructure. Andøya municipality has to pay a part of

this, and that is our money. We do not even get cheaper electricity; the only one making

money is Andmyran Vindpark A/S (AVAS) and its investors. BN also questioned who

will be the owners of the natural resources in the end; when they get the concession,

they will sell it to foreign investors (Folkebladet.no, 24.12.2004)24. Locally we get all

the negative aspects. The owners of land and common land will get a yearly

compensation, but their as well as our homes and second homes (cabins) will be

reduced in value. People have stopped spending on their houses. Everybody will want to

move because of psychological reasons. People expect to feel like prisoners in their own

home, because they are not able to sell the house being 500 to 700 meters from the

nearest wind turbines.

6.3.2 Aspects of local knowledge, according to the opposition

From BN’s opinion AVAS’s knowledge of the moor is not sufficient, even if they are

using local contractors. It is difficult to build anything there because it is very deep;

locals have reported 15 – 20 meters or more25. He was concerned that the layer of gravel

that holds the groundwater called “Aurhella”, a moraine layer, would be damaged.

What if the project fails and disturbs the groundwater balance?

24 Sites Geir Skoglund, Vindkraft NOR, the company owns 50% of AVAS. 25 20 meters = 65feet.

41

Another scientific fact we do not believe in is the theory on O (zero) icing on the blades

due to our knowledge on the climate here. The polar low pressures and unstable weather

condition will be even more extreme in the years to come, because of global warming.

BN also talked about acceptance: acceptance is giving up our landscape, nature

and freedom because of other people’s environmental sins. We protect nature and live

in the nature, fish our fish. “This constant need to travel,.. if the environment is

damaged, should we travel elsewhere and polluting thereby. What is won then? No

matter the local cost, a higher goal is pursued”. No human consideration is taken.

The opposition had also done some lobbying as the main decision lies with the

county council. To influence them is Alfa and Omega. The protesters had taken a

delegation of politicians on a trip to a wind power plant. They had also discussed with

the people who are land owners, pointing to that not everybody agreed on selling out to

AVAS. There is a 50/50 balance against the plans in his opinion.

6.3.2 On aesthetics and landscape loss

From BN’s opinion the photo visualisations are from points at a distance where you can

hardly see houses. AVAS is painting a pretty picture of the future in the plans, not a real

one. The dimensions of the project and the intrusion are not shown. The wind turbines

are very big and they do not make good neighbours. It is not about aesthetics. “You

know how we are in the North; everything does not have to be pretty”. He stressed that

the people here are quick to pick up new ideas, like windmills, and mentioned fish

factories and “The smell of money”. Closeness and use of nature is important. We want

to use nature, and live from it. The military landscape is the landscape of Andøya, with

high towers and firing ranges, and the airfield.

Expropriations have been normal in the past, and Haugnesbygda is one example

of this. Many of them live here in Skarstein and Breivika now. They had to move but

they got something back; compensation, work and prosperity. It is hard for those old

people from there you know, experiencing this. On choosing to live in the rural north;

we want to live in freedom and natural silence. If we had interest in making big money,

or doing a career we would have moved to Oslo. Here we have the moor, the horizon,

our paradise is here.

6.3.3 Photo visualisations and information

The protesters had made a different visualisation close to the house (see fig. 13). They

made this visualisation to make people realize how high the turbines will be. BN had

42

also made a list with 20 comparisons referring to well known land marks; high towers,

like the lighthouse in Andenes, which is 40 meters, (131 feet).

Figure 13. Photo visualisation, the opposition. Source: B. Nicolaysen. 2006.

43

6.4 Ground truth, a first field trip in the landsca pe

During the interview BN had suggested to take the student (me) on a walking tour. The

next day we drove up to the mountains, a short 10 minutes drive, and went for a hike in

the surrounding area in order to get an impression of the landscape surrounding the

wind farm. He showed me the mountain paths of importance, the fishing waters (lakes)

and the places to rest, camp and to build fires and pointed out the cottages in the area.

On the hike we could observe how people came walking down the mountains

from the other side of the island. As the weather was changing from sunny to rainy,

cold, foggy and windy I got a first lesson in using the area, as well as getting to see

important places and learning geographical names. BN pointed out objects in the

landscape in relation to the conflicts with wind turbines like valuable marshlands and

we had quite close contact with another actor in the conflict, an eagle (fish hawk or

osprey) looking for food. This walk with a local informant contributed to the

understanding of the spatial dimensions in the landscape in relation to the height of the

wind turbines.

44

7.1 Interviews with informants from Ramså, Breivika and Skarstein The local opposition had already undertaken two surveys on people being for or against

the wind power plant. They had also asked the people who owned second homes

(cabins) in the influence area. Between 70-80 % of the home owners and almost 100%

of the people who have second homes had stated that they were against the project

being realized. It is not a scientific method as such, but I acknowledged the fact that it

had been done and did not ask people this question again in the interviews.

On the first question the goal was to collect information on how people used the

landscape and terrain. The informants draw their places and paths on an aerial photo

combined with a base map, using a transparent sheet on top. Each informant chose her

own colours and patterns. They were asked to draw the most “important” places first,

and as many as they wanted.

1. Are there places in the area you use frequently in your leisure time?

7.2 The map of places and activities for people liv ing in the area

As we can see from the map (figure 14), the informants are using the terrain for many

different activities. Generally one goes or drives from the home, over the moor and up

to the waters. Or they just go for a walk on the beach or along the road. But there are

also more extensive trips when going for a hike, fishing or hunting. People often drive

over the moor and park the car, and continue into the terrain overlooking the villages. In

the winter one might do cross country skiing or use snowmobiles on special tracks to

reach the same terrain. The distances are not long, and the area is accessible, with lots of

paths, marked and unmarked. The activities mentioned were of course varied but being

in the fall most people mentioned the most important activities in this season; picking

berries; cloudberries, blueberries and mountain cranberries (orange). Some picked

mushrooms, and especially chantarelle was the best catch. In some of these areas

informants put a secret mark (S), or just marked it berries or mushrooms. Everybody

picked berries, but some men told me that while they went fishing in this area, over

there was her special berry picking spot (e.g. the wife or partner). Going with family, or

children going with grandparents is common and appreciated as a relaxing leisure

No.

Where or place name, approximately

What activities are usually going on there? Win

the

r

Su

mm

er

Co

lor

cod

e

1 The river (example)

Fishing for salmon etc. Walking on the riverbank, often thinking of problems or doing some “philosophical” reasoning.

x Red

45

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

46

activity. For older people but also in general the cloudberry picking was the most

cherished activity. It has traditions as a trade in the area, and is for many still a private

resource on their land or on the common land belonging to the local hamlet or place.

Fishing places were mentioned by 6 persons, and the men were more engaged in

this activity and had more places on their maps than women (blue colour). But women

did fish, but sometimes the man was fishing while the woman went for berries. The

fishing places included both rivers and lakes. Many places had been named after the

people (just men) who

usually fished on that

particular spot. You could

name a “place” and then

other people started to use it

too in an informal way, like

the NN’s place. Quite a few

of the informants had built

places to rest or camp or

make fire places close to their

favourite fishing spot or by

the lakeshore. Nobody hesitated to show their favourite fishing places, because it was

not shown exactly on the map. As one of them said; “... you have to know exactly on the

point where to go if you want fish, if you are 20 meters away you will not get any. And

anyway, if you do not know how to fish in that place you will not get anything either.”

Man 40+

Fishing grounds at sea was mentioned by one man, and two of the women; both named

Myrflæsa as the best place. The women talked extensively about nice fishing

experiences at sea. They described how enjoyable it was to go ‘out on the sea with the

boat’ when the sun was shining all night and do some fishing and have a barbecue if the

weather was nice. I asked why all the men did not talk about this, and they responded

that they probably viewed it as gathering food for the family. ‘And this is a good

concept to keep up.. laughter.., because then you have a good excuse to get away for a

while, from the wife.’ Some of the men I talked to had to finish the interview and go

fishing or collect their fishing nets, but did not mention the sea as a special place to go

for leisure activities.

Figure 15. Fishing. Photo B. Nicolaissen

47

Hunting is an activity that is enjoyed, but this was only mentioned to be an activity done

by the men I interviewed (black, symbol and - - -). All of the men spoke about hunting,

but one did not mark any particular place, as it was “all

over the place”. When I asked if women did hunt it was

confirmed, but none of my female informants were

active hunters as to my knowledge. Hunting rights are

leased in the period from the 10th of September, and

gives some income. Hunting takes place on the

marshland as well as in the mountains, or “in the whole

area” as one of my informants stressed. Elk and grouse

are the most common catch. People hunt with dogs, as it

is a long standing tradition in the area to hunt with bird-

dogs. When you go in the mountains it is convenient to

have a place to sleep or rest, and many marked these

places. Some had built ‘lavvos’ for the purpose of resting, and sleeping in during the

hunting season. A lavvo or lavvu is a semi-permanent constructed shelter, of Sábmi

(Lappish) tradition, a bit like the Indian tipi. Some of the lavvo’s are situated by the lake

of Torddalsvannet, quite close to the shore and is marked with a purple circle on the

map.

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

Figure 16. Lavvo,Tordalsvatnet. Photo B. Pettersen

48

To “walk along the beach” (No. å gå i fjæra) was mentioned by more than half of the

informants as a valued activity. All the women and one man talked about this. All of the

houses are situated close to the sea. On the walk, one enjoys peace and quiet, the sound

of the sea and the seagulls and the beauty of the scenery. Some mentioned it was

enjoyable because they had used this area close to the sea since childhood, walking or

biking on the same paths. Others, I was told, had an ongoing project on walking all

around the island, every inch, included restricted areas.

Staying in the vicinity of the home was mentioned by all.

Because of the weather conditions the veranda, porch or the

‘good side’ of the house is very important. To use this

place, even in the middle of the night is something people

do during the summer. The good side of the house is used

for having a coffee or relaxing after work, barbeque,

smoke, sleep or as a place to sit with friends. These places

are always directed south-west, west or north-west. Even if

people did not mark this on the map, they explained and

did draw in detail why this place is important and how it

worked in different weather conditions.

During the interview and conversation people gave comments on what they enjoyed

about being on the places or using the place. Being together with friends and family

was one, but also going for a hike alone was highly appreciated. Five informants had

used the nature for regaining their health. Some had special routes they walked or had

walked every day. Things mentioned were recovering from serious back pain, injuries

like breaking a limb or more serious matters like operations and arthritis. Keeping one

self going and actively doing something to regain one’s health through using the nature

and places you cherished was stressed as an important matter by all.

Going back to places and making them ‘your own’ was also a subject of importance.

Men were building sites, making readily prepared places to have fires and making

shelters for themselves and the family, as well as naming places. Returning to pick

berries at the same place, fish, and walk your path was stressed as mentally rewarding.

This was linked to seasons, but also to the circle in life. The older I get the “more I

enjoy nature and the places I return to are special places, or happy places.”

Figure 18. On the veranda. West, the good side. Photo B. Pettersen

49

The sounds are important in being in the landscape. All of the women mentioned the

cosy sounds of animals, the waves, the seagulls and birds. Just sitting and listening to

the sounds of the nature are enjoyable. One of the women told me that she had a son

that was homesick and in the spring she went out on the veranda and held the cellular

phone in the air so her son could hear “the sound of the spring”; the always present

sound of the seagulls.

2. Are there any of these places you think will deteriorate or be of reduced value to you, if the plans for the wind farm are carried out?

Almost all of the persons I spoke to did not want to go into detail. They gave general

answers like the one in the example in question 4b. The greatest concern was the view

from the home, the living room window and the possibility to use places around the

house. “I use it (the veranda) 3 in the morning and 1 ó clock in the day.” Woman 50+

What they feared most was to have intrusion from visual influence. Because of the

weather and the climate, it is important to sit on the south-west side to get the low sun

and to be sheltered from the wind from the sea. In the afternoon when the weather is

nice, one uses the area against south-west, west and north-west. The evening sun will

pass via the wind turbines.

The view from the terrain, the wide open view against the island of Senja on the

east side of the fjord will be changed. When you walk at the beach and look to the

mountains they expected; you will always see wind turbines.

Sound or noise was also a major concern. Because this is a rural area, with little

background noise, they expected to hear the wind turbines. And to loose the natural

sounds of nature that they appreciated, like the sound of birds in the spring and the

breaking waves. A major worry was the nightly sound level. Would it be possible to

sleep with the windows open? At certain conditions sound travels over distances in this

area – and they did not trust the measurements from the developers. When the weather

is nice it is “east- wind weather” the wind will come towards you from the east as the

wind power plant will be in the west.

Many feared that they would not be able to use the area on the moor because the

wind turbines. The moor will be totally changed and the places on the moor will loose

their value as a consequence. When drained the moor will change its character (all the

No Where?

What do you expect will change? Win.

Sum

.

50

arguments from the public discussion were repeated). The moor is famous for causing

trouble. Among the examples mentioned was; a water pipe was very difficult to

construct, and several places it is now floating on water, erecting poles for electricity

also caused trouble. These had to be dragged out on the snow and ice in the winter.

3. Are there places you think would be more easily accessible and therefore become more used or increase in value if the plans for the wind park are carried out?

The main opinion was that access is very good, because there are several private roads

up to the lakes and mountain (see map). The impact on animal life and birds was

stressed as a negative factor by many. Negative aspects were mentioned: A concern

was that the turbines would hinder for the animals and birds when they look for food;

ice throwing in the winter; when you cross the moor you will have to pass under the

wind turbines. In the concession this is not considered possible, according to the zero

theory. Ice and polar low pressures, cold fog from the northern seas are making

unstable weather. It is so much winds here that the tar blows off the road. In March and

April it is nice weather, nice to go skiing here. I would not like to go under the

windmills, because of the risk of ice throwing from the blades. If closed in the winter

we have to go around.

Some positive aspects were mentioned. Biking in the area was mentioned if the

roads are accessible at all times. Work for some in the construction period, causing

direct increased value because there will be jobs and economic activity in the area.

The next question on intrusion will be examined only briefly, as informants have

already mentioned many of the effects in the former sections.

Nr. Where What do you expect will change? Winte

r

Sum

me

r

51

4a. Assuming the plans are carried out; to what extent do you expect the wind farm to influence your immediate surroundings? Feel free to supplement with your own categories. Factor None Little Intermediate Large Comments Sound/ noise Visual View Changed landscape Improved infrastructure (roads, electricity)

Ease the access to scenery/ natural areas

Lines to fill in Quite a few did not answer how large they thought this intrusion or change would be. I

realized that one category was missing, the ‘do not know’. 4 persons rated large on

sound, visual and view, one said one could get used to the noise. In the evening the sun

will go via the wind turbines in south west, and the effect of shadows will be very large

due to the low sun. The electricity infrastructure and the power lines will be improved,

strengthened and extended; this has to be paid partly by the municipality of Andøya.

4b.Do you think that the possible development of a wind farm will change the immediate environment (everyday landscape) and if so, how?

Answers were; total change, everything, the whole area. One windmill is ok, but this

does feel wrong here. What will one see, windmills or nature? My silence will be

destroyed! There were some comments on the landscape change; ‘It will be another

perspective. The place will change its character (but I do not believe the power plant

will be built).

7. How would you describe the nature and the landscape (brief)?

Some of the informants used one or two words describing the landscape and nature as;

fantastic, fine, beautiful, of greatness, rugged, hash, sharp, edged, flat, steep, accessible

and open. The clear fresh air was mentioned. Some mentioned the beaches and the

barren land and the broad/wide sky. The view against the mountains to the east of the

island of Senja was repeatedly stressed as something special on this “inner side” of

Andøya. How the light changes when you look in different directions. The somehow

panoramic view of the landscape and the openness; you can see the sky from

everywhere.

52

“When I sit on the steps in front of my home I can look at the light against the

North and see all aspects of the sky. It has got a different colour in each

direction. And when I moved here some 20 years ago to marry, I found this place

really ugly.” Woman 45+

The “beauty” factor was mentioned by all, young and old, men and woman. The “keep

it short” notice on this question was a really good idea. But having started on nature and

landscape it was also mentioned in the next question

8. What is the best aspect about living here in Breivika/ Skarstein/ Ramså?

On the positive aspects of living in Breivika, Ramså and Skartsein people stressed the

beauty of the landscape and nature as an important positive factor and also repeating

what they had told me before; the nature, the clean air, it is open and beautiful. The

Northern aspect or the remote or rural aspect was mentioned by two. You have freedom

and you can do what you want. Both the men and women mentioned the feeling of

freedom. It is a hard life (talks about the climate and long winter). “But what is a

snowstorm? It’s just a snowstorm. The tar blows off the road. So what?” Woman 45+.

Being able to use the landscape and nature for recreation and health was

important. It is easy to walk in the terrain, not so steep, nice fishing waters, fish in the

sea and berries; it is a lot of interesting outdoor activities. “It is healthy to do outdoor

activities. The good health you get from using the nature every day. Everybody can use

the nature, did you hear about NN who is 93, he still goes out to pick cloudberries and

everything? And the old guys they are ok as long as they can go out in the boat, at sea.”

Man 50.

Another man had a remark on this issue; “You know the people from the outer

side, at Bleik. They used to be so healthy, so when they needed to have a funeral they

had to go and borrow a corpse from Andenes (the city centre)”. Man 60+

Family, friends and having grown up in this area was important. A young woman in her

teens puts it this way. “It is both the people and the nature, everything the (our) culture,

people here and the environment, everything, you know, it works together. That is what

I like so much. You know, the combination, as I get older I more and more appreciate to

go in the nature (e.g. to use it).”

53

9. Are there any negative aspects about living at Breivika/Skarstein/Ramså?

The number one negative aspect is the weather; the long winter, October to April, and

sometimes the bad summers when the rain and fog and cold weather systems persists in

this area and creates windy and foggy conditions. “The hash weather, you have to

fasten the houses with steel wires to the ground.” Woman, 40+

Also mentioned by almost all the informants were the lack of jobs and a trend

where centralization tends to have the effect of schools getting closed, shops getting

closed down etc. Everybody was worried by the fact that most young people were

leaving for work in the centres or elsewhere. Andøya is a municipality in recession, and

“nobody” will take the risk of investing anything in developing new industries. The fact

that the municipality is struggling with the economy was also mentioned several times

in connection with some of these factors mentioned above.

On the other hand, others pointed to the pressure on natural resources, from

tourists and others as a problem and that there is an upper limit on how much the

landscape and nature can sustain.

The lack of communications (buses) was mentioned by the young and old people

as a problem. While the ones in their active life having cars mentioned long distances as

a problem, but good roads as a positive aspect.

A lady married to a local said that people know too much about each others

private matters. I am really a “city girl” and here everybody knows everything. I would

prefer a little more privacy.

10. Do you believe you will continue to live here for the next 5 years?

Yes … No…Do not now ……

When asking if they expected to live in the same place for the next five years, all the

home owners confirmed that they would.

11, 12. Background and age.

The exact data will not be shown as identity is easy to guess. Two of the informant did

not own their own house, one was too young and the other had the home elsewhere.

Occupation varied to a great extent. Men and women were represented 50/50; the main

age was between 35 and 55; none were between 25 and 33, under 17 or above 67.

54

7.3 Questions regarding the development process and the information given on the consequences of a new wind farm

13. How did you learn about the plans for the wind farm Yes/No 13a.Have you attended any of the public hearings or discussion forums?

13b.Have you read any of the impact studies or reports regarding the consequences?

13c. (not used) Received Information on radio or TV? 13d. Have you followed the discussion in the local newspaper or other newspapers?

13e.Have you exchanged information with neighbours, friends or other people?

13f: Other sources of information: Half of the informants had attended one of the meetings (5). Many of them were land

owners, and this is a part of the process of negotiating land use. Very few had read the

reports, but some had seen leaflets and read these. It had not been any TV or radio

publicity of consequence. However, the newspaper discussion had been noticed by

everyone. And discussions with neighbours and friends were also something all the

informants had engaged in to some extent.

People had used the Internet for information, Scottish and English sites were

mentioned as well as Norwegian ones. They had noticed negative information on wind

farms on TV, a recent program on wind power in Scotland was mentioned. The persons

opposing the wind farm was also referred to as a sourced of information. Their efforts

on bringing forth information were regarded as positive.

14a. If you have read any of the information, did you think it was comprehensible

and relevant? Yes… No… 14b. Comment

On relevance everybody who had read some of it found it relevant. Some said it was

insufficient, or too simple or insufficient, “it will not be like that”. On the positive side,

it is not difficult to understand the reports.

15a.If you have read the information, did you think it was incomprehensible or

irrelevant? Yes … No… 15b. Comment:

The content was considered good. Two informants mentioned the section on recreation

undertaken by one of the owners (noise and recreation).

16. Have you seen maps of the planned wind farm? Yes… No …. 16b. Comments:

Some had seen simple maps, mostly in the leaflets and in the public meetings.

55

17. Have you seen photos (visualizations) of the plans for the wind farm? Yes… No

17b. Comments:

All of the informants had seen photographic visualisations of the planned site. This was

looked upon as good information. However, some pointed out how difficult it was to

really see how tall the turbines were. Almost all of the informants mentioned lacking

reference points. It looks like there are no houses or people living in this area, and no

houses close to the turbines. The turbines look too small and water, mountains and

houses are not right in proportions.

18. How far from your home or cabin will the wind turbines be located? … meter.

Some were close, 5 – 600 meters. Some did not know and some has cabins pretty close.

19. Given the opportunity to decide, how many wind turbines would you allow

within the given area? ……

None, I will not accept a single one. It is better with a few high ones. 1 turbine is ok,

many no. It is an industrial construction; there are other solutions to get renewable

energy, start to use the old and smaller hydro plants again they are already there. It is

too close; they belong on a mountain far from people.

20. Given the opportunity to decide, what would you state the maximum height of

the wind turbines to be? … (Not many answers as this was very hard to evaluate)

21. Assuming the wind park was built, would you move if you were granted a

monetary compensation for your house or recreational home?

Yes … No… Do not know…

Five would accept and move; one was going away to school; one did not live

permanently in the area. One person said she would stay on because this was her home.

22. Are there any consequences of the construction of the wind power plant you

would like to bring forth that have not already been covered in this investigation?

Our paradise is here. I do not think the wind farm will be realized. The politicians can

not be as stupid as to accept this. The examples from Scotland, where people are

moving out from these areas were mentioned, referring to the recent TV program.

56

8.1 Discussion and analysis

8.1.2 What people fear they are loosing As we have seen from both the discussion in the local newspapers, the interviews with

the opposition and AVAS and with our informants from the Ramså, Breivika and

Skarstein there are some points which are common. The effects of visual intrusion are

of greatest concern, but impact from sound or noise, flickering and shadows were also

mentioned. Everything is working together, and it is the total sum of effects that

matters. From my opinion this is what the informants think will happen when they states

that “everything will change”. What people fear they are loosing is the landscape as

they know it.

Where the intrusion from the wind farm is expected to have the most dramatic

negative effect is close to the house. This is related to where they spend most of their

time, in the home (Johnston, Gregory et al. 2001). As the map of activities shows, the

people living in the area also uses the close surroundings, in the text named as the

everyday landscape (Ingam and Ingam 2005). This is due to closeness and accessibility,

but also to tradition and ownership of land, as local ownership is present in the juridical

way (Olwig 2001; Olwig 2003). They are using their own land and the common land,

(see map with property lines in figure 9).

8.1.3 Aspects of local knowledge Local knowledge is put forward in different ways. In all the discussions evolving there

were aspects of local knowledge and contesting views on the content of the assessment

reports. As we have seen the effect on the impact on the moor is one discussion; other

aspects are local weather conditions, fog, the Zero theory on icing, sun height and the

climate in the different seasons. The people living in the area communicate knowledge

of their surroundings at an advanced level, and have experienced all the effects by living

in the landscape and using it. The taken for granted world of everyday life and every

day experience is communicated (Johnston, Gregory et al. 2001). This empirical, taken

for granted knowledge is used for resistance, and this is done by communicating

authentic or local knowledge (Johnston, Gregory et al. 2001) . This is a stable society

with a group of people that have a homogenous culture and a common history. Societies

remember, and the local knowledge is collective. Many informants expect the same

effects, even if the angles, words and views may differ.

57

Figure 19. A and B. Photo visualisation, Breivika harbour, to noth (left) and to the south (right). Based on DEM, basemap and georeferenced digital photo. WindPro and Panorama Factory. Source: B. Pettersen.

58

8.1.4 On representing landscape changes in the plan s

Views differ on the representativeness of maps and plans. Some informants do not

mention it as important, but the protesters or opposition points to the lack of

visualisation and expresses disbelief in the ones made. Opinions are that AVAS is

“painting a pretty picture”, and “this is not how it is going to be”, and thus masking the

conflict. This is what Olwig might have called Body politics, painting a picture of a

landscape in order to define it as a part of a common landscape, of the landscape in

general in Andøya (Olwig 2002). But for the local people this is their landscape, and it

is special.

The opposition also try to construct their visual counter representations, to gain a

more real picture of the expected change and challenge the power. How large and

where is the main concern. How will it look exactly? Only by comparing to known

objects and known sizes locally can one see the proportions, because the large

dimensions are incomprehensible for most people (Jessien and Møller 1998; Böhler

2004). They have no frame of reference, maps are hard to read and proportions and

sizes as well. There is a clear wish from the opposition on where a visualisation should

be done; in the middle of the wind farm site, against the mountains and with houses in

the picture for comparison of heights (figure 19).

8.1.5 Is the conflict in the right place e.g. is it uncovered or veiled?

Looking at the map and the use of the landscape and area from the local point of view is

useful (see figure 14). This is not the important areas for recreation mentioned in the

impact assessment, even if it is mentioned that there are local use of landscape. “All

primary recreational areas lie on the highest area on the mountains and against the

west. It is here the paths, viewpoints and recreational homes or cabins are situated. All

these activities lie in the shadow of the mountains, causing the wind farm to be seen

only in a few spots along certain paths on the top of the mountains farthest to the east.

However, there are some 20 cabins, locally owned within sight, 5 – 6 of them by the

lakes of Tordalsvatnet and Sverigedalsvatnet (Ingam and Ingam 2005). This description

is the case for the population on the other side of the island, or for the population as a

whole, but our informants do use the landscape close to the wind farm. But in the

concession they are not in the picture at all. The people are defined as outsiders, and are

not present in the representation of the landscape (Olwig 2002). This is convenient for

defining their space and landscape as a commodity.

59

Figure 20. Photo standpoints, for visualisations, Software used, WindPro26. Source: Author

26 http://www.windpro-insurance.com/windpro/default.asp

60

8.1.6 The consultative process

On the concession process it is mentioned that timing is important. Information must

come at the right time; this is a part of the democratic process. As on the example when

no visualisations were present at the first meeting, people did not know what to expect

and thus what to discuss or oppose. This uncertainty and the nature of the long period of

waiting for a final decision in the case prolong the conflict and put a lot of strain on the

whole society. In this process, one could say that the love of the landscape, topophilia

did get stronger under threat (Tuan 1998).

The strain of a process not running smoothly is hindering their (AVAS)

information to reach the target, because mistrust is taking over. The application period

is expensive and the conflict prolongs the process for the developer. In later

conversations AVAS informed me of why some of my informants had not read any

information. The land owners had been kept informed because of the land issue; about

70% of the people in this area own land or common land. But in the beginning the

people who only owned houses were not given information or leaflets, as not seen being

stakeholders. Not participating, feeling like an outsider enhanced the insecurity, and

with no right to economical compensation this added further to the negative aspects of

the expected change. This was seen a big mistake according to the director of AVAS,

and added to the conflict evolving. Uncertainty and not knowing is stressing when your

environment is about to change totally. This insecurity was mirrored in the discussions

in the papers as well as in the interviews. This stresses the importance of the project

being presented to the public (Selfors and Sannem 1998). But in the Norwegian formal

concession treatment, when it comes to wind farm development, local views are not

assessed.

The local informants all had a more or less clear feeling of loss and did not

really look forward to the change. Not being able to contribute to the decision added to

their view on the case, as not being taken seriously. However, there were also people

who were not really worried. In the end, people were realistic. If the project is evolving,

it will be an option to ask for compensation and move elsewhere. Or maybe try to live

in a landscape changed and use it as before? Some thought this project would not be

realized, as the consequences are unbearable and the local politicians will go against the

case.

61

8.1.7 Visualising what will be the changes in the l andscape Looking at AA’s and BN’s visualisations of the wind farm one can clearly see two very

different points of view. The elevated view as Olwig explains it; the distant vantage

point or the so called linear aspect or God’s eye is represented by AVAS (Olwig 2002).

And from the opposition, the view from the home; the personal view or the subjective

view as Tuan describes it (Tuan 1984). Which one is the most subjective might be

discussed, but they are different. And so are all representations, they are subjective

(Harley 1988). This is not an argument for not using them, but it is important to take

into consideration both the purpose and who is making the representation. And the other

way around; for who is this representation important and what do they want to know.

8.1.8 Yet another subjective perspective

Where we are is also important for our perspective (Dixon et al. 2003). Making

visualisations from places with meaning, places people use might be a starting point. I

have made some additional visualisations. The first visualisation is from the vicinity of

the lavvo by the lake Tordalsvatnet. The exact point is 50 meter from the first cabin by

the western shore, as seen on map of viewpoints (figure 20). The turbines used are 155

meters high, and 4.5 MW. I was consulting AVAS on the type and size, but it was not

possible to get hold of the 181 meter/ 5 MW turbines suggested by AVAS. These are 30

meter lower and not as dominant as the ones wished for and they are also slimmer and

more elegant in appearance27. The colour of wind turbines are decided upon from the

authorities and must be white. As an experiment, an animation with wind turbines in

action is also made, too show the pace or speed of the blades turning.

The panorama visualisations in figure 19 a. and b. are taken from Breivika

harbour. This is the place chosen by the opposition, and also found useful and approved

by AVAS. I was aided by the opposition on finding the place, but AVAS told me they

also had pictures from this spot, but did not use them as this was not wished for.

27 Software used was ArcGis and 3D analyst, Photoshop, Windpro and Panorama Factory.

62

Figure 21. From Tordalsvatnet. Turbines 4.5 MW, 155 meters. See fig 20 for standpoint. Photovisualisation, from DEM, Base map and GPS referrenced digital photo. Source: Author.

My third research question was if views and visualisations could be used from the local

viewpoint. Is it possible to take the local view and use of landscape into consideration

by trying out methods of mapping the everyday landscape? Two other experimental

maps are produced, to get the data from the PPGIS into the wind power landscape. One

plain base map with wind turbines as a theme and one 3D animation28 which makes it

possible to see the wind farm from different angles and use fly through. If it is useful

and representative is yet to be shown. This is the third map, and it is not tested yet. It is

important to give something back to the people who contribute in Participatory GIS, if it

is useful or not is hard to say, but it is there for everybody to use. But one must keep in

mind they are also representations of the third view, the view of the researcher.

28 ArcMap 3D analyst

63

Figure 22. The same terrain, a 3D model with 180 meter wind turbines. Roads marked with yellow. See appendix 5 for a larger illustration of the same area. Source: Author.

9 Conclusion In order to loose something, you have to have it in the first place. People in Ramså,

Breivika and Skarstein express true love of their landscape and their way of using it.

This is their paradise, and some of them are using the landscape extensively. The views

on expected changes caused by the power plant are many and subjective, but in my

opinion they should be taken into consideration. The NIMBY effect could be stated the

other way around. It is easy to give away a landscape that is not yours.

Knowledge is useful and local knowledge on weather conditions, sun and

environmental issues in general are often proved true. Outsiders do not know, and can

not know about these local effects. Everyday knowledge, and the effects described are

sometimes obvious, like low sun and shadows on the favourite place to the west of the

house. Others might prove to be weapons in the struggle against the wind farm.

Maps and visualisations are tools of communication, but they are also

representations and mirrors power relations. This is also observed in this case, but truths

can be negotiated. To keep communicating is important, and different kinds of

representations from different viewpoints are tools for negotiating the truth in search for

the best solutions.

64

References

Abrahansson, K. V. (1999). "Landscapes lost and gained." Human Ecology Review 6(2): 51:61.

Andmyran Vindpark A/S (2006). http://www.andmyranvindpark.no., 20.9.2006.

Andreassen, A. and E. Thorkildsen (2005). Andmyran Vindpark. Konsesjonssøknad med konsekvensutredning. Andenes, Andmyran Vindpark AS (AVAS).

Berger, P and Luckman, T (1985). The Social Construction of Reality. London, Penguin.

Birkeland, I. J. (2001). Stories from the North. Travel as place-making in the context of modern holiday-travel to North Cape, Norway. Institutt for sosiologi og samfunnsgeografi. Oslo, Universitetet i Oslo.: 322.

Bjerke, J. W, K.B. Strann, et al. (2004). Konsekvensutredning for Andmyran vindpark, NINA, Trondheim.

Böhler, T. (2004). Vindkraft, landskap och mening : en studie om vindkraft och människors rumsliga preferenser. -. Göteborg, Göteborgs universitet, Institutionen för omvärldsstudier av människans villkor, Avdelningen för humanekologi.

Chambers, R. (1998). "Whose Voice? Participatory Research and Policy Change?" Journal of Development Studiesy 1(1998).

Cosgrove, D. (1984). Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape. London, Croom Helm.

Cosgrove, D. and S. Daniels, Eds. (1988). The iconography of landscape. Cambridge studies in Historical Geography. Cabridge, Cambridge University Press.

Dixon, J. and K. Durrheim (2000). "Displacing Place Identity.A discursive

approach to locating self and other." British Journal of Social Psychology 39: 27-44.

Dyrvik, S. (1997). "Overgangen til sjøleie i Norge. Nokre nye data for 1700-talet." Historisk tidsskrift 56: 1-18. Flowerdew and Martin (1997). Methods i Human Geography. Essex, Pearson.

65

Gunnerød-Berg, N. and G. Forsberg (2003). Rural geography and feminist geography: Discourses on rurality and gender in Britain and Scandinavia. Voices From the North: New Trends in Nordic Human Geography. K. Simonsen. Cornwall, GB, Ashgate: 173-184.

Hammarlund, K. (1998). "Vindkraft i harmony (Wind power in harmony)." ET 19.

Harley, J. B. (1988). Maps knowledge and power. The iconography of landscape; Cambridge studies in Historical Geography. D. Cosgrove and S. Daniels. Cabridge, Cambridge University Press.

Hägerstrand, T. (1970). ""What about people in regional science."" Regional Science Assosiation 24: 7-21.

Ingham, P. and D. Ingam (2005). Andmyran Vindpark (N). Miljømæssige konsekvenser: Visuelle - støj - skygge. Hellebæk, Danmark, Intercon IS: 21.

Jessien, S. and I. Møller (1998). "Vindmøller i landskabet.." Byggekunst 6.

Johnston, R. J., D. Gregory, et al. (2001). The Dictionary of Human Geography. Massachusetts, Blackwell Publishers Inc.

Kramvig, B. (1999). Honour and dignity, femininity and masculinity in a fishing community». Global coasts. R. R. Balsvik. Univesity of Tromsø, Kvinnforsk.

Kramvig, B. (2005). Oil, gas and development in the northern region – a gendered perspective. Dignity across Borders., Norway, Kirkenes.

Kwan, M. P. (2002). "Feminist Visualization: Re-envisioning GIS as a method in feministic geographical research." Annals of the Assosiation of American Geographers 92(4): 645-661.

Massey, D. (2003). Chapter 4: The contestation of place. Places, Cultures and Globalization. D. Massey and P. Jess. Oxford, Oxford Press. 4: 45-85.

Nordland Fylkeskommune. (2003). Verdifulle kulturlandskap i Nordland. Rapport fra registreringer i perioden 1992-1995.

Olwig, K. (2001). "Landskabet som samfunnsmessig førførelse."

Olwig, K. (2003). Nature, landscape and environment. Voices From the North: New Trends in Nordic Human Geography. K. Simonsen. Cornwell, GB, Ashgate: 211-226.

Olwig, K. R. (1984). Nature's Ideological Landscape: A Literary and geographic Perspective on Its Developement and Preservation on Denmark's Jutland Heath. London, Allen and Unwin.

Olwig, K. R. (2002). Landscape, Nature and the Body Politic. From Britains's Renaissance to America's New World. With a Foreword by Yi-Fu-Tuan. Madison (WI), The University of Wisconsin Press.

Pasqualetti, M. J., P. Gipe, et al., Eds. (2002). Wind Power in View. Energy Landscapes in a Crowded World. Sustainable World Series. China, Academic Press.

66

Peet, R. (1998). Modern Geographical Thought. London, Blackwell.

Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. London, Pion.

Selfors, A. and S. Sannem (1998). Vindkraft - en generell innføring. NVE Rapport nr. 19/98.

Sevatdal, H. (2006). "Institutions and innovations; Property and land use in Norwegian outfields." Norwegian Journal of Geography 60: 77-88.

Statens vegvesen (1995). Konsekvensanalyser. Del II a. Metodikk for vurdering av ikke prissatte konsekvenser. Veiledning. Oslo., Statens vegvesen Vegdirektoratet.

Thayer, R. and h. Hansen (1989). Consumer Attitude and Choice in Local Energy, Department of Environmental Design, University of California: 1719.

Thaagard, T. (2004). Systematikk og innlevelse. En innføring i kvalitativ metode. Bergen, Fagbokforlaget.

Tuan, Y. F. (1974). Topophilia. A study of environmental perception, attitudes and values. Englewood Cliffs.NJ, Prentice Hall.

Tuan, Y. F. (1998). Space and place: A humanistic perspective. Modern Geographical Thought. London, Blackwell.

Winchester, H., L. Kong, et al., Eds. (2003). Landscapes: Ways of Imagining the World. Insights Into Human geography. Harlow, Pearson Prentice Hall.

Zube, E. H. (1984). "Themes in landscape asessment theory". Landscape Journal 3(2): 104-110.

Appendix 1. Inteview guide.

To Place: Date: ………….. Background information on the survey In the following I would like to say something as to why you have been invited to take part as a participant in this survey; I am a student in the masters program in the subject of human geography and geographical information systems at the University of Leicester, UK where I am in the process of writing my thesis. I am investigating how the public experience changes in the landscape and general surroundings of their homesteads. In order to gain knowledge about this, I would like to use a real life scenario from the development of a wind power plant in Northern Norway.

My reasoning for choosing to explore this subject is due to the fact that the coastal landscape is currently under pressure from a multitude of operators and interest groups, such as tourism, fish farming, oil exploration and adjacent wind power plants. The coastal areas of Northern Norway are one of the last areas of Europe that has been left relatively unscathed and has an important role as a recreational area for tourists. Last but not least, this area is very beautiful and is valuable to all its inhabitants. The coastal areas are ever changing, and revitalisation and development are necessary in order to maintain thriving and stable societies. Wind parks are new phenomena with large constructions dominating the surroundings, creating changes and consequences for the people and the environment

I have already collected information from different sources including newspaper articles, impact studies and have interviewed contractors and protesters. What I now am interested in is to find out what your views are on the values of the landscape and surrounding area. I would like this to encompass how you believe the use of this area will change with a potential development of a wind park and what your current use of the area is today. I also intend to use the locations that might be indicated in a computer based analysis. I will then use this analysis to visualise whether the wind turbines are visible from these locations and to what extent they create an impact.

The benefit of conducting this survey could at best be to gain knowledge on values and points of view which are not covered already through existing plans and impact studies. This is could also be an opportunity to catalogue and shed a light the consequences that is less visible in the everyday discourse.

Limit your answers to your own views as it is your opinions that are of importance to me. All information given will be kept strictly confidential and it will be anonymised. When you have completed the form I will print the aerial imagery of “your” locations and forward it to you. If you so wish, it can be sent electronically.

I would like to extend my thanks in advance for you taking the time to complete this survey Sincerely Bjørg Pettersen Tøyengata 41B 0578 Oslo E-post: bep2@le.ac.uk eller bjorg.pettersen@niku.no Phone: 95026441

Appendix 1. Inteview guide.

1

The use and views on nature and landscape in Ramså, Breivika and Skarstein in relation to the wind farm project. The purpose of this inquiry is to find out something about places of special value for the people that live in or use the landscape and the environment in the vicinity of the planned wind farm. This might be places used for hiking, skiing, berry picking, bonfires, places where one stops to rest or fishing grounds. Places of significance may also include children’s tracks/paths or special viewpoints or places for traditional use, historic places or places used for other purposes.

The names and activities and use on these places will be recorded in the matrix below. Please feel free to mark these places on the map in the way you feel is best. Please use different colours to mark each place. Mark as many places as you wish, the places most important to you should be marked first. If you wish to keep some places secret (berry picking, fishing grounds etc) please mark this with an S. 1. Are there places in the area you use frequently in your leisure time?

2. Are there any of these places you think will deteriorate or be of reduced value to you,

if the plans for the wind farm are carried out?

No. Where, or place name, approximately

What activities are conducted there? Winter

Sum

mer

Color

code

No Where?

What do you expect will change? winter

summ

er

Appendix 1. Inteview guide.

2

3. Are there places you think would me more easily accessible and therefor become more used or increase in value if the plans for the wind park are carried out?

4a. Assuming the plans are carried out; to what extent do you expect the wind farm to influence your immediate surroundings? Feel free to supplement with your own categories. Factor Little Intermediate Large No Comments Sound Visual View Changed landscape

Improved infrastructure (roads, electricity)

Ease the access to scenery/ natural areas

4b.Do you think that the possible development of a wind farm will change the immediate environment (everyday landscape) and if so, how?

No Where?

What do you expect will change? winter

summ

er

Appendix 1. Inteview guide.

3

Attachment, sense of belonging, relation to the area, contextual data 5. What is your association to the area? Are you a home owner, land owner or do you own a recreational home? 6. What is the most important factor governing your association with this place (history, trade, family, friends, nature or other factors)? 7. How would you describe the nature and landscape in this specific area (briefly)? 8. What is the best aspect about living here in Breivika/ Skarstein/ Ramså? 9. Are there any negative aspects about living at Breivika/Skarstein/Ramså? 10.Do you believe you will continue to live here for the next 5 years? Yes … No…Do not now …… 10. Age……….. 11.Sex……. 12. Trade or occupation……………………………………...

Appendix 1. Inteview guide.

4

Questions regarding the development process and the information given on the consequences of a new wind farm 13. How did you learn about the plans for the wind farm Yes/No 13a.Have you attended any of the public hearings or discussion forums?

13b.Have you read any of the impact studies or reports regarding the consequences?

13c. (not used) Received Information on radio or TV? 13d. Have you followed the discussion in the local newspaper or other newspapers?

13e.Have you exchanged information with neighbours, friends or other people?

13f: Other sources of information: 14a. If you have read any of the information, did you think it was comprehensible and relevant? 14b. Comment: 15a.If you have read the information, did you think it was incomprehensible or irrelevant? Yes … No… 15b. Comment: 16. Have you seen maps of the planned wind farm? Yes… No …. 16b. Comments: 17. Have you seen photos (visualizations) of the plans for the wind farm? Yes… No …. 17b. Comments: 18. How far from your home/recreational home will the wind turbines be located? … meter 19.Given the opportunity to decide, how many wind turbines would you allow within the given area? …… 20. Given the opportunity to decide, what would you state the maximum height of the wind turbines to be? ……. 21. Assuming the wind park was built, would you move if you were granted a monetary compensation for your house or recreational home? Yes … No… Do not know… 22. Are there any consequences of the construction of the wind power plant you would like to bring forth that have not already been covered in this investigation?

Appendix 2: Example on coding. List of newspaper articles and reader’s letters, on the web and in print

Vindkraften vil dekke etterspørselen (Windpower will cover the demand) Asgeir Andreassen ved Andmyran Vindpark sier at vin dkraftutbygging på Andøya vil dekke Vesterålens behov for strøm.

(Asgeir Andreassen says that Andmyran wind power de velopment on Andøya will cover the demand for electricity in the Vester ålen region).

Av: Knut Ivar Aarstein - knut@vol.no Den: 25.8.2006 Kl. 14:13 oppdatert Kl. 14:44

Vesterålen Online, www.vol.no

Category Proc= Process

Env = Environment, sustainability

Knowledge = Science, experience

- Ja, det er sant, sier han i et intervju med Vesterålen Online. - Regner vi brukt strøm per husstand, vil effekten av vindmølleparken dekke Vesterålens behov. Jeg mener at en slik utbygging også er miljømessig riktig. Behovet for import av strøm vil minskes, og det vil gi en nedgang i CO2-utslippene ved at eksempelvis Danmark ikke trenger å fyre med så mye kull som nå ved sine kraftverk. Andmyran Vindpark har i følge Asgeir Andreassen jobbet med prosjektet sitt i tre år, og det er gått nesten 2 år siden NVE sist ga konsesjon på utbygging. - Utsettelsen har sin bakgrunn i at det er jobbet for å skaffe rammebetingelser som gjør det fornuftig å bygge vindkraftverk. Investeringene skal dekke en levetid på 25 år. Det har med behagelige strømpriser heller ikke hastet så mye for landet å få på plass alternative energikilder, sier Andreassen til VOL. - I et intervju på NRK kan jeg tolkes dit hen at vi automatisk får billigere strøm bare vi får til en utbygging. Det er et forenklet utsagn. Men slik vi ser det vil vindkraftutbygging på sikt være lønnsomt, sammenliknet med alternativene. Når det er sagt mener jeg at vi i Norge så absolutt vil være tjent med å spare mer på strømmen enn vi gjør. Andreassen medgir at det har vært, og er betydelig motstand mot vindkraftutbygging. - Det er riktig, men vi ser en endring. Nå er det kun en av naturvernorganisasjonene igjen som ikke går inn for dette. På verdensbasis er man svært positivt innstilt. Vindkraft vokser med 20-25 % i året, og det er miljømessig fordelaktig. Asgeir Andreassen mener at erfaringene som er gjort med vindkraftutbygging viser at det er flere fordeler enn ulemper for lokalsamfunnene. - Samtidig har vi sett eksempler på for dårlig forarbeid. Men vi er interessert i å få alle fakta på bordet. Vi har vært dønn ærlige i forhold til huseierne som vil bli rammet som følge av utbyggingen. Bjørnar Nicolaisen fremfører i samtale med VOL i dag en rekke argumenter mot utbygging? - Det er en helt naturlig reaksjon fra huseierne. Jeg tror nok det er et miljømessig engasjement som ligger bak, men ikke bare det. De som berøres av utbyggingen må kompenseres. - Jeg driver problemløsning. På ett eller annet tidspunkt vil vi ha løst det som kan løses, og til slutt sitte igjen med ett sett ulemper. Jeg har sterk tro på utbyggingen.

WP: Environmentally important Replacement, CO2 less in Denmark 3 yrs working on project Not cheaper electricity but pay back in the long run Protests; Env. organizations more positive (Env) Experiences on wp: more advantages than negative aspects for the local communities (Knowl) ..have seen examles on bad asessment, work All facts on the table. Honest towards home/house owners affected (Proc) A normal reaction from the home owners. They should be compensated (Proc) Problemsolving;a clear set of negative consequences. Believe in concession/ development

Appendix 2: Example on coding. List of newspaper articles and reader’s letters, on the web and in print

Readers letter’s and referred newspaper articles in Vesterålen Online Vol.no

Relaterte saker Kan få vindkraft-svar før jul 5.9.2006 Kl. 07:32Nasjonal turistveg aksepterer vindmøller 28.8.2006 Kl. 08:20- Ingen grunn til å vente med vindkraft 16.3.2006 Kl. 07:33Skepsis til vindkraft på Andøya 24.1.2006 Kl. 14:42Enig om vindkraft-avstemning 30.11.2005 Kl. 11:56Ønsker ikke folkeavstemning om vindmøller 29.11.2005 Kl. 08:50Sier ja til vindmøller 29.11.2005 Kl. 08:33Går inn for vindmøller 24.11.2005 Kl. 07:10Oddekalv lover full kamp mot vindparken 18.10.2005 Kl. 08:03Folkemøte om vindkraft 13.10.2005 Kl. 08:38OK med vindmøller 11.10.2005 Kl. 07:44Utelukker ikke vindpark-løsning 4.10.2005 Kl. 07:56Håp om vindkraft-løsning 30.9.2005 Kl. 07:58Forsvaret slakter vindkraft-rapport 29.9.2005 Kl. 12:2067 husstander mot vindkraftanlegg 12.8.2005 Kl. 09:28Vindmøllepark satt på vent 8.6.2005 Kl. 11:02Vindmøller ut på høring 17.3.2005 Kl. 08:11

Other sources and local newspapers for the Vesterålen region Source Title Date

Andøyposten Delte meninger om vindkraft 11.3.2004 Folkebladet.no Vindmøller for 1.6 milliarder

på Andøya 24.12.2004

Andøyposten Vindmøller ut på høring

17.3.2005

Øksnesmagasinet Vol.no

Andmyran vindpark – en useriøs aktør.

28.4.2006 Kl. 12:40

NRK Folkemøte mot vindmøller

Publisert 17.10.2005

Andøyposten Andmyran vindpark og miljøer

19.5.2006 Kl. 11:31

Andøyposten Motstand mot vindpark-plan 29.5.2006 Kl. 07:51 http://www.hadsel-online.no/

Går inn for vindmøller 24.11.2005 Kl. 07:00

Andøyposten NRK Norland Truer fuglelivet 13.12.2005 09:17. Øksnesavisa, magasinet http://vol.no/

Få vil mene noe om Andmyran vindpark

2.6.2005 Kl. 11:15

Andøyposten Klimaendringer og Kyst-Norge

7.4.2006 Kl. 7:30

Nordland County council

Fylkestings Sak 54-2005

Meeting: 06.06.2005

Appendix 3: Photo visualisation from Tordalsvatnet

Figur 20. Visualisation from standpoint by Tordalsvatnet, looking against Ramså, and Senja. Source: Bjørg Pettersen. 2006. 34 turbines, 5MV, 155m.

Appendix 4: Photo visualisation from Breivika havn

Visualisation from point in Brivika Harbour looking against the east. 5 meter height. Source: Bjørg Pettersen. 2006. 34 turbines, 5MV, 155m.

Appendix 5: Photo visualisation from Breivika harbour (Breivika havn).

Visualisation from standpoint by Breivika harbour at 5 meters. Source: Bjørg Pettersen. 2006. 34 turbines, 5MV, 155m, houses shown with Norwegian standard height.