138 M. Clemetsen, J. van Laar Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 77 2000 125–141
components express the relationship between the land-use and the abiotic features?’
2. Coherence horizontal coherence in favour of ori- entation in space: ‘Does the arrangement of land-
scape components and patterns reflect the abiotic features?’
3. Continuity temporal coherence in favour of orientation in time: ‘Does the arrangement of
landscape components reflect passive andor correspond with active the cultural heritage?’
4. Potentials: ‘Imagine what the landscape will look like in 20 years and are there any indications of
continuation in the future?’
6. Discussion
6.1. Feasibility of criteria and parameters The discussion is directed at the feasibility of crite-
ria’s and parameters of column 5 and 6 of the general checklist. Perception and evaluation are considered
context related: the farms are evaluated in compari- son with each other and with the landscaperegional
situation. This means that the Fretheim farm perhaps would have been ranked higher if evaluated with a
randomly chosen farm. The visit to the Fretheim farm has been restricted to the infields around the farm. The
surrounding outfields and landscape were not deeply investigated.
To some extent it was felt difficult to separate the personal, subjective approach in column 5 from the
objective one in column 6. A reason might be that it is difficult not to use one’s ‘professional eyes’ in col-
umn 5.When comparing different farms in a region like Sogn, it appears difficult in using the checklist to rank
them. Most farms are more or less in the same situa- tion, whether they are ecological or not. In many sit-
uations, like Undredal, the single farms are so closely related to each other e.g. the summer farming sys-
tem that it is justified to evaluate the whole farming system of the village.
The general impression is that column 5 and 6 func- tion well as a basis for communication between pro-
fessionals to provide a common understanding of a specific landscape situation. However, the criteria can
be understood more easily by formulating questions as demonstrated in Section 4.2.
The landscape and farm assessments in Aurland offered new views on the feasibility of the con-
certed action’s method, especially regarding to the implementation of the criteria’s to local and regional
landscape planning and management strategies. The method as developed so far can be of basic use in
defining problems and finding solutions from a more holistic approach. This should be of interest for the
local community, which will not accept a pure con- servation regime in the fjord. The future of local
communities in the fjord area will be dependent on a planning process that includes a dynamic integra-
tion of both conservation and economic progress, based on the existing broad range of natural, cul-
tural and social resources is required. The checklist appears to be especially useful in a ‘rapid rural
appraisal’.
The importance of the checklist, especially column 6, as a tool for identifying essential issues for future
planning and development of a region was discussed. To make these essential issues clear, questions should
be posed on the potential developments related to the natural environment, cultural heritage environ-
ment and the existing social structures for future de- velopment as given in Table 4. Identification of key
issues can be used in planning of future develop- ment of the Nærøyfjorden area and in other regions as
well. The following questions might be helpful with that:
• What are the values of the landscape? • Who are the beneficiaries of these values?
• What are the threats of these values? • How can these values be preserved and developed?
This set of questions might give an additional tool in regional landscape planning, especially when all
stakeholders are consulted.
7. Recommendations
