In this paper we present and discuss the use of results from the Norwegian Monitoring Programme for Agricultural Landscapes – the “3Q Programme”. The 3Q Programme was initiated in 1998 and has thus been running for 18 years. Different trends of development led to a realisation that there was a need to monitor agricultural landscape change. Among these was the documented changes in species abundance and diversity in agricultural landscapes following the large scale landscape changes caused by processes aimed at an increased and more effective food production, developments in technology and economy.
The main objective of the monitoring is to document status and change in agricultural landscapes, taking into account both landscape content and the spatial distribution of different landscape components.
Data capture in the 3Q monitoring programme is primarily done through interpretation of true colour aerial photographs of squares of 1x1 km. The interpretation uses a hierarchical classification system with ca. 100 different land use / cover classes on the third and most detailed level. Maps produced from this interpretation is used for calculation of a range of different indicators within four main themes; land use/cover, biodiversity, cultural heritage and accessibility. Fieldwork is carried out on a subset of squares and includes ground truthing of the map data, monitoring of nesting birds, registration of vascular plants in pastures and semi natural grasslands, and recording of cultural heritage objects and sites, including recording of buildings and farmhouses. The amount of data gathered is a balance between cost effectiveness and the levels of uncertainty in the monitoring results.
We present examples of the types of data gathered and explain how changes in data availability and demands for information have led to changes in the monitoring programme over time, and also in the possibilities regarding use of the data.
Further, we illustrate that how data is presented (including the timing) seems to have influenced the degree of knowledge transfer to stakeholders. Thus we discuss to what extent we are able to give feedback to policy makers and other stakeholders, such as the Farmers Union. However, data and presentation methods are not the only crucial factors. In the end it is probably our ability to tell a story that is relevant for the stakeholders that is the most critical success factor for the monitoring programme.
Dramstad, W. E., Fry, G., Fjellstad, W. J., Skar, B., Helliksen, B., Sollund, M.-L. B., Tveit, M. S., Geelmuyden, A. K., and Framstad, E. 2001. Integrating landscape-based values – Norwegian monitoring of agricultural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 57; 257-268.
Dramstad, W.E., Fjellstad, W.J., Strand, G.-H., Mathiesen, H. F., Engan, G. & Stokland, J. N. 2002. Development and implementation of the Norwegian monitoring programme for agricultural landscapes. Journal of Environmental Management, 64; 49-63.
Fjellstad, W.J. & Dramstad, W.E., 2008. Landscape monitoring as a tool in improving environmental security. In Petrosillo, I., Müller, F., Jones, K.B., Zurlini, G., Krauze, K., Victorov, S., Li, B.-L. & Kepner, W.G. (Eds.), 2007, Use of Landscape Sciences for the Assessment of Environmental Security. Springer, The Netherlands, pp. 131-141.
Stokstad G. 2014. Landskapselementer i jordbrukets kulturlandskap. Status og utvikling. Report from Skog og landskap 07/2014
Stokstad G, Fjellstad W, Dramstad W. 2016. Overvåking av jordbrukets kulturlandskap. NIBIO-POP 34/2016.
- Log in to post comments