1€
on
on
In-
ust
or
ing
efi-
eral
her
| be
and
pur-
>tter
rac-
ure,
puts
ude,
ys a
le 4
s of
yera-
fine
International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Vol XXXV, Part B7. Istanbul 2004
land use classes (land use purpose classifiers are not listed).
The provided list is not exhaustive but is intended to “grow”
into a standard set of classifiers for use in the preparation of
land use classification systems. In addition, use of classifiers is
helpful for merging of classification systems, and to correlate
classes defined under different classification systems (Wyatt et
al. 1997).
Land Use Class A name is
Land Use System ;
; Name ( user defined ) required
Land Use
; urpose Classifi
Aimed at Purpos asshiers One purpose
[Species/Service LO Based on classifier is
Product/Benefit ] [S/S-P/B] required
combination(s) combinations
Operat Operation
Sequence Sequence Classifiers
Detalson | O-———#-——# Based on key aspects Optional
Operations of selected operations
! Land aspects, Context
: eg. Classifiers Gesture
i infi towards
i infrastructure, Generalised info on: existing
tenancy = sources of inputs classification
; arrangements, - destinations of outputs systems
plot size, etc. = sources of implements used (optional)
= -tenancy arrangement
Aspects of the Holding and -(othors)
its context
Figure 6. Classifiers used to define a land use class.
Table 4. Example of a land use class definition.
Codes ge hu:
(see App.) Shifting Cultivation
Purpose Classifiers
n.a. » Plants for plant produce, and
n.a. * Animals for animal produce.
Operation Sequence Classifiers
A.1.1.2.1.4 + Agricultural production > Crop production >
Temporary (arable) cropping > Multiple cropping
> Intercropping > Patch ~, and
B.1.4 » Extraction / Collection 2 Yes 2 Mix of hunting
and vegetation exploitation, and
F0 » Recreation and tourism > none, and
2 » Cultivation factor (R) > R < 33%, and
K.1 + Main power source for tillage > manual power
only, and
L.1 * Material inputs > low.
Context Classifiers
cA.0 Tenancy arrangenrents / Land rights > Taken in
possession, and without a secure title, and
cB.0 * Connectivity 2 poor, and
cF.0 + Market orientation - subsistence, and
cG.1 * Capital intensity > low, and
cl.0 + Secondary Infrastructure requirements > none.
A land use classification system was defined as: "A structured
set of land use class definitions." Most land use classification
systems are hierarchically structured and obey the following
rules:
e The defined land use classes are mutually exclusive at
each level, and
* Classes at sub-levels are a further specification of a class
at a higher level.
A-priori versus a-posteriori land use classification
* A-priori classification
implies that land use classes are defined before collecting
the actual data. Classifiers used are based on expert knowl-
edge, study objectives, or conform to classes defined by
international organizations, national institutions etc. The
main advantage of a-priori systems is that classes are
standardized. Assigning class names to land use descrip-
tions is called "identification" (Sokal 1974).
* — A-posteriori classification
means that land use classes are defined using classifiers
that are based on (analysis of) data collected. The advan-
tage is that classifiers can be defined that fit recorded
study results.
Harmonizing classifiers
The growing demand for global assessment of land use (possi-
bilities) generated a need for a universal classification system.
Many attempts to develop a comprehensive classification sys-
tem have been made (e.g. IGU 1949; UNEP/FAO 1994), Fresco
et al. (1996) concluded that: “Yet, there is no satisfactory and
commonly accepted method of defining and classifying land
use globally, let alone a definition of the major classes of land
use as such. This situation thwarts the systematic collection of
data pertinent to use classification”.
Development of a comprehensive classification system for land
use is still far away. Earlier efforts were all discontinued, and
there is growing recognition that different land use studies re-
quire different classification systems pending on set objectives,
areas studied, and methods followed. For example: if remotely
sensed images are used to map land use, classifiers used are
strongly correlated with land cover whereas land use studies
that center around farming system analysis will rather base their
class definitions on land use purpose(s), labour inputs, etc. Each
study can independently select the level at which a particular
classifier is used, e.g. 'irrigated' can be a classifier at the highest
level, or at any lower level, or can simply not be used.
If one universal classification system is a practical impossibil-
ity, then the problem remains that many classification systems
remain in use with different classifiers at different levels. Stan-
dardization of land use classifiers would allow correlation of
land use classes used in different studies. This standardization
would keep the possibility to prepare user-defined classification
systems open and not compromise the possibility to compare
existing classification systems. It would then be possible to
cross-tabulate different sets of land use classes to study their
mutual (dis-) agreement.
The various criteria used around the globe to define classes
form the basis to adopt an actual 'reference system'. They are
the 'bridge' that can be used to compare and translate defined
classes; it is thus essential that the criteria used are documented
and existing classification systems are studied to define the
'basic set' of criteria.
6. FINAL STATEMENTS
This article discussed IT aspects that relates to gathering and
using land use information for sustainability studies of (agricul-
tural) land use systems. The “root concept” requires an interdis-
ciplinary approach. Some factors that complicate the interdisci-
plinary IT developments are:
