4.2 Calculation 
The results are shown in Table.4. This 
table shows the comparison of land use 
change in each country. 1995’s calculated 
value is set to be 100%. 
Table.4 The comparison of land use 
change in each country(1995=100%) 
  
  
1995 2000 2005 2010 
Japan * Cropland.Arable land 100.00% 98.56% 97.04% 98. 86% 
Improved Land 100.00% 98.44% 96.78% 98.77% 
Forest Land 100.00% 100. 03% 100.07% 100. 03% 
Other 100.00% 102.03% 104. 19% 101.618 
India Cropland, Arable lane 100. 00& 100.09% 100.30% 100. 26% 
Improved Land 100.00% 102.79% 108. 88% 107. 94% 
Forest Land 100.00% 100.25% 100. 78% 100. 70% 
Other 100.00% B8.26% 62.61% 66.61% 
Indonesia Cropland. Arable lan  100.00% 102.69 107.51% 108. 28% 
Improved Land 100.00% 101.38% 103. 86% 104. 26% 
Forest Land 100.00% 99.02% 97.27% 96.99% 
Other 100.00% 100.22% 100.60% 100.67% 
China Cropland, Arable land 100.00% 99.34% — 98.468 98.71% 
Improved Land 100.00% 101.58% 103.67% 103. 07% 
Forest Land 100.00% 99.54% 98.93% 99. 10% 
Other 100.005  100.07& 100. 16% 100. 13% 
Sri Lanka Cropland. Arable lane 100.008 99.90% 99.96% 99. 96% 
Improved Land 100.00% 99.69% 99.07% 99. 00% 
Forest Land 100.00% 99.68% 99.04% 98.96% 
Other 100.00% 100. 42% 101.76% 101. 36% 
Thai land Cropland, Arable lam 100.008 — 101.518 104. 09% 103. 24% 
Improved Land 100.00% — 104.068 111.0% 108.77% 
Forest Land 100.00% 96.76% 91.22% 93.05% 
Other 100.00% 99.188 97.78% 08.24% 
Philippines Cropland. Arable lane  100.00% 100.61% 101.67% 101. 37% 
Improved Land 100.00% 102. 46% 106. 66% 105. 27% 
Forest Land 100.00% 100.878  102.37* 101. 87% 
Other 100.00% 95.67% 88.27% 90.71% 
Myanmar Cropland. Arable lane — 100. 00$  100.00% 100. 00% 100. 01% 
Improved Land 100.00% 100.00% 99.99% 99.98% 
Forest Land 100.00% 100.00% 100.01% 100.01% 
Other 100.00% 100.00% 99.99% 99. 98% 
Malaysia Cropland. Arable lane  100.00%  100.38% 100. 87% 100. 83% 
Improved Land 100.00% 101.36% 103. 10% 102. 95% 
Forest Land 100.00% 99.37%  9R. 56% 98. 63% 
Other 100.00% 101.31% 102. 98% 102. 84% 
Korea Rep Cropland. Arable lane 100.008 — 98.03& 95.66% 96.08% 
Improved Land 100.00% 100. 48% 101. 05% 100. 95% 
Forest Land 100. 00% 99.51% 08.92% 99.03% 
  
5.CONCLUSIONS 
Modeling the land use change in Asia is 
conducted and the model can follow the 
actual value. Land use change projection to 
2010 in Asia is conducted. Highly developed 
countries such as Japan, Korea Rep lost their 
cultivation arca. but most of the countries in 
Asia. thev increase the cultivation area and 
most of the case they decrease forest area. As 
for the developed country, if they failed to 
earn enough money to import food, they 
might suffer from serious problem. As for 
developing country, their activity to feed 
themselves might cause a serious 
environmental problem such as destroying 
tropical forest. We should think how to meet 
future food needs and land use change while 
reducing poverty and protecting environment. 
REFERENCES: 
International Monetary Fund(1995): 
International Financial Statistics Yearbook 
. p.242. 
W.Behrens, P. M.Hawranek(1995): 
Manual for the Preparation of Industrial 
Feasibility Studies, United Nations Industrial 
Development Organization,p.386. 
Paul Krugman(1994) 
The Myth of Asia's Miracle, 
FOREIGN AFFAIRS pp.62-78. 
World Bank(1996): 
World Economic Statitics.p.766 
Japanese version 
International Archives of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing. Vol. XXXII, Part 7, Budapest, 1998 
455