A critique of the ECE Draft Standard International Classification of Land Use

Article type: Research Article

Authors: Wright, R.¹

Note: [1] Robert Wright is a graduate of Glasgow University (B.Sc. Honours in Geography), the International Institute for Aerospace Survey and Earth Sciences (ITC) in the Netherlands (B.Sc. in Photogrammetric Engineering) and the University of Michigan (M.Sc. in Remote Sensing). He is currently a lecturer in the Geography department at Aberdeen University, where he is responsible for teaching and research activity in the field of environmental remote sensing. He is a member of the Land Applications Working Group of the U.K. National Remote Sensing Centre, Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough, England.

Abstract: A draft Standard International Classification (SIC) of land use has been proposed and adopted by the Conference of European Statisticians. The classification scheme has been critically assessed for its suitability for application to different forms of land use survey in the United Kingdom, and also for its compatibility with land cover categories derived from data acquired by remote sensing techniques. At the most general level there is a high degree of agreement with the categories proposed in the USGS classification for use with remote sensor data. In the context of British requirements, the most suitable portion of the SIC appears to be in the classification of ‘forest and other wooded land’. An alternative classification of ‘agricultural land’ is offered which is better suited to the needs of the UK agricultural census. The SIC treatment of ‘natural terrain’ is criticised for being out of step with current ecological practice, especially in the treatment of ‘wetlands’. It is suggested that the SIC should be open to modification in the light of its application in the next few years, especially with the likelihood of more widespread adoption for land cover mapping of high resolution satellite data.

DOI: 10.3233/SJU-1985-3408

Journal: Statistical Journal of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 403-411, 1985