2.
The global perspective
2.0 Introduction
Scientists are working hard to find new land on Mars or Moon, but till now there
is only one earth to live. Land is the solid cover of this earth, thus it is a
finite resource. Utility and requirement of land to human being cannot be questioned,
and is further supported by the slogan "God made the land for the people" (Ambrose,
1977, p.72).
2.1 Land-use considerations
This land is used by "men" to put all his utilities, hence is the introduction
of various LUs, to give place to which the natural LC is getting depleted over
the globe. This is threatening the natural balance, realisation of which is a
rather recent phenomenon.
This very important finite natural resource land becomes derelict if it is put
to improper use. The Civic Trust (England & Wales) recorded existence of more
than 56,000 hectare (ha) of derelict land in England and Wales in 1977 (Rhind
& Hudson, 1980). The situation attracted atleast some British planers (e.g. Ash,
1978) to try to ensure "the proper use of land". Pease et al. (1977) analysed
the importance of LU in altering climate of the region. Further, effects of urbanisation
on climate was emphasised in terms of "heat islands" in changing the local climate
of the concerned regions (Coates, 1981).
It was noted in 1979 (Sunday Telegraph 21 January, 1979) that some residents on
lands were much concerned on change in property values as a result of change in
LUP than even on the health risk because of serious cadmium levels leading to
possible respiratory troubles and even kidney failure. Further, in some studies
on causes of mortality, data on LU at workplace as well as home appeared to be
a very useful one. Further, for any future plan to develop any utility over a
land, the record on existing LU/LC was realised as essential.
Need of preparing a LU data bank was realised (knowingly or unknowingly) long
back, when, the four western surveys of the United States in 1870s (Hayden, King,
Powell and Wheeler surveys) contained environmental reports and maps, that were
important to consider for development of the region. In 1970 New York State undertook
LU and natural resource inventory. For this purpose ten main land categories were
identified. These were further classified into 22 subsets, refined into 136 classes.
All mapping was done in 1:24,000 scale (Coates, 1981, pp.578).
In 1976, US GS adopted a LU classification system that devides the landscape into
nine level I categories which were inturn separated into 37 more detailed level
II groups. The purpose was to provide a LU inventory for the entire country. As
per US concept LU is a unit of the landscape that can be categoriesed by its state
of existence or management. The way in which a part of landscape serves a functional
purpose- e.g. mining, defines its LU (Coates, 1981, pp.577).
Until 1950s landscape planning was being practiced in only limited cases. It was
between 1950 and 1976 that existence of three types of environment was realised
as
* the natural environment which encompasses the physical-biological world
* the social environment which arises from the matrix of people and their culture
* the built environment which recognizes that the man-made structures must provide
a place to live and work.
Hence-forth most LU policies attempted to account for
* air and water properties
* processes that threat life and property
* loss of soil and mineral resources
* landscape elements that need protection on their own.
As early as in 1976, Spangale, W. and his associates (Sangale et al., 1976) worked
in United States with a realisation that there is a very important need of earth
science information in generating LUPg guidelines for planners.
The problems of data acquisition was realised from a report of Rowley (1978) who
listed ten items of information required by those concerned with land; shape of
data generated varies with the purpose and source of data. Inter-continental and
intra-continental variations were noted regarding completeness of data availability.
It was noted by Floyd (1972) that for some parts of Africa next to nothing was
known about the detailed distribution of LU while for other parts of the same
continent numerous empirical studies of LU were conducted. For Britain, for certain
areas LU data were available down to the resolution of even parts of individual
buildings, while for the remaining parts data available was for lesser resolution.
Hall (1974) commented that while working for a regional-scale LU analysis of English
metropolis the major difficulties arose from the variety of survey records generated
by different agencies, for different purposes using different LU classification
scheme. Comments of Diamond (1974), Hall (1974) and Cappock (1974) reveals that
there were enough of legislation and a national system to collect collate and
publish LU information, yet the data available was very limited, neither reliable
nor adequate for planning, and specially based upon some incompatible LU classification
scheme. Hall (op.cit) emphasised upon some National Domesday book for LU, to be
updated every ten years. The problems of data acquisition was realised from a
report of Rowley (1978) who listed ten items of information required by those
concerned with land; shape of data generated varies with the purpose and source
of data. Inter-continental and intra-continental variations were noted regarding
completeness of data availability. It was noted by Floyd (1972) that for some
parts of Africa next to nothing was known about the detailed distribution of LU
while for other parts of the same continent numerous empirical studies of LU were
conducted. For Britain, for certain areas LU data were available down to the resolution
of even parts of individual buildings, while for the remaining parts data available
was for lesser resolution. Hall (1974) commented that while working for a regional-scale
LU analysis of English metropolis the major difficulties arose from the variety
of survey records generated by different agencies, for different purposes using
different LU classification scheme. Comments of Diamond (1974), Hall (1974) and
Cappock (1974) reveals that there were enough of legislation and a national system
to collect collate and publish LU information, yet the data available was very
limited, neither reliable nor adequate for planning, and specially based upon
some incompatible LU classification scheme. Hall (op.cit) emphasised upon some
National Domesday book for LU, to be updated every ten years.
On an attempt to study multi-national LU variations, problem came, in addition
to all the points discussed above, due to the fact that the pressing problem in
one country may be altogether irrelevant in others. Hence the class of data collected
vary widely. The organisation of economic cooperation and development (OECD) (Anon,
1976) reported increase in demand for land for non-agricultural purposes as a
result of rapid economic growth, which could be acceptable for US, but it was
a serious problem for Japan, Netherlands, UK or Norway which already had demand
for agricultural products. Finally it was concluded that whatever be the purpose,
there should be a system which may well permit, at a particular level, aggregation,
standardisation and collection of data so that comparison of data be possible.