Land Classifications, Sustainable Land Management, And Ecosystem Health

8/10/2019 Land Classifications, Sustainable Land Management, And Ecosystem Health

1/21

Search Print this chapter Cite this chapter

LAND CLASSIFICATIONS, SUSTAINABLE LAND MANAGEMENT, AND ECOSYSTEM

HEALTH

J. Dumanski

Centre for Land and Biological Resources Research (CLBRR), Canada

Prem S. Bindraban

Plant Research International, Wageningen University and Research Centre, The Netherlands

W.W. Pettapiece , Peter Bullock, Robert J. A. Jones, and A. Thomasson

National Soil Resources Institute, Cranfield University, UK

Keywords: Health, Land evaluation, Soil interpretation, Sustainable Land Management, Land Quality Indicators, Ecosystem

Health.

Contents

1. Land Evaluation

2. Sustainable Land Management and Ecosystem Health

3. Sustainable Land Management and Sustainable AgricultureCapturing Opportunity

Related Chapters

Glossary

Bibliography

Biographical Sketch

"Environmental problems resulting from human activities have begun to threaten the sustainability of earth's life support

system. Among the most criti cal chal lenges facing humani ty are the conservation , resto ration, and wise management of the

earth's resources"

(Ecological Society of America (cited in Lubchenco, 1998)).

Land classifications and land evaluation assist us to interpret whether we are degrading or enhancing land quality, and to

develop better land use plans. Without good land quality, all forms of terrestrial life on this planet will cease. Land classifications

range from simple, subjective evaluations based on field observations, to complex, computer generated evaluations usingmathematical models and integrated data bases. This article describes different approaches to land classifications, starting with
http://greenplanet.eolss.net/EolssLogn/searchdt_form.aspx


2/21


3/21

indexed and ranked. Because these procedures were more scientifically based and less biased by individual experience, the

indexing approach was quickly adopted by other jurisdictions, although it was often modified for local applications with

introduction of other, landscape related factors such as climate, slope, stoniness, soil moisture limitations, heat units for maturing

corn and tender fruits, and so forth. With the addition of socioeconomic factors such as distance to markets, these modified

Storie systems became the basis for many rural land assessments. The Storie system is highly structured but easy to understand

by non-specialists, and it continues to be used, particularly for irrigation and specialty crop interpretations.

1.2. Land Capability and Land Suitability

The term "Land Capability" is used in many land classifications, but mostly in North America and Europe. Land capability is the

"quality" of land to produce common cultivated crops and pasture plants without deterioration over a long period of time. Land

suitability is the fitness of a given type of land for a specified kind of land use (FAO, 1983). In both classifications, land is

considered in its present condition or after improvements. In some cases, the terms "capability" and "suitability" are used

interchangeably.

1.2.1. Development of the Land Capability Class ification in USA

The first Land Capability Classification (LCC) was developed by the Soil Conservation Service (now called the Natural

Resource Conservation Service) in the late 1930s and early 1940s. In time, it became the agency's main tool for evaluating

appropriate uses of farmland and making recommendations on soil conservation practices, although it is only one of many

possible interpretations that are made from a soil survey.

The LCC was a three level classification consisting of Capability Class, Capability Subclass, and Capability Unit. The system

classified land into eight classes, designated by Roman numerals I through VIII, with increasing limitations on land use and the

need for conservation measures and careful management. Land was placed in a Class based on landscape, slope of the field,

and soil depth, texture and acidity. Only the first four classes of the LCC are considered as suitable for cropland, the remainingfour classes, V through VIII, were suitable for pasture, range, woodland, wildlife, recreation, and esthetic purposes. Subclasses

were identified for special limitations such as (e) erosion, (w) excess wetness, (s) problems in the rooting zone, and (c) climatic

limitations. At the lowest level, Land Capability Units were identified as groupings of soils with similar levels of yield and

common requirements for land management.

Procedures to classify soils according to the LCC first involved making a detailed soil survey, with additional information on

slope, erosion, and land use. This information was then translated into the Land Capability Classes, with Subclasses to show

particular limitations and problems, and Units to provide interpretive information for the farmer.These interpretations were often

done by multidisciplinary teams consisting of agronomists, biologists, economists, engineers, foresters, range experts, soilscientists, and soil conservationists. Recommendations for farmers were often taken from standardized Capability tables and


4/21

guides which were made available to all field offices.

The LCC has been eclipsed by other methods of interpreting soil surveys for planning conservation practices, although these

systems are still used. The system was found lacking for forestry and rangeland management, and experts in these areas

developed woodland site classifications and range land management plans.

1.2.2. The Canada Land Inventory (CLI) - A Modified Land Capability Classification

The CLI was one of the most successful adaptations of the land capability classification system. It was a major program to

provide a comprehensive, standardized assessment of land capability to support defined land-based activities in the country

(Canada Land Inventory, 1964). It was implemented to resolve emerging resource and land use conflicts, and to support

regional land use planning, as the country was rapidly changing from a rural-agrarian society to an urban-industrial society. The

program provided land capability assessments for agriculture, forestry, wildlife (waterfowl, ungulates) and outdoor recreation,

for the 2.5 million km2which are the "settled" portion of Canada. In addition, there was a classification of present land use. The

CLI approach differed from that of the USDA in that it was a seven rather than eight class system, it used only Class and

Subclass, and the scale of presentation was selected as 1:250,000. It is noteworthy that the CLI gave rise to the Canada

Geographic Information System (CGIS), which was the program of origin for computerized mapping and the foundation forgeographic information systems (GIS) in the world.

Soil Capability Classification for Agriculture: Mineral soils were grouped into seven classes based on their capability for

common field crops of the region. The Class reflected inferred productivity potentials based on soil, landform and climate.

Three categories of Subclasses recognized the kinds and degrees of limitations, e.g. moisture (A), heat (H), topography (t),

stoniness (p), inundation (i), soil moisture holding capacity (m), structure (d), salinity (n), low fertility (f), visible erosion (e),

excess wetness (w) and shallowness to rock (r). Example of a rating symbol could be 3md, meaning Class 3, a moderately high

capability, with moderate limitations of low moisture holding capacity and poor structure.

Land Capability Classification for Forestry: All mineral and organic soils were classified in one of seven classes based on an

inherent productivity for commercial timber (mean annual increment, merchantable timber). Three categories were used, Class,

Subclass and Indicator Species. An example of a rating symbol could be 2m wS, meaning Class 2 with a slight moisture holding

capacity limitation; white spruce expected to yield from 91-110 cubic feet per acre per annum.

Land Capability Classification for Wildlife (waterfowl; ungulates): Wildlife capability was based on environmental factors

that affected the quality and quantity of habitat that provide food, cover and space important to the wildlife species in question.

Separate assessments were made for ungulates and waterfowl. Indicator species were used for ungulates (antelope, caribou,

deer, elk, goat, moose, mountain sheep) to designate the major species in an area.


5/21

Land Capability Classification for Outdoor Recreation: Land areas were classified on the basis of the intensity of outdoor

recreational use, or the quantity of outdoor recreation which could be generated and sustained per unit area of land. Quantity

was measured by "visitor days" and both intensive and dispersed activities were recognized. Uses included activities such as

beaches, ski slopes, and dispersed activities such as viewing or boating. Water bodies were not directly classified, their values

accruing to the adjoining shoreline. Subclasses, in contrast to the previous systems, were used to indicate opportunities for

recreation.

1.2.3. Land Capability Systems in Europe

Procedures of land classification and land capability in Europe developed according to defined needs. The earliest formal

systems, based on scores for soil and land properties, were developed in Germany in the 1930s. In the 1950s, the Agricultural

Land Classification was developed in the United Kingdom with the objective to protect the best agricultural land from non-

agricultural development, and to ensure food security after the upheavals created by WW2. This was based on the USDA

system, but consisted only of five classes. Only lands with agricultural potential were classified. This system was modified in the

1970s with procedures to assess land suitability for the main field crops. More quantitative approaches were developed later in

the Netherlands, following the concept of "land qualities", as used in the FAO Framework for Land Evaluation.

The latest developments encompass environmental protection as well as agricultural productivity. Vulnerability to a variety of

"risks", including contamination from agrichemicals, waste disposal, and land degradation, are assuming increasing importance.

Also, computer models (pedo-transfer functions) and integrated land information systems are used more regularly to achieve

better and more quantitative evaluations.

1.3. Physical and Integral Land Evaluation

Land evaluation includes all methods to explain or predict the use potential of land. It involves the study and interpretation of

landforms, soils, vegetation, climate and other aspects of land, in order to identify and make a comparison of promising kinds ofland use. The concept of land evaluation is similar to that of terrain analysis as used by engineers, and it has been used

interchangeably with land classification and soil survey interpretations in the past. The purpose of land evaluation is to facilitate

decision making in the optimal use of land resources. Land evaluation is not an end in itself, but rather, it is a means towards an

end.

Procedures of land evaluation involve integrating physical characteristics of the soil, landscape, vegetation and climate in an

area, with the economic and social management limitations of the region, to identify the potential and most beneficial uses of the

land. Land evaluation provides input into the land use planning process by rationalising the nature and properties of the land

being considered with the requirements of alternative land uses. In most cases, land evaluation is concerned with change in theuse of land, and increasingly with changes in the land itself.


6/21

"Land evaluation" was introduced into the literature by W.C. Visser in 1950. It was adopted by Stewart (1968) in Australia and

in a casual way by other authors, but it was not commonly accepted until 1976 when FAO published "A Framework for Land

Evaluation". This publication, developed jointly with a Dutch working group, was profoundly influential in reshaping how

information on land is organised and presented, and how alternate use possibilities are evaluated (see van Diepen et al., 1991).

Land evaluation originated through studies on land suitability, land capability, soil ratings and soil survey interpretations. These

classifications (in various ways) contribute to what has commonly been called land classifications, which Vinck defined in 1960

as those groupings of soils that are made from the point of view of people that are using the soils in a practical way. Land

evaluation includes parts of these procedures, but extends beyond all of them.

Land evaluation encompasses two basic concepts. The first is physical land evaluation, which provides assessments of the

performance of specific land uses in terms of constraints imposed by the land, using indices such as capability, suitability,

vulnerability and productivity. Physical land evaluations provide comparisons of potential land use alternatives for regional and

local land use planning, such as in the LESA program in the USA, which integrates principles of land evaluation with site

assessment for urban land use planning. However, the studies normally do not include assessments of risk, vulnerability,

resilience, and sustainability, and by themselves they do not provide sufficient information for establishing land use policies and

guidelines.

The second is integral land evaluation which assesses the nature and productivity of the land resource compared to goals and

expectations of society, as expressed by economically acceptable production levels and requirements for goods, services and

amenities. Integral land evaluation is an extension of physical land evaluation, but it identifies land use options in economic terms

and it indicates the feasibility and degree of flexibility of meeting specified socio-economic objectives (targets) given the

availability and quality of the land resource base. Integral land evaluation is more dynamic than physical land evaluation, and the

studies are normally achieved using various types of programming models or other computer models.

1.4. The International Framework for Land Evaluation

The FAO Framework for Land Evaluation, through widespread adoption and adaptation, has emerged as an international

standard for land evaluation. The approach is rooted in the principles of earlier land classification systems, notably the work of

Stewart in Australia and the United States Bureau of Reclamation, but modified considerably by experience gained from

integrated resource surveys and the requirements of land use planning.

The FAO Framework is not a formal classification system, but rather a collection of concepts, principles and procedures on the

basis of which local, regional and national evaluation systems can be developed. The concepts and principles are universal and

scale neutral, and they can be used to construct systems at all levels of intensity and for all kinds of rural land uses.Recommended procedures for a suitability classification are provided, but these are optional. The value of the FAO Framework


7/21

is not in the classifications that evolved from it, but in the evolution of a new paradigm for rationalising the wise use of land

resources.

The basic concepts in the Framework include land (as defined by FAO in 1976), land mapping units, major kinds of land use

and land utilization types, land characteristics and land qualities, diagnostic criteria, land use requirements and land

improvement. These are employed within a framework bounded by six principles, namely:

1. Land suitability is assessed and classified with respect to specified kinds of land use;

2. The suitability classes are defined by economic criteria;

3. A multidisciplinary approach is required;

4. Evaluation should take into account the physical, economic, social and political context of the area considered;

5. Suitability refers to land use on a sustained basis;

6. Evaluation involves comparison of two or more alternative kinds of use.

The recommended procedures of conducting a land evaluation according to the FAO Framework are as follows:

1. Development of the objective(s) of the evaluation;

2. Selection of relevant kinds of land uses, and identification of their requirements and limitations for land;

3. Description of land (mapping) units, and assessment of land qualities;

4. Comparison of land use requirements for each land use with the adequacy of land qualities identified in each land

(mapping) unit;

5. Assessment of economic and social performance of each land use relative to the objective(s) of the evaluation;

6. Final (suitability) classification and presentation of results.

The procedure of comparing (matching) land use requirements with the nature of the land resource is central to the applicationof the Framework (Figure 1). This is normally accomplished using subjective judgement and experience. It is an iterative

process, with refinements developed through re-examination with economic and social objectives.

The FAO Framework for Land Evaluation has been applied in most countries of the world, but rarely in its complete form. This

is entirely proper, since frameworks by their nature are rarely used in their entirety. In using the Framework, it is important that

the concepts and principles be applied systematically, but procedures and output should be moulded to meet the specific

objectives of each evaluation study. McCormack, in 1987, proposed soil potential ratings as an alternative approach to ranking

the performance of soils.

1.5. Quantitative Land Evaluation Using Computer Models


8/21

The original procedures recommended by the Framework for Land Evaluation (see Figure 1) were developed prior to

computer automation, and these have been super-ceded by technology. Increasingly land evaluations are using quantitative

techniques and modelling, supported by geographic information systems and large, integrated data bases. Increasingly, the

subjective matching procedures are being replaced by simulation models, programming models and other analytical tools,

thereby facilitating more dynamic evaluations, better accounting for spatial and temporal variability and for the stochastic

occurrence of natural events. The evaluation of crop yield and performance is still one of the major functions of land evaluation,

but yield estimates need to be expressed in terms of variability and production risk to facilitate links with agricultural policy

assessment and sustainability.

Figure 1. Schematic of activities in land evaluation.

Stages in Estimating Crop Productivity Potentials using Crop Growth Models. Many processes affect crop

performance, but only efficiencies in the use of solar radiation, soil water, and soil nutrients have major impacts (Bindraban,

2000). Most crop growth models are based on this concept of stable efficiencies. Solar radiation is described as that portion

which promotes photosynthesis. Generic descriptions of soil water dynamics for generalised soil profiles allow good estimates

of water availability. Nutrient availability can be assessed through transfer functions and expert judgement from soil

characteristics. Crop production is then calculated in terms of potential, and water or nutrient limited production, based on the

adequacy of these resources to meet growth requirements (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Calculating yield potentials using crop growth models.

Estimating Biological Potential. Crop production under optimum management conditions, i.e. adequate supply of water and
http://popupfigure%28%27figure/E5-24-06-F02.jpg')http://popupfigure%28%27figure/E5-24-06-F01.jpg')


9/21

nutrients and crop protection, is controlled by (and proportional to) absorbed photosynthetically active radiation. The foliage of

the crop (leaf area index) determines which fraction of the daily radiation is absorbed. This absorbed radiation is converted into

biomass with a crop specific conversion efficiency. Growth is calculated on a daily basis, and the biomass is incremented for the

duration of a growing period. Temperature drives crop phenological development and therefore determines the length of the

growing season. Multiple cropping can be modelled when permitted by climatic conditions. Daily or monthly data on radiation

and temperature are required to assess this production level.

Water limited production. The water-holding capacity of soils is related to soil texture, and total soil water depends on soil

depth. The required water to fulfil transpiration requirements for crop growth under optimum management conditions can be

calculated on the basis of crop specific transpiration coefficients. When water supply through rain or irrigation is insufficient, soil

water content may fall below a threshold and actual crop transpiration becomes less than potential, proportionally decreasing

crop growth. Water availability to the crop can be estimated with a capacity type, dynamic soil water model. Infiltration

depends on the soil-specific infiltration capacity, the amount and intensity of rainfall and the slope of the terrain. Drainage occurs

when field capacity is exceeded. Nutrient availability is assumed not to limit crop growth at this production level. Required data

to assess this production level, in addition to radiation and temperature, are rainfall and physical characteristics of the soil

concerning infiltration and drainage of water, water holding capacity and slope.

Nutrient limited production. Soil fertility is interpreted as the capacity of a soil to provide plants with nitrogen, phosphorus

and potassium. The potential supply of N, P and K from the soil is estimated from chemical properties of the soil. The actual

uptake of each nutrient is estimated, taking into account the potential supply of the other nutrients. Required data to assess this

production level are the soil chemical characteristics, organic matter, pH, P-Olsen and exchangeable K.

1.6. Yield Potential Analyses - A Computerized Application of Land Evaluation

Yield potential analyses is a quantitative procedure to assess differences between yield potentials at various levels of constraints

(defined management practices), compared to current, farm level yields. In practice, actual yield levels are influenced not onlyby climate, soils, and crop varieties, but also by prices, government production and support policies, farmer's knowledge and

skills, access to markets, land tenure, etc. Consequently, actual yields are normally lower than estimated potentials, although

under very high management, the yields may exceed calculated potentials.

Yield potential analyses is commonly used for assessing residual yield potentials and food security requirements for developed

and developing countries, particularly for cereal production. It is also useful for calculating economic costs and benefits from

improved agronomic practices, such as with improved crop varieties, improved cultivation, timely application of nutrients, and

complete crop protection. Increasingly, it is being used as an indicator of land quality, and for environmental impact assessment

of crop intensification.


10/21

1.7. The International Framework for Evaluation of Sustainable Land Management

Sustainable Land Management (SLM) is a refinement of the FAO Framework for Land Evaluation. While land evaluation is still

widely used to assess the potentials and constraints of land for agricultural development, modern priorities centre more on the

environment, global carrying capacities and sustainability, and somewhat less on land use planning. The philosophical

underpinnings for SLM were taken from land evaluation, but the procedures focus more on the impacts of land management on

land quality and sustainable development (see Figure 3).

Figure 3. Schematic of Framework for Evaluation of Sustainable Land Management.

Natural science specialists tend to focus on physical and biological indicators such as crop yields, and input indicators such as

soil and water quality (e.g. SSSA, 1995). However, there are serious limitations if these measures are used in isolation from the

other dimensions of sustainability. Under experimental conditions, crop yields are a useful measure of sustainability, especially if

long term experimental data with controlled inputs are available. Under farmers' conditions, however, crop yields are a useful

measure of sustainability only if they are adjusted for changes in management practices (changing input levels).

On the input side, trends in land quality, using indicators such as nutrient balance, land cover, and agro-biodiversity, are useful

indicators of resource degradation, but they do not provide definitive conclusions with respect to sustainability of a system. For

example, it may be quite rational to deplete natural resources over time, since most agricultural production processes allow for a

certain amount of input substitution (different sources of crop nutrients, substitution of labor or capital for land, and so forth).

Such substitutions may contribute positively to sustainability as long as the impacts of the substitution are reversible and they

contribute to more resilient and flexible systems.

Any measure of physical and biological sustainability must combine measures of productivity enhancement, measures of natural

resource protection, and measures of social acceptability. Thus, it is essential to integrate concepts from those which focus on

resource quality and those which emphasize economic productivity. Such an integrated approach has been developed as a

Framework for Evaluation of Sustainable Land Management (FESLM). The FESLM (see Smyth and Dumanski, 1993) was
http://popupfigure%28%27figure/E5-24-06-F03.jpg')


11/21

developed through collaboration between international and national institutions as a practical approach to assessing whether

farming systems are trending towards or away from sustainability.

Sustainable land management (SLM) is defined as:

"Sustainable land management combines technologies, policies and activities aimed at integrating socio-economic

principles with environmental concerns so as to simultaneously:

maintain or enhance productivity/services;

reduce the level of production risk;

protect the potential of natural resources and prevent degradation of soil and water quality;

be economically viable;

be socially acceptable."

These factors are referred to as the five pillars of sustainable land management. Although closely related to concepts of

sustainable agriculture, they can also be applied to other systems of biological production, such as forestry and agroforestry,

which involve high degrees of human intervention. Performance indicators for each pillar are used for assessing the contributionof that pillar to the general objectives of sustainable land management. Thus for any given (agricultural) development activity,

sustainability can be predicted if the objectives of all five pillars are achieved simultaneously. However, as is the likely case in

the majority of situations, only degrees of sustainability can be predicted if only some of the pillars are satisfied, and this results

in partial or conditional sustainability. The recognition of partial sustainability, however, provides valuable direction on the

interventions necessary to enhance sustainability.

This framework encourages and facilitates the use of performance indicators for each of these five pillars, and emphasizes the

need to monitor long term changes in resource quality and input use efficiency. Also required are reliable procedures to integrate

these into evaluations of sustainability.

In 2000, J. Hurni proposed a refined definition of "sustainable land management" as "a system of technologies and/or land

planning that aims to integrate ecological with socio-economic and political principles in the management of land for agricultural

and other purposes to achieve intra- and inter-generational equity".

1.8. Land Quality Indicators

Indicators of land quality (LQI) are the biophysical component of the FESLM, and they are a key requirement for sustainable

land management. These indicators are designed to capture the dual objectives of environmental monitoring and sector

performance monitoring for managed ecosystems (agriculture, forestry, conservation, and environmental management).


12/21

Application of LQIs requires that issues of land management are classified by agro-ecological zones (Resource Management

Domains), and that they incorporate farmer (local) knowledge into the overall process of improving agricultural and

environmental land management.

A set of Core LQIs is available to describe the state of the biophysical resource (from Dumanski and Pieri, 2000):

Nutrient balance.Describes nutrient stocks and flows as related to different land management systems used by farmers

in specific AEZs and specific countries.Yield gap.Describes current yields, yield trends, and actual:baseline productivity (initial focus is on cereals).

Land use intensity. Describes the impacts of agricultural intensification on land quality. Intensification may involve

increased cropping, more value-added production, and increased amounts and frequency of inputs; i.e. management

practices adopted by farmers in the transition to intensification.

Land use diversity (agrodiversity).Describes the extent of diversification of production systems over the landscape,

including livestock and agroforestry systems; it reflects the degree of flexibility (and resilience) of regional farming systems

and their capacity to absorb shocks and respond to opportunities.

Land cover.Describes the extent, duration, and timing of vegetative cover on the land during major erosive periods of

the year. Land cover is a surrogate for erosion, and along with land use intensity and diversity, it offers increased

understanding on issues of desertification.

Soil quality.Describes the conditions that make the soil a living body, i.e. soil health. The indicators will be based on soil

organic matter, particularly the dynamic carbon pools most affected by environmental conditions and land use change.

Land degradation(erosion, salinization, compaction, organic matter loss). These processes have been much researched

and have a strong scientific base, but reliable data on extent and impacts are often lacking.

Agrobiodiversity.This concept involves managing the gene pools utilized in crop and animal production, but also soil

micro and meso biodiversity important for soil health. On a macro scale, it involves integrated landscape management

including maintenance of natural and semi-natural habitat, as well as managing the coexistence of wildlife in agriculturalareas.

Core LQIs being developed by other sectors comprise:

Water quality

Forest land quality

Rangeland quality

Land contamination/pollution.

These indicators are the most important of the biophysical components of sustainable land management. Although useful in their


13/21

own right, they must still be complemented with indicators of the other pillars of sustainable land management: economic

viability, system resilience, and social equity and acceptability. Considerable additional work is required to develop these pillars

to the same level of detail as the land quality (biophysical) indicators.

2. Sustainable Land Management and Ecosystem Health

Land and how we manage land impacts directly on the goods and services obtained from the land, but also on the ecologicalservices that support life on this planet. These services include purification of air and water, mitigation of floods and droughts,

detoxification and decomposition of wastes, generation and renewal of soil and soil fertility, pollination of crops and natural

vegetation, control of potential agricultural and forestry pests, dispersal of seeds, translocation of nutrients, and maintenance of

biodiversity (from which humanity derives major agricultural, medicinal and industrial benefits), protection of harmful UV rays,

stabilization of climate and moderation of climatic extremes, provision of aesthetic beauty and support of human cultures. These

latter services relate to the global environment and ecosystem health. Increasingly these are viewed not only as issues for the

resource industries, but also as common environmental goods in the context of human health, world trade, social justice and

even national security.

Many of the problems arise from our penchant to control nature, rather than living within the bounds of nature. In the process

we create wastes and other excesses beyond the capacity of local and global ecosystems to absorb them. Examples are soil

erosion beyond the capacity to form new soil, CO2emissions beyond the capacity for carbon sequestration, pollution beyond

the capacity of local ecosystems to filter the wastes, crop yields beyond levels of ecological baseline productivity, groundwater

withdrawals beyond recharge capacity, and deforestation beyond sustainable yields. In most cases the problems arise with

natural resources that are simultaneously viewed as depletable and renewable.

Agriculture and related biologically based land uses, including forestry and agro-forestry, occupy major areas of the earth's land

areas. Current estimates are that we already regularly manage about one-third to one-half of the earth's non-glaciated landareas, and up to 70% of land areas receive some degree of human intervention. How these lands are managed and the nature of

management systems impact directly on the health of local and even global ecosystems and the services derived therefrom.

These sectors have both major opportunity and responsibilities to ensure healthy ecosystems, but their current performance

leaves much to be desired. Even though there are major trends towards global urbanization, the proper husbandry of rural

landscapes has huge consequences for provision of quality environmental services to urban dwellers, such as clean water and

air.

2.1. Opportunities for Sustainable Land Management and Improved Ecosystem Health through the International

Conventions


14/21

Monitoring land quality requires that we develop better understanding on how changes in land management by farmers and

others impact on the services and benefits attained from land, and whether this is leading us towards or away from sustainability.

This is a complex procedure, requiring indicators and monitoring activities at global, national and local levels. The indicators and

procedures at each scale are not identical, but they link together through common objectives to measure the impacts of human

interventions on the landscape, and our common search to achieve sustainable systems.

Interest in land quality is higher now than at any time in the past, due to the need to increase food production, but also the

importance of land quality to ecosystem functions and global life support systems. Concurrently, there are increasingopportunities to mobilize monitoring and evaluation activities under the international conventions, particularly the Convention to

Combat Desertification, the Convention on Biodiversity, the Framework Convention on Climate Change, the various

agreements on International Waters, and the increased interest from the OECD to develop comprehensive agri-environmental

indicators. Although these conventions do not always provide extra funding, they are useful instruments under which to better

coordinate activities.

Agriculture has historically been a major contributor to environmental degradation, but under improved systems of land

management, it could be a major partner in the environmental solution. Land management decisions by individual farmers have

implications for many environmental goods and services, such as impacting on habitats for fauna and flora, on a variety ofecological services, and on amenityor aesthetic values. The impacts may arise directly on land managed for agriculture and

livestock, or indirectly as a consequence of fragmentation and degradation of natural (less managed) habitats such as forests and

wetlands. Many of the environmental benefits associated with sustainable land management will accrue locally and nationally

(see Figure 4). These include productivity effects such as pollination, biological control, nutrient cycling, soil conservation, etc,

as well as off-site effect such as water regulation and supply, disturbance regulation (e.g. flood control), waste treatment etc.

Others are more clearly global, or at least 'supra-national' in scope, such as climate regulation, conservation of genetic resources

with potential value in plant breeding or pharmaceuticals, international tourism, and trans-boundary water-mediated effects.

Sometimes it is essential to promote intensified uses in more favored areas to reduce pressures on marginal, fragile

environments.

Figure 4: Environmental Benefits of Sustainable Land Management: Local, National and Global Layers

Although the ecological functions are discrete, in practice the boundaries are far from clear cut. The global environmental
http://popupfigure%28%27figure/E5-24-06-F04.jpg')


15/21

benefits and costs are those which the global community, through international agreements and nascent trading frameworks, has

expressed a willingness to pay for. The rationale is on the grounds that:

they would normally receive sub-optimal attention within a national accounting and planning framework,

they are considered highly valuable or irreplaceable,

there is considered to be an unacceptable economic or humanitarian risk associated with further depletion.

The three categories relate to (a) Biodiversity (which embraces all goods and services associated with terrestrial ecosystems);(b) Climate Change (to do with concerns about emissions of greenhouse gases); (c) International Waters (where the negative

impacts of depleted water flow or quality have serious trans-boundary implications). In all cases, there are direct linkages

between global environmental change and land management, as well as opportunities under the international agreements to

generate funding to achieve these objectives.

Biodiversity and Agriculture: Biodiverse ecosystems have a fundamental role and importance in sustainable development,

providing many important benefits. They often contain a variety of economically useful products that can be harvested or serve

as inputs forproductionprocesses. In addition, they provide habitatsfor flora and fauna, and many key ecological services

including those associated with nutrient cycling, disturbance regulation, availability and quality of water for agriculture, industry,or human consumption, etc. Agriculture remains dependent on many biological services, such as provision of genes for

improved varieties and livestock breeds, but also for crop pollination, soil fertility services provided by micro-organisms, and

pest control services provided by insects and wildlife. Conversely, sustainably managed agricultural landscapes are important to

the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity. The term agrobiodiversity has been coined to describe the important subset

of biodiversity that contributes to agriculture.

Climate change and agriculture: the linkages between agricultural land use and greenhouse gases relate to land-use dynamics

and management of rural landscapes. During the nineteenth century, rapid agricultural expansion, primarily in temperate regions,

led to widespread clearing of land and losses of organic carbon in vegetation and soils. In recent years, deforestation intemperate regions has been reversed, but land conversion in the tropics has greatly expanded. This has become a major source

of CO2 emissions to the atmosphere, of the order of 1.6 Gt C or about 20% of total anthropogenic CO 2 emissions; the

continuing net global loss of C from cultivated soils contributes approximately an additional 5% of anthropogenic CO2. Also,

agriculture contributes around 50% of anthropogenic CH4emissions globally, primarily from the rumen of livestock and from

flooded rice fields, and about 70% of anthropogenic N2 O, largely as a result of nitrogen inputs (synthetic fertilizers and animal

wastes, and biological nitrogen fixation).

International waters and agriculture: More than 200 river basins are shared by two or more countries, accounting for about60% of the earth's land area. For example, there are at least 54 rivers that cross or form international boundaries in sub-saharan


16/21

africa, and 10 river basins have drainage areas greater than 350,000 km2, affecting 34 countries including Egypt.

Many of these shared watercourses are subject to alarming rates of environmental degradation, with strong linkages with land

and water management, e.g. water withdrawals from lakes and reservoirs; water diversions; upstream dams and lake

reclamation for agriculture and aquaculture; destroying habitats for plants and animals; increasing salinization.

Deforestation and land degradation in international watersheds such as the Nile, Niger, or Indus affect rainfall patterns, increase

the range of local temperatures, and cause major variations in water flow and quality. Soil erosion leads to siltation andsedimentation of lakes and reservoirs, shorten their lifetimes, destroy aquatic environments, reduce the productivity of their

ecosystems, and diminish flood control capacity.

Linkages between Sustainable Land Management and the International Conventions

The linkages between the pillars of sustainable land management, the agricultural challenges to achieve food security, and the

international conventions are shown in Table 1. This shows that agricultural objectives, under food security, still emphasize

productivity and economic returns, whereas the international conventions encompass environmental goods and services. This

dichotomy, developed under the historic paradigm of economically driven national development and non-limiting naturalresources, is being challenged in many parts of the world. This evolving debate creates opportunities to better harmonize the

common ground and to capture the synergy between sustainable land management and food production. However, this requires

that agricultural systems recognize that sustainable systems must also ensure ecosystem health. Conversely, it requires that

conservationists recognize that improved local, national, and global environmental management will not be realized without first

securing economically viable rural economies.

Table 1.Relationships among sustainable land management, food security, and the international conventions

Capturing the mutually reinforcing interactions (synergy) between these two aspects, the biophysical and the social, is the major

opportunity for achieving the concomitant objectives of improved food security and ecosystem health. An important premise is

that farmers normally are keen to manage their land better if they know how, but their management choices are often

constrained by outside influences, including financial, marketing, and other constraints. This reduces their flexibility of choice,

results in land use systems that are less sustainable than they could be, and concomitantly reduces the potential positive impacts

on ecosystem health.

3. Sustainable Land Management and Sustainable AgricultureCapturing Opportunity

Sustainability will never be achieved by "overcoming constraints", which has been the driving paradigm of the past. Overcomingconstraints promotes the concepts of human dominance over nature, and recognizes neither the limits nor capacity of natural
http://popuptable%28%27e5-24-06-t01.htm%27%29/


17/21

systems. Rather, sustainability needs to move to a process to concomitantly capture economic and environmental opportunities,

the so-called "win-win" situations.

A broadly acceptable definition of sustainable agriculture has been proposed by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) of

the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR):

"Sustainable agriculture involves the successful management of resources for agriculture to satisfy changing human

needs, while maintaining or enhancing the quality of the environment and conserving natural resources"

This is a practical approach to sustainability since it recognizes the legitimate use of natural and man-made resources for

satisfaction of human needs, but it cautions against the exploitation of these resources in a manner which would degrade the

quality and potential of the resources on which production depends. More importantly, the definition recognizes that human

needs change and therefore the systems of production must also change. This embodies the concepts of system flexibility and

natural resource resilience as primary criteria for achieving sustainability.

A new concept of sustainability is emerging, called "Sustainability as Opportunity". This can be defined as:

"ensuring that the choices for future production systems are not reduced by decisions made in the present".

This recognizes that considerable substitution is possible in agricultural and other biologically based systems (the physical,

biological, economic and social dimensions of sustainability), but the substitution is not perfect. For example, most agricultural

production systems allow for a certain amount of input substitution, such as among different sources of crop nutrients,

substitution of labor for land, and so forth. Such substitutions may contribute positively to sustainability as long as the impacts of

the substitution are reversible (irreversible substitutions reduce options), and they contribute to more resilient and flexible

systems. The objective is to evolve sustainable systems in which appropriate technological and policy interventions have created

resilient production systems that are well suited to local socio-economic and physical conditions, and that are supported by

affordable and reliable policies and support services.

The primary agents of change towards sustainable (or non-sustainable) agricultural systems are the rural communities who

depend on the land for their livelihoods, and the primary emphasis is on community-based or 'farmer-centered' interventions.

Rural families make decisions about production practices and land use in line with their objectives, production possibilities and

constraints, but these decisions are part of a wider process to secure and improve the family's food security and livelihood.

They are strongly influenced by government policies and market forces, and it is important that these do not interfere with the

farmer's options to make the best decisions.

In the final analyses, sustainability is a concept to strive towards, rather than a target to be achieved. It requires indicators andprocesses for monitoring, but these must be set in the context of public discussions and policy making. Not much can be


18/21

achieved in global environmental management (global life support systems) in the absence of good land management at local and

national levels. Potential "win-win" situations are important to identify opportunities for immediate action, but these may not be

adequate in all situations. Decisions on land management have both internal and external impacts, and these have to be factored,

balanced, and internalized by farmers and society at large, as we collectively strive towards the concept of sustainability.

Related Chapters

Click Here To View The Related Chapters

Glossary

Ethnopedology :the study of indigenous soil classifications.

Land suitability :the fitness of a given type of land for a specified kind of land use (FAO, 1983).

Land capability :the quality of land to produce common cultivated crops and pasture plants without

deterioration over a long period of time (Klingebiel and Montgomery, 1966).

Land an area of the earth's surface, the characteristics of which embrace all reasonably stable, orpredictably cyclic, attributes of the biosphere, vertically above and below this area including

those of the atmosphere, the soil and underlying geology, the hydrology, the plant and animal

populations, and the results of past and present human activity, to the extent that these

attributes exert a significant influence on present and future uses of the land by man (FAO

(1976).

Land classification :groupings of soils that are made from the point of view of people that are using the soils in a

practical way.

Sustainable land management :Sustainable land management combines technologies, policies and activities aimed at

integrating socio-economic principles with environmental concerns so as to simultaneously

maintain or enhance productivity/services;

reduce the level of production risk;

protect the potential of natural resources and prevent degradation of soil and water quality;

be economically viable;

be socially acceptable.

Sustainable Agriculture :Sustainable agriculture involves the successful management of resources for agriculture to

satisfy changing human needs, while maintaining or enhancing the quality of the environment

and conserving natural resources.Sustainability as Opportunity :ensuring that the choices for future production systems are not reduced by decisions made in


19/21

the present.

Soil ratings :indices developed by rating the properties of soils according to their comparative importance

for a given use (or their degree of limitation), and then combining the ratings according to

mathematical formulae which describe the relationships and interactions among the factors to

produce the final comparative ranking (FAO, 1974).

Soil survey interpretations :(qualitative) assessments which describe the characteristics, qualities and behaviour of soils

for a given use in terms of the limitations inherent in that soil for that use (Aandahl, 1958).

Bibliography

Altieri, M.A. 1990. Agroecology, C.R.Carrol, et al., Eds. McGraw-Hill, New York, New York.

Beek, K.J. 1978. Land evaluation for agricultural development. ILRI Publication 23, Int. Ins t. Land Reclam. Improvem., Wageningen.

Bindraban, P.S., J.J. Stoorvogel, D.M. Jansen, J. Vlaming, J.J.R. Groot, 2000. Land quality indicators for sustainable land management:

proposedmethod for yield gap and soil nutrient balance. Agriculture, Ecosys temsand the Environment 81: 103-112.

Bouma, J. and Bregt, A.K. (1989). Land Qualities in Space and Time. Pudoc, Wageningen

Canada Land Inventory. 1964. Objectives, scope and organization. Canada Land Inventory Report No.1. Lands Directorate, Department of

Environment, Ottawa. 61 p.

Dumanski, J, and Pieri, C. 2000. Land quality indicaot rs: Research Plan. Agriculture, Ecosys tems and Environment 81:93-102

Dumanski, J. and Onofrei, C. 1989. Crop y ield models for ag ricultural land evaluation. Soil Use Manage. 5:9-15.

FAO. 1976. A framework for land evaluation. Soils Bulletin 32. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome. pp 72.

FAO. 1974. Approaches to land classification. Soils Bulletin 22. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome. pp 120.

FAO. 1983. Guidelines: Land evaluation for rainfed agriculture. Soils Bulletin 52. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations,

Rome. pp 237.

Heineke, H.J., Eckelmann, W., Thomasson, A.J., Jones, R.J.A.,Montanarella, L. and Buckley, B. (eds). (1998). Land Information Systems:

Developments for planning the sustainable use of land resources. EUR 17729 EN, 546pp. Office for Official Publications of the European

Communities, Luxembourg.

Hurni, H. 2000. Assessing sustainable land management. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 81:83 93.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2000. Land use, land-use change, and forestry. Cambridge Univeristy Press, Cambridge, UK

Jansen, B.H., Guiking, F.C.T., Van der Eijk, D., Smaling, E.M.A., Wolf, J. and Van Reuler, H., 1990. A system for quantitative evaluation of the


20/21

fertility of tropical soils (QUEFTS). Geoderma 46: 299-318.

Joffe, S., Dumanski, J., Pieri, C., and Forno, D. 2000. Opportunities to Capture the National and Global Environmental Benefits of Sustainable

Land Management. The World Bank (in press)

Jones, R.J.A. and Thomasson, A.J. (1987). Land suitability classification for temperate arable crops. In : Quantified Land Evaluation

Procedures. (eds . K.J.Beek, P.A. Burrough and D.E. McCormack), ITC Publication , No.6, 29-35.

Klingebiel , A. A. & Montgomery, P. H. 1961: Land Capability Classification. Agricultural Handbook No. 210, US Department of Agriculture,

Washington, DC, 21 pp.

Lubchenko, J. 1998. Entering the century of the environment: A new social contract for science. Science 279: 491- 497.

McCormack, D.E. 1987. Soil potential ratings - a special case of land evaluation. In K.J. Beek, P.A. Burrough and D.E. McCormack (eds.).

Quantified Land Evaluation Procedures., Proc. Intern. Workshop. ITC Publ. 6, ITC, Enschede, The Netherlands. p 81-85.

Monteith, J.L., 1990. Conservative behavior in the response of crops to water and light. In: R. Rabbinge, J. Goudriaan, H. Van Keulen, F.W.T.

Penning de Vries and H.H. van Laar (Eds.) Theoretical production ecology: reflections and prospects, Simulation Monograph 34, Pudoc,

Wageningen, pp. 3-16.

Paus tian, K., Cole, C.V., Sauerbeck, D., and Sampson, N. 1998. CO2mitigation by agriculture: an overview. Climate Change 40: 135 - 162.

Pawluk,, R.R., Sandor, J.A., and Tabor, J.A. 1992. The role of indigenous so il knowledge in agricultural development. JSWC 47:298-302.

Pieri, C., Dumanski J., Hamblin A. and Young A., 1995. Land Quality Indicators. World Bank Discussion Papers 315.

Serageldin, I., 1995.Sustainability and the wealth of nations: First steps in an ongoing journey. Third Annual World Bank Conference on

Environmentally Sustainable Development. World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Smit, B., Brklacich, M., Dumanski, J., MacDonald, K.B. and Miller, M.H. 1984. Integral land evaluation and its application to policy. Can. J. Soil

Sci. 64:467-479.

Smyth, A.J. and Dumanski, J. 1993. "FESLM: An International Framework for Evaluating Sustainable Land Management." World Soil Resources

Report 73. Rome: U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization.

SSSA (Soil Science Society of America) 1995. SSSA statement on soil quality. Agronomy news. June. 1995. SSSA, 677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison,

WI 53711, USA

Stewart, G.A. 1968. Land evaluation. In G.A. Stewart (ed.). Land Evaluation. Papers of a CSIRO Symposium (CSIRO/UNESCO, Canberra).

Macmillan of Australia, Melbourne. p 1-10.

Storie, R.E. 1933. An index for rating the agricultural value of s oils. Bull. California Agric. Exp. Stat ion. No. 56

van Diepen, C.A., van Keulen, H., Wolf, J. and Berkhout, J.A.A. 1991. Land evaluation: From Intuition to Quantification. In B.A. Stewart (ed.).Advances in Soil Science . Springer-Verlag, New York. p 139-205.


21/21

Vinck, A.P.A. 1960. Quantitative aspects of land classification. Trans. 7th Int. Cong. of Soil Science (Madison, Wisconsin, USA) 4:371-378.

Visser, W.C. 1950. The trend of the development of land evaluat ion in the futu re. Trans. 4th Int. Congr. Soil Sci. (Amsterdam) 1:373-377.

Vitous ek, P.M. 1994. "Beyond Global Warming: Ecology and Global Change."Ecology 75: 1861-76.

Wright, L.E., Zitsman, W., Young, K. and Googins, R. 1983. LESA -agricultural land evaluation and site assessment. J. Soil Water Conserv.

38:82-86.

Biographical Sketch

Prem S. Bindrabanis head of a research team on natu ral resources and project leader for food security s tudies at Plant Research International,

Wageningen University and Research Centre, The Netherlands. He previously served as associate professor on principles of production

ecology in the Department of Theoretical Production Ecology - Wageningen Agricultural University. He has done research at the International

Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT) in Mexico, the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in the Philippines, and the Centre

for Agrobiological Research (CABO-DLO) and the Winand Staring Institute in The Netherlands. He received his MSc and PhD from

Wageningen and his Executive MBA from European University.

To cite this chapter

J. Dumansk i,PremS. Bindraban,W.W. Pettapiece , Peter Bullock , Robert J . A. Jones, and A. Thomasson, (2003), LAND CLASSIFICATIONS,

SUSTAINABLE LAND MANAGEMENT, AND ECOSYSTEM HEALTH, inAgricultural Sciences, [Ed. Rattan Lal], inEncyclopedia of Life

Support Systems (EOLSS),Developed under the Auspices of the UNESCO, Eolss Publishers, Oxford ,UK, [http://www.eolss.net] [Retrieved

February 11, 2014]

UNESCO-EOLSS Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems

Documents

Land Classifications, Sustainable Land Management, And Ecosystem Health