You are here:   SEEA >> SEEA Revision >> Issues - Central Framework
 Home
 SEEA
      SEEA Revision
      Energy
      Water
      Land and Ecosystems
 SEEA Briefing Notes
 Publications
 Meetings
 Technical Cooperation
      Workshops
      Global Assessment
      SEEA EEA
 UNCEEA
      UNCEEA Meetings
      UNSC Reports
 London Group
      LG Meetings
 Library
      Keyword Search
      Country Search
 

Land use classification

Outcome paper:English
Cover note:English
Comment template:English
Global consultation status:Open
Deadline for comments:17/01/2011
Number of comments:23
Comments from the global consultation
Posted onProvided byComments
28/01/2011Libya / censuses and statistics department1. Do you agree that the revised SEEA should adopt the land use classification presented in Tables 1, 2 and 3 of the outcome paper and the associated definitions and descriptions presented in Annex 2 of the outcome paper?
Yes
20/01/2011U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis1. Do you agree that the revised SEEA should adopt the land use classification presented in Tables 1, 2 and 3 of the outcome paper and the associated definitions and descriptions presented in Annex 2 of the outcome paper?
Yes
19/01/2011Botswana, Central Statistics Office1. Do you agree that the revised SEEA should adopt the land use classification presented in Tables 1, 2 and 3 of the outcome paper and the associated definitions and descriptions presented in Annex 2 of the outcome paper?
No. Items in Table 1 should be disaggregated as they appear in ISIC, for example Built-up area is lumping together Mining with Construction. In ISIC these are separate activities and should be treated as such in SEEA. Likewise land used for Commercial purposes is lumped with land used for Public Services, they should be separated.
19/01/2011Statistics Canada1. Do you agree that the revised SEEA should adopt the land use classification presented in Tables 1, 2 and 3 of the outcome paper and the associated definitions and descriptions presented in Annex 2 of the outcome paper?
Yes. The proposed land use classification (LUC) hierarchy is quite comprehensive. The first level 13 LUC covers major land uses and provides a good starting point. The subsequent 2nd and 3rd levels are quite detailed and specific. In order to get a land use database to the 2nd and 3rd level it would be necessary to have a variety of data sources which may not be the case for all national agencies. Ideally, each parcel of land cover should be tagged with a land use, and in some instances more than one land use. (i.e. land cover forests - land uses: forest and other wooded land, land developed for recreation purpose, land not in use). It is important then that when adapting this land use classification that some guidelines be developed on how to handle multiple land use classification for one land cover type.
  2. Any other comments?
As mentioned above, a parcel of land can have several land uses. When there are multiple land uses for a particular parcel of land an indication of the predominate land use should be identified.
18/01/2011France/ Ministry in charge of Ecology 1. Do you agree that the revised SEEA should adopt the land use classification presented in Tables 1, 2 and 3 of the outcome paper and the associated definitions and descriptions presented in Annex 2 of the outcome paper?
No. We agree with the classification proposed in general but for the following specific request. Having in mind the necessity to ensure consistency between this classification and the LUCAS classification edited by Eurostat, that is internationally used, we suggest a few changes : Firstly, we would welcome distinguishing construction from mining and quarrying. Similarly, it would be useful to isolate the production activity of energy and even the public services (which are distinguished from commercial and financial activities in LUCAS). On the same direction, concerning the primary activities, the suggested classification is probably too disaggregated. Lastly, the classification item “protection of nature” (nature reserves, national parks…) does not explicitly appear: does it come under "Land developed for recreational purposes" (item I) or "Land not in use" (item K)? We therefore suggest an item related to "nature protection" in the proposed classification. As a matter of fact, the LUCAS classification distinguishes this use within the "recreational, leisure, sports" activities.
  2. Any other comments?
According to statistics department of agriculture Ministry there is no available information separating planted forests and naturally regenerated forests (cf. table 3).
18/01/2011Slovak Republic/Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic1. Do you agree that the revised SEEA should adopt the land use classification presented in Tables 1, 2 and 3 of the outcome paper and the associated definitions and descriptions presented in Annex 2 of the outcome paper?
No comment
  2. Any other comments?
No comment
18/01/2011Australian Bureau of Statistics1. Do you agree that the revised SEEA should adopt the land use classification presented in Tables 1, 2 and 3 of the outcome paper and the associated definitions and descriptions presented in Annex 2 of the outcome paper?
No. The decision to disagree with the proposed classification is primarily driven by advice from a major Australian stakeholder in this area—the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE). Nevertheless, both the ABS and ABARE consider the proposed classification to be underpinned by sound rules and principles. We also believe that ABARE’s suggestions to address its specific concerns will be relatively straightforward to quickly resolve. One concern is with Class B Forests and other wooded land. This is a land cover, not a land use, for example, B11 Naturally regenerated forest does not make clear whether the land is being used for production, grazing or conservation. Similarly B2 Other wooded land is not helpful to determine a use. We also note there is no grazing class—this is a major use of land. Perhaps the pasture classes are meant to cover this, but this is not obvious and there is a difference between pasture for hay and pasture for grazing. I Land developed for recreational purposes may not actually have been ‘developed’ and could be native. There should be a conservation or native environment class. For example a national park primary use is for conservation, but under the proposed classification it would allocated to either B11 Naturally regenerated forest or B2 Other wooded land which hides its real use. In Annex 2, there’s a need to change the definitions used to correctly refer to classes used. For example A11. Cereals should be: Land use for cereals and rice (codes 0111 and 0112 in ISIC Rev.4) (Listing the other crops such as leguminous and oilseeds will just confuse people.) Annex 2 A3. Land with temporary fallow. There should be an attempt to assign land in this state to an actual use class. The use is really cropping or pastures and the ‘fallow’ state is just a stage of the cropping/pasture cycle. Fallow perhaps is more of a land management practice. Annex 2 K. Land not in use. Some of the classes contained here should occupy their own class. E.g. ‘land with trees but not used for agriculture and not classified as Forest and other wooded land’ is deemed by the proposed classification to be not in use. However, in reality this may not be the case—the land could be under conservation or being used for recreation. Same for bushes and shrub. We also think that land under water should be in a water class.
  2. Any other comments?
Some comments are provided in relation to this classification 1. The development of land-related classifications in Australia has been driven by the needs of specific user communities and sectors with particular interests. No completely ''pure'' Land Use classification has resulted from this work, with current classifications sometimes mixing land use with other land attributes and/or having a particularly narrow focus or emphasis on one sector. As such, issues will arise with the application of this classification within Australia; and some issues may only be identified after the final classification is applied in Environmental Accounting and other reporting uses. Feedback is likely to emerge that should inform future classification review. 2. The principles presented in paragraph 16 of the outcome paper are sensible and pragmatic for the purpose of developing a classification supporting consistency, simplicity and international comparability. However, similar to point 1 above, monitoring and review of the application of this classification should follow to ensure that the principles work reasonably for users. As an example, seasonal variation of land use and multi-purpose land uses are significant issues in the environment and agriculture sectors, and the principles proposed (particularly ii, iv, v and vii), may not support the effective classification of land use with respect to these issues. 3. With respect to Principle iii. (Independence of scale),this appears on the surface to potentially contradict Principle vii. (Spatial and Temporal Consistency). More information is needed with respect to Principle vii. to explain how this works. While agreeing that the classification should be independent of scale, advice could be provided as to suitable scales for comparison/analysis. Depending on the variability of land use within an area, using different scales could deliver very different results when classifying land. Similarly the use of gridded data v data delineated by cadastral boundaries as reporting units could also lead to very different results under classification. 4. Assessing what land use is ''dominant'' in a particular area could be supported with more information to guide classification. For example, for land rotated between cropping or grazing, is dominance in terms of the use at a particular time point, the use over 12 months, value of agricultural product produced etc.? (Descriptions under annex 2 of the outcome paper could be used to clarify this somewhat). 5 In the outcome paper’s Annex 2, Definitions section, many of the references to ISIC show that a single industry can be split across/map to several Land Use categories (e.g. ISIC class 0111 maps to A11, A13 and A16). In the description field, this should be noted with ''(pt)'' or similar term.
18/01/2011New Zealand / Statistics New Zealand1. Do you agree that the revised SEEA should adopt the land use classification presented in Tables 1, 2 and 3 of the outcome paper and the associated definitions and descriptions presented in Annex 2 of the outcome paper?
No. Statistics New Zealand agrees that a separate classification for land use should be included in the revised SEEA. However, the New Zealand Ministry for Agriculture and Ministry for Environment have concerns about the details of the proposed classification. Whilst it is appreciated that developing one system to suit all is challenging the current proposal, and existing FAO Land Cover Classification System, do not work well in the New Zealand context. New Zealand currently classifies land use for the purpose of reporting carbon stocks under the Kyoto Protocol and the UNFCCC. New Zealand also subdivides some categories into further land use classes. These classes are primarily derived from land cover and do not fit with the proposed land use classes in the outcome paper.
  2. Any other comments?
The following provide more detail about specific concerns New Zealand have with the proposed land use classification. • We use a more detailed breakdown of pasture or grassland and forest than the current proposal. We use a third level of detail for pasture and crops. • Category A2 is very limited in New Zealand and not currently captured by our systems. • Category A5, land under permanent meadows and pasture, is separated out in New Zealand into alpine tussock and pasture.
17/01/2011UNSD1. Do you agree that the revised SEEA should adopt the land use classification presented in Tables 1, 2 and 3 of the outcome paper and the associated definitions and descriptions presented in Annex 2 of the outcome paper?
Yes
17/01/2011Norway/Statistics Norway1. Do you agree that the revised SEEA should adopt the land use classification presented in Tables 1, 2 and 3 of the outcome paper and the associated definitions and descriptions presented in Annex 2 of the outcome paper?
Yes. Statistics Norway would like to add the following comments on the suggested land use classification: The class K – “Land not in use” is placed under the main category “Built-Up and Related Land”. This seems somehow strange and not applicable. The definition and descriptions given for class K on page 17 in the outcome paper do clearly state that the land in question is not disturbed by any visible human activities. In addition, the examples given under the definition are related to areas of such great extent and characteristics that they clearly are not small fallow areas located in-between built-up areas. Then, Statistics Norway find it more relevant to classify such areas by the land cover classes given in table 1 on page 6 in the outcome paper on land cover classification.
  2. Any other comments?
The view on “Land not in use” expressed in the comment under item 1 represents a general apprehension regarding the considerable overlap between the proposed LUC and LCN. There are several categories that apparently are corresponding in the proposed LUC and LCN, such as D – J under “Built-Up and Related Land” and “01 Built up and associated areas”, “A4 Land under permanent crops” and “04 Permanent crops, agricultural plantations”. Statistics Norway is, mainly for national statistical purposes but also for the purpose of international reporting, currently about to finalize a statistical standard for area classification (including both land use and land cover categories). In this work we have endeavoured to establish a set of categories that do not overlap. In our view the “world” can not be split in two very separate parts; land in use and land not in use: There is a gradually falling intensity in the use of land, from the densely populated areas via agricultural areas to forests and mountains (which are also in use; there can be a wide range of activities from recreational purposes to rough grazing). Therefore, in our view, there are more fruitful to operate with one common terminology for “land classification”, where there are different perspectives of use and cover included. These perspectives can be covered by a main characterization of land types and supplied by other characterizations of different uses as well as other aspects of environmental importance, for instance coverage of vegetation, regulations etc. As of now the Norwegian draft standard, the main list, consists of the following classes (only 1. and 2. level presented here):
Norway19a.pdf
17/01/2011Mexico / INEGI1. Do you agree that the revised SEEA should adopt the land use classification presented in Tables 1, 2 and 3 of the outcome paper and the associated definitions and descriptions presented in Annex 2 of the outcome paper?
Yes, since the level of breakdown allows to any value derived from the soil asset, to be considered, since the kind of land use to the level of products, which additionally serves as a basis for the Material Flow Account.
  2. Any other comments?
Not at the moment.
17/01/2011United Kingdom/Office for National Statistics1. Do you agree that the revised SEEA should adopt the land use classification presented in Tables 1, 2 and 3 of the outcome paper and the associated definitions and descriptions presented in Annex 2 of the outcome paper?
Yes
  2. Any other comments?
No.
17/01/2011European Commission/Eurostat1. Do you agree that the revised SEEA should adopt the land use classification presented in Tables 1, 2 and 3 of the outcome paper and the associated definitions and descriptions presented in Annex 2 of the outcome paper?
No. For a world-level SEEA there are attractions in using an existing world-level classification (FAO LCCS 3). However as the outcome paper notes in §3, existing classifications tend to mix up land use and land cover. • Eurostat promotes a clear separation between the concept of Land Cover and Land Use. In the proposed land use classification definitions of Items B (Forest and other wooded land), L (Inland water) and M (Marine water ) refer to the COVER and NOT to the USE. • Hunting is not included in any Item. • Farm fishing is counted twice: under C and L1. The classification of Tables 1 and 2 could be accepted subject to changing the above mentioned items B, L and M identifying a definition of the USE.
17/01/2011Switzerland, Federal Statistical Office1. Do you agree that the revised SEEA should adopt the land use classification presented in Tables 1, 2 and 3 of the outcome paper and the associated definitions and descriptions presented in Annex 2 of the outcome paper?
No. The subdivision of the 13 categories of the first level of the proposed LUC into three «main domains» is questionable and certainly incomplete. The association of category 11–K, Land not in use, with built-up and other related land, is unjustified and inacceptable. We propose for an effective and easy solution to create a forth main domain consisting only of this mentioned category Land not in use. According to note 19, this category would also include areas such as unused, marginal natural vegetation, rocks, gravel, sand, as well as glaciers, which cover in many countries much larger areas than any open, unused spaces associated to urban and settlement areas. Third level of the proposed LUC leaves open questions like: ? Wouldn’t it be desirable to distinguish at the fairly detailed level III at least between food and important non-food crops (such as e.g. cotton…)? Presently, such crops would be combined with various food crops and summarized as other permanent or temporary crops, even though they dominate vast areas in some regions of the world. ? Wouldn’t an extra category for flower cultivation and horticulture be helpful as well? For such areas, the distinction between permanent and temporary types of cultivation/plants might even be not feasible at all. ? Cereals, sugar crops, leguminous crops and other categories with Code A belong more to Land Cover categories than to Land Use ones? ? Aren’t naturally regenerated forests (B11) and planted forests (B12) often mixed up in small parcels? ? Can’t the use of waters (Codes L21/L22 and M21/22) vary during the year and be mixed at the same place? Furthermore, it should be interesting to separate agro-forestry areas (or wooded pastures) from the category A5. This type of multiple use land widely exists in the world and has a particular ecological functioning and then should not be hidden within the permanent pasture. Moreover, in mountains area the limit between A5 (permanent pasture) and K (Open area with low herbaceous vegetation) is often difficult to define and can induce very important differences depending of the chosen limit. A clear definition should be given. Finally, for I (Recreation): ski runs are not always under K but can also be on agricultural area (A). Finally, in the FAO classification (LCSS) land uses and land use changes are not easily allocated to classes. Furthermore the system allows for an almost unlimited number of classifications, which may lead to different classes depending on regions and scales. Therefore we see a risk of compatibility problems within LCSS.
  2. Any other comments?
For the System of Environmental and Economic Accounts (SEEA) only land use categories should be differentiated that effectively can and will be used for this purpose. A close cooperation and coordination with other specialized international working groups (such as the Eurostat Working Group on Land Use or Land Cover Statistics and the Eurostat Advisory Group for Land Cover/Use Statistics) may be useful.
17/01/2011Jordan/Department of Statistics(DoS)1. Do you agree that the revised SEEA should adopt the land use classification presented in Tables 1, 2 and 3 of the outcome paper and the associated definitions and descriptions presented in Annex 2 of the outcome paper?
We agree to adopt the classification and the definitions presented in the outcome paper.
17/01/2011Statistics Sweden1. Do you agree that the revised SEEA should adopt the land use classification presented in Tables 1, 2 and 3 of the outcome paper and the associated definitions and descriptions presented in Annex 2 of the outcome paper?
Yes
17/01/2011Statistics Denmark1. Do you agree that the revised SEEA should adopt the land use classification presented in Tables 1, 2 and 3 of the outcome paper and the associated definitions and descriptions presented in Annex 2 of the outcome paper?
No comment
  2. Any other comments?
It would be useful to work out mappings between objects in the SEEA land use classification and objects of other systems, for instance, LUCAS.
17/01/2011Central Bureau of Statistics Israel1. Do you agree that the revised SEEA should adopt the land use classification presented in Tables 1, 2 and 3 of the outcome paper and the associated definitions and descriptions presented in Annex 2 of the outcome paper?
Yes, but would suggest to divide the category D in two: “Land used for mining, quarrying” “Land used for construction” The uses are different, and if links to economic activities (and not only products) are sought, the distinction is also important. Also the concept: “Land used for technical infrastructure” is not so clear
17/01/2011Turkish Statistical Institute1. Do you agree that the revised SEEA should adopt the land use classification presented in Tables 1, 2 and 3 of the outcome paper and the associated definitions and descriptions presented in Annex 2 of the outcome paper?
No comment
17/01/2011Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia1. Do you agree that the revised SEEA should adopt the land use classification presented in Tables 1, 2 and 3 of the outcome paper and the associated definitions and descriptions presented in Annex 2 of the outcome paper?
Yes
17/01/2011ROMANIA/National Institute of Statistics1. Do you agree that the revised SEEA should adopt the land use classification presented in Tables 1, 2 and 3 of the outcome paper and the associated definitions and descriptions presented in Annex 2 of the outcome paper?
Yes. The classification presented in Annex 2 is comprehensive one.
  2. Any other comments?
Also, the classification structure must be in accordance with scale: spatial and temporal. Many times, we find in same place 2, 3 or more LU (in same parcel can be agricultural crop but also electric wires for energy transportation and also exploitation road). In different years a parcel can serve for different purposes. Also, in same year we can use a parcel, for two different crops.
17/01/2011Statistics Netherlands1. Do you agree that the revised SEEA should adopt the land use classification presented in Tables 1, 2 and 3 of the outcome paper and the associated definitions and descriptions presented in Annex 2 of the outcome paper?
Yes
10/01/2011Iran/Statistical Centre of Iran1. Do you agree that the revised SEEA should adopt the land use classification presented in Tables 1, 2 and 3 of the outcome paper and the associated definitions and descriptions presented in Annex 2 of the outcome paper?
Yes. I agree with the land use classification presented in the outcome paper because it is consistent with the ISIC Rev.4
 

About  |  Sitemap  |  Contact Us
Copyright © United Nations, 2014