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
 UNCEEA
      UNCEEA Meetings
      UNSC Reports
 London Group
      LG Meetings
 Library
      Keyword Search
      Country Search
 

Land cover classification

Outcome paper:English
Cover note:English
Comment template:English
Global consultation status:Open
Deadline for comments:17/01/2011
Number of comments:24
Comments from the global consultation
Posted onProvided byComments
28/01/2011Libya / censuses and statistics department1. Do you agree that the Land Cover Classification System (LCCS 3) developed by FAO should be adopted as the land cover classification system in the revised SEEA and that the LCML (ISO 19144-2) should be adopted at the methodology for linking to external sources of land cover data described in other land cover systems?
Yes
  2. In the revised SEEA should an aggregated structure for land cover (Land Cover Nomenclature (LCN)) based on the FAO Land Cover Classification System (LCCS 3) be defined where the aggregated groups are defined according to landscape features influenced by land use?
No comment
21/01/2011European Commission - Eurostat1. Do you agree that the Land Cover Classification System (LCCS 3) developed by FAO should be adopted as the land cover classification system in the revised SEEA and that the LCML (ISO 19144-2) should be adopted at the methodology for linking to external sources of land cover data described in other land cover systems?
No. The discussions on land Cover/Use classification could take into account, not only the FAO Land Cover Classification System (LCCS), but also Eurostat''s work on LUCAS and the work carried out in the two separate thematic working groups of INSPIRE (one for Land Cover and one for Land Use) which includes discussion with the EU Member States. Eurostat stands ready to contribute to this work in the future if requested.
  2. In the revised SEEA should an aggregated structure for land cover (Land Cover Nomenclature (LCN)) based on the FAO Land Cover Classification System (LCCS 3) be defined where the aggregated groups are defined according to landscape features influenced by land use?
Eurostat promotes a clear separation between the concept of Land Cover and Land Use. The aggregated groups should be defined according to landscape features influenced by land cover type.
20/01/2011U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis1. Do you agree that the Land Cover Classification System (LCCS 3) developed by FAO should be adopted as the land cover classification system in the revised SEEA and that the LCML (ISO 19144-2) should be adopted at the methodology for linking to external sources of land cover data described in other land cover systems?
Yes
  2. In the revised SEEA should an aggregated structure for land cover (Land Cover Nomenclature (LCN)) based on the FAO Land Cover Classification System (LCCS 3) be defined where the aggregated groups are defined according to landscape features influenced by land use?
Yes
19/01/2011Botswana, Central Statistics Office1. Do you agree that the Land Cover Classification System (LCCS 3) developed by FAO should be adopted as the land cover classification system in the revised SEEA and that the LCML (ISO 19144-2) should be adopted at the methodology for linking to external sources of land cover data described in other land cover systems?
Yes
  2. In the revised SEEA should an aggregated structure for land cover (Land Cover Nomenclature (LCN)) based on the FAO Land Cover Classification System (LCCS 3) be defined where the aggregated groups are defined according to landscape features influenced by land use?
No Comment
19/01/2011Statistics Canada1. Do you agree that the Land Cover Classification System (LCCS 3) developed by FAO should be adopted as the land cover classification system in the revised SEEA and that the LCML (ISO 19144-2) should be adopted at the methodology for linking to external sources of land cover data described in other land cover systems?
Yes. The LCCS 3 provides national agencies the flexibility to best fit their current land cover information into the major land cover classes identified in Table 1 of document 19b. The idea of using Land Cover Meta Language as the building blocks to feed into the LCCS as well as the movement towards common elements is a good one also; as is the Dichotomous and Modular-Hierarchical phases of the LCCS. Presently, Environment Accounts and Statistics Division (EASD) at Statistics Canada is using derived satellite land cover data with 31 classes, in conjunction with vector data as inputs into our land cover change matrix. The current EASD/Statistics Canada land cover data could be recompiled to fit the classifiers identified in Table 1 of document 19b. However, more effort would be required to feed attributes into the Modular-Hierarchical phase of the LCCS.
  2. In the revised SEEA should an aggregated structure for land cover (Land Cover Nomenclature (LCN)) based on the FAO Land Cover Classification System (LCCS 3) be defined where the aggregated groups are defined according to landscape features influenced by land use?
In our opinion we should be incorporating land use attributes as part of a land cover dataset. This would provide a more robust land cover dataset for analysis. One concern is that the addition of land use data is dependent on scale. Some countries with small land masses can easily construct their land cover datasets and determine land uses associated with a particular land cover. Meanwhile, countries with larger land masses such as Canada may not initially be able to make the land use to land cover link as quickly and easily.
  3. Any other comments?
At Statistics Canada we have recently developed, on a provisional basis, a built-up land cover type/concept known as Settlements. Settlements are defined as tracts of land where humans have altered the physical environment by constructing residential, commercial, industrial, institutional and other installations or buildings. Settlements include cities, towns, villages and other concentrations of human population. This concept better fits our land cover and land accounting needs. A complete description of the Settlements methodology can be found at this location. It is a land cover concept that may be of interest to other land accounting practitioners. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/16-002-x/2010001/article/11134-eng.htm
18/01/2011France/ Ministry in charge of Ecology 1. Do you agree that the Land Cover Classification System (LCCS 3) developed by FAO should be adopted as the land cover classification system in the revised SEEA and that the LCML (ISO 19144-2) should be adopted at the methodology for linking to external sources of land cover data described in other land cover systems?
Yes. We fully support the proposal expressed in paragraph 17e to ensure consistency between SEEA LCCS and other international classifications, especially Corine Land Cover.
  2. In the revised SEEA should an aggregated structure for land cover (Land Cover Nomenclature (LCN)) based on the FAO Land Cover Classification System (LCCS 3) be defined where the aggregated groups are defined according to landscape features influenced by land use?
Yes. Same remark than in 1.
18/01/2011Slovak Republic/Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic1. Do you agree that the Land Cover Classification System (LCCS 3) developed by FAO should be adopted as the land cover classification system in the revised SEEA and that the LCML (ISO 19144-2) should be adopted at the methodology for linking to external sources of land cover data described in other land cover systems?
No comment
  2. In the revised SEEA should an aggregated structure for land cover (Land Cover Nomenclature (LCN)) based on the FAO Land Cover Classification System (LCCS 3) be defined where the aggregated groups are defined according to landscape features influenced by land use?
No comment
  3. Any other comments?
No comment
18/01/2011Australian Bureau of Statistics1. Do you agree that the Land Cover Classification System (LCCS 3) developed by FAO should be adopted as the land cover classification system in the revised SEEA and that the LCML (ISO 19144-2) should be adopted at the methodology for linking to external sources of land cover data described in other land cover systems?
Yes. The ABS agrees that the LCCS 3 should be adopted, as should the LCML (the latter as the methodology for linking to data in other land cover systems).
  2. In the revised SEEA should an aggregated structure for land cover (Land Cover Nomenclature (LCN)) based on the FAO Land Cover Classification System (LCCS 3) be defined where the aggregated groups are defined according to landscape features influenced by land use?
The ABS supports an aggregated structure based on the FAO LCCS 3. This would seem to be a good fit to the purposes listed in paragraph 17 of the outcome paper, particularly with regard to ecosystem and environmental accounting. As the outcome paper notes, the flexibility to form alternative aggregations is important. For example, a number of significant policy areas in Australia would probably find more utility in a different aggregate structure that emphasised vegetation. These include policies relating to native vegetation preservation, weed and pest management and perhaps in some aspects of climate change.
  3. Any other comments?
The proposed Land cover classification conforms to the 2007 International Standards Organisation (ISO) land cover standard (19144-2). Key Australian stakeholders in the area of land cover information, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economic (ABARE) and Geoscience Australia (GA), use a GA/ABARE Dynamic Land Cover dataset conforming to this same ISO standard.
18/01/2011New Zealand / Statistics New Zealand1. Do you agree that the Land Cover Classification System (LCCS 3) developed by FAO should be adopted as the land cover classification system in the revised SEEA and that the LCML (ISO 19144-2) should be adopted at the methodology for linking to external sources of land cover data described in other land cover systems?
Yes. Statistics New Zealand support the use of Land Cover Classification System (LCCS 3) developed by FAO to be adopted as the land cover classification system in the revised SEEA. However, further breakdown of “grassland” into useful quality categories would be appreciated, as would a category for irrigated pasture (which is the main use of irrigation in New Zealand).
  2. In the revised SEEA should an aggregated structure for land cover (Land Cover Nomenclature (LCN)) based on the FAO Land Cover Classification System (LCCS 3) be defined where the aggregated groups are defined according to landscape features influenced by land use?
No comment
17/01/2011UNSD1. Do you agree that the Land Cover Classification System (LCCS 3) developed by FAO should be adopted as the land cover classification system in the revised SEEA and that the LCML (ISO 19144-2) should be adopted at the methodology for linking to external sources of land cover data described in other land cover systems?
Yes
  2. In the revised SEEA should an aggregated structure for land cover (Land Cover Nomenclature (LCN)) based on the FAO Land Cover Classification System (LCCS 3) be defined where the aggregated groups are defined according to landscape features influenced by land use?
Yes. This classification will also be the point of departure for Volume 2. Being able to classify the land cover on the basis of its designation will be very much needed for ecosystem accounting.
17/01/2011Norway/Statistics Norway1. Do you agree that the Land Cover Classification System (LCCS 3) developed by FAO should be adopted as the land cover classification system in the revised SEEA and that the LCML (ISO 19144-2) should be adopted at the methodology for linking to external sources of land cover data described in other land cover systems?
Please, see comments in Comment Form for Issue #19a: Land use classification.
  2. In the revised SEEA should an aggregated structure for land cover (Land Cover Nomenclature (LCN)) based on the FAO Land Cover Classification System (LCCS 3) be defined where the aggregated groups are defined according to landscape features influenced by land use?
Statistics Norway do not agree. Please, see comments in Comment Form for Issue #19a: Land use classification.
17/01/2011Mexico / INEGI1. Do you agree that the Land Cover Classification System (LCCS 3) developed by FAO should be adopted as the land cover classification system in the revised SEEA and that the LCML (ISO 19144-2) should be adopted at the methodology for linking to external sources of land cover data described in other land cover systems?
Yes, because it is considered as a system internationally agreed. The uptake to other systems for land cover allows having a significant level of detail, and particularly when it works on urban vegetation, for example, it is important to consider the Corine Land Cover system.
  2. In the revised SEEA should an aggregated structure for land cover (Land Cover Nomenclature (LCN)) based on the FAO Land Cover Classification System (LCCS 3) be defined where the aggregated groups are defined according to landscape features influenced by land use?
Yes, considering that the land has a natural cover, which characteristics could be exploited by human beings for any economic use.
  3. Any other comments?
Not at the moment.
17/01/2011United Kingdom/Office for National Statistics 1. Do you agree that the Land Cover Classification System (LCCS 3) developed by FAO should be adopted as the land cover classification system in the revised SEEA and that the LCML (ISO 19144-2) should be adopted at the methodology for linking to external sources of land cover data described in other land cover systems?
Yes
  2. In the revised SEEA should an aggregated structure for land cover (Land Cover Nomenclature (LCN)) based on the FAO Land Cover Classification System (LCCS 3) be defined where the aggregated groups are defined according to landscape features influenced by land use?
No comments.
  3. Any other comments?
No.
17/01/2011Switzerland, Federal Statistical Office1. Do you agree that the Land Cover Classification System (LCCS 3) developed by FAO should be adopted as the land cover classification system in the revised SEEA and that the LCML (ISO 19144-2) should be adopted at the methodology for linking to external sources of land cover data described in other land cover systems?
Yes. The proposal to adopt an already existing, accepted LCCS and an international standard for linking external data sources rather than a new, individual system/method just for SEEA is highly appreciated and welcome. Nonetheless, 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. In the revised SEEA should an aggregated structure for land cover (Land Cover Nomenclature (LCN)) based on the FAO Land Cover Classification System (LCCS 3) be defined where the aggregated groups are defined according to landscape features influenced by land use?
No. We agree on the need for an aggregated structure for land cover based on the FAO Land Cover Classification System (LCCS 3). However, we question the adopted principle to base the definition of the aggregated groups on landscape features influenced by land use, since some of the results (i.e. some of the proposed groups) are not considered useful and practical. The number of groups or the amount of details of the aggregated structure seems appropriate, but too detailed in regard to agricultural land (which should rather be analysed in more detail in the context of land use classification), while built-up and associated areas seem very crude. Alternatively, we propose to differentiate this category at least into sealed and unsealed surfaces. For many countries in temperate climate zones, the differentiation of agricultural land by the presence or absence of irrigation creates difficulties (irrigation is difficult to identify from existing data sources such as surveys or remote sensing data; irrigation might be present only in some seasons or during dry weather conditions…). In addition, irrigation seems to be more closely related to the concept of land use than to the idea of land cover. As explained in note 22, we therefore strongly support the idea to «stay more closely with aggregations of vegetation and land cover types». We strongly advise not to define categories that are sensitive to scale or to the necessity to observe/interpret not only a given situation, but also its function within a chain of development or transitional processes. From this point of view, categories such as 05 and 08 should be avoided. According to our experience, it might be virtually impossible to define such categories in a homogeneous way for an ultimately global coverage of data. Any categories including a mixture, not a sum, of individual LCCS 3 categories, should be avoided from this perspective.
  3. 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 Land Cover Classification System (LCCS 3) developed by FAO should be adopted as the land cover classification system in the revised SEEA and that the LCML (ISO 19144-2) should be adopted at the methodology for linking to external sources of land cover data described in other land cover systems?
We agree to use FAO classification because it is comprehensive and facilitate using data from agricultural statistic division who used to benefit from FAO classification
  2. In the revised SEEA should an aggregated structure for land cover (Land Cover Nomenclature (LCN)) based on the FAO Land Cover Classification System (LCCS 3) be defined where the aggregated groups are defined according to landscape features influenced by land use?
We agree
17/01/2011Statistics Sweden1. Do you agree that the Land Cover Classification System (LCCS 3) developed by FAO should be adopted as the land cover classification system in the revised SEEA and that the LCML (ISO 19144-2) should be adopted at the methodology for linking to external sources of land cover data described in other land cover systems?
Yes
  2. In the revised SEEA should an aggregated structure for land cover (Land Cover Nomenclature (LCN)) based on the FAO Land Cover Classification System (LCCS 3) be defined where the aggregated groups are defined according to landscape features influenced by land use?
Yes
17/01/2011European Environment Agency1. Do you agree that the Land Cover Classification System (LCCS 3) developed by FAO should be adopted as the land cover classification system in the revised SEEA and that the LCML (ISO 19144-2) should be adopted at the methodology for linking to external sources of land cover data described in other land cover systems?
Yes. Considering classification principles, the reference to the LCML international norm is logical. LCCS3 developed by FAO is candidate for supplying the core of the LCML standard. It is however still in discussion and no final decision will be taken before 2012. According to EEA experts, ISO discussion relates to an enlargement for including missing land features and should not lead to significant modification of LCCS3 itself. Exercises of translation of land cover legends used in Europe into LCCS3 metalanguage don’t show major difficulties. It is therefore reasonable to anticipate the conclusion of the ISO process and to adopt LCCS3 as the reference for developing nomenclatures in the SEEA context. Note that LCCS3 is a significant improvement regarding previous versions of LCCS and we insist that it should be the explicit reference (or LCML when adopted).
  2. In the revised SEEA should an aggregated structure for land cover (Land Cover Nomenclature (LCN)) based on the FAO Land Cover Classification System (LCCS 3) be defined where the aggregated groups are defined according to landscape features influenced by land use?
The formulation should mention “aggregated groups are defined according to the needs of environmental accounting and the definition of statistical units, which implies referring to bio-physical landscape features influenced by land use”. As clearly explained in Outcome Paper Issue #19b: Land cover classification, a nomenclature is user oriented, and in the particular case, SEEA-LCN is for SEEA… In that respect, we support the current proposal included in #19b, which has been tested by us considering both its relevance to land cover and ecosystem accounting and its feasibility with satellite images interpretation, either directly in the context of ESA projects or indirectly by translation of our European Corine and of a FAO map on Egypt. These 15 classes nomenclature is general enough to be bridged to other classifications used by most international programmes and its classes can be defined in reference to LCML.
  3. Any other comments?
The outcome paper presents a fair and useful definition of the issue, in particular the difference between the methodological rules of a classification process and the aggregated and user oriented nomenclature (or legend) which is its operational outcome. Additional cooperation between FAO and EEA will be necessary to draft the ontologies of SEEA-LCN using LCML/LCCS3. It doesn’t need to be done before the endorsement of the nomenclature. This activity will have to consider possible guidance towards a level 2 for ecosystem accounting and the way countries can downscale their own nomenclature with LCCS3. If the current proposal could not be adopted in the process of SEEA Volume 1, which we would regret, we recommend postponing the adoption of SEAA-LCN and forwarding it to the discussion of the future Volume 2 on ecosystem accounting, where it will be mostly used.
17/01/2011Statistics Denmark1. Do you agree that the Land Cover Classification System (LCCS 3) developed by FAO should be adopted as the land cover classification system in the revised SEEA and that the LCML (ISO 19144-2) should be adopted at the methodology for linking to external sources of land cover data described in other land cover systems?
No comment
17/01/2011Central Bureau of Statistics Israel1. Do you agree that the Land Cover Classification System (LCCS 3) developed by FAO should be adopted as the land cover classification system in the revised SEEA and that the LCML (ISO 19144-2) should be adopted at the methodology for linking to external sources of land cover data described in other land cover systems?
Since the focus of FAO is on food and agriculture, the classification is very detailed concerning these subjects. It might be worthwhile to explore other existing classifications before deciding. Land cover has an interaction with other components of the environment, so that additional characteristics could be important. For example there may be different kinds of bare land in different climates. Shouldn’t the classification for example help account for changes in desert area over time.
  2. In the revised SEEA should an aggregated structure for land cover (Land Cover Nomenclature (LCN)) based on the FAO Land Cover Classification System (LCCS 3) be defined where the aggregated groups are defined according to landscape features influenced by land use?
It should be connected to land use, but see question 1
17/01/2011Turkish Statistical Institute1. Do you agree that the Land Cover Classification System (LCCS 3) developed by FAO should be adopted as the land cover classification system in the revised SEEA and that the LCML (ISO 19144-2) should be adopted at the methodology for linking to external sources of land cover data described in other land cover systems?
No comment
17/01/2011Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia1. Do you agree that the Land Cover Classification System (LCCS 3) developed by FAO should be adopted as the land cover classification system in the revised SEEA and that the LCML (ISO 19144-2) should be adopted at the methodology for linking to external sources of land cover data described in other land cover systems?
No comment
  2. In the revised SEEA should an aggregated structure for land cover (Land Cover Nomenclature (LCN)) based on the FAO Land Cover Classification System (LCCS 3) be defined where the aggregated groups are defined according to landscape features influenced by land use?
No comment
17/01/2011ROMANIA/National Institute of Statistics1. Do you agree that the Land Cover Classification System (LCCS 3) developed by FAO should be adopted as the land cover classification system in the revised SEEA and that the LCML (ISO 19144-2) should be adopted at the methodology for linking to external sources of land cover data described in other land cover systems?
Yes. LCCS3 ensure the linking to the other external sources.
  2. In the revised SEEA should an aggregated structure for land cover (Land Cover Nomenclature (LCN)) based on the FAO Land Cover Classification System (LCCS 3) be defined where the aggregated groups are defined according to landscape features influenced by land use?
Yes, we consider necessary that the aggregated groups to be defined according to land use influence. Example, in the residential area, the land use influence significative and also has powerful influence in the neighboured ecotone areas around residential areas.
  3. Any other comments?
The classification structure must be in accordance with scale: spatial and temporal. Definitely, is difference the classification on region and other on continent. Also, the classification is completely different in different seasons. Periodicity is another criteria.
17/01/2011Statistics Netherlands1. Do you agree that the Land Cover Classification System (LCCS 3) developed by FAO should be adopted as the land cover classification system in the revised SEEA and that the LCML (ISO 19144-2) should be adopted at the methodology for linking to external sources of land cover data described in other land cover systems?
Yes
  2. In the revised SEEA should an aggregated structure for land cover (Land Cover Nomenclature (LCN)) based on the FAO Land Cover Classification System (LCCS 3) be defined where the aggregated groups are defined according to landscape features influenced by land use?
Yes
10/01/2011Iran/Statistical Centre of Iran1. Do you agree that the Land Cover Classification System (LCCS 3) developed by FAO should be adopted as the land cover classification system in the revised SEEA and that the LCML (ISO 19144-2) should be adopted at the methodology for linking to external sources of land cover data described in other land cover systems?
No comment
  2. In the revised SEEA should an aggregated structure for land cover (Land Cover Nomenclature (LCN)) based on the FAO Land Cover Classification System (LCCS 3) be defined where the aggregated groups are defined according to landscape features influenced by land use?
No comment
 

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