This article analyses the scientific approaches used for the development of a classification system for agricultural lands in Kazakhstan, based on approaches adopted in the Russian Federation and European Union (EU). The study involved the assessment of territories with regard to their economy and social sphere, environmental conditions, quality of life of the rural population, remoteness from major cities, demographics, soil quality, climate, availability of labour and other resources, level of diversification and relevance of legal framework to socio economic development. In determining the criteria for identifying regions unfavourable for agriculture, the approach adopted in the EU is recommended: one of the important indicators showing that an area is not favourable for agriculture is the reluctance of investors to support development. Specific features such as excessive remoteness from marketing outlets, the presence of exposed border areas, rural population abandonment; high unemployment and low incomes; poor infrastructure; and low levels of agricultural development should also be taken into account. This article classifies land unfavourable for agriculture to identify territories that will require additional state subsidy to support development.
AdukovaANProtsenkoANYusupovRA (2013) Conceptual development of methods used for rural areas typing. The University Bulletin (State ManagementUniversity)6:5–9.
2.
BMLFUW (2005) ETAP Roadmap 2005. Vienna: Austrian Federal Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management.
3.
BogaertsTWilliamsonIPFendelEM (2001) The role of land administration in the accession of central European countries to the European Union. Land Use Policy19:29–46.
CunninghamGMHigginsonFRRiddlerAMH. (1986) Systems Used to Classify Rural Lands in New South Wales. Sydney: Soil Conservation Service and NSW Agriculture.
6.
European Council (1993) Conclusions of the Presidency, SN180/1/93 REV 1. Copenhagen European Council Reproduced from the Bulletin of the European Communities, No.6/1993, Copenhagen.
7.
European Environment Agency (2004) Agriculture and the environment in the EU accession countries. Environmental Issue Report37:1–54.
8.
GaoYMasJFKerleN. (2011) Optimal region growing segmentation and its effect on classification accuracy. International Journal of Remote Sensing32:3737–3763.
9.
GeldiyevaGVBasovaTASkorintsevaIB (2006) The landscape-ecological mapping of rural areas of the Republic of Kazakhstan aimed at the elaboration of their sustainable development strategies. In: SalievAEgamberdiyevA (eds) Materials of the international scientific and practical conference “Geography in the modern world: theory and practice, Tashkent, Republic of Kazakhstan: Ozbekiston Milliy Universiteti, pp. 382–384.
10.
GeldiyevaGVSkorintsevaIBBudnikovaTI. (2004). Landscape maintenance of schemes aiming at fighting desertification in the Syrdarya river valley, Arkas, Almaty.
11.
GongPHowarthPJ (1992) Frequency-based contextual classification and grey-level vector reduction for land-use identification. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing58:423–437.
12.
JanssenLLFJaarsmaMNVan Der LindenETM (1990) Integrating topographic data with remote sensing for land-cover classification. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing56:1503–1506.
13.
JohnstonCA (2014) Agricultural expansion: land use shell game in the US northern plains. Landscape Ecology29:81–95.
14.
KeelerBLPolaskyS (2014) Land-use change and costs to rural households: a case study in groundwater nitrate contamination. Environmental Research Letters9:1–10.
15.
KuznetsovVVMarkinSJPakhomovAP. (2008) The methodology aimed at predicting the level of sustainable development in rural areas (based on regulatory resource method), Rostov-on-Don.
16.
Land Resource Management Agency of the Republic of Kazakhstan (2012) Consolidated analytical report on the land condition and land use of the Republic of Kazakhstan during 2011. Astana, Republic of Kazakhstan, p. 195.
17.
LambinEFGibbsHKFerreiraL. (2013) Estimating the world’s potentially available cropland using a bottom-up approach. Global Environmental Change23:892–901.
18.
LiRGuanQMerchantJ (2012) A geospatial modeling framework for assessing biofuels-related land-use and landcover change. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment161:17–26.
19.
LloydCDBerberogluSCurranPJ. (2004) A comparison of texture measures for the per-field classification of Mediterranean land cover. International Journal of Remote Sensing25:3943–3965.
20.
LuDWengQ (2007) A survey of image classification methods and techniques for improving classification performance. International Journal of Remote Sensing28:823–870.
21.
OECD (2012) Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2012: OECD Countries. Paris: OECD Publishing, Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/agr_pol-2012-en(accessed 10 March 2016).
22.
OjimaDSGalvinKATurnerBLIII (1994) The global impact of land-use change. Bioscience44:1–300.
23.
Ozdarici OkAAkyurekZA (2012) Segment-based approach to classify agricultural lands by using multitemporal optical and microwave data. International Journal of Remote Sensing33:7184–7204.
24.
PerezJM (2005) Cadastre and the reform of European Union’s common agricultural policy: implementation of the SIGPAC. Castastro161, 162.
25.
ProstenkoAN (2011) Methodological approaches to classification of rural areas: the Russian experience. Bulletin of the University(State University of Management)23:24–29.
26.
ProstenkoAN (2012) The experience in the classification of rural areas in the CIS countries, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Bulletin of the University (State University of Management)1: 82–84.
27.
ProstenkoAN (2013b) Typing as a tool for socio-economic development of rural areas, PhD Thesis. All-Russian Scientific Research Institute of the organization of production, labor and management in agriculture, Russia, p. 162.
28.
ProstermanRRolfesL (1999) Review of the legal basis for agricultural land markets in Lithuania, Poland and Romania. In: Structural Change in the Farming Sectors of Central and Eastern Europe, Second EU Accession Workshop in the Rural Sector, Warsaw, Poland.
29.
PsarevVISushentsevaNV (2010) Methods of development and analysis of complex programs aimed at the socio-economic development of municipalities. Interregional Association of the Economic Cooperation of the Constituent Entities of the Russian Federation “Siberian Accord” (IASA), Novosibirsk.
30.
RydbergABorgeforsG (2001) Integrated method for boundary delineation of agricultural fields in multispectral satellite images. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing39:2514–2520.
31.
SaliyVVTereninaNL (2007) Methods of the competitiveness assessment in rural areas. Marketing in Russia and Abroad3: 96–101.
32.
SchindlerK (2012) An overview and comparison of smooth labeling methods for land-cover classification. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing50:4534–4545.
33.
SkorintsevaIB (2010) Physical and geographical foundations of the organization and management of agrolandscape systems of the Republic of Kazakhstan’. Synopsis of doctoral thesis. (DrSc in Geography), Institute of Geography of The Republic of Kazakhstan Department of Landscape Study and Problems of Nature Management, Almaty, p. 34.
34.
SmithGMFullerRM (2001) An integrated approach to land cover classification: an example in the Island of Jersey. International Journal of Remote Sensing22:3123–3142.
35.
StarodubrovskayaIV (2010) Problems of Rural Development in the Context of Municipal Reform in Russia. Moscow: The Gaidar Institute.
36.
TewariRAlmasLKJohnsonJ. (2014) Multi-year water allocation: an economic approach towards future planning and management of declining groundwater resources in the Texas Panhandle. Texas Water Journal5:1–11.
37.
WilkinsonGG (2005) Results and implications of a study of fifteen years of satellite image classification experiments. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing43:433–440.
