Changes in the use of land – whether for private economic reasons or in response to government policy – demand the establishment of criteria for evaluating both its intrinsic agricultural potential and its suitability for particular uses. This article reviews the attempts that have been made to achieve objective, qualified evaluations, with special reference to the FAO's Framework for Land Evaluation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
JohnsonW. M. ‘Soil Resource Data for Agricultural Development’. SwindaleL. D. (ed.), pp. 3–10, Honolulu, 1978.
2.
BarthH., and L'hermiteP. (eds), ‘Scientific Basis for Soil Protection in the European Community’, Elsevier, London, 1987.
3.
FAO, A framework for land evaluation, FAO Soils Bulletin 32, Rome, 1976.
VerheyeW. H. In ‘Progress in land evaluation’. HaansJ. C. F. M., SteurG. G. L. and HeideG. (eds) pp. 67-78, Balkema RotterdamA. A., 1984, and VerheyeW. M.Soil Use and Management, 2, 120–124, 1986.
8.
KlingebielA. A., and MontgomeryP. H. ‘Land Capability Classification’, USDA Agriculture Handbook, no. 210, 1961.
9.
BibbyJ. S., and MackneyD. ‘Land Use Capability Classification’, Soil Survey Technical Monograph, No. 1, 1969. [10] See, for example, the series of seven sets of maps of soil and land capability for agriculture produced by the Soil Survey of Scotland in 1982 at a scale of 1:250000.
10.
BibbyJ. S., DouglasH. A., ThomassonA. J., and RobertsonJ. S. ‘Land Capability Classification for Agriculture’, Soil Survey of Scotland, 1982.
KlopA., MuldersM. A., and DijkermanJ. C.Soil Survey and Land Evaluation, 6, 51–57, 1986.
15.
Netherlands-BoumaJ., Van LanenH. A. J., BreeuwsmaA., WostenH. J. M. and KooistraM. J.Soil Use and Management, 2, 125-130, 1986; France – KingD., DaroussinJ., BonnetonP. and NicoullaudB. Soil use and Management, 2, 140-145, 1986; Denmark – MasdenH. B.Soil Use and Management, 2, 134–139, 1986.
16.
BreeuwsmaA., WostenJ. H. M., VleeshouwerJ. J., Van SlobbeA. M., and BoumaJ.Soil Science Soc. Am. J. 50, 186–190.
17.
Ireland – GardnerM. J.Soil Use and Management, 2, 146-149, 1986; India – KumarR.Soil Survey and Land Evaluation, 7, 157–165, 1987.
18.
WittyJ. E., and ArnoldR. W.Outlook Agric., 16, 8–13, 1987.
19.
KhanM. Akram, and TungLlangAgric. Systems, 20, 195–217, 1986.
20.
ManriqueL. A.Soil Taxonomy News, 10, 3–5, 1985.
21.
OfforiC. S., HigginsG. M., and PurnellM. F. In ‘Land Clearing and Development in the Tropics’. LalR., SanchezP. A., and CummingsR. W. (eds), pp. 19–28, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 1986.
22.
YoungA. In, Land Evaluation for Land Use Planning and Conservation in Sloping Areas’. SideriusW. (ed.), pp. 106-132, ILRI, Wageningen, 1986; YoungA.Soil Survey and Land Evaluation, 7, 133–140, 1987.
23.
McCormackD. E., and StockingM. A.Soil Survey and Land Evaluation, 6, 37–41, 1986.
24.
StockingM. A. In, ‘Land Evaluation for Land Use Planning and Conservation in Sloping Areas’. SideriusW. (ed.), pp. 217–240, ILRI, Wageningen, 1986.
25.
SteelD. P., PetersonG. W., and FrittonD. D.J. Environmental Quality, 15, 37–44, 1986.
26.
BurroughP. A. ‘Principles of Geographical Information Systems for Land Resource Assessment’, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1986.
27.
See, for example, BurroughP. A.Soil Use and Management, 3, 20–25, 1987.
28.
BoumaJ., Van LanenH. A. J., BreeuwsmaA., WostenH. J. M., and KooistraM. J.Soil Use and Management, 2, 125–130, 1986.
29.
MasdenH. B.Soil Use and Management, 2, 134–139, 1986.
30.
Recent examples of such data bases include: Canada – DumanskiJ. (ed.) ‘The Canada Soil Information System (CanSis) Manual for Describing Soils in the Field’, Land Resource Research Institute, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa; Scotland – BrownK. H. M., GauldJ. H., SmithB. F. L., BainD. C., BurridgeJ. C., and InksonR. H. E.J. Soil Sci. 38, 267–277, 1987.
31.
FisherP. F., JohnD. T., and WilliamsD. P.Soil Use and Management, 2, 12–15, 1986.
