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 Agriculture Capturing 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 critical challenges facing humanity are the conservation, restoration, 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 using
mathematical models and integrated data bases. This article describes different approaches to land classifications, starting with

simple procedures of soil interpretations and progressing to the more complex applications. A few examples of the different
approaches have been selected to illustrate the principles involved. Although land classifications originated as procedures for
agricultural development, these procedures are increasingly being used to resolve issues of sustainable land management and
ecosystem health.
1. Land Evaluation
1.1. Soil Interpretations
In the late nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth Century, soil interpretations were simple, subjective
assessments, such as "Good, Fair or Poor" for specific applications. Mostly, they were based on anecdotal experience and
observations gained by land surveyors and development companies. The first "formal", comprehensive soil interpretations,
based on observable soil characteristics such as texture, stoniness, color (organic matter content), and soil depth, were
conducted in Germany and in Russia in the late 1800s for purposes of land assessment and taxation.
Soil interpretations are extensions of soil classification systems and soil inventories. They are applied for a wide range of uses,
primarily relating to plant growth and productivity. Agricultural, rangeland, and forestry interpretations have been the main focus,
but interpretative schemes also have been developed for irrigation and drainage interpretations, engineering interpretations, and
interpretations for wildlife habitat and outdoor recreation.
The principal uses for soil interpretations are for crop suitability, local land use zoning, agricultural policy assessment and
agricultural land use planning, and municipal land assessment. More recently, soil interpretations are being developed for water
quality issues and other environmental concerns such as surface water pollution (run-off), groundwater contamination (seepage),
and land reclamation. Also, issues of soil quality for sustainable production are receiving attention, and new ratings are being
developed that integrate soil and landscape components into predictive models for better environmental management.
Soil interpretations also include "indigenous soil classifications", i.e. the accumulated knowledge, skill, understanding, and
technology of local people derived from their direct interaction with the environment and passed on through generations. These
classifications are often based on observable soil properties such as color, texture, and taste, but may also include refinements
to evaluate properties such as soil nutrient status, soil moisture, and suitability classifications for important food crops.
Indigenous soil classifications are found throughout the world. The study of these systems is called "ethnopedology".
The Storie Index. By the late 1930s, soil interpretations became more structured with the introduction of the Storie Index. In
this approach, the observational and anecdotal approaches used previously were replaced by measurable soil parameters which
were assessed according to defined protocols, and mathematically combined to give a single number. The soils were then

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 Classification 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 remaining
four 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, soil
scientists, and soil conservationists. Recommendations for farmers were often taken from standardized Capability tables and

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 km2 which 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 for
geographic 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.

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 nonagricultural 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 of
land 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 the
use of land, and increasingly with changes in the land itself.

"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

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.
3.
4.
5.
6.

The suitability classes are defined by economic criteria;

A multidisciplinary approach is required;
Evaluation should take into account the physical, economic, social and political context of the area considered;
Suitability refers to land use on a sustained basis;
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.
2.
3.
4.

Development of the objective(s) of the evaluation;

Selection of relevant kinds of land uses, and identification of their requirements and limitations for land;
Description of land (mapping) units, and assessment of land qualities;
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 application
of 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

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

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 only
by 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.

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

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 contribution
of 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).

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 agricultural
areas.
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

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 ecological
services 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, CO2 emissions 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 land
areas, 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

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 increasing
opportunities 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 of
ecological services, and on amenity or 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

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 for production processes. In addition, they provide habitats for 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 in
temperate 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 CO2 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 CH4 emissions 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 about
60% of the earth's land area. For example, there are at least 54 rivers that cross or form international boundaries in sub-saharan

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 and
sedimentation 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 natural
resources, 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. Overcoming
constraints promotes the concepts of human dominance over nature, and recognizes neither the limits nor capacity of natural

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 and
processes for monitoring, but these must be set in the context of public discussions and policy making. Not much can be

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
Land suitability
Land capability

:the study of indigenous soil classifications.

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

Soil ratings

Soil survey interpretations

the present.
: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).
:(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. Inst. 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, Ecosystemsand 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 indicaotrs: Research Plan. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 81:93-102
Dumanski, J. and Onofrei, C. 1989. Crop yield models for agricultural 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

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.
Paustian, K., Cole, C.V., Sauerbeck, D., and Sampson, N. 1998. CO2 mitigation by agriculture: an overview. Climate Change 40: 135 - 162.
Pawluk,, R.R., Sandor, J.A., and Tabor, J.A. 1992. The role of indigenous soil 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 soils. Bull. California Agric. Exp. Station. 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.

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 evaluation in the future. Trans. 4th Int. Congr. Soil Sci. (Amsterdam) 1:373-377.
Vitousek, 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. Bindraban is head of a research team on natural resources and project leader for food security studies 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. Dumanski,PremS. Bindraban,W.W. Pettapiece, Peter Bullock, Robert J. A. Jones, and A. Thomasson, (2003), LAND CLASSIFICATIONS,
SUSTAINABLE LAND MANAGEMENT, AND ECOSYSTEM HEALTH, in Agricultural Sciences, [Ed. Rattan Lal], in Encyclopedia 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