Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Landform Classification for Land Use Planning in Developed Areas: An Example in Segovia Province (Central Spain)

  • Environmental Assessment
  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Landform-based physiographic maps, also called land systems inventories, have been widely and successfully used in undeveloped/rural areas in several locations, such as Australia, the western United States, Canada, and the British ex-colonies. This paper presents a case study of their application in a developed semi-urban/suburban area (Segovia, Spain) for land use planning purposes. The paper focuses in the information transfer process, showing how land use decision-makers, such as governments, planners, town managers, etc., can use the information developed from these maps to assist them. The paper also addresses several issues important to the development and use of this information, such as the goals of modern physiography, the types of landform-based mapping products, the problem of data management in developed areas, and the distinctions among data, interpretations, and decisions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. G. D. Aitchison K. Grant (1968) Terrain evaluation for engineering. G. A. Stewart (Eds) Land evaluation. CSIRO-UNESCO Symposium Macmillan of Australia, Melbourne 125–146

    Google Scholar 

  2. R. H. Arnot K. Grant (1981) ArticleTitleThe application of a method of terrain analysis to functional land-capability assessment and aesthetic landscape appreciation. Landscape Planning 8 269–300 Occurrence Handle10.1016/0304-3924(81)90017-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Avers, P. E., D. T. Cleland, W. H. McNab, M. E. Jensen, R. G. Bailey, T. King, C. B. Goudey and W. E. Rusell (1993) National hierarchical framework of ecological units. Unpublished Administrative Paper. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC, 21 pp.

  4. R. G. Bailey (1983) ArticleTitleDelineation of ecosystem regions. Environmental Management . IssueID4 365–373

    Google Scholar 

  5. R. G. Bailey S. C. Zoltai E. B. Wiken (1985) ArticleTitleEcological regionalization in Canada and the United States. Geoforum 16 IssueID3 265–275 Occurrence Handle10.1016/0016-7185(85)90034-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Beckett, P. H. T., and R. Webster (1969) A review of studies on terrain evaluation by the Oxford-MEXE-Cambridge group, 1960–1969. Report 1123. Military Engineering Experimental Establishment (MEXE), Christchurch, Hants, 36 pp.

  7. G. Bertrand (1968) ArticleTitlePaysage et géographie physique globale; esquisse méthodologique Revue Géographique des Pyrénées et du Sud-Ouest 35 249–272

    Google Scholar 

  8. R. Bourne (1931) Regional survey and its relation to stocktaking of the agricultural and forest resources of the British Empire. Oxford Forestry Memoirs 13. Clarendon Press Oxford,

    Google Scholar 

  9. Brink, A. B. A., J. A. Mabbutt, R. Webster, and P. H. T. Beckett (1966) Report of the working group of land classification and data storage. Report 940. Military Engineering Experimental Establishment (MEXE), Christchurch, Hants, UK.

  10. Cendrero, A. (1996) Propuesta sobre criterios para la clasificación y catalogación del patrimonio geológico. Pages 29–38 in El Patrimonio Geológico. MOPTMA, Madrid.

  11. Christian, C. S. (1958) The concept of land units and land systems. Proceedings of the Ninth Pacific Science Congress Vol. 20: 74–81, 1957.

  12. C. S. Christian (1982) The Australian approach to environmental mapping. Pages 298–316 F. C. Whitmore M. E. Williams (Eds) Resources for the twenty-first century. Professional Paper 1193. US Geological Survey Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  13. Christian, C. S., and G. A. Stewart (1968) Methodology of integrated surveys. Proceedings of the Unesco conference on aerial surveys and integrated studies, Toulouse 1964. Paris, pp. 233–280

  14. N. M. Fenneman (1917) ArticleTitlePhysiographic divisions of the United States. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 6 19–98

    Google Scholar 

  15. A. A. Finlayson (1984) ArticleTitleLand surface evaluation for engineering practise; applications of the Australian PUCE system for terrain analysis. The Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology 17 IssueID2 149–158

    Google Scholar 

  16. A. A. Finlayson A. J. Buckland (1987) The use of terrain evaluation for urban and regional planning. Pages 67–78 P.G.D. Whiteside (Eds) The role of geology in urban development. Bulletin 3. Geological Society of Hong Kong Hong Kong

    Google Scholar 

  17. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation). (1976) A framework for land evaluation. Soils Bulletin 32. FAO, Rome, 80 pp.

  18. A. E. Godfrey (1977) ArticleTitleA physiographic approach to land use planning. Environmental Geology 2 43–50

    Google Scholar 

  19. A. E. Godfrey E. T. Cleaves (1991) ArticleTitleLandscape analysis: theoretical considerations and practical needs. Environmental Geology and Water Sciences 17 IssueID2 141–155

    Google Scholar 

  20. Grant, K., and Finlayson. A. A. (1978) The application of terrain analysis to urban and regional planning. Proceedings of the III International Congress of the International Association for Engineering Geology, 4–8 September 1978, Paris, pp. 79–91.

  21. G. Haase (1964) ArticleTitleLandschaftsokölogische detailuntersuchung und naturräumliche gliederung. Petermanns Geographische Mitteilungen 108 8–30

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hills, G. A. (1961) The ecological basis for natural resources management. The ecological basis for land use planning. Ontario Department of Lands and Forests, Toronto, pp. 8–49.

  23. J. A. Howard C. W. Mitchell (1980) ArticleTitlePhyto-geomorphic classification of the landscape. Geoforum 11 85–106 Occurrence Handle10.1016/0016-7185(80)90001-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lacate, D. S. (1969) Guidelines for bio-physical land classification. Publication 1264. Department of Fisheries and Forestry, Canadian Forestry Service, Ottawa, 58 pp.

  25. D. L. Linton (1951) The delimitation of morphological regions. Pages 199–218 L. D. Stamp S. W. Wooldridge (Eds) London essays in geography. Longman London

    Google Scholar 

  26. J. A. Mabbutt (1968) Review of concepts of land classification. Pages 11–27 G. A. Stewart (Eds) Land evaluation. Macmillan of Australia Melbourne

    Google Scholar 

  27. A. M. J. Meijerink (1988) ArticleTitleData acquisition and data capture through terrain mapping units. ITC Journal 1 23–44

    Google Scholar 

  28. G. Milne (1935) ArticleTitleSome suggested units of classification and mapping, particularly for east African soils. Soil Research 4 IssueID3 183–198 Occurrence Handle1:CAS:528:DyaA2MXltlKntg%3D%3D

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. C. W. Mitchell (1991) Terrain evaluation, 2nd ed. Longman London 441

    Google Scholar 

  30. M. R. Moss (1975) ArticleTitleBio-physical land classification schemes: a review of their relevance and applicability to agricultural development in the humid tropics. Journal of Environmental Management 3 287–307

    Google Scholar 

  31. M. R. Moss (1985) ArticleTitleLand processes and land classification. Journal of Environmental Management 20 295–319

    Google Scholar 

  32. E. Neef (1963) ArticleTitleTopologische und chronologische arbeitsweisen in der landschaftsforschung. Petermanns Geographische Mitteilungen 107 IssueID4 249–259

    Google Scholar 

  33. Passarge, S. (1919–1920) Die Grundlagen der Landschaftskunde. Friederischen et. Col., Hamburg.

  34. M. Pecsi S. Somogyi (1969) Subdivisions and classification of the physiographic landscapes and geomorphological regions of Hungary. Pages 7–24 B. Sarfalvi (Eds) Research problems in Hungarian applied geography. Akadémiaikiadó Budapest

    Google Scholar 

  35. J. W. Powell (1895) ArticleTitlePhysiographic regions of the United States. National Geographic Society Monograph 1 IssueID3 65–100

    Google Scholar 

  36. J. S. Rowe J. W. Sheard (1981) ArticleTitleEcological land classification; a survey approach. Environmental Management 5 IssueID5 451–464

    Google Scholar 

  37. R. T. Salisbury (1907) Physiography. Henry Holt New York 770

    Google Scholar 

  38. V. B. Sochava (1974) ArticleTitleDas systemparadigma in ther geographie. Petermanns Geographische Mitteilungen 118 161–166

    Google Scholar 

  39. N. A. Solntsev (1962) ArticleTitleBasic problems in soviet landscape science. Soviet Geography, Review and Translation 3 IssueID6 3–15

    Google Scholar 

  40. G. A. Stewart (1968) Land evaluation. Macmillan of Australia Melbourne 392

    Google Scholar 

  41. C. Troll (1950) Die geographische landschaft und ihre erforschung. Studium generale 3, 4/5. Springer-Verlag Berlin 163–181

    Google Scholar 

  42. UNESCO (1972) Report of consultive meeting of experts on the statistical study of natural hazards and their consequences. SC/WS/500, UNESCO, Paris.

  43. J. F. Unstead (1933) ArticleTitleA system of regional geographic. Geography 18 175–187

    Google Scholar 

  44. Van Zuidam, R. A., and F. I. Van Zuidam (1979) Terrain analysis and classification using aerial photographs; a geomorphological approach; chapter 6. ITC textbook of photo-interpretation. Vol. VII. Use of aerial detection in geomorphology and geographical landscape analysis. ITC, Enschede, 305 pp.

  45. J. O. Veatch (1937) ArticleTitleThe idea of the natural land type. Proceedings of the Soil Science Society of America 2 499–503

    Google Scholar 

  46. B. V. Vinogradov K. I. Gerenchuk A. G. Isachenko K. G. Raman Y. N. Teselchuk (1962) ArticleTitleBasic principles of landscape mapping. Soviet Geography, Review and Translations 3 IssueID6 15–20

    Google Scholar 

  47. Warrington, G. E., S. G. Leonard, D. Moos, C. Osen, W. E. Russell, E. Sautter (1989) The needs of the users of soil survey information: reliability and methods of presentation. Proceedings of National Cooperative Soil Survey Conference, 24–28 July 1989, Lincoln, Nebraska, pp. 93–129.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Warrington, G. E. (1998) Organizing information for natural resource management. http://www.wecsa.com/Note1/mgmtinfo.html

  49. R. S. Waters (1958) ArticleTitleMorphological mapping. Geography 43 10–17

    Google Scholar 

  50. D. S. Way (1973) Terrain analysis; a guide to site selection using aerial photographic interpretation. Dowden, Hutchison and Ross Stroudsburg 392

    Google Scholar 

  51. Wertz, W. A., and J. A. Arnold (1972) Land systems inventory. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Ogden, Utah, 12 pp.

  52. S. W. Wooldridge (1932) ArticleTitleThe cycle of erosion and the representation of relief. Scottish Geographical Magazine 48 30–36

    Google Scholar 

  53. I. S. Zonneveld (1989) ArticleTitleThe land unit—a fundamental concept in landscape ecology, and its applications. Landscape Ecology 3 IssueID2 67–86

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for a profitable collaboration with the Urban Planning Institute of the University of Valladolid (Technical School of Architecture, Castilla y León) and the INZAMAC company, both organizations in charge of the elaboration of the SSLPG. The role of landscape mapping in environmental management in central Spain was undertaken within the REN2002 – 01361 research project of the Spanish DGI (MCYT). The authors also acknowledge Drs. G. E. Warrington, M. P. Prisloe, and an anonymous reviewer for the revision of the original manuscript. Finally, we greatly appreciate the help of Marie Godfrey for editing the text.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geodynamics, Complutense University, C/ José Antonio Novais s/n, 28040 Madrid, Spain

    José F. Martín-Duque, Javier Pedraza, Miguel A. Sanz & José M. Bodoque

  2. Intermountain Region, USDA Forest Service, 324 25th Street, Ogden, Utah 84401, USA

    Andrew E. Godfrey

  3. Department of Engineering Geology and Mining, University of Castilla-La Mancha, C. Tecnológico, 45071 Toledo, Spain

    Andrés Díez & Rosa M. Carrasco

Authors
  1. José F. Martín-Duque
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrew E. Godfrey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Javier Pedraza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andrés Díez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Miguel A. Sanz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Rosa M. Carrasco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. José M. Bodoque
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to José F. Martín-Duque.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Martín-Duque, J., Godfrey, A., Pedraza, J. et al. Landform Classification for Land Use Planning in Developed Areas: An Example in Segovia Province (Central Spain) . Environmental Management 32, 488–498 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-003-2848-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-003-2848-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation