Land Use versus Land Cover: Geo-Analysis of National Roads and Synchronisation Algorithms

Abstract

Technological progress in Earth surface observation provides a vast range of information on the land and methods of its use. This enables property owners, users and administrators to monitor the state of the boundaries of the land they own/administer. The land cover, monitored directly on the ground, is not always consistent with the land use entered in the Land and Property Registry (LPR). Discrepancies between these data are often found in former communist countries. One of the reasons for this was the rapid process of land privatisation, which took place in Poland, without updating information on the plot geodetic boundaries. The study examined and compared the land use (entered in the LPR) with the land cover (on the ground) for national roads (acr. LU-LC). The most frequent discrepancies were selected, using CLC2018, digital orthophotomaps (using the Web Map Service (WMS) browsing service compliant with Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) standards), cadastral data, statistical modelling and an updated survey of the right-of-way. Subsequently, six algorithms were proposed to synchronise the land use and land cover when the right-of-way was used by unauthorised persons, and two algorithms for cases of unauthorised use of land by the road administrator. Currently, it is difficult to synchronise the land cover with the land use from the administrative, legal and social points of view. The results of analyses show that full synchronisation of land use and land cover is complicated and time-consuming, although desired.

The InVEST Habitat Quality Model Associated with Land Use/Cover Changes: A Qualitative Case Study of the Winike Watershed in the Omo-Gibe Basin, Southwest Ethiopia

“…This information gives insight into where the biodiversity is more degraded, the cause of the degradation (threat), and the sensitivity of the habitat to biodiversity threats. Generally, the research findings are important for showing the need for ecological restoration associated with the LULC change [100] and the profound impact of anthropogenic threats (sedimentation, pollution, roads, etc.) on the existing habitats (biodiversity).…”

Analysis of Changes in Agricultural Use of Land After Poland’s Accession to the EU

“…Such changes can be noticed by monitoring the available data on the state of land on geoportals or published as part of executed projects. Some of them, e.g., CLC (Corine Land Cover), are generalised and do not allow for a detailed evaluation of changes on the micro-scale (Kocur-Bera and Dawidowicz, 2019). The aim of this study was to evaluate changes in methods of land use in the cadastral plot scale, which is the smallest spatial unit, registered with respect to land occupation.…”

“…The issues associated with research of changes in land use are present in the scientific discourse, especially with respect to changes in the environment , ecosystems (Foley et al, 2005;Verburg et al, 2009;Falcucci et al, 2009;Leppers et al, 2005), the landscape (Sallay and Jombach, 2011;Bogoliubova and Tymków, 2014), and their contribution to climate changes (Kazak, 2018;Kocur-Bera, 2018). These changes are caused by such factors as demography (Gavrilidis et al, 2015), human activities (Affek, 2016;Bański, 2017) and natural and socio-economic phenomena (Boori and Voženilek, 2014;Kocur-Bera, and Dawidowicz, 2019).…”

Organization of the Building Space of Developments and Its Impact on Residential Housing Prices

“…Both investments used buildings similar to the shape of letter U or L, where there was suspicion of mutual obscuration of the building blocks. The available land was assessed in terms of its use, in accordance with the idea of a smart city, whether it has been developed in a purposeful and attractive way for the inhabitants and whether green areas have been respected [13][14][15][16]. Having considered solely the average property prices on the primary market, it was noted that Example 2 was characterized by undervalued prices, compared to the average prices in its area, whereas Example 1 did not create an enclave of prices and was in line with average prices in the area (Figure 3).…”