Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T20:27:49.940Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Combining current land use and farmers' knowledge to design land-use requirements and improve land suitability evaluation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2011

Feras M. Ziadat  and
Kais A. Sultan
Feras M. Ziadat
Affiliation:
International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), P.O. Box 5466, Aleppo, Syria. Department of Land, Water and Environment, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Jordan, P.O. Box 13693, Amman 11942, Jordan.
Kais A. Sultan*
Affiliation:
General Commission for Scientific Agricultural Research (GCSAR), P.O. Box 13348 Damascus, Syria.
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Land suitability analysis is very important to assess and propose the most suitable land-use options. The reliability of land suitability evaluation is controlled by choosing the most limiting land characteristics and their ratings for the proposed land utilization types (LUTs). This study aims at examining the possibility of using current land use and farmers' knowledge as a starting point to suggest and/or modify land evaluation criteria, and to improve the land suitability evaluation process. The potential suitability of land for five LUTs (open range, improved range, rainfed barley, drip-irrigated vegetables and drip-irrigated trees) was evaluated near Al-Mafraq in Jordan using the maximum limitation method. The results indicated variable agreement levels between potential land suitability and current land use for different LUTs. Sixteen farms were selected to represent different cases of disagreement between potential suitability and current land use and were visited to explore the farmers' improved management practices adopted to overcome land-use limitations. Using proposed criteria, only 1% of the study area was highly suitable for drip irrigation, whereas most of the area was moderately or marginally suitable for other uses. This represents the conventional land evaluation procedures, which, in most cases, overlook the farmers' knowledge and practices that are adopted in a particular area to overcome biophysical limitations. The ratings for different land characteristics were modified based on comparisons with current land use, and by referring to farmers’ adopted management practices. Using modified criteria, the highly suitable area for drip-irrigated vegetables increased by 18% and the highly suitable area for drip-irrigated trees increased by 25%. The results emphasized that the consideration of the farmer's indigenous knowledge and current land use improve the land evaluation process, which leads to better utilization of limited land resources in fragile environments.

Keywords

soil surveysustainable land useindigenous knowledgeGISremote sensingJordan
Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , December 2011 , pp. 287 - 296
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1FAO. 1993. Guidelines for Land Use Planning. FAO Development Series No. 1. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
2Moody, P.W., Cong, P.T., Legrand, J., and Chon, N.Q. 2008. A decision support framework for identifying soil constraints to the agricultural productivity of tropical upland soils. Soil Use and Management 24(2):148–155.Google Scholar
3Hatten, C.J. and Taimeh, A.Y. 2001. Improvement of agricultural productivity in arid and semi-arid zones of Jordan. In Taimeh, A.Y. and Hattar, B.I. (eds). A Cooperative Project between Ministry of Agriculture and the European Union. Volume 1, Main Report. University of Jordan Press, Amman, Jordan.Google Scholar
4Dengiz, O., Bayramin, I., and Yuksel, M. 2003. Geographic information system and remote sensing based land evaluation of Beypazari area soils by ILSEN Model. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry 27:145–153.Google Scholar
5D'Angelo, M., Enne, G., Madrau, S., Percich, L., Previtali, F., Pulina, G., and Zucca, C. 2000. Mitigating land degradation in Mediterranean agro silvo-pastoral systems: a GIS-based approach. Catena 40:37–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Nisar Ahamed, T.R., Gopal Rao, K., and Murthy, J.S.R. 2000. GIS-based fuzzy membership model for crop-land suitability analysis. Agricultural Systems 63:75–95.Google Scholar
7FAO. 1976. Framework for Land Evaluation. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
8Melitz, P.J. 1986. The sufficiency concept in land evaluation. Soil Survey and Land Evaluation 6(1):9–19.Google Scholar
9Messing, I. and Hoang Fagerström, M.H. 2001. Using farmers’ knowledge for defining criteria for land qualitites in biophysical land evaluation. Land Degradation and Development 12:541–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10MoA (Ministry of Agriculture, Jordan). 1995. The Soils of Jordan. Report of the National Soil Map and Land Use Project, Undertaken by Ministry of Agriculture, Huntings Technical Services Ltd., and European Commission. Level One, Level Two, Level Three and JOSCIS Manual. Ministry of Agriculture, Amman, Jordan.Google Scholar
11Mazahreh, S. 1998. Alternatives for land utilization in arid to semi-arid region in Jordan. Unpublished Masters thesis, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.Google Scholar
12Al-Shoubaki, A. 1999. Water harvesting potential of different land types in arid to semi-arid region in Jordan. Unpublished Masters thesis, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.Google Scholar
13Rashdan, W. 1999. Potential utilization of barley and rangelands in arid to semi-arid region in Jordan. Unpublished Masters thesis, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.Google Scholar
14Ziadat, F.M. 2000. Application of GIS and remote sensing for land use planning in the arid areas of Jordan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cranfield University, Silsoe, UK.Google Scholar
15Ceballos-Silva, A. and López-Blanco, J. 2003. Evaluating biophysical variables to identify suitable areas for oat in Central Mexico: a multi-criteria and GIS approach. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 95:371–377.Google Scholar
16Ziadat, F.M. and Al-Bakri, J.T. 2007. Comparing existing and potential land use for sustainable land utilization. Jordan Journal of Agricultural Sciences 2(4):372–387.Google Scholar
17Ryder, R. 2003. Local soil knowledge and site suitability evaluation in the Dominican Republic. Geoderma 111:289–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18Ziadat, F.M., Hattar, B.I., and Baqain, A.S. 2007. Farmers’ verification of improved land-use alternatives in the transitional Badia of Jordan. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 21(4):207–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19Cools, N., De Pauw, E., and Deckers, J. 2003. Towards an integration of conventional land evaluation methods and farmers’ soil suitability assessment: a case study in northwestern Syria. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 95:327–342.Google Scholar
20Beckford, C. and Barker, D. 2007. The role and value of local knowledge in Jamaican agriculture: adaptation and change in small-scale farming. Geographical Journal 173(2):118–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21Barrera-Bassols, N., Zinck, J.A., and Van Ranst, E. 2009. Participatory soil survey: experience in working with a Mesoamerican indigenous community. Soil Use and Management 25(1):43–56.Google Scholar
22Barrera-Bassols, N., Zinck, J.A., and Van Ranst, E. 2006. Local soil classification and comparison of indigenous and technical soil maps in a Mesoamerican community using spatial analysis. Geoderma 135:140–162.Google Scholar
23Gruver, J.B. and Weil, R.R. 2007. Farmer perceptions of soil quality and their relationship to management-sensitive soil parameters. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 22:271–281.Google Scholar
24Pulido, J.S. and Bocco, G. 2003. The traditional farming system of a Mexican indigenous community: the case of Nuevo San Juan Parangaricutiro, Michoacán, Mexico. Geoderma 111:249–265.Google Scholar
25Sicat, R.S., Carranza, E.J.M., and Nidumolu, U.B. 2005. Fuzzy modeling of farmers’ knowledge for land suitability classification. Agricultural Systems 83:49–75.Google Scholar
26Zhang, H. and Zhang, G.L. 2006. Landscape-scale soil quality change under different farming systems of a tropical farm in Hainan, China. Soil Use and Management 21(1):58–64.Google Scholar
27Mairura, F.S., Mugendi, D.N., Mwanje, J.I., Ramisch, J.J., Mbugua, P.K., and Chianu, J.N. 2008. Scientific evaluation of smallholder land use knowledge in central Kenya. Land Degradation and Development 19:77–90.Google Scholar
28Bojórquez-Tapia, L.A., Díaz-Mondragón, S., and Ezcurra, E. 2001. GIS based approach for participatory decision making and land suitability assessment. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 15:129–151.Google Scholar
29Malczewski, J. 2004. GIS-based land-use suitability analysis: a critical overview. Progress in Planning 62(1):3–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30Ahnström, J., Höckert, J., Bergeå, H.L., Francis, C.A., Skelton, P., and Hallgren, L. 2009. Farmers and nature conservation: what is known about attitudes, context factors and actions affecting conservation? Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 24:38–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31Soil Survey Staff. 2003. Keys to Soil Taxonomy. 9th ed. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
32Department of Meteorology. 1995. Meteorological Stations Reports. Department of Meteorology, Amman, Jordan.Google Scholar
33Dent, D. and Young, A. 1981. Soil Survey and Land Evaluation. George Allen and Unwin, London, UK.Google Scholar
34Burrough, P.A. and McDonnell, R.A. 1998. Principles of Geographical Information Systems. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
35Townsley, P. 1996. Rapid rural appraisal, participatory rural appraisal and aquaculture. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
36FAO. 1997. Participation in Practice: Lessons from the FAO People's Participation Programme. FAO, Rome, Italy. Available at Web site http://www.fao.org/waicent/faoinfo/sustdev/PPdirect/PPre0044.htm (posted November 1997).Google Scholar