Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T14:13:51.998Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Land-use Planning: One Geologist's Viewpoint

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

E-An Zen
E-An Zen
Affiliation:
Research Geologist, United States Geological Survey, 959 National Center, Reston, Virginia 22092, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Planning for the best use of land and its resources should take fully into consideration the long-term consequences of each type of use in order to stretch out most beneficially the well-being of society in the future, and to protect the integrity of the land and its biota. Three kinds of land-use can be distinguished for planning purposes. Reversible land-use leaves the land, after use, essentially as it was before; little or no man-induced modification remains. An example of reversible use in the United States is the designation of certain public lands as Wilderness. Terminal land-use commits the land to a chosen particular use, and any attempt at reversal requires either time-scales that are long compared with the expected lifespan of the social and political institution, or a commitment of resources that is too high for society to consider worth bearing. Examples of terminal land-use are location of metropolises and sites of toxic and/or radioactive waste disposals; by its nature the list grows monotonically. A current source of some social tension arises from the fact that Wilderness designation appears to assign a terminal-use status by legislative fiat, whereas in fact the land is being used reversibly.

Type
Main Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , Summer 1983 , pp. 97 - 104
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 1983

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

REFERENCES

Anderson, J.R., Hardy, E.E., Roach, J.T. & Witmer, R.E. (1976). A Land Use and Land Cover Classification System for Use with Remote Sensing Data. U. S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 964, 28 pp.Google Scholar
Berry, R.S., Fels, M.F. & Makino, H. (1974). A thermodynamic valuation of resource use: Making automobiles and other processes. Pp. 499–515 in Energy: Demand, Conservation, and Institutional Problems (Ed. Macrakis, M.S.). MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: xxvii + 556 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Clough, D. J. & Morley, L.W. (Ed.) (1977). Earth Observation Systems for Resource Management and Environmental Control. Plenum Press, New York, NY, USA: 475 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freedman, Ronald & Berelson, Bernard (1974). The human population. Sci. Amer., 231 (3), pp. 31–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hardin, Garrett (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, pp. 1243–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
IRG [Interagency Review Group on Nuclear Waste Management] (1978). Subgroup Report on Alternative Technology Strategies for the Isolation of Nuclear Waste. TID 28 818 (draft), Washington, DC, USA: xii + 89 pp. + 8 App.Google Scholar
IRG [Interagency Review Group on Nuclear Waste Management] (1979). Report to the President. TID 29 442, Washington, DC, USA: iii + 148 pp. + 8 App.Google Scholar
McHarg, I.L. (1969). Design with Nature. Doubleday & Co. (published for the American Museum of Natural History), Garden City, NY, USA: viii + 198 pp.Google Scholar
McPhee, J.A. (1971). Encounters with the Archdruid. Farrar, Straus & Giroux, New York, NY, USA: 245 pp.Google Scholar
NASA [National Aeronautics and Space Administration] (1972). Remote Sensing of the Chesapeake Bay. NASA SP-294, 179 pp.Google Scholar
NASA [National Aeronautics and Space Administration] (1973). Symposium on Significant Results obtained from the Earth Resources Technology Satellite-1. Vol. 1, Technical presentations: NASA SP-327, 1730 pp.Google Scholar
Neff, T.L. (1981). The Social Costs of Solar Energy: A Study of Photovoltaic Energy Systems. Pergamon Press, New York, NY, USA: 110 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Satterwhite, M.B. & Ehlen, Judy (1980). Vegetation and Terrain Relationships in South-central New Mexico and Western Texas. U.S. Army Corps of Engrs, Engr. Topographic Laboratories, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, USA: ETL-0245, 288 pp., illustr.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shahrokhi, F. (Ed.) (1977). Remote Sensing of Earth Resources. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA: 647 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Sheridan, David (1981). Desertification of the United States. Council on Environmental Quality, Washington, DC, USA: vit 142 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
U.S. Congress [88th] (1964). The Wilderness Act, PL 88–577.Google Scholar
U.S. Congress [94th] (1976). National Forest Management Act, PL 94–588.Google Scholar
U.S. Council on Environmental Quality (1980). The Global 2000 Report to the President: Entering the Twenty-first Century: A Report prepared by the Council on Environmental Quality and the Department of State, Gerald O. Barney, Study Director, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, USA: 47 pp.Google Scholar
Valkenburg, S. Van (1949). A world inventory: Econ. Geography, 25, pp. 237–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, Lynn (1967). The historical roots of our ecological crisis. Science, 155, pp. 1203–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiesner, J.B. & York, H.F. (1964). National security and the nuclear test ban. Sci. Amer., 211(4), pp. 27–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar