Appendix 1 THEITE LAND CLASSIFICATION AND THE FOUR LANDSCAPE TYPES

180 Pages·2012·8.89 MB·English

á
á
Department of the Environment
COUNTRYSIDE SURVEY 1990
MAIN REPORT
C J Barr, R G H Bunce, RT Clarke, RM Fuller, MT Fume,(cid:13)
M KGillespie, G BGroom, C J Hallam, M Hornung,
D C Howard and MJNess '
Cover illustration and
original artwork by
C B Benefield
Geographical index
Great Britain
Subject index
Ecology, land use,
environment, agriculture
This Report was produced for the
Department of the Environment.
Views expressed in it do not
necessarily coincide with those of
the Department
Countryside 1990 series
Volume 2
AReport prepared forthe
Department ofthe Environment by
Institute of Institute of(cid:13) the Institute ofTerrestrial Ecology
and the Institute ofFreshwater
Freshwater Terrestrial
1, Ecology, components ofthe Natural
0 Ecology Ecology (cid:127)Environment Research Council.
Crown copyright1993(cid:13)
CI
First Reprint 1995
Applicationsfor reproduction
shouldbe made to HMSO
Printed and publishedby the
Departmentof the Environment,London, UK
OTHER REPORTS IN THE COUNTRYSIDE 1990 SERIES
Volume 1: Ecological Consequences of Land Use Change (L10.00)
Volume 2: Countryside Survey 1990: Main Report (L12.00)
Volume 3: Comparison of Land Cover Definitions (L10.00)
Volume 4: Development of the Countryside Information System
(L17.50)
Volume 5: CORINE Land Cover Map: Pilot Study (unpriced)
Volume 6: Countryside Survey 1990: Inland Water Bodies
(unpriced)
Priced DOE Publications are available from:
DOE Publication Sales Unit
Block 3, Spur 7 Government Buildings
Lime Grove, Ruislip
HA4 8SF (Tel. [phone] Fax. [phone])
Prices include package and postage.
'FOR FURTHER /INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT:
Research Branch
Wildlife and Countryside Directorate
Department of the Environment
Room 919, Tollgate House
Houlton Street
Bristol, BS2 9DJ
Land Use Group
Institute of Terrestrial Ecology
Merlewood
Windermere Road
Grange-over-Sands
CUMBRIA LA11 6JU
PREFACE
The countryside ischanging - but how quickly and baseline against which future changes inthe
inwhat ways? This series of'Countryside 1990' countryside can be measured and the effect of
reports gives an up-to-date and comprehensive Government policies evaluated. Countryside
picture ofthe current state ofthe countryside and Survey 1990willmake an important contribution to
recent changes init. The series isbased on the the UKStrategy for Sustainable Development and
programme ofwork sponsored by the Department the UKBiodiversity Action Plan.
ofthe Environment and asisociated with
Countryside Survey 1990. Bycombining forthe This MainReport isaccompanied by a non-
firsttime pioneering techniques insatellite image technical Summary Report which isavailable from
analysis and detailed ecological fieldsurvey, the the Department ofthe Environment.
study provides a comprehensive overview ofland
cover, landscape features and habitats inGreat
Britain. The information from thisprogramme will
be central tothe evaluation and development of
Government
The EnV.ronment White Paper This Common
Inheritance and the Department ofthe
Environment's paper on 'Actionforthe
Countryside' have reviewed the Government's
policies forthe countryside. These policies and
related initiatives concentrate on action tomaintam
a prosperous economy and thriving communities
inthe countryside. toprotect and enhance the
landscape, toprovide forpublic enjoyment ofthe
countryside, and toprotect and conserve wildlife.
They are not put forward inisolation but are firmly
based onprinciples presented inthe White Paper
Two ofthese are particularly relevant here. the
need tobase policies onthe best evidence and
analysis available: and the need toinformpublic
debate by ensuring the publication offacts. This
series ofreports reflects the Government's
commitment tothese principles.
Whilst Countryside Survey 1990isprimarily a
foundation forthe future, italso proV.des an
analysis ofchanges inthe land cover and
vegetation ofthe Britishcountryside between in
1978and 1990. Some ofthe changes which this
study describes are a matter ofpublic concern and
the Government has already taken action to
address them. The causes ofsome ofthe other
changes identified are complex and not fully
understood, and more work willbe required to
assess their significance_
'Countryside Survey 1990- MainReport'. the
second volume inthe series, presents the math
results ofthis innovative survey ofthe British
countryside. The report includes details about the
stock, distribution of,and recent changes inthe
land cover, landscape features, vegetation, soils
and freshwater animals. The data collected form a
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
With aproject ofthis size, many people have Davies,MartinHayes,JasonKerry,EwanLaurie,
contributed to the end-product. Itwould be difficult GabbyLevine,KevinMcGlyn,AmandaMarler,
to identify and thank allofthose involved However, Neil Matthews,EamonnMolloy,TomMurray,
the authors are most grateful to allthose who have MilesNunn,ColinPendry,KarenPollock,Mike
helped indesigning this project. carrying out the Prosser,CatherinePumphrey,RobRose,Fred
field-, desk- and computer-based operations, and Ramsey,DaveScott,OwenSmith,StuartSmith,
checking this and other reports. We are especially IanTaylor,HilaryWallace,MarkWatson,and
grateful to the Department ofthe Environment GwynWilliams.
(DOE), the BritishNational Space Centre/
Those involved withthe lengthy and often tedious
Department ofTrade and Industry, theformer
task ofdigitising fielddata included: Tanya
Nature Conservancy Council and the Natural
Barden,MikeBrown,JimConroy,SimonCaning,
Environment Research Council, who have funded
RogerCummins,MarkHarrison,'FanHaythorn-
this work.
thwaite,EamonnMolloy,TomMunay,Stuart
Inparticular, the authors acknowledge and Powling,BarbaraStrathern,DianePearson,Rod
appreciate the pivotal role that ProfBillHeal(ITE) Pilbeam,andDaveScott. Important method-
and MrJohnPeters(formerly DOE)played in ological developments, associated with analysis of
setting up the Countryside Survey 1990(CS1990). the digitised data using Geographical Information
Itwas their belief, commitment and hard work inthe Systems, were undertaken by RuthCox.
late 1980s that gained the support oftheir
At1TEMonks Wood, ArwynJoneswas involved in
respective organisation&
most ofthe land cover mapping onwhich the
Others to whom the authors are grateful fortheir CS1990 remote sensing work was based Nigel
help and encouragement along the way include, in Brown,AndrewMort,MarliesSanders,Andy
DOE. MrRobinSharp,MrPatrickLeonard,Dr Thomson,JacquiUllyettandSueWallisallplayed
RichardShaw,DrSarahWebster, and especially active parts inthe production ofland cover and
DrTerryParr(nowwith ITE)and DrAndrewStott. pattern data and intheir integration withthe CS1990
Similarly, inNERC,ProfMikeRoberts(ITE),Prof field survey.
AlisdairBerrie(formerly ofthe institute of
Freshwater Ecology (IFE)).DrBarryWyatt(ITE), At IFERiver Laboratory, the running-water samples
from CS1990 were collected by the fieldsurvey
DrJohnWright(IFE)have allplayed significant
teams (as above). Samples were sorted by Marc
parts inproviding resources and encouragement.
Ingelrelst,Angela Matthews,KaySymesand
Members ofthe CS1990AdvisoryGrouphave
JessicaWinder MostChironornidae and
been extremely helpful and supportive both intheir
Oligochaeta were mounted on slides by Angela
officialcapacities and as friends and colleagues.
Matthews,preparatory to identification. Specimens
AtrrE Merlewood, from where the fieldsurvey was were identified by JohnBass,JohnBlackburn,Rick
administered, special thanks go to EamonnMolloy, GunnandMarcIngelrelst. The 1988feasibility
DianePearsonand RodPilbeam,and to allofthe study samples were collected by RickGunnand
staff(see below) who helped with fieldwork, data HazelJohnsonand processed by them and John
preparation, digitising and analysis Blackburn.
The co-ordinators ofthe fieldsurvey, based atthe The authors are grateful to the many people who
rrEresearch stations, were: GrahamBell,Alan have provided comments and suggestions relating
Buse,RogerCununins,GeoffRadford,and to the drafting ofthis report, to KarenThrelfallwho
RowleySnazell. was responsible forpreparation ofthe final
document, and also to PennyWardforassisting
The fieldsurveyors. including ITEstaffand with proof-reading.
temporary employees, were: TanyaBarden,
KarenBurke,JimCampbell,JoClark,Jane Last,and most importantly, the authors would like to
Clayton,MaureenCochran,MaxColeman,Liz take thisopportunity tothank allofthe landowners.
Cooper, yunConroy,RuthCox,Irnogen farmers and other land managers who have given
Crawford,SimonCunning,AnitaDiaz,Rebecca their permission for surveyors to visittheir
Dunn,NoranneEllis,DougEvans,KarenFindlay, holdings Without such co-operation. fieldsurveys
DonFrench,WilliamGray,NickGreatorex- ofthe type reported here would not be possible
CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5
Chapter 1 BACKGROUND TO COUNTRYSIDE SURVEY1990
1.1 Introduction 13
1.2 Objectives ofCountryside Survey 1990 13
1.3 Underlying principles 14
1.4 Summary ofChapter 1 16
Chapter 2 METHODS OFDATACOLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
2 1 Introduction 17
2.2 Land cover mapping from satellite imagery 17
2.3 Field survey 23
2.4 Quality control and agsessment -fieldsurvey 28
2.5 Freshwater studies 29
2.6 Soilsurveys 33
2.7 Summary ofChapter 2 35
Chapter 3 THERESULTS(I):LAND COVER
3.1 Interpretation ofresults 37
3.2 1990stock figures fromsatellite imagery 37
3.3 1990stock figures from fieldsurvey 41
3.4 Net change between 1978, 1984and 1990 46
3.5 The matrix ofchange between 1984and 1990 49
3.6 Relationship between satellite and fieldsurvey data 49
3.7 Integrated use offieldsurvey and satellite data 51
3.8 Pattern analysis 52
3.9 Summary ofChapter 3 53
Chapter 4 THERESULTS(II): BOUNDARY FEATURES
4 1 Introduction 55
42 Boundary stock figures for 1990 56
43 Net change between 1984and 1990 60
44 The matrix ofchange between 1984and 1990 63
45 Summary ofChapter 4 64
Chapter 5 THERESULTS(III): VEGETATION
5.1 Introduction 67
5.2 Mainplots 69
5.3 Habitat plots 93
5.4 Linear features - Hedge plots 96
5.5 Linear features - Verge plots 102
5.6 Linear features - Streamside plots 108
5.7 Conclusions and summary ofChapter 5 114
Chapter 6 THERESULTS(IV):FRESHWATERSTUDIES
6 1 Introduction
121
62 Countryside Survey 1990fieldsurvey 121
63 Related surveys and data bases 126
64 Summary ofChapter 6
126
Chapter 7 THERESULTS(V):SOIL SURVEYS
7.1 Introduction 129
7.2 Characterisation ofthe landscape types 129
7.3 Countryside Survey 1990fieldsurveys 130
7.4 Summary ofChapter 7
130
Chapter 8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8 1 Mainconclusions 131
83 Linkstoother studies 132
84 Recommendations forfurther work 134
GLOSSARYOF TERMS, ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 135
REFERENCES 143
Appendices
The 1TELand Classification and the fourlandscape types 145
Code lists 149
Category 1species foranalysis 149
1990Mapping code lists 156
1984Mapping code lists 157
Descriptions ofland cover/use categories from the fieldsurvey 158
Descriptions ofsatellite target cover classes 161
Statistical aspects ofthe fieldsurveys 163
3a. Statistical formulae 170
Quality Assurance Exercise - summary 173
MCECUTIVESUMMARY
Introduction carried out by ITEin 1978and 1984,and the
IFEmethodology was tested ina pilotstudy
1 Countryside Survey 1990(CS1990) isone of in 1988. During the same period techniques
the most comprehensive surveys ofthe forclassifying satellite imagery toprovide
Britishcountryside thathas ever been information on land cover classes were being
carried out. Itisalso the firstsurvey tobe developed inITE.Asamethod oflinking
based on the integration ofinformation from these different sorts ofdata. ITEdeveloped a
satellite imagery and traditional fieldsurvey stratification system which acts both as a
methods The primary aims ofthe survey framework for sample surveys, and as a
were toprovide information on the stock of means ofintegrating survey results. This
land cover, landscape features and habitats approach, the ITELand Classification.
inGreat Britain(GB)in 1990.toidentify classified all 1Iansquares inBritaininto 32
change inthese by reference toearlier data. relatively homogeneous 'Land Classes'. For
and toestablish a new baseline forthe the purpose ofthe analysis ofCS1990 data.
measurement offuture change. Although these Classes have been aggregated into
some aspects ofthe survey include urban four landscape types: 'arable', 'pastural'.
areas, the main focus was on the rural 'marginal upland and 'upland'.
environment
The main source ofinformation on broad-
2 The survey was undertaken by the Institute of scale land cover iriormation was obtained
Terrestrial Ecology (ITE)and the 'instituteof from satellite imagery. Asatellite land cover
Frashwater Ecology (FE). and principal map ofGBwas produced from Landsat
funding was provided by the Department of Thematic Mapper Imagery using images for
the Environment (DOE),the Department of dates as close as possible to 1990. Land
Trade and Industry (DTI),the BritishNational cover data were summarised in 17cover
Space Centre (BNSC).and the Natural classes for allc240000 1Ian squares inGB.
Environment Research Council (NERC). Although the information ispresented here in
Additional funding was provided by the terms ofthese 17classes, further
former Nature Conservancy Council (NCC). subdivisions ofthese main cover types have
been identified. Similarly, information is
3 The Britishcountryside iscomplex; CS1990(cid:10) available at 25m x25mpixel scale, although
combined detailed recording ofspecies and ithas been summarised at the 1Ian square
landscape features, together witha census of level for CSI990 and CIS.
the principal land cover inGB. Forthe first
time, these were integrated by co-ordinating
6 Togive greater detail on components within
fieldsurvey withsatellite imagery or.a
the countryside. astratified random sample
national scala The former provided
of508 I Idnsquares was drawn from the 32
information on the quality ofhabitats.
ITELand Classes and data recorded, through
whereas the latter enabled information tobe
fieldsurvey ofeach 1kmsquare, about land
collected from a complete national coverage
cover, landscape features, habitats and
ofbroader land cover categories. The
vegetation. Simultaneously, data were
primary output ofthe survey was adata base.
collected on freshwater fauna (macro-
but the main obective ofthis report isto
invertebrates) inflowingwatercourses. Soil
convey the principal findings ofinitial
information was also obtained for the 508
analyses ofthese data. The Countryside
sample squares Arigorous programme of
Information System (CIS),a computer-based
quality control was carried out.including a
system. has been developed toenable ready
Quality Assurance Exercise, toensure that
access tomore detailed results.
methods and results were objective, reliable
and repeatable.
Methods
7 Species data forover 1200vascular plants
4 The field survey methodology was and a limited listofmosses and liverworts(cid:13)
developed during previous baseline surveys were recorded fromthree types ofplot in
5
1978and 1990! Mainplotswere placed at landscapes managed grasslands covered
random throughout the Ikm squares; linear 28%,with heath and moorland at 18%.
plotswere placed along hedgerows. streams indicating amixture ofcontrasting land cover
and verges; and Habitatplots were targetted types withinthe landscape. The upland
toprovide additional information on areas of landscapes were dominated by dwarf shrub
semi-natural vegetation. These data were heath and bog, withthe combined totals for
analysed by statistical techniques developed open and dense heaths, moors and bogs
specifically forvegetation data, toderive being over 68%.
stock and change information
12 Pattern analysis was also carried out forthe
8 The land cover and landscape features for whole ofGBusing the satellite data to
1984and 1990were recorded using a determine, forexample, boundary lengths
Geographical Information System (GIS)- between the 17cover classes. Pixelswhich
ARC/INFO. The GISenabled automated adjoin or cross over boundaries represented
measurement ofchange. but alsoprovides a 44%ofthe total,and their distributions were
baseline digital data base forfuture compared withinlandscapes.
monitoring. Forthe current report, the
descriptors ofthe land cover used inthe field Comparisonoffieldsurveyandsatellitedata
survey have been summarised into58
categories but they can be analysed atany 13 The results from the land cover survey ofthe
required level ofdetail. sample 1km squares inthe fieldshow good
general agreement withthe satellite-derived
9 Integration ofthe satellite land cover map land cover map formost classes. For
with data from the fieldsurvey has been example. fortilledland, both figures were
demonstrated. Inaddition, subsets ofthe 508 21%.and managed grass covered 29% (field)
sample 1km squares were used to compared with 27% (satellite). Some
determine the correspondence between the categories. eg open shrub heath/moor (12% -
17land cover categories fromthe satellite satellite; 6%- fieldsurvey) differed due to
image classification, and the fieldsurvey inherent differences inthe methods used to
data This provides a calibration between identify them and inthe ways they have been
the twosurveys and greatly extends their defined. However, tointegrate the two
applications. sources ofinformation, the fielddata can be
broken down intomore detailed categories.
Forexample, the fielddata showed that 44%
Land cover ofthe managed grass (satellite cover class)
was actually intensively managed. Most
Satellitelandcover map figures forcrops correspond toMinistryof
Agriculture. Fisheries and Food (MAFF)and
10 The land cover ofGreat Britainwas mapped Department ofAgriculture and Fisheries for
from satellite imagery. Atotal of17key Scotland (DAFS)statistics. For example, for
cover classes were used tocompare withthe oil-seed rape, both figures were 410 000 ha.
CS1990 fielddata categories. The data have Although the total figure forwheat and barley
been summarised ata 1km square level, and combined was similar, the breakdown
incorporated intothe CIS. Managed grass between the twocrops was different between
covered the largest area inBritain(27%), the 031990 estimate and the MAFF/DAFS
followed by tilled land (21%)and open shrub figures.
heath moor (12%). England was
predominantly tilled land and managed grass 14 Differences between data from fieldsurvey
(66%), whereas semi-natural vegetation and satellite imagery were quantified by inter-
dominated inScotland (57%)and Wales comparison ofdigital maps using GIS. Direct
(39%). correspondence was 67%. though thisfigure
increased toatleast 71% ifboundary pixels
II Although inthe arable landscapes tilled land were excluded from the comparison (and was
comprised 41%ofthe land cover, managed better forsome cover types than others).
grasslands were significant at 29%..The Differences were due tothe image analysis
pattern was reversed inthe pastural procedures, discrepancies infield recording,
landscapes. with39% managed grasslands and minor geometric registration enors.
and 22%tilled land; more landwas also
covered by semi-natural vegetation 15 The CIScan be used tocompare summaries
categories. Inthe marginal upland of regions using the two procedures. The
6