L A N D U T IL IZ A T IO N I N E A S T E R N E U R O P E T e n p ap ers in N o. IV o f t h e S eries co n ta in a b u n d a n t i n f o r m a tio n o n th e v a rio u s fo rm s a n d w a y s o f lan d u tiliz a tio n in s o m e e ig h t E a s t E u ro p e a n c o u n tr ie s . T h e m eth o d s a n d p ro b lem s e n c o u n te r e d in e v a lu a tin g a n d t y p i f y in g lan d s are in tro d u c e d so a s t o p e r m i t a n in sig h t in to t h e s t r e n u o u s w o rk w ith w hich th e p a r t i c i p a n t s o f th e B u d a p e st C o n feren ce, 1964, wish to se rv e th e p r a c t ic a l n e e d s o f th e ir n a tio n a l ec o n o m ies.
I t becom es c le a r from t h is b o o k w h y la n d u tiliz a tio n s u r v e y — t h a t p a rtic u la r b ra n c h o f a g ro g e o g r a p h y — h a s rec e n tly c ro p p e d u p fro m th e soils of p h y s ic a l a n d e c o n o m ic g eo g rap h y , c la im in g e v e r-b ro a d e n in g a tte n tio n f o r t h e p r a c tic a l a n d learn ed c o n c e rn s lin k e d up w ith it. These t h o u g h t- p ro v o k in g stu d ie s will b e c e r t a i n ly a p p re c ia te d in all c o u n tr ie s w h e r e th e in tr ic a te q u e s tio n s o f o v e rp o p u la tio n an d a n i n a d e q u a t e a g ric u ltu re have b e c o m e a m a j o r public in te re st.
A K A D É M IA I K IA D Ó
LAND U T IL IZ A T IO N IN E A S T E R N E U R O P E
STUDIES IN GEOGRAPHY IN HUNGARY, 4
Chief E d ito r:
MÁRTON P É C S I E d ito rial Board:
GYÖRGY E N Y 'E D I SÁ ND OR M A RO SI LÁSZLÓ SIM O N JE N Ő S Z IL Á R D
LAND UTILIZATION IN EASTERN EUROPE
edited by
B É L A SÁ R FA L V I
4
A K A D É M I A I K I A D Ó , B U D A P E S T 1967
© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 1967
Responsible fo r t h e p u b licatio n G y ö rg y B e rn é t D irector of th e P u blishing H o u se of th e H ungarian A cadem y o f Sciences an d th e A c a d e m y Press. R esponsible E d ito r Im re G om bos.
Technical E d ito r Is tv á n Bogdán
CONTENTS
Intro d u ctio n 7
K ostrow icki, J .
M ethods applied in elab o ratin g th e m aterial of la n d utilization su rv e y 9 A rm and, D. L.
The role of S o v iet geographers in land recording a n d appraisal 19 B iegajlo, W.
Polish land utilization su rv ey in th e years 1960-64 28 H offm ann, Z.
The recen t s ta te of land u tiliz a tio n research in Czechoslovakia 35 Ivaniőka, K.
The land u tilizatio n m ap of th e KoSice region 37
R oubitschek, W .
The regional p a tte rn of livestock farm ing in th e G erm an D em ocratic R epublic 45 G rum äzescu, H .
The n a tu ra l landscape and th e lan d use 54
Io rd an o v , T.
The application of ag ricu ltu ral profiles in lan d u tilizatio n m aps 59 KlemenciS, V. an d Crkvenciő, I.
The m apping of lan d utilizatio n in Y ugoslavia 67
E n y ed i, Gy.
A brief characterization of th e agricultural lan d utilization in H u n g a ry 74
5
IN T R O D U C T IO N
Land utilization su r v e y , initiated b y L. D. Stam p, w as first ad ap ted in Poland of all th e countries of East E u rop e. Here, under th e vigorous an d genuine direction of J. K ostrow icki, h ig h ly effective m eth od s of lan d utilization su rv ey have been developed. A t t h e X V IIIth IG U Congress h eld in Rio de Janeiro 1956, P rofessor K ostrow icki could report already on considerable resu lts. R y the sam e Congress h e w a s appointed as ordinary m em ber to the Com m ission of W orld Land U se S u rvey.
In th e period b etw een 1956 a n d 1960 th e research in la n d utilization su rv ey also gained ground in sev era l other countries of E ast E urope (Soviet U n io n , Y ugoslavia, H ungary), a n d further results were reported upon at the X I X t h IGU Congress in S tock h olm , where a Y ugoslavian (S. Ilesié) and a H ungarian geographer (Gy. E n y e d i) were ap p oin ted as corresponding mem bers o f the C om m ission. By th en , tim e was ripe for the co-ordination of the w ork of land u tiliz a tio n surveys in E ast E urope. The geographers of this area assem bled in W arsaw in 1 9 6 0 as guests of th e G eographical Research I n stitu te of the P o lish Academ y o f Sciences. This m eetin g proved to be a very im p ortan t step to w a rd s a more in te n siv e co-operation,* and w e m a y freely acknow ledge th a t th e decisions m a d e by the participants of th e conference did n o t remain d ead letters. C o llectiv e field w orks conducted b y team s of P o lish , Bulgarian, Y ugoslavian, C zechoslovakian and H ungarian researchers and subsequent publications t e s t if y to this. N otw ith stan d in g its significance as a m ilestone, th e W arsaw C onference had ev id en ced hardly m ore than the in itia l stages of p ractical in v estig a tio n s for m ost o f th e countries concerned.
The lectures—w ith th e only e x c e p tio n of the P olish contributor’s— deal w ith m a tters of m eth od s and planned projects rather than w ith a ctu a l results a ch iev ed in field w ork .
T h e second m e e tin g was organized b y the G eographical R esearch In stitu te of th e Hungarian A cad em y of S cien ces in B u d ap est in 1964. Ten participants (authors of the p apers in the p resen t volum e), representing eig h t different cou n tries, and sev era l H ungarian agrogeographers and agrarian econom ists a tte n d in g the m e e tin g , reported o n considerable progress on th is occasion, and arrived at a profound u n d erstan d in g in m a n y a question concerning m ean s and m ethods of research. A ccordingly, it has becom e p ossib le now to em bark upon in v estig a tio n s on a n international scale, and th ere is every reason for us to h o p e th at the agrogeographical stu d ies con d u cted in various
* T h e lectures h eld a t th e m eeting w e re published u n d e r th e title of “ L a n d U tilization M ethods and Problem s o f Research” . G eographical S tudies No. 31. W arsaw , 1962.
7
countries will serve n o t only scien tific, but also p ractical concerns (viz. the jo in t plans of CM EA including th o se relating to th e regional developm ent o f th e boundary zo n es). The sig n ifica n t results as propounded a t this con
feren ce in m atters o f m eth o d offered ground for th e establishm ent o f th e IGU R egion al Sub-C om m ittee of Land U tilization S u r v e y in the E a st European Countries.
The participants w ere given an o p p ortu n ity to v isit some co-operatives and sta te farms in order to stu d y on th e spot th e variou s characteristic forms o f la n d utilization in H ungary (cereal production, pig-breeding, viticulture, m ead ow - and pasture m an agem en t on former m arshlands, production of rye an d potatoes on p oor-q u ality sa n d y soils, in ten sive cattle-breed ing, vegetable grow in g under irrigation; vine- and fru it cultures on fixed blow n-sand areas, e tc .).
The m ain points of th e lectures an d discussions, as w ell as of th e inform ation gath ered in th e field , have been sum m arized in a com prehensive working program m e, th e m o st im p ortan t ite m s of w hich are as follows:
1. In order to fu rth er th e co-operation of the geographers of E a st Europe, th e R egional S u b -C om m ittee of th e IG U Com m ission of W orld L and Use S u r v e y has been esta b lish ed w ith J . K ostrow icki as President of th e Sub- C om m ittee. E ach p articip atin g co u n try has th e righ t to delegate several m em bers and a vice-p resid en t to th e S ub-C om m ittee.
2. A rrangem ent has been m ad e for the m u tu al exchange of publications and jo in t edition of w orks m ade in com m on.
3. J o in t field-w ork has been considered to be th e m ost profitable w ay of co-operation. The n e x t collective field-w ork will b e carried out in D alm atia in 1965,* w ith th e p articip ation of P olish , Y u goslavian , C zechoslovakian and H ungarian geographers.
4. The Su b -C om m ittee’s n e x t m e etin g to be h eld in Ljubljana (Yugoslavia) in 1967, will be organized b y th e G eographical D ep artm en t of th e Ljubljana U n iv ersity .
T his volum e in itse lf is a d o cu m en t of co-operation betw een th e East E uropean geographers. A ll th e p articip atin g countries of the Sub-C om m ittee h a v e contributed in a w a y or oth er to the m aterial com piled. Thus th e tex t w as printed and p u b lished in H u n gary, while th e colour maps w ere drafted in P olan d and printed in C zechoslovakia.
G yörgy E nyedi
* This proposition w as carried o u t in M ay 1965.
METHODS APPLIED IN ELABORATING THE MATERIAL OF LAND UTILIZATION SURVEY
J . K O S T R O W I C K I (Poland)
E laboration of land u tilization su rvey m aterial has in v iew both co g n itiv e and practical purposes. The questions of m ethods concerning this w ork are all th e m ore im portant since a su rvey u su a lly amasses a great deal of v alu ab le m aterial w hich for p oin ts of read ab ility is n o t plotted o n to th e m aps, le t alone one single m ap, and th en , also, because w e could not so far solve th e problem of printing colour-m aps in a sa tisfa cto ry w ay. As a resu lt, a sizable part of the m aterial is hardly availab le to people concerned.
For reasons like th ese, th e question of m ethods b y w h ich the m ass of col
lected m aterial can be elaborated has been facing us ev er since a d etailed research of land u tiliza tio n was sta rted in Poland. W e planned a t first to work up all survey m aterial, but it soon turned out t h a t an all-round elabo- A ± ration was n ot feasible, esp ecially in th e first stage w hen th e m ethods o f su rvey
‘ T* changed frequently. L ater on, w hen th e scope of research expanded, w e often lacked th e m eans and possibilities of elaboration. As a result on ly part of th e m aterial has been w orked up and published. In order to im prove th e sta te of affairs, selected su rv ey areas h a v e been made th e m e s of doctor th eses dealing w ith th e land u tilization and agriculture of certain sub-regions w hich u sually cover 4 to 6 counties each (4 to 6 thousand sq. kilom etres).* Apart from sta tistica l data and bibliographical references, th e theses, as a rule, present general surveys o f th e entire region but som etim es also d etailed ones for selected units (villages, sta te farm s), th u s representing the various ty p es of land u tilization. I am not going to discuss here th e en tire course of progress th a t has been experienced since th e earliest m aterial w as collected in M rasgowo co u n ty under th e gu id an ce of K . D ziew onski, th en th o se obtained from Bielsk P odlaski**, G dansk, K rosno, Lim anow a, K oszalin , Suw alki and other counties were elaborated. G radually, b y trial and error, w e have developed our m ethods w hich are know n from som e of the ty p e-w ritten papers on Bulgarian villages, and from other stu d ies prepared for print as a jo in t work under th e title: Land U tilization in E a st Central E u rop e, Case S tu d ies.***
i t goes w ith o u t sayin g th a t further in vestigation s and experim ents w ill help
f
' F or instance N ida B asin, C uiavian P lain , W arsaw S u b u rb an Zone, The m o u th are a of V istula river, etc.
* * The stu d y com m enced in 1958 b y J . P asznicki was never com pleted.
*** L and U tilization in P e ta rc h . D erm an tsi an d L azar Stanevo b y J . K ostrow icki, I. V elchev, Z. Borisov, W . Stola, S. H au zer and W . K usinski based on B u lg arian —Polish field research- work in B ulgaria in 1960.
9
to develop ou r m ethods. M oreover, some p a rts— to be d iscu ssed below— are particularly in need of m e th o d ic elaboration.*
The abridged English and F rench versions of the in stru ction s have been extended to in clu d e particular experiences acquired during in vestigation s in other countries. These, in fa c t, incorporate b u t few pages o f general remarks on the su b ject.
Apart from defining the sc ie n tific and p ractical purposes, these remarks primarily in d ic a te th at an ela b o ra tio n of this k in d should consider both external conditions an d internal fea tu res of land u tiliza tio n and that, th e analyses of th e particular elem ents sh o u ld also seek to present a sy n th e tic survey of the area under ex am in ation .
(a) As regards the determ in in g conditions, i.e. both th e ph ysical and the social-econom ic and tech n ical factors w hich m a y be eith er appearing now or have a lo n g er past to look b a ck upon in th e area, it seem s th a t although th ese are n o t direct subjects o f land u tilization survey, th e y should be th or
ou gh ly a n alysed b y sp ecialists o f the natural sciences (p h ysical geographers, geologists, p ed o lo g ists, b o ta n ists, etc.), as w ell as of the social sciences (eco
nom ic geographers, h istorians, econom ists, sociologists, e tc.).
Now, how th o se premises h a v e been pu t in to effect in our elaborations prepared so far?
As regards ph ysical co n d itio n s, all our elaborations, w h eth er concerning Poland or o th e r countries, in c lu d e a characterization of th e particular ele
m ents of th e natural en v iro n m en t and p h y sica l properties o f soil which to a lesser or g rea ter exten t j u s t if y th e actual form s and w ays o f th e utilization o f the area. O n th e other h a n d , how ever, no su ch syn th etic presentations have appeared so far as would seek to evaluate th e w h ole of the p h y sica l conditions from the p o in t o f view to w h a t e x te n t the en sem b le is su ita b le for the actual form s of land u tilization, n o t to speak of concrete propositions concerning th e further d evelop m en t in t h e lin e of a more effectiv e u tiliza tio n of the given physical p rop erties. No a tte m p ts have been m a d e so far to prepare qualifying m aps of the geographical co n d itio n s. (Such m ap s have been provided by som e o f the B ritish su rveys, or b y t h e Soviet or A m erican geographers.) E specially m aps based on precise m easu rem en t data are b a d ly needed b y th e agricultural planners in our countries. T h erefore it seem s im p erative to w ork out m ethods o f such an e v a lu a tio n , if la n d u tilization su rv ey is to be scien tifica lly useful an d practically valuable. This k in d of evalu ation should concern not so m uch th e particular elem ents of n a tu r a l environm ent approached from the point o f view of e c o n o m y as a w h o le, n o t even the ex istin g forms o f lan d utilization, b u t it should rath er consider t o w hat degree th e physical conditions in th e area are ad v a n ta g eo u s or d isad van tageou s for th e requirem ents of the partic
ular forms, w a y s , orientations an d types of th is u tilization, or on the reverse:
w h a t forms or w a y s of land u tiliz a tio n w ould b e m ost p rofitab le on the in v es
tig a ted area. (In result we c o u ld g et maps q u a lify in g precisely and in a m eas
urable w ay th e su itab ility of t h e natural con d ition s of th e n atu ral environ
m en t for th e diverse section s, branches and orientations of econom y.) Such
* See 4 successive instructions in Polish: D o k u m en tac ja G eograficzna 1956, 1, 35 p .;
1959, 2, 81 p .; 1959/60, 2, 124 p .; 1962. 4, 128 p.
m aps, supplem ented by oth ers reflecting th e actual forms of lan d u tilization could provide b o th scientific an d practical inform ation for agricultural p la n ners whose ta sk is to suggest decisions w ith a view of ch an gin g the current form s and w a y s of land u tiliza tio n for b etter and more reasonable ones.
As far as historical, social-econom ic and technical con d ition s are con cerned, the elaborations c o n ta in , as a rule, som e notes w hich are n ot alw ays sy stem a tica lly arranged or w e ll su b stan tiated . O bviously, su ch elaborations should strive, w ith ou t g e ttin g too much in v o lv ed into h istorical m atters, to explain b riefly what p a st, or present, social-econom ic and technical co n ditions (political system s, econ om ic policy, com m unication- and marketing- possibilities, cu ltu ral and te ch n ica l level of th e population and so on) h a v e contributed to th e d evelop m en t of the e x istin g forms, w ays and orientations of land u tilization in a given region . W hat are th e possibilities and lim itation s as regards ch an ges and transform ations in th is field?
(b) The characteristic features are the proper subject of su rv ey , and it is th ese that first o f all are reflected in the m aterial collected b y m eans of obser
v a tio n , gathered from in terview s, from various sources of inform ation and sta tistica l data.
It seems th a t th e elaboration of these characteristics is dep en d in g on th e purpose and scien tific in terest of the in v estig a to r concerned either w ith som e selected forms (agricultural use of lan d and its variou s branches:
w oodland, w aters, settlem en ts, etc.) or w ith th e m utually in tercon n ected and correlated form s of land u tiliz a tio n w hich occur in the area under ex a m i
nation.
The m ost ad van ced m eth od s in the stu d ies m ade so far h a v e been th ose which relate to th e agricultural utilization of land.
In a num ber of recently co m p leted works th e y are m ain ly concerned w ith determ ining th e various ty p e s of agricultural use of land, or rather w ith th e ty p o lo g y of agriculture.
The follow ing features or characteristics of agriculture are exam ined in th o se elaborations:
(1) Q uestions o f ownership — a field of problem s th at used to b e referred to as th e sole su b ject of land u tiliza tio n su rveys, and in F ren ch studies has been term ed structure agraire, nam ely: d istin ction of th e variou s forms of ow nership (com m on, p rivate, co-operative, state); sources o f m anpow er (fam ily labour, hired labour, ten a n cy ); size o f farms, shape of land tra cts, fragm entations and scattering o f land, and so on. The h isto rica l changes in the w ays, orien tation s and efficien cy of agricultural land u tiliza tio n should be detailed to su ch an ex ten t o n ly as is really necessary for an ad eq u ate e x p la nation of the a c tu a l state of affairs.
(2) O rganizational and te c h n ic a l m atters, i.e. m ethods, orien tation s and in ten sity of la n d use, which ta k e n all togeth er constitute th e system of land u tilization , are considered e ith er b y branches or jointly for th e en tirety of the area. In b o th cases the area is regarded a basis of calcu lation s and com parisons.
W ays of land utilization em b race all th e operations and m easures under
tak en with a v ie w to ensuring crop harvest and preserving or im proving soil fe r tility . In resp ect of arable la n d , the m easures and operations include crop
11
rotation, m eth od s of soil cu ltiv a tio n and crop m an agem en t, manuring, m ech a
nization, irrigation, drainage, field enclosure, terracing, anti-erosion m easures, plant p rotection , m eth od s o f h arvestin g, etc. The operations are m anifold and greatly d ifferen tiated , depending on th e crops and consequently cannot be m easured q u a n tita tiv e ly . T hey are expressed b y m ean s of various indices which h ard ly allow a n y com parison b etw een each o th er. That is th e reason w h y such gu id in g characteristic should b e searched for as would reflect the com bination o f the m ain o p erative factors. Crop rotation is frequently regarded as such, and th is explains w h y so m uch a tten tio n has b een paid to it b oth in the survey itse lf and in th e cham ber w ork. It is by no m ean s certain, how ever, whether crop rotation sy ste m co n stitu tes, especially in th e case of a w ell- developed, in ten siv e agriculture, an a d eq u a tely rep resen tative elem en t by which th e overall picture o f th e w ays o f la n d u tilization can be characterized.
That is w h y th e crop ro ta tio n data n eed further su p p lem en tary inform ation on the standards of m ech an ization , m anuring, m an-pow er supply, etc.
The direction of land u tiliza tio n m eans sp ecialization for certain k in d s of crops of th e g iven farm or area. Since th ere are very m a n y kinds of cu ltiv a b le crops, and som e of th em are sim ilar to or com p lem en tary of others, it w ould be rather d ifficu lt to o b ta in a clear pictu re if each o f th em were considered separately. Therefore crops are classed in to groups o f sim ilar agrotechnique and natural requirem ents (such as h a b ita t, labour exp en d itu re, precipitation, manuring, crop rotation , e tc.).
Concerning th e perennial crops, th e n ew elaborations reflect the w a y s in which th eir sow ing areas are utilized (forms o f c u ltiv a tio n , system of m anur
ing, irrigation, drainage, terracing, h arvestin g, anim al- and plant-protection, etc.) and con tain in form ation as to th e d evelop m en tal stage of uniform , m ixed and coordinate form s of land use. The a tte m p t at determ ining the expectable p attern of sp ecialization on th e basis of q u a n tita tiv e participation of the various kinds o f crops, as was first th ou gh t feasib le for th e “ Land U tilization , Case S tu d ies” , cannot be regarded as q u ite successful, ow in g to the incorrect com m on com parable m easure adopted. T he m ethod, therefore, should be w orked ou t in such countries w ere perennial crops play a more d istin ctive role than in P o la n d . The d eterm ination o f th e w ays of th e u tili
zation of perm anent grasslands considers b y and large th e same points (cu lti
vation, m anuring, irrigation, drainage, reseeding, h a rv estin g by m an u al or m echanical m ow ing, grazin g and its variou s forms, e tc .). More problem atic is, however, th e quantitative differentiation of th e products harvested from m ead
ows and pastures. The h a b ita t of such crops has b een accepted as basis
— for lack of other m ea n s— though on ly approxim ate v a lu es can be o b tain ed by this.
A lthough th e livestock is n o t alw ays d irectly depending upon the local yield s of land, th e indirect in flu en ce it has upon th e w ays, orientations and o u tp u ts of arables and perm anent grassland u tiliza tio n m akes it necessary th a t also m aterial concerning th e liv esto ck h u sb an d ry of the region should be collected . An overall appraisal o f th e livestock is u su ally accom plished by em p loyin g the con ven tion al units (for instance, big anim al un its). As for the orientations of stockbreeding, it is a m u ch more d ifficu lt proposition. In this respect the percentual share of th e liv esto ck species cannot provide a reliable basis, since
the production values are greatly depending on the ty p e of anim al h usband ry (for in stan ce: bacon or lard in pig breeding, or beef or dairy in cattle breeding, etc.). Therefore, special coefficients h a v e to be introduced in order to reflect in com parable term s the efficiency of stockbreeding according to species and orientations.
The in ten sity of agricultural land u tiliza tio n interpreted num erically as the quotient of labour- and capital in v estm en t per unit area is considered as a gen erally accepted m easure for all form s of agricultural land use (including utilization b y stockbreeding). N otw ith sta n d in g its wide currency, th e a p p li
cation of th is m eth od raises m any problem s, especially w hen a larger nu m b er of areal u n its are in v estig a ted . The elaborations m ade so far follow ed either the m eth o d of determ ination of the proportion b y which th e in ten sive branches participate in th e structure of agricultural production (intensive crops, stockbreeding, etc.), or th e m ethod of selecting som e rep resen tative factors of in te n sity w hich are ea sy to m easure, for instance: em p loym en t, n u m b er of draught anim als, m anuring, num ber of m achines, tractors per unit area, etc., or, fin a lly , th e m eth od of coefficients of in ten sity of various crops an d ele
m ents of stockbreeding (a German m eth od adapted for Polish con d ition s by W . Schram m , B . K ópéé and others).
E ach of th e above m ethods has its ad vantages and d isad van tages, but none of th em is fu lly satisfactory for th e spatial in vestigation s of agricultural land u tiliza tio n . Therefore w e have resum ed studies w ith a view to w orking out m ore suitable but n ot too labour-absorbing m ethods.
(3) P roduction characteristics, th a t is, th e results or o u tp u ts of production are u su a lly presented jo in tly for all form s of agricultural land u tiliza tio n . It is n ecessary to settle w hether gross or n et production (gross w ith o u t prod
ucts used up for reproduction purposes) should be tak en as a basis of deter
m in ation , and also th e u n its in w hich agricultural production is m easured have to he settled . W ith th e net p roduction m ethod it is possible to avoid the double in v o lv em en t of certain elem en ts of production, but gross produc
tion ensures a m uch broader ap p licab ility and m akes calculation m uch easier.
S im ilarly, th e adoption of some m on etary unit as a com m on m easure o f pro
duction w idens th e ap p licab ility of calculations (to cover th e w hole field of incom es, for instance) b u t th e v a ria b ility and in sta b ility of the prices under
m ine com parability, in tim e and space, of the production values. A nd com p arab ility is of param ount im portance for geographical research.
C onsidering all th is, w e h ave elaborated m ost of our su rv ey m aterial m aking departure from th e gross production valu es expressed in natural (cereal) units. Our elaborations have been u su a lly focussed on th e follow ing production characteristics of agriculture:
P ro d u ctivity (gross or n et production per unit area);
E fficien cy (gross production in relation to labour and capital in v estm en ts);
M a rk eta b ility (m arket production per unit area or share of m ark et pro
duction in gross or n et production);
O rientation, m ain ly elaborated b y exam in in g the proportions, first of all, b etw een crop and anim al yields, and th en also betw een those o f various branches of agriculture, and fin ally th e dom inating elem en ts of production in th e particular groups. The procedure is very sim ilar when it com es to
13
determ ining th e orientation or specialization of m arket production. As regards crop yields, th e products are d iv id ed , as of la te , in to food, fodder and industrial crops w ith q u ite a num ber o f sub-groups, and as regards anim al production, according to p rod u cts and sp ecies of anim als w hich provide them . Capital letters are em p lo y e d to in d ic a te either crop production (V) or anim al pro
d u ctio n (A) w h ile sm all letters indicate th e d om in atin g groups which share V>ver 20% of th e gross p rod u ction , as w ell as crop and anim al species pre
vailing in each o f th e groups. So the m ain orientations are distinguished according to th e follow ing m eth o d :
Percentage o f crops
in to ta l p ro d u c tio n S p ecificatio n Sym bol
80 m a i n l y c r o p v 4
60-80 c r o p v 3 A,
40-60 m i x e d W a2
20-40 a n i m a l V i A 3
-2 0 m a i n l y a n i m a l a4
And then, orien tation s of agricultural p roduction are expressed in full sym bols. Here are som e ex a m p les:
m ainly crop, food, vegetable crop, food, w h eat-b eet w ith p ig
breeding
mixed croji-livestock, w h eat-su g arb eet w ith pig b reeding
mixed crop-livestock, food-fodder, rye- -clover a n d d airy -m eat, c a ttle -p ig breeding
mixed livestock-crop, fodder p a stu re - m eat-w ool, cattle-sh eep b re e d in g livestock, d a iry -m e a t, c a ttle -p ig w ith
crop p ro d u c tio n , fodder p o ta to e s- oats
V ^ a j v + ijbs ) + .4 j ( .s v )
13 (O jfc + ijbs) - (- A j f s c )
V2(atsc + plir)+ A 2(M1 +
V ÁP2 — Pl ) + A 2(bm + ° ” )
1 ,(.s-i -+- as) + A 3 ( s e 2 + bl,)
First the prop ortion b etw een p lan t growing (V ) and stockbreeding (A) has to be established. O m itting ite m s below 20% , w e use as in d ex numbers 1 for 20% to 4 0 % , 2 for 40% to 60% , 3 for 6 0 % to 80% , and 4 for denoting participation a b o v e 80% . For exam p le, the sy m b o l characterizing the agri
culture of a region w here a p la n t production o f 7 0 % is coupled w ith a stock- breeding of 3 0 % is VsA v W h en breaking dow n these valu es, w e further distinguish th e proportions o f p la n t groups an d kinds of anim al products, resp ., by using sm a ll-letter sy m b o ls and in d ex num bers again (no index is
show n for values below 20% , th ou gh here th ese m ay be represented). The lead in g crop or crops in th e plant groups are follow ed by such ones the p a rtic
ip a tio n of w hich is equal to at least 8 0 % of th e main crop.
F or exam ple, th e agricultural structure of an area expressed b y th e sym b ol V ^ci^vh^y -f- fpmz -|- ijbs) - |- A ^ dc x p k ) m xl
can be w orded like this:
In a prom inantly plant growing area ( I7., = 00% to 80% ) th e share of food crops («-,) is 20% to 40% , in w h ich w h ea t (wh) holds th e lead follow ed b y rye (r y ) w ith a proportion equal to 8 0 % of that of the w h ea t; forage crops sim ilarly participate w ith 20% to 4 0 % in th e agricultural production (w ith m aize as a leading plant); of the in d u stria l plants of eq u al p articip ation , sugarbeet (bs) predom inates. A su b ord in ate stockbreeding (Af) is represented b y d airy cattle (cd) and porkers (pk), b u t n on e of them exceeds 2 0 % (therefore no in d ex num ber is given ), m ain p rod u cts are milk (Ü) and m e a t (m).
The agriculture of an y selected region can be easily characterized b y m eans of k ey-w ords abbreviated in th e sty le of th e list which has p roved to be h igh ly satisfactory in th e course of Polish survey:
L is t o f Abbreviations in the Form ulas
A anim al production m m eat
a food (alim entary) crops mb m alting b arley
ap apples mh meadow h ay
at apricots mx mixtures
b beef mz maize
bf fodder beets ol olives
bl barley or oranges
bs sugar beets ot oats
bu buffaloes P pigs
c cattle pc peaches
cb beef cattle pg pom egranates
cd dairy cattle pk pork
ch cherries pi poultry
cs sour cherries ps pastures
cv clover pt potatoes
d dairy r root crops v eg eta b le
E extensive (exhaustive) rp rape
crops rr rearing
e eggs rV rye
f fodder crops S structure form ing cr<
fg figs s succulent forage
fr fodder roots sh sheep
ft fruits sm m u tto n sheep
g grain crops sr Serradella
gt goats st straw
h rough forage sw straw berries
hn honey V p lan t production
I intensive crops 0 grapes
i industrial crops Vg vegetables
l milk w wool
ic lucerne wh w heat
ip lupine wm wool sheep
15
All such characteristics can w ell serve a basis for th e determ ination of ty p e as a com bined exp ression of w ays, orien tation s and effects of land use as m ay h a v e ev o lv ed under conditions o f a given p h y sica l environm ent in a given period of social-econom ic d ev elo p m en t. N ev erth eless, no m ethod has y e t been esta b lish ed for a close integration of these typ e-d eterm in in g charac
teristics. Therefore our ty p o lo g y is based on a set of arbitrarily selected p oin ts of determ ination rather th a n on precise m eth od s of in tegration .
As a m a tte r of fact, m ost of the elaborations prepared so far covered but sm all areas, an d even so th e problem o f d eterm in ation h as been reduced to labelling th e ty p e s w ith th e m arks of th e m o st rep resen tative environm ental, production e tc . features. A d m itted ly , th is w a y of d elim itation is very prob
lem atic; th e m eth od s of a m ultigrade hierarchical ty p o lo g y has only la te ly been placed on ex a ct, m easurable fou n d ation s. The above-m entioned jo in t elaboration of selected v illa g es of the E a st E uropean countries was th e first a ttem p t— as a sum m ing up of th e w hole w o rk — to carry out a com plex work of typ ology.
As has been indicated ab o v e, the m eth od of elab oratin g other forms of land use le a v e s m uch m ore to be w ished. I t seem s th a t th e m ethods w h ich have been ad op ted so far for agricultural elaborations m ight be follow ed to some e x te n t. Thus, for in stan ce, as regards th e u tiliza tio n of forest areas, one can trace th e various form s of ow nership (com m unal, individual, social, etc.), then th e size, shape and fragm en tation of forest land.
As for th e organizational and technical features, w e can group the forest lands as follow s:
1. unm anaged and unexploited 2. ex p lo ited b u t unm anaged 3. ex p lo ited and m anaged by
(a) to ta l felling (b) selectiv e cu ttin g
(c) lim ited ex p lo ita tio n 4. m an aged b u t n o t exp loited
It is also possible to m easure the in te n sity of op eration s and the m eans em ployed in forest u tiliza tio n , as w ell as its orien tation s. In elaborating th e survey m aterial, the la tte r has been d eterm ined so far— m o stly according to th e com p osition — by m ean s of scale reflectin g p revalen ce or co-prevalence of th e particular species of trees. In the case of natural forest areas, the co m position of w ood s so determ ined corresponds in principle to habitat ty p es or associations. A com parison of such classification s— in transform ed or a r ti
ficial w ood s— reveals divergences w hich alon g w ith th e determ ining co n d i
tions, m ay furnish the basis for the ev a lu a tio n of th e econ om y of forest h u s
bandry. A p art from th e ty p e of tree-cover, th e elaborations analyse also such im portant features as: age and d en sity of tree-cover, utilization of in ter
calary and b y-p rod u cts, as w ell as th e size of m an agem en t, efficiency, etc . Ownership, organ ization -tech n ical and production characteristics could h a v e been regarded as proper bases of ty p o lo g y o f forest u tiliza tio n . So far, how ever, neither th e principles nor th e m ethods of such ty p o lo g y h a v e been worked o u t.
The situ ation is very m uch sim ilar as far as w ater u tilization is concerned.
H ere again ow nership characteristics prim arily enter in to consideration.
The w ays of u tilization , how ever, have o n ly a secondary im p ortan ce as co m pared to th e orientations of u tilization w h ich — in this in sta n c e — are q u ite num erous (w ater supply, n a v ig a tio n , tou rist purposes, agricultural u tilization , fishing, etc.). It is only in fishing th at our elaborations o ccasion ally determ ine th e orientations and production features of w ater u tiliza tio n . B io-fish in g ty p e s o f w aters h ave been classified either according to h a b ita ts or th e stru c
ture of fish catching.
S ettlem en ts m ay be classified in tw o different classes of ty p o lo g y — a p h y s
iognom ic and a functional one. The form er analyses the la y o u t plans, zon in g of th e settlem en t and th e tech n ical features of building (h eigh t, building m aterials, e tc.), w hile th e la tter concerns th e econom ic relations o f th e s e ttle m en ts. S urvey m aterial could not be w ell exp loited for th is purpose so far, ow ing to th e survey scale (1 : 25,000) w hich is too com prehensive to ap p ly to settlem en ts. A sm all num ber of elaborations m ade at a detailed scale (1 : 5000) seem to corroborate th is view .
A nd finally w e have to ow n th a t th e problem s connected w ith th e m eth od of synthetic elaboration of all land u tilization forms as a w h o le h a v e not been settled as y e t. This is n ot a case of mere com parison of p ercen tage shares of the various form s of land u tilization , nor even a case of such an attem p t as the Polish geographer W . O rm icki m ade before th e war on th a t basis. It is a case of a full, syn th etic ty p o lo g y of land u tilization , the ru d im en ts of w hich, not based as a rule on land u tilization su rvey, can be found in th e literature.
Such a ty p o lo g y is still ahead of us.
R E F E R E N C E S
Bi e g a j l o, W. (1959) G ospodarka rolna na Zulaw ach. W ies R adunica (F arm in g in G dansk- Zulaw y. Village of R adunica), P rzeglad G eograficzny 31, 2, pp. 345—369. E nglish sum m ary.
Bi e c a j l o, W. (1960) G ospodarka rolna w powiecie gdanskiul. (F arm in g in th e G d an sk C ounty.) D okum entacja Geograficzna 1, pp. 1—59.
Je i.o n e k, A. (1961) Z b a d a n nad uáytkow aniem ziem i w powiecie lim anow skim . (From th e S tudies on L an d U tihzation in th e C ounty of Lim anow a.) Zeszyty N aukow e U n iv ersy tetu Jagiellonskiego. P race G eograficzne 4, pp. 71—96.
Ko p e c, B. (1957) M etoda sy n tety czn a w p rojektow aniu organizacji gospodarstw rolnych.
(A S y n th etic M ethod in P lanning th e O rganization of F arm s.) R oczniki N a u k R olniczych 75—G— 1, pp. 163— 195.
Ko p e c, B. (1962) E konom ika i organizacja gospodarstw rolnych w zarysie. (O utline of th e F a rm Econom ics and O rganization.) W arsaw , pp. 512.
KOSTROW ICKI, J . (1960) L and U tih zatio n S urvey as a Basis for G eographical T ypology of A griculture. Przeglad G eograficzny 32, Suppl. pp. 169— 183.
Ko s t r o w i c k i, J . (Í961) Polish L an d U tih zatio n Survey. Problem s of A pplied G eography.
I n s titu te of G eography of th e Polish A cadem y of Sciences. G eographical S tudies 25, p p.
45—55.
Ko s t r o w i c k i, J . (1962) Le S urvey polonais de l’u tilisatio n du sol. L and U tih zatio n . M ethods and Problem s of Research. I n s titu te of G eography of th e Polish A cadem y of Sciences.
G eographical S tudies 31, pp. 31— 58.
Ko s t r o w i c k i, J . (1964a) G eographical T ypology of A griculture in P oland. M ethods and P ro b lems. G eographia Polonica 1, pp. I l l — 146.
2 17
Ko s t r o w i c k i, J . (1964b) G eographical Typology of A griculture. Principles and M ethods. An In v ita tio n to D iscussion. G eographia Polonica, 2, pp. 159— 167.
Ko s t r o w ic k i, J . (1964c) T he Polish D etailed S u rv ey of L an d U tilization. M ethods an d T ech niques of R esearch. D o k u m en tac ja G eograficzna 2, 77 p.
Ko w a l c z y k, D. (1962) U äy tk o w an ie ziemi w powiecie suw alskim . (L an d U tilization in t h e C ounty of Suw alki.) D o k u m en tac ja G eograficzna 6, pp. 41— 77.
Or m i g k i, W . (1 9 3 2 ) P rzy czy n ek do kartografii u/.ylkow ania pow ierzchni ziemi. (A C o n trib u tio n to th e C arto g rap h y of th e U tilization of E a r th Surface.) S praw ozdania z Czynnosci i Posiedzen PA U 37, 10, p p . 34—35. E nglish sum m ary.
Pis k o r z-Sk o c k a, H . (1962) U zytkow anie ziem i w powiecie koszalinskim . (Land U tilizatio n in th e C ounty of K oszalin.) D okum entacja G eograficzna 6, pp. 7—39.
The R u ral L an d C lassification P rogram of P u erto -R ico . N o rth w estern U niversity. Studies in G eography 1, E v a n sto n . 111. 1952, 261 p.
Sc h r a m m, W . (1957) In ten sy w n o sc i p ro d u k ty w n o sc naszego rolnictw a (The In te n s ity and P ro d u c tiv ity of Polish A griculture), R oczniki N au k R olniczych 75—G— 1, pp. 1— 50.
English sum m ary.
St a m p, D udley L. (1962) T h e L an d of B ritain. Its Use and Misuse. L ondon, Longm ans, 546 p . SzclgSNY, R. (1959) G ospodarka rolna w B eskidzie Niskim. G ro m ad a Cergowa. (F arm in g in
th e Lower Beskids, Village of Cergowa.) P rzeglad G eograficzny 31, 3—4, pp. 629—-644.
Szcj^s n y, R. (1960) G ospodarka rolna w powiecie m yszkow skim . (F arm ing in th e M yszków D istrict.) D o k u m en tacja G eograficzna 1, pp. 60—-101.
SzcljiSNY, R .—Pi s k o r z, H .— Ra k o w i c z, J . (1959) S tu d ia nad uzytkow aniem ziem i w pow ie
cie m ragow skim . (S tudies on L and U tilization in th e M ragowo D istrict.) D okum entacja G eograficzna 1, 1Ó3 p.
THE ROLE OF SOVIET GEOGRAPHERS IN LAND RECORDING AND APPRAISAL
D. L. A R M A N D (USSR)
Prior to W orld W ar II, the efforts of S o v ie t physico-geographers were directed alm ost ex clu siv ely to th e stu d y o f geographical lan d scap es and p h ysical processes, w hile th o se of the econ om ic geographers to th e stu d y of th e lo c a tio n of productive forces. At th e en d of th e 40ies, w hen an ex ten siv e w ork w as started in order to transform n a tu re for th e benefit of agriculture, an in ter
m ed iate line dealing w ith the effect of social activities upon nature becam e of in terest. G eographers were n ot o n ly b u sy at evaluating landscapes to th e ends of subsequent im provem ent of th ese, bu t also p articip ated in drafting m elioration plans and m easures, lik e struggle against w ater- and w ind erosion, stab ilization of sh iftin g sands, field -p ro tectio n by afforestation , etc. B esid es a purely theoretical concern, geograp h y has also gained in p ractical im portance.
A t th at tim e th e specialists of agricu ltu re— agronom ists, forest m eliorators, hydrom eliorators— each working in his ow n line, follow ed separate w a y s of fig h tin g harm ful p h ysical effects. T hanks to the com p lex character of th e geographical sciences, a general u n d erstan d in g of the interrelations b etw een p h ysical and econom ic factors soon m ad e th e geographers realize how u n sa tis
factory and restricted these m easures were. They supported and ex p a n d ed th e concept of th e erosion sp ecia lists (A. S. K ozm enko, S. I. S ilv estro v ), according to w hich th e cause of h arm fu l process was a w ron g land u tiliza tio n and reasonable earal specialization and organization of land ex p lo ita tio n w ould be a prom ising solution (In stitu te of R egional O rganization, 1936).
It becam e also clear that to a ch iev e such specialization it is n ecessary to im prove th e m ethods of land recording, to introduce a q u a lita tiv e e v a lu a tio n of soils, and to set up a register o f lan d s. F inally, a register was su ggested for all arable lands, including such ones as are n ot affected b y ph ysical ad versities bu t could be b etter utilized under b e tte r organization. The realization of this progressive idea evok ed a le n g th y discussion, and thorough exp erim en ts were needed to discard an erroneous opinion which w as h eld at th a t tim e b y m an y econ om ists, according to w hom no land register was necessary in a planned econ om y where th e la n d is not subject to sale and p u rch ase.
In 1955 a team of geographers to o k an active part in th e work co n d u cted b y th e C om m ittee of the In stitu te of Soil Science, A ca d em y of S cien ces of th e U S S R . This C om m ittee w as b ro u g h t about in order to discuss a n ew plan of S ta te R egistration Book w ith a v ie w to land use. It co n ven ed a w id e co n ference in 1956 on th e q u a lita tiv e evalu ation of lan d , in co-operation w ith th e Moscow D ivision of the G eographical Society of th e U S S B . V olu m e 43 of th e series “V oprosy geografii” (Problem s of geography) published b y th e M oscow D ivision w as devoted to th e se proceedings.
2* 19
The conference has sh ow n th at a q u a lita tiv e ev a lu a tio n of land is partic
ularly n ecessary in th e so cia list countries w here such ev alu ation can furnish a scientific b asis of d ifferen tiated system s in agriculture, w h ich would guaran
tee m axim um o u tp u t w ith th e greatest p ossible preservation or even increase of soil fertility . It can su p p ly valuable p oin ts of departure for a land arrange
m en t w ithin s ta te - and co llectiv e farms, and for th e d isco v ery of th e p oten tia l reserves o f cu ltiv a b le lan d s. It m ay be useful further w hen it com es to selection of th e b e st eq u ip m en t and fertilizers, planning of m eliorative m eas
ures, and stru ggle again st d isad van tageou s physical con d ition s. All in all, a qualitative e v a lu a tio n o f lands is in d isp en sab le for nation al econom ists m aking plans for co llectiv e and state farm s, and m ay resu lt in a fair estim ate of the ob ligation s th e y m ain tain in resp ect of the S ta te , as well as in a correct price p olicy.
D espite differences in d eta ils, a uniform approach to the subject has been generally a ccep ted b y tb e participants o f th e conference. Fundam entally, th e various geograp h ical stan d -p oin ts m a y be sy n th etized in the following- concepts (A rm and, 1958):
(1) The sy ste m of registration should be b ased on a thorough appraisal of th e physical con d ition s to g e th e r w ith th o se properties of th e agricultural areas as m ay h a v e develop ed under th e in flu en ce of agricultural processes.
Such a com p lex registration cannot be replaced b y a sim p le delim itation in u nits of th e a c tu a lly e x istin g forms of land u tilization (typ es of arable lands, crop rotation, field s, brigade p lots), since such forms of la n d utilization m ight b e obsolete an d u n profitable as w ell. If we w a n t to im prove th e forms of land utilization b y m ean s of la n d evalu ation , w e m u st n ot c o n ten t ourselves w ith a mere collection o f data concerning the a ctu a l sta te of affairs, though th ey should be ta k en in to consideration in respect to their in flu en ce on the lands.
F or exam ple, th e boundaries of land plots to be in d icated on cadastre m aps should be settle d b y field in v estig a tio n s, and n o t copied from the plans of lan d use. H ow ever, both th e cadastre m aps and th e plans of land use should b e compiled an d com pared in order to d eterm ine the e x te n t to which the present organization of lan d u se is rational.
(2) The unit of ev a lu a tio n is th e “elem en tary p lo t” (“n atu ral landscape”)
— a territory uniform in properties th at are essen tial in th e selectio n of the form of land use. V ery often elem en tary plots coincide w ith th e spread of soil varieties. H ow ever, w hen th e area of one and th e sam e soil v a r ie ty is covered b y different k in d s of v eg e ta tio n (forest, m eadow , arable crops), or when
— owing to d ifferen t degrees of exposure— th e soil ripens for ploughing at different tim es or shows oth er divergencies n o t reflected in the soil m ap, the area should be divid ed in to smaller elem en tary plots.
(3) Strict d istin ctio n sh ou ld be m ade b etw een “soils” and “lands” . The su b ject of ev a lu a tio n are th e la tter. An ev a lu a tio n of th e territory by the g en etic type and granulom etric com position of soils is su b sta n tia l but insuf
ficien t. Soil an alysis cannot reflect such im p ortan t particulars as are, for in stan ce, m inor u n its of th e arable land, p ro x im ity to m ain farm establish
m en ts, steepness o f slope, situ a tio n overshadow ed b y forest or buildings, etc.
So in principle “ eq u al r ig h ts” o f different landscape com ponents becom e asserted, th ou gh th eir specific w eigh t is not th e sam e.
(4) The purpose of cadastre w ork is to provide the econom ic an d planning organs w ith all inform ation on th e lands in a m ost reliable w a y . That is to sa y , th ese data should contain all th e necessary inform ation on soils, relief, w a ter regime, e tc ., b u t they sh ou ld not include anything u n n eed ed . This last principle im plies th at all boundaries of soil varieties should b e o m itted from th e soil maps w hich cannot be considered as of practical im p ortan ce w hile w orking out th e tech n iq u e of lan d use. Q uite often the soil m ap o f a collective farm distinguishes m ore than th ir ty soil varieties, each in te n s and hundreds of contours; it is obvious that th e m ethods o f land use ca n n o t be broken down to such details.
M any of these suggestions h a v e been readily accepted b y th e conference w hich also analysed th e deficiencies of the present system of la n d registration.
D uring the 50ies there started a m ass com pilation of large-scale soil m aps in th e U SSR , w hich work is n ot q u ite com pleted even now. This im portant and progressive undertaking has greatly advanced the k n o w led g e of land.
H ow ever, experience has show n th a t soil m aps are poorly p u t to practice b y the specialists of agriculture. The geographers opinion the reason for this lies n ot o n ly in the agronom ists not being ad eq u ately trained for soil science (though this also plays a certain role), b u t m ainly in th a t th a t b y its v ery essence a genetic soil map is o n ly a sem i-finished product co n ta in in g the m ost im p ortan t basic d ata for th e com pilation of agricultural soil (cadastre) m aps.
A t that tim e m a n y people th o u g h t th e drafting of an y a d d ition al m aps, e x c e p t soil m aps, w as unnecessary. B ut th e im portance of agricultural m aps as direct tools of planning agriculture is now recognized by ev ery b o d y , including lead in g soil exp erts (G erasim ov, 1963).
The work of com plex land evalu ation consists of three m ain parts: land ty p o lo g y , the appraisal of lands and th e com pilation o f cadastre m aps (Arm and and G edim in, 1960).
Land ty p o lo g y includes th e com p ilation of th e data of all expressible com b inations of soil- and relief con d ition s, veg eta tio n cover and o th er physical properties influencing agriculture. An account is also m ade o f th e secondary features like erosion, degree of fe r tility , dissection by gullies, b ein g overgrown w ith bushes, etc. The various ty p e s of land are made up b y th e ab ove-m en tion ed elem entary plots, w hich are dispersed apartly b u t m eet th e criteria of one typ e or th e other. M icro-types, w hich for the sake o f convenience are nam ed “sp ecies” of lands, are joined in to more or less hom ogeneous sub- ty p e s, classes, e tc ., forming a m ultifarious land classification. It is assum ed th a t any such classification dem ands a prelim inary d eterm in ation of soil ty p e s, reliefs and other com ponents of th e landscape. T y p o lo g y , how ever, does not contain any elem ents o f appraisal.
Land appraisal consists in a com parison o f their relative econ om ic valu e.
A tten tion is given here to ph ysical properties, as well as to econ om ic factors.
For agricultural areas the first are u su ally assessed according to mean crop v a lu e of the lead in g or m ost prom ising culture or group o f cultures (in liv e stock-breeding areas, natural forage p lan ts). The second ta k e into account such factors as th e proxim ity o f m arket places and d elivery sta tio n s, m eans o f com m unications, the am ount of su p p lyin g w ith eq u ip m en t, power- and labour force, etc. The evalu ation is u su ally carried out accord in g to th e con-
21
v e n tio n a l scales esta b lish ed for the separate factors th a t are recorded. Often e v a lu a tio n scales co n ta in up to 100 m arks w hich are reduced su b seq u en tly in to 5 to 10 classes.
U n so lv ed rem ains th e problem o f creating a uniform ty p o lo g y and m aking com prehensive ev a lu a tio n s for su ch a v a st territo ry as the Soviet U nion w here very diverse p h y sica l conditions and trends of eco n o m y are to be found in th e different parts of th e country. The m ajority of authors suggested only regional m ethods o f evalu ation .
A c tu a lly a cadastre is a series o f large-scale m ap s (for the U S S R scale from 1 : 10,000 to 1 : 25,000) w hich reflect all the la n d properties and permit us to estab lish to w h a t ty p e and class each plot of la n d belongs. As is evid en t from w h a t has been said above, cad astre m aps u su a lly follow the soil con
tours in one side con solid ated as th e agricultural ty p e s , in other enriched by th e boundary lines o f another gen esis. Technical so lu tio n s which are m ade use of w h en cadastre m ap s are com posed can be g r e a tly varied. Ordinarily, an a tte m p t to plot o n one sheet all th e im portant featu res renders th e m ap d ifficu lt to read. T herefore, the m ain m ap is often su pplem ented w ith m ap- schem es (often erron eou sly nam ed cartogram s), w h ich contain additional features and can be, w h e n n ecessary, superposed upon th e main map. D iffer
ence sh ou ld be m ad e betw een in form atory m ap -sch em es (giving data on m icroclim ates, for in stan ce) and recom m en datory sch em es (indicating norm s of fertilizers, erosion con trol m easures, etc.).
A com bination on o n e sheet of a cad astre m ap and th e plan of land organ
ization is also im p racticab le. The plan o f land organ ization , i.e. the record of th e actu a l use of lan d s, is subject to frequent changes, w h ich makes th e m ap sh o rt-liv ed . E ven w h en cadastre m ap and land organ ization plans are given on sep arate sheets, th e former needs correction from tim e to tim e. T ypology
and lan d u tilization also need a p eriod ic revision.
B egin n in g w ith 19 5 6 , several geograp h ical d ep artm en ts of universities signed agreem ents w ith agricultural organizations and started experim entally ev a lu a tin g cadastre stu d ies w ith a v ie w to both scien tific and practical ends (G edim in et ál., 1963). In th is w ork a leading role has been played by the M oscow U n iv e r sity . B y 1959 M oscow geographers had com pleted large-scale land m ap p in g in R iäzan, K u sta n a i, Ivan o-F ran k o (Stanislav) and D niepropetrovsk p rovin ces on a territo ry over 600,000 hectares. Most e x te n sive w ork has been con d u cted in th e U kraine, since th is republic was th e first to change to im p roved m ethods of land registration (Harchenko, 1963).
The recen t soil su rveys in the U kraine h a v e been b ased on tw o of the ab ove- m en tion ed three cad astre studies: la n d ty p o lo g y a n d th e com pilation of agricultural m aps. The w ork of geographers has been h ig h ly appreciated b y the lead in g agricultural authorities. I t has been p o in ted out that in th o se areas w here a team of specialists of variou s geographical sciences, including soil ex p erts, had been engaged in th e process of in v estig a tio n , the m aps and descriptions gained w ere fuller, and b e tte r answ ered th e needs of practice, than in oth er regions w h ere only p ed ologists were con d u ctin g the work.
Sim ilar in v estig a tio n s have been restricted to sm aller territories b u t coupled w ith econom ic evalu ation in th e B a ltic republics. The experim ental work of physico- and econom ic geographers of L atvia covered the Culbene
region. A great variety o f landscape con d ition s in th is region h a v e proved beyon d doubt th a t “ a n y attem p t at d eterm ining th e properties o f agricul
tural lands on th e sole basis of soil characteristics, w ith ou t due accou n t of the en tirety of landscape features, can only result in a com p letely wrong picture” (R am an and Chislena, 1963, p. 229). L ikew ise u n satisfactory results have been obtained w hen attem p ts w ere m ade w ith “universal” landscape m aps. The best solution seem ed to be w h en departure w as m ade from lan d scape m aps w ith special legends for agriculture.
Sim ilar results were o b tain ed by th e E sth on ian geographers, th o u g h their m ethods of work have been different. “ These stages of research h a v e shown th a t of greatest help to agriculture is a m ap of landscape ty p o lo g y w hich reflects in a com plex w a y th e main ph ysical and econom ic properties of a territory . . .” (K ildem aa, 1963, p. 234).
A q u a lita tiv e landscape evaluation has becom e one of th e m ost im p ortan t branches of th e com plex geographical studies con d u cted b y th e geographers of th e universities of L v o v , C hernovtsy, K iev, V oronezh, Tbilisi an d som e other cities. Their research w hich in variab ly w idened th e scope and enhanced th e efficien cy of th e w ork of evaluating lands has been of great h elp to the various organs of agriculture.
In th e process of th e theoretical and practical work, th e physico- and econom ic geographers established a close co-operation n o t only w ith th e repre
sen ta tiv es of branch lines of geographical sciences, particularly of pedology and geob otan y, but also w ith specialists of land organization, since th e n ext step to follow land appraisal is scheduled to be a new organization of the territory (Zvorikin, 1963).
The S o v iet physico-geographers hold landscape conferences in ev ery second or third year, each tim e in another c ity . T hese conferences h a v e becom e trad ition al forums w here th e participants exch an ge their experiences in cadastre work and w here experim ental cadastre m aps com piled w ith different m ethods are exhibited. Of greatest im portance were th ose held in th e follow ing cities: L v o v (Tasks and m ethods . . ., 1956), R iga (K ildem aa, 1959), Moscow (M aterials . . ., 1961).
The work of stu d yin g and appraising of th e resources and estab lish in g the reasonable w ays of land use has been assid u ou sly carried on also a t the M oscow D ivision of th e G eographical S o ciety . D uring th e period from 1957 to 1960, tw en ty-th ree papers were d ev o ted to th is subject b y th e D ivision of P h y sica l G eography of th e S o ciety . The literature was greatly increased b y th e papers delivered at the A ll-U nion Conference on land registration and q u a lita tiv e evalu ation in March 1960. References concerning th ese papers and discussions have been published in th e issues of Problem s of G eography N o. 54 (1961), as w ell as in some num bers of th e m agazine G eography and E con om y. Geographers also took an activ e part in th e U k rain ian con
ference of soil experts, K harkov (1958), w hich dealt w ith th e sam e prob
lem s (Zvorikin and L eb ed ev, 1959). In 1960 the problems of stu d y in g and ev a lu a tin g lands also occupied a central place in th e a c tiv ity of th e third (K iev) conference of th e Geographical S o ciety of th e U SSR . This conference stressed th e im portance of a detailed stu d y of land funds, as w ell as the elab oration of a general m ethod of com piling land cadastres (D ecision s of the
23