LBCS FAQ

My APA

Join APA

APA is an outspoken advocate for planning. Become a member and join thousands of people who share your dedication to building strong, vibrant communities.

Make a Donation

- Hurricane Katrina Relief
- Other Donations...

View Classifications

View Land-Use Pictures

Some common and uncommon land uses along with their classifications

About LBCS

Photo Credits & Permissions

FAQs & QUICK ANSWERS

Top Ten Topics
Mixed Uses
Vacant land
Undeveloped Land
Mix Dimensions
Mapping Land Uses
Fold Categories
Multiple Structures
Overlapping Features
Zoning Categories
LBCS Users?

This is a compilation of quick answers to frequently asked questions. Instead of the traditional Q&A format, we grouped the responses under major topic headings where all questions and responses related to that topic appear in one place.

Quick responses in this section do not substitute for actual review of LBCS. All LBCS materials are available on this web site in a variety of formats. It usually takes a few hours of review for a senior planner to understand the principles of land-use classifications. It may also take a couple of simple implementations to become sufficiently proficient to make informed decisions about how to structure land-use databases without redundancy.

Have you checked the Quick Implementation first? The steps described under Quick Implementation can meet the needs of the vast majority of LBCS implementations (at the city, county, or regional government levels).

Mixed uses: Where are mixed uses? Every land-use in LBCS is a mixed use. That's why we characterize land-use as a multi-dimensional entity. This principle is the basic building block on which LBCS rests. There is no single code for mixed uses because LBCS classifies the underlying uses that make up a mixed use. For this reason, LBCS will not have a single color code for mixed uses. To classify mixed uses, start by first describing the land-use characteristics that make it mixed. Then find each of those characteristics in LBCS. If a parcel has both an office and a day-care center, then assign LBCS codes for both office and day-care centers to that single parcel. You get mixed-use by mixing a number of LBCS categories. Every land-use will have at least one category from each of the five LBCS dimensions. For a complex mixed-use, it is possible to have several categories from every LBCS dimension.
Vacant land: Where is vacant land? Vacant land is not a land use. We can have vacant lots, vacant buildings, or vacant structures, but not vacant land. Because anytime "vacant" is used, it implies certain unique characteristics that begs the question: "vacant of what?" Every land has some use characteristic identifiable through one or more categories in LBCS. That's what is meant by the familiar refrain: there is no vacant land anywhere on Earth. All land serves some purpose even if humans (through our plans and regulations) have not in any formal sense appropriated or designated it. In other words, "vacant land" is always applied to a certain context (developable, buildable, reusability, etc.) that is location specific (and not generic in the sense that all developable lands have the same set of characteristics). Therefore if you want to account for vacant land in the developable sense, then first define what "vacant land" means in your application's context (is it vacant of human activity, vacant of structures, vacant of any site development characteristics, or is it some combination of these). Use the categories from the five LBCS dimensions to characterize what makes land vacant in your application's context. There is no standard for what set of characteristics makes any land vacant. It depends on the community, the application, the economy, the political climate, and so forth. For instance, agricultural lands in one community may be designated as "vacant land" for future development, but not all communities treat agricultural lands as vacant. What LBCS provides is a set of generic use characteristics that one can selectively apply to land for establishing what vacant means in a given context. It is the only way to account for developable lands in the absence of an universally acceptable or consistent definition for "vacant land". LBCS offers flexible methods for combining and grouping land-use data in any permutation and combination without re-collecting it each time such definitions change. The definition of what constitutes developable also changes as the scale of analysis changes. For instance, some individual parcels in a traffic zone might not be "vacant" but for analysis of traffic patterns the zone may be treated as "vacant". Another way to think about classifying "vacant land" is to treat those areas as a mixed-use, where several characteristics combine together to characterize the use. How they combine will not only depend on the needs of the application (vacant land for an economic development study is not the same as vacant land for a runoff analysis), but also change as the study progresses or community changes. Yet the base land-use data must accommodate both studies (and perhaps many more like them in future). This base data is what LBCS classifies. To summarize: "vacant land" is not a land use; define what makes land vacant for your specific circumstance and then use LBCS categories to pick, assign, or classify the unit of measurement (parcels, buildings, census blocks, traffic zones, etc.); and avoid using evaluative terms, such as "vacant", when classifying land uses.
Undeveloped land: Undeveloped land is not a land use. Undeveloped land is an evaluative term encompassing attributes beyond land-use characteristics. If a particular application requires tracking developable lands, then create additional fields, separate from land-use coding, to track such characteristics. For instance, track degrees of developability, such as vacant lot, vacant lot with utilities, vacant lot with utilities and structure, vacant lot with utilities, structure, and access road, so on and so forth. In any case, avoid such pejorative terms as vacant and undeveloped in land-use classifications. It is the same as classifying forests as timber lands.
Land cover: Where are land cover categories? Not in LBCS because land cover is a characteristic of land, not land use. Depending on the data source, you can use any number of land-cover classifications, such as FGDC's Earth Cover Standards or its predecessor standard, Anderson Land Use Land Cover Classification System. In any case, keep land-cover data separate from land-use data. They often employ similar terminology (for agriculture or forest lands for example) and may even match your application's land-use data needs, but conceptually such terminology cannot be used synonymously. Land cover data is derived from visual (photographic or satellite imagery) and encompass only certain aspects of observable characteristics and, at best, serve as a proxy for actual land use. That is why land cover surveys include "ground-truth" or validation procedures. On the other hand, land uses are derived from many other observable and unobservable characteristics. Both modes of inquiry into the use of land serve planning applications, oftentimes simultaneously in the same database or map. But do not mix land cover categories with land-use categories at the data collection or data classification stages. A note of caution about land cover data. Do not overlook the value of land cover data just because it is either vague or not parcel-based. With GIS and other tools such differences can be easily overcome. Furthermore, LBCS classifications (especially the Site Development Characteristics) can be applied to data acquired by remote sensing as well. Many planning applications (runoff analysis is a good example) can be improved by using both land-use and land cover data.
Density and intensity: Density and intensity are characteristics independent of land-use. Unlike differences in land-use characteristics, density and intensity differ in quantity or closeness of uses. Many classification systems create special categories, say for housing in low density versus high density. Since "low" and "high" are arbitrary concepts, LBCS provides three ways of dealing with density and intensity. One is to look at other characteristics, such as structure type. If the use happens to be in a high-rise structure, then pick the appropriate structure type from the structure dimension. This will allow any activity or function type to occur in any type of structure. This is a more accurate approach to dealing with land uses in planning anyway instead of the arbitrary "low, medium and high" categories. The second approach is to create a separate field in the database for density and intensity applicable to your particular application. For instance if you want to track all parcels in the downtown area, then identify those parcels falling in this area in this special field. This gives an implicit notation that it is in a special designation area with high density and intensity. The third approach is to use other fields in the database to derive a scale, based on FAR or dwelling units per acre. This would involve creating a calculated field based on total square footage and site area for FAR and number of dwelling units and site area for dwelling units per acre. In either case, the result is a range of values that you will get for that particular land-use data that can replace the "low, medium, high" type of categories. To summarize: LBCS provides for a classification scheme based on land-use characteristics, not the density or intensity levels. Keep density and intensity characteristics in separate fields in the database. For instance, to track number of families living in a residential structure, create another field or linked table that will store the number of families for that record in the database. Furthermore, we do not have any standard definitions for low, medium, or high density in the planning profession.
Other spatial units: Parcels are not the only units of classification for land uses. LBCS can be applied to spatial units besides parcels, such as buildings, census blocks, traffic zones, agricultural units, assessment units, subdivision units, and so on. LBCS categories do not change no matter what the unit of taxon is. Some of the more detailed categories may not be applicable to a given scale or a type of planning applications, but the logic of multi-dimensional classifications remains valid; LBCS classification logic is independent of the taxonomic unit. What does such a consistent schema provide? Data comparability. Imagine being able to integrate land-use data from a parcel database, a building database, a traffic zone database, and so on without reclassifying or re-collecting the data. LBCS is designed to serve as the basis for comparing land uses. Since land-use, as it is perceived in its effects and relationships to the surroundings, is not something that starts and stops at administrative boundaries like parcels, LBCS offers the flexibility to incorporate many different ways of accounting for land uses besides the traditional parcel-based approach.
Misapplication of LBCS Categories: A common misapplication of land-use classifications is to apply land-use categories to categorize something besides land uses. One commonplace example is to apply categories from the LBCS Structure Dimension to classify building types (that building inspectors or public works engineers need). Another is applying categories from LBCS Ownership Constraints to classify owners. LBCS categories are meant for classify land uses by using structural, ownership, and other use characteristics; they are not for classifying buildings, owners, etc. The distinction is analogous to a habitat conservationist's interest in animals versus a zoologist's interest. Both may use the same terminology to identify animals, but their ends (objectives) are vastly different. One is classifying habitats using animal types, while the other is classifying animals, perhaps using the latest hierarchy of species and groups from the animal kingdom classifications. The depth and breadth of their needs are vastly different though they may have some overlap. Likewise, planners' interest in structure types, ownership types, economic types, and so on are only limited to those characteristics that can differentiate the use of land. For land-use purposes, it does not matter whether the house is a Queen Anne or Late Colonial. We have noticed some implementations of LBCS trying to force such distinctions by adjusting the categories to suit inappropriate applications. LBCS dimensions do not serve a purpose other than characterizing land uses. When your needs call for more specificity, use a more appropriate classifications instead of using LBCS categories. They are not a substitute for activity types architects need, structure types engineers need, function types economists need, ownership types that realtors and assessors need, and so on.
Classify all lands: Should I classify all lands in my geography? Yes, LBCS as a classification methodology should be applied only when all lands are classified. For instance, many land-use databases ignore transportation and rights-of-ways. That's why you don't see land-use categories for such linear features in some classifications. This causes several problems, not the least of which is incomplete description of land uses. That's why it is said that any logically consistent classification scheme should accommodate all land uses. Also known as the 100% problem, even incomplete data classification (meaning only a subset of records have been classified), should accommodate the remaining either as unknown or unavailable categories. LBCS is for classifying 100% of land and 100% of land uses. The 100% problem refers to both incomplete records (not classifying all records) and incomplete classifications (ignoring certain records because of lack of appropriate categories in the classification scheme). How can you tell if you have all the data to be classified? Use this simple test: add the total land area in the database and see if it equals the total land area of your city, town, village, county, or whatever the geographic extent of the database. Remember to classify roads, utilities, and other linear features though most land-use databases ignore such land uses. Regarding all land uses, i.e., 100% land uses, the logic of dimensions and categories within a dimension break down if only a subset of land uses is classified. Apply the 9999 codes as place holders if lack of data is the concern.
Land-use data categories and map legends: They are not the same though planners have traditionally equated land-use categories with map categories and map legends. Think of map legends as customized categories, which may or may not contain all the land uses in the database. Legends get adjusted and customized more often than the underlying land-use classes. Take a typical land-use map that shows residential uses, colored yellow with a corresponding map legend called "Residential". Though "Residential" is a single legend item, the underlying data could contain any number of subcategories of residential. Similarly, more complex categories (evaluative or prescriptive land uses) can be constructed by grouping specific codes from each of five dimensions to create a single legend item. Consider a parcel map of potential sites for redevelopment based on certain land-use characteristics, say sites with warehouse structures that have no activity. From the land-use database containing all the structure types and activity types for all parcels, you would extract only those matching the structure and activity characteristics and displaying them as the more complex "redevelopment" category on the map. In other words, data about referential uses don't change unless the use itself changes, but evaluative and prescriptive uses will change from application to application. In the example above, say you want to add abandoned rail yards to the "redevelopment" category, then fix the query that extracts only warehouses with no activity to include rail yards with no activity. No need to go and change the underlying land-use data or readjust the categories. They remain constant while map legends get customized to suit the application (or purpose of the map).
Single land-use map: Can a single land-use map show all land-use characteristics? No. There is no such thing as a single or general map of land uses. One needs at least five maps, one for each dimension, to adequately render or describe land use. Note the point made about mixed uses earlier.
Coding versus classifications: Coding is independent of classifications. You can use any set of codes, not just the 4 digit ones listed here. Though when using the 4-digit codes, some of the automated tools will work directly without the help of an intermediate lookup table. Nevertheless, conceptually, one should be aware that the codes have no relationship to classifications. We could have used A1, B2, C3 or some such similar alpha-numeric coding scheme instead of 1000, 2000, 3,000, etc. We choose 4-digit numbers for the sake of simplicity in integer manipulation in databases.
Mix dimensions: No, never mix dimensions. Many have asked if they could combine structure types or ownership types with either activity or function types, to create additional categories under one of the other dimensions, sort of fusing the branches of one tree to another, in order to do away with an entire dimension. No. No. No. Because that will defeat the logic of classification for the entire database, not just the parcels with those categories. This goes back to the first point, multi-dimensionality of land-use: fusing unrelated dimensions may appear at first to solve complexity of data coding. If you ignore the multi-dimensionality of land use, then any classification, no matter how carefully constructed, no matter how diligently the scheme tries to keep apples and oranges distinct, it cannot avoid mixing apples and tennis balls. This is a paradox of mutually-exclusive categories, a mathematical principle that has been popularized in many puzzles, such as Russell's Paradox (also known as Barber's Paradox) and Cantor Puzzles. Data coding complexity is a trivial hurdle to overcome, whereas fused land-use dimensions cannot be untangled short of re-collecting or re-surveying the land uses. LBCS can be simplified in many other ways, as explained below, but mixing dimensions is not one of them. Most planners instinctively approach classification problems by first fusing dimensions. The good news is that many catch themselves falling in this trap sooner or later. Sooner is better but the best is not falling in the trap in the first place. LBCS's aim is to keep land-use classifications from getting entangled in such traps. That is why we deal with this problem first thing in every LBCS training course.
Fold categories: Yes, you can. Ignore subcategories if the details they provide are not applicable to your data. Use a higher, a more general category, instead. Conversely, if you need more details within a category, you could customize by creating more subcategories. As long as the general land-use characteristic makes sense in the overall top-level category, you can customize. But as a practical matter make sure that subsequent users of your data (for example, a regional agency) can collapse all the customized categories to a broader, more general category that everyone uses. That is why we choose the 4-digit coding schema so that folding is just a matter of simple arithmetic. For instance, to tabulate all residential activities, select all uses between 1000 and 1999 under the Activity dimension and group them under 1000.
Mix coding levels: Yes, you can. It is probably unavoidable to code one set of records at the top level, another using second level and yet another using third level, etc., in all but the simplest databases. Such mixing of coding levels is perfectly okay as long as any aggregation happens at the highest level coded. For instance, let's say you are collecting residential land-use data for an entire region consisting of variety of densities and housing types. One community may have coded every housing type while another may just have a single category for all types of residential. Merging such uneven levels of coding results in a broad category for residential uses. You could also mix and match coding levels across dimensions and even within the same dimension. For instance, one part of the community may be coded at the 4-digit level, another at just the top level. Or all residential lands are coded at the 4 digit level and the rest are coded at the 1-digit top level. All such permutations are okay. State and regional planning agencies helping local communities with a standard coding standard may well be advised to leave the specificity of coding level to the local community. Though local communities may eventually gravitate to a single coding level, it is neither required nor necessary that all communities in a region use the same level of coding. What's more important is that all categories, across each dimension of land-use, can be merged for data aggregation. Even within a single community, expect a wide variation between departments and applications (for instance, building departments might have a need for many more structure types than public works; or the housing categories in an affordable housing study would be more precise than a regional parks plan). Most LBCS implementations would likely begin at the top level coding and then gradually incorporate more specificity-- second, third, and fourth level --as more information or resources for land-based data become available. Do not be constrained by trying to collect all data at all levels for all applications. The usefulness of land-based data is not measured by how much detail it contains, but how flexible it is to serve a variety of planning applications.
A land-use is missing: Quite possible, but with over 18,000 terms and over 100,000 links, it probably is not known by the term you are using to search. Try searching it in the FindAll page. If it is a new term or a vernacular phrase that is coming into widespread use, please let us know for adding to the database. Send suggestions to lbcs@planning.org.
Substitute terminology: Yes, by all means. LBCS is meant to be customized with local terminology. However, the meaning of the term, say if it is replacing a term for a category, should be similar. Whenever we found the same land-use being called different things, we included alternate terms in the descriptions. LBCS's aim is to achieve uniformity despite vernacular differences. Such differences also arise when different professions classify land uses: a realtor's view of land uses is not the same as an economist's, an attorney's, or a planner's. Yet plans and planners have to interact with each of these specialists. That's why the descriptions for LBCS categories remain generic and, therefore, may not substitute for a rigorous legal definition. What is being standardized in LBCS is not the coding (because any coding mechanism would do), not the terminology (because it can substituted), not the categories (as they can be adjusted), not the dimensions (as they can be dropped or added at will). Instead it is the multi dimensionality of land-use. Because multi dimensionality is the basis of land-use discourse in the planning profession, any time and effort spent by planners in classifying land uses ought to reflect how planning applications employ them. Collecting data and preparing maps are not the means and ends of land-use classifications. This point gets lost because map-making has coalesced around GIS and mapping skills, mainly because such staff in planning offices are not the same ones performing planning functions. When GIS technology was in its infancy, it made sense to keep such specialized skills, products, and services separate. But this gap between planners and map makers has affected how planners think about land uses and GIS staff about representing land uses. LBCS closes this gap by providing flexibility in both, data classifications and technical means necessary to produce useful products for planning.
Geo-references: Where are lat-long references? Land-use being independent of geographic location, no lat-long coding has been provided. In GIS terminology, LBCS is a not a cadastral standard but an attribute standard. Geo-referencing, usually specified as a pair of latitude and longitude values, pertains to the geographic location identifier. So, if a database is of parcels, then each parcel should have geo-references in fields independent of land-use coding and other attribute data. Moreover,not all local land-use data employ the same geo-referencing scheme. But that should not stop one from using a geo-referencing standard to locate land-use and other attribute data.
Multiple structures: How to classify multiple structures on the same land unit? Say if the land unit is a parcel, assign multiple structure codes to that parcel to reflect all the different structure types. So if a house has a garage, then pick the garage code for it in addition to the residential structure type. If it has another house, then pick assign two residential structure types. If it has a house and a shop, then you'd assign both. On the other hand if you do not want to assign multiple codes to the parcel record, then try this alternate method: Create another table in which you list all the structures, link each structure in this table to the appropriate parcel in the parcel table (using a one-to-many relationship in database terminology), and then assign LBCS codes to the structures in the structure table. Don't assume that you have to pick only a single code when classifying. Assign multiple codes from LBCS categories. The underlying land unit should not matter for classifications; LBCS is not tied to a specific land unit, such as a parcel-based system. It is independent of the underlying unit of measurement.
Linear features like roads: How should linear features like roads, railroads, bike paths, etc., should be classified? Each of these features have specific categories in the structure dimension. Assign the appropriate category to the polygon for that linear feature. Most land-use databases, such as parcel-based data, do not normally define such polygons and when they do, perhaps only include rights-of-ways. Depending the amount of detail and level of analysis you need, such polygons have to be split up to account for linear features. For most land-use purposes, just assigning such broad categories as "transportation facility" would suffice. However, if the underlying map data is clear, meaning every polygon for each linear facility is distinct, then you can assign a distinct LBCS category. For those applications where such details are not needed or such data is not readily available, assign these linear polygons as not available or 9999 code. In combination with categories from the activity dimension, one could easily capture complex land uses as railroad rights-of-way now being used as bike paths or walking and jogging trails.
Overlapping Features: How do I classify overlapping features, such as two roads of different types intersecting, a railroad intersecting a road, or an underground subway system? There are two related issues about this question. One is classifying the uses and the other is representing the uses on a map. Both issues affect each other. If the underlying database has separate records for each of the intersecting facilities, then assign the appropriate LBCS codes from the structure dimension to those records. On the other hand if the records are not separate, as is common in local land-use databases where all transportation facilities are either ignored or just get a single polygon in a GIS, classify using a broader category to capture both the intersecting features. If this is not possible or unacceptably vague, try to break the polygons into constituent components and then assign the precise LBCS codes. Remember that in land-use classifications the concern is to classify spatial units, such as parcels, rights-of-ways, etc., and not each structural element, such as roads, bridges, station platforms, etc. Let us now consider how overlapping spatial units are displayed on a map. What happens at intersections? Are the polygons "merged" or are they just "overlapped"? Perhaps they are rendered as dotted lines. The rendering options are many, but the underlying map features and the database holding the attribute information can tell you which of the above two ways to classify overlapping features. In short, do not assume that just because the polygons appear "merged", the database also has merged records. What about rendering overlapping features on a two-dimensional map when such features have widely different categories (meaning different colors)? You have to choose between which feature takes precedence. Perhaps make two maps showing different overlapping features alternatively. The strategy is the same as if the parcel had multiple codes from the same LBCS dimension. So if the parcel has both office and residential activities, then in a residential study map, show only residential and, say, in an economic development study, show only office uses. Which uses get rendered should be dictated by the purpose of the map and the issues it has to address. If both uses have to be mapped on the same map, then consider hatch patterns and other techniques (such as using a 3D-GIS). In any case, the common error is to put too many colors and hatching patterns on a single map. Do not use too many colors (meaning land-use categories) on a map. Instead use many maps to make the same point. To summarize: we are not classifying "objects", such as "transportation facilities", but land uses, by using the "objects" for identification of the use. But if you're interest is in classifying objects, such as transportation features or every physical facility on a campus, then apply more appropriate classification systems. For facilities, consider the FGDC Facility Standards, and for transportation, the NSDI Framework Transportation Identification Standard.
Federal Highway Classification: Where are the FHWA highway types? Many planners want to track linear features based on funding and regulatory mechanisms of the Federal Highway Administration. Use this general category or its subcategories. They match FHWA highways and road types and also describe the ISTEA-required mapping of linear features (not land uses). Also note that FHWA-required identification of ownership of rights-of-ways can be assigned from the LBCS Ownership dimension. LBCS can serve the integration of land-use and transportation at the data level.
Tribal lands: What about classifying tribal land uses, especially for ownership characteristics? Yes this is a complexity planners working for tribal governments need to capture. The ownership dimension has the appropriate categories for federal and state tribal lands, trust and non-trust lands.
Shopping centers: Where are the shopping center types? The general category is here, and its subcategories are for different types of shopping centers.
Data standards: Is there a standard data model for LBCS? No. Land-use data can be stored in a variety of ways, even using hard copy maps and no computer. The design and implementation of a data model for land uses should be derived from the application needs and the available technical resources. Though we provide sample models on this web site as a way of illustrating the range of options for implementing LBCS, there is no data standard nor is one being proposed. We expect communities to evolve their models as their needs and resources evolve. However, planners working in regional and state agencies who have a need for such a standard might want to evaluate the sample models provided on this web site with planners who will be collecting and producing the land-use data.
Zoning Maps vs. Land-Use Categories: There can never be a one-to-one match between zoning districts and land-use categories, in so far as it relates to land-use data. Land uses in zoning refer to multiple land-use characteristics, not just activity, structure, function, ownership, or site development character. To regulate land uses, zoning districts employ generalized groupings of multiple land-use characteristics, and such groupings are a function of each community's prerogative. Not all "R-1" districts in all jurisdictions have the same list of allowable and prohibited uses. It is also a misconception to assume that for any given land-use, every community would allow that use under the same zoning district. Even the names and number of zoning districts communities use vary. That is why we do not have a universal set of zoning categories, zoning maps, zoning colors, etc. Still, one can apply LBCS principles in defining land uses that zoning districts regulate, especially lists of permitted, prohibited, special uses, conditional uses, exceptional uses, etc., as some communities have done. They referenced LBCS codes when describing the uses.
Other Standards: How does LBCS incorporate other standards? Depending on the standard, LBCS incorporates it one or more of the following ways: in terminology, in developing categories, in showing how to integrate land-use data with other types of data, in rendering and display methods, and so forth. The publications menu has links to documents that can give better explanations, but for quick overviews try the following graphs: a theoretical framework behind multi-dimensionality of land-use, a 100-year history of other standards leading up to LBCS, and an overview of LBCS dimensions.
When to apply some other standard?: A typical query about this is: when can one apply another land-use classification scheme for land-use data? First of all, LBCS is not mandatory; you are free to choose any standard. LBCS web site provides many other standards as examples. If you want a simple test before applying another classification scheme, try these yes/no questions: a). Will the data be shared or analyzed by someone other than the person collecting and classifying the data? b). Will the data be aggregated or merged with land-use data collected for purposes different than those for which first collected? c). Will the data be maintained (add, delete, update records) by anyone besides yourself? d). Will the data use any LBCS lookup tables (meaning you do not have any lookup tables for data conversion and comparability)? If the response to all these questions is a "no", then consider other standards.
Environmental Constraints vs. Land Use: A floodplain is not a land use, it is a land characteristic. Similarly, a wetland is not a land use. See the discussions about the differences between referential, evaluative, and prescriptive land uses in LBCS discussion papers.
Environmental Preferences vs. Land Use: Sensitive area is not a land-use. The characteristics that make lands critical or sensitive stand independent of land-use characteristics. It is possible for a sensitive or critical area to have a use besides whatever it is that makes it "sensitive". LBCS classifies the underlying land-use characteristics.
Design Preferences vs. Land Use: Pedestrian-friendly environment is not a land use. It is the characterization of one or more land uses combined with one or more physical design and performance attributes. Same goes for downtowns, suburbs, tourist commercial, highway commercial, rural residential, strip commercial, commercial node, employment center, mixed-use center, transit-oriented center, etc. LBCS classifies the underlying land uses, which may then be used to construct special categories by combining other spatial and design characteristics.
Historic sites and heritage areas: Where are land-use categories for historic sites, heritage areas, archeological sites, cultural facilities, etc.? There are no specific categories per se for such complex evaluative or prescriptive uses. But you can construct any combination of land-use characteristics that encompass a specific historic or heritage area. For example, if the designation required is evaluative (such as all structures older than 100 years are historic), then in the structure dimension, create an additional field for age of structure. On the other hand if the designation is a prescriptive one (such as this part of town is historic because the last battle was fought there), then create an additional field in the activity dimension to identify such parcels. In either case, note that you would still have to identify all the activities, structures, functions, and so forth for those parcels because the existing land-use is still independent of how we evaluate or prescribe the use of land. Consider this: if your community has a major national historic site or a historic corridor, then think of all the mass assembly activities, tourist commercial, and a host of other activities that go on there. They all have to be somehow accounted in the land-use database to tabulate the impacts. So a historic area like Colonial Williamsburg, Virginia, would contain many activities, functions, structures, ownerships, and site development characteristics in size and quantity comparable to a small city. In short, account for complex land uses by categorizing the components that make up the complexity. Classify those components with LBCS first and then group them to construct the complexity. Add new attributes (data fields) as necessary to build the complexity to the level required.
Existing Uses vs. Future Uses: Residential in an existing use is not the same as residential on a comprehensive (or general) plan map designation. On a future use map, residential refers to the overall character of the area and does not explicitly differentiate all that other land-uses that go into making the area residential. For example, roads, rights-of-way, parks, playgrounds, utilities, day-care centers, community centers, etc. LBCS categories classify the elements that make up the composite descriptions of a comprehensive plan designation. But in combination with activity, function, and structure dimensions, one can describe future uses with more specificity and less ambiguity in both comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances.
Color Ramps: Do you have any color ramps, such as a ramp for residential yellows? No. Most GIS packages have scripting facilities that can create ramps quickly if you provide the low and high values. Your GIS software vendor's web site might have ready made scripts for such a purpose.
NAICS and SIC: Both NAICS and SIC are subsumed in the function dimension of LBCS. That is, there is a one-to-one match between function dimension and NAICS. Use the "Search Business Types" menu item to locate NAICS industry types. Use SIC to NAICS conversion to first convert SIC data to NAICS and then match that to the LBCS function dimension. A third of the records, in a worst case scenario, will have to be manually adjusted.
SIC Ancillary Uses: What happened to the SIC one-digit ancillary use codes? Well, NAICS has done away with ancillary codes, much like LBCS has done away with primary and secondary uses. For SIC ancillary codes, the NAICS web site -- see also LBCS bibliography for related references -- has methods for conversion using correspondence tables. It is not clean, but ancillary data was never clean anyway. For those rare planning agencies that used to collect ancillary data, note that NAICS methodology obviates any need to collect such data. If an existing SIC data set can be converted to NAICS, then conversion to LBCS can be automated. On a related note, some data sets that have relied on "SIC size standards" should apply current standards from the U.S. Department of Commerce's Small Business Administration. The size refers to the limits necessary to qualify as a small business. Planners have sometimes used these to estimate employees or sales figures and in some economic development plans. This kind of size data is independent of any land-use characteristic, but one could keep track of such data, if called for, with the function dimension. Just create additional fields to track number of employees by each function code for each parcel or record in the land-use database. While planning for data collection and analysis, the principle planners should rely on is to keep land-use data separate from other kinds of data even if closely related to land uses. This not only allows for clarity but also the flexibility in updating data.
Assessment data: Many planners rely on real-estate assessment data that is often collected for tax purposes. Two points to note about such data: assessments have a specific purpose, which is taxation, and the categories assessors use do not always translate into land uses planners need. For example, assessors do not differentiate non-taxable properties no matter what the use is on the site. It could be church, a school, or a cemetery. Yet planners have to take into consideration all such differentiations, irrespective of the property's taxable status. The second point about assessor's data is that most assessment categories are derived from something called the Property Use Codes published by the International Association of Assessing Officers. IAAO developed these codes based on the old 1965 SLUCM, which assessors use as part of a crucial and important step in property valuations. IAAO has since indicated that it has in principle adopted LBCS to update their property use codes. If so, we should expect assessors using new property use codes derived form LBCS. Currently LBCS is referenced in one place on the IAAO web site, but there may be others in the member's only section.
Essential facilities and critical facilities: Yes, the LBCS Structure dimension has specific categories for FEMA classification types. These match all the HAZUS required categories. HAZUS classifications are also available separately in the Other Standards section of LBCS. For more details see FEMA's HAZUS and loss estimation program.
National security concerns: Many have asked if classifying critical facilities is a requirement for using LBCS. No. An ability to classify all land uses is a separate question from a necessity or requirement to provide such information for planning and zoning applications. You can always decide not to publish any land-use data, decide to publish broad top level categories, or remove any mention of critical facilities before publishing. LBCS allows you to accurately assess critical facilities data for such routine planning applications as emergency response, post-disaster recovery plans, and so forth. What land-use data has to be made public is a question whose answer is beyond the scope of LBCS. In any case, always rely on your government counsel on matters pertaining to public disclosure laws.
Metadata Standards: We have a metadata profile. Use it to track land-use data sets. If you are posting metadata profiles online, please share that link with us so other's can learn from it. We will post them on the LBCS web site under Other links. Send links to lbcs@planning.org.
Mandatory standard: Is LBCS mandatory? No, LBCS is not mandatory. Much like the status of the older standard, SLUCM, LBCS is a tool anyone can adopt voluntarily. If a local, state, or regional agency makes it mandatory, as many have or are actively considering such a move, it is their choice. There is no federal agency mandating LBCS for local communities either. However, planning consultants working on federal projects may encounter LBCS as a minimum standard specified as part of a federal agency guideline or a program manager adopting LBCS as a requirement for federal contracts. Planners who work for federal agencies may be required to use LBCS as part of their administrative regulations, but there is no legislative or congressional mandate to use LBCS.
Training: APA National Conferences usually have hands-on GIS training sessions where we introduce LBCS concepts as part of GIS exercises. We also have one or two other regular lecture sessions covering this topic. APA research staff and other LBCS contributors also appear at state and local chapter conferences besides occasional visits to colleges and universities. See the APA's LBCS Training Program for more details.
Updates: When were the standards updated? Here are the dates: First Draft 1998, Second Draft 1999, Final Draft 2000, and Final 2001. For a more detailed chronology of LBCS in relation to other standards, look at the diagram in LBCS History. We have updated definitions and text descriptions periodically, but there were no changes to the underlying structure or classification hierarchy except for one item in Ownership Dimension, tribal lands. This change will primarily affect planners working for tribal governments. If you've downloaded the standard before Spring 2001, we suggest getting the most recent one. A couple of notes about publication dates: for bibliographic reference, use the appropriate author citation. On the main web page, in the top blue bar, the "Last Updated" date refers to when documents, such as this one you are reading have been updated and not the classification standard itself. Although we do not expect any structural changes to the categories or the classification hierarchy in the foreseeable future, we will post notices of such changes prominently. We will also provide information about how to migrate existing data from the previous standard. If anything, we may add more dimensions first.
Copy the web site: Many ask if they could copy the LBCS web site. No. We posted all research materials online for download in a variety of formats. Moreover, the entire project is not in a single database, but several databases, files, image libraries, and scripts. They are all linked using customized programs, developed over several years. Transferring all this information, assuming we can resolve any copyright issues, will be close to impossible even if you can mirror the same hardware and software at your end. LBCS web site predates even the APA web site and migrating LBCS to each APA web site update was an immense task, and based on this experience alone, our response to any request for copying the web site would be a no. However, if you adopt, incorporate, or reference LBCS or any part of it in your maps, data, regulations, publications, web sites, or any other form of presentation, you must include the appropriate reference and citation information. For use of graphics, images, presentation files, examples, and so forth, see the Copyright information.
Who is using LBCS?: APA does not track such data, but we have a cursory sense based on those who inform us or call us for help. They are mostly local planners, regional planners, federal planners, and planning consultants. From the web logs, we found over 4,000 local, state, regional, and federal agencies in the U.S. and about 3,000 from about 125 countries across the globe, have downloaded or viewed the standard. The most frequently mentioned applications of LBCS from what we can tell are: land-use data, comprehensive plans, regional plans, transportation plans, and statewide plans. Some communities have adopted LBCS by reference in zoning ordinances, development guidelines, and other regulatory tools. A few states have also considered LBCS as a minimum standard for their local communities' land-use data. One state (Georgia) is considering making LBCS mandatory, but to what extent has not been decided at this time. We also find that many colleges and universities use LBCS for teaching land-use subjects and for land-use surveys in studio classes. Many nonprofit, special interest groups working in the areas of environmental planning, environmental justice, land supply monitoring, affordable housing, economic development, natural hazards mitigation, emergency response and recovery, etc., have also shown interest in LBCS. GIS vendors, mapping companies, and similar companies that provide services to planning agencies either adopt or recommend LBCS in their projects. Though not every project that uses LBCS is web accessible, you can search for a current list of LBCS-related web pages to get a sense of its current popularity.
Keep in touch: If you are using or adopting LBCS, please drop us a note at lbcs@planning.org indicating the type of application and the name of community. This will help APA improve LBCS products and services. As part of the Planning Advisory Service, we can link planners and consultants dealing with LBCS from the same region. Finding local connections is a common inquiry.
Copyright: APA holds the copyrights with all rights reserved. No need to get copyright permission to apply LBCS to classify land-use data as long as proper citation appears. For any other purpose, first obtain permission. See the contacts page for address information.

Citation