Sri Lanka decision proposal
Tell us what to change or add.
Archived decisions
Open a decision below. Check the area, period, inputs, result and proposed next step.
Use Change example to try different values. Use Data needed to check the fields and sources. The land-use change decision has its own comparison views.
Record your corrections below, then download your answers or print them.
Find land-use changes, check the evidence and choose the next investigation.
One fictional example: the annual records, transition table and decision record use the same example data. Static reference images have their own published sources and dates. An explicit balanced edit updates the example in the current page only.
Natural forest, Forest plantations, Paddy land, Other annual crops, Tea and other permanent crops, Settlements, Water, Other land, Unclassified / missing. Keep natural forest, forest plantations and agricultural tree crops separate. Ambiguous source categories stay unresolved; they cannot be silently relabelled.
Inputs retain the native category/code, observed year, division and analysis-boundary version, original area/unit, dataset and classification versions, measure, method, coverage and quality reference. A creation or revision year is not automatically an observation year. Seasonal crop extents stay separate from mapped physical land area.
Client: confirm the project area, observation years, data owner and sharing rights, what changes deserve attention, and the responsible decision-making roles.
Expert: confirm the local class crosswalk, comparable source maps, map scale, accuracy and uncertainty, minimum detectable change and action thresholds.
Published definitions and methods retain their sources. Local choices stay here for confirmation; the developer checks arithmetic, mappings and data handling.
This example in the prototype uses fictional records. Official-source file selections remain previews; no institution data is uploaded or saved.
Genuine Copernicus forest-class map images for 2015 and 2018 are available as historical context. They do not match or authenticate the fictional division records. Comparable local land-use images for the selected example years are still missing.
View historical map references
Official publications supply native classifications and context. IPCC explains consistent land representation and net versus gross change. The complete LAND-CHANGE-1 comparison, mapping and review-order rules are project proposals. Their local use requires validation in this review.
Detailed calculation rules and worked example
Check reported development overlap before preparing a planning referral.
Validation required
Fictional default example · 2025.
What the selected record shows. The supplied overlap is 18 ha within the 75 ha assessed footprint, or 24%. Check the cited boundary and source records before interpreting the overlap.
Next step. Check the matching footprint, source boundary and applicable conditions. Prepare overlap review in the prototype creates a visible, downloadable draft. It is unassigned and not sent.
Supplied overlap and a matching constraint edition do not grant development permission.
100 × union of constraint overlap / proposal footprint. Count intersecting constraint areas once. The areas/counts are supplied records; this decision view does not calculate intersections, distances or locations.
Geometry preparation must use matching coordinate systems, dated boundary editions and valid spatial predicates. Overlap supports referral; it does not determine ownership, permission or site safety. A static reference image does not verify these supplied measurements or boundaries.
Other required records: Proposal polygon; zoning edition; conservation boundaries; restriction type; overlap hectares.
Calculation appendix
Identify divisions whose current land-use plan is missing or unknown.
What the selected record shows. 1 divisions are known to be uncovered; 0 have unknown coverage. 0% are confirmed covered.
Next step. Check the missing or outdated plan. Prepare coverage follow-up in the prototype creates a visible, downloadable draft. It is unassigned and not sent.
A missing plan record needs confirmation before commissioning new planning work.
100 × distinct covered eligible units / eligible frame. Known uncovered = frame − covered − unknown.
Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures.
Other required records: Division register; approved plan boundary; plan date; validity; responsible office.
The map and field record describe a place differently. Check the location, observation dates and classification definitions before deciding whether either record needs correction.
Fictional demonstration cases. Division names provide context, not verified plot locations. No map pin, visit, photo or measured area is claimed.
First case. The map says Forest. The field record describes Trees mixed with crops. The comparison is incomplete. Obtain the missing details listed below before deciding whether either record needs correction.
Next step. Obtain the comparison details. Use Prepare evidence request in the prototype to create a visible draft with the missing details and proposed checking role. The draft is not sent.
Check the exact site and extent first; obtain both observation dates, source versions and classification definitions. Compare only documented matching records. Prepare a draft field check when a reviewed difference remains. Reviewed site evidence may support a proposed correction for later review.
Forest and Agroforestry retain the definitions of their source schemes. Different labels, dates or extents do not establish an error, land-use change or legal status. A division name and reporting year do not identify a plot or date both observations. Demonstration progress grants no approval.
Changed case: in DEMO-MAP-03, changing the reviewed outcome to Records reconciled prepares a comparison note; selecting Site evidence reviewed with a remaining difference supports a proposed correction for later review. Neither action changes an authoritative record.
Insufficient evidence: removing the exact site reference from that case returns it to an evidence request.
Check the land, soil, slope, rainfall and crop evidence needed to compare proposed uses.
What the selected record shows. The required evidence is incomplete for this agricultural suitability case. The items below identify what must be obtained or reconciled.
Next step. Obtain the missing evidence listed below. Prepare evidence request in the prototype creates a visible, downloadable draft. It is unassigned and not sent.
Complete records alone do not establish agricultural suitability.
Check each required item and retain its reference. A documented item is not a scientific, legal or institutional approval.
Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity.
Other required records: Land polygon; soil depth; slope degrees; rainfall; water access; crop requirements.
Check the application, existing use, ownership and objections before a conversion referral.
What the selected record shows. The required evidence is incomplete for this land conversion case. The items below identify what must be obtained or reconciled.
The responsible authority must determine whether conversion is permitted.
Other required records: Application ID; current use; proposed use; ownership evidence; applicable rules; objections.
Compare settlement options using service access, constraints, costs and stated trade-offs.
What the selected record shows. There is not enough information to choose this option. Obtain the records and evidence about conditions listed below. The supplied budget less cost is 300,000 LKR.
Next step. Obtain the missing records before choosing. Prepare evidence request in the prototype creates a visible, downloadable draft. It is unassigned and not sent.
A budget surplus does not establish a suitable settlement location.
Compare each alternative's stated benefit, adverse effects, domain evidence and mandatory constraints. Where cost and budget are supplied, budget balance = budget − option cost. A budget balance alone does not determine domain feasibility or select an option.
Other required records: Candidate polygon; service capacity; access cost; hazard evidence; environmental constraints.
Identify land already assessed as suitable whose cultivation status needs investigation.
What the selected record shows. 65 of 100 ha are cultivated; 30 are known not cultivated; 5 have unknown cultivation status.
Next step. Check the uncultivated-area, tenure and access records. Prepare coverage follow-up in the prototype creates a visible, downloadable draft. It is unassigned and not sent.
Uncultivated land is not automatically available or suitable for a new use.
Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures. Suitability and tenure must be established separately; coverage does not identify suitable land.
Other required records: Parcel ID; cultivated hectares; usable hectares; abandonment reason; tenure status.
Check reported activity overlap with the cited wetland record.
An overlap figure does not establish the wetland boundary or permission conditions.
Other required records: Activity geometry; wetland boundary edition; wetland class; proposal date.
Check an activity against the cited river-reservation survey and basis.
No universal reservation width or legal breach is inferred.
Other required records: River geometry; legally reviewed reservation width; activity footprint; boundary edition.
Identify tenure objections still needing a documented response before planning proceeds.
What the selected record shows. 16 unresolved issue(s). 71.579% responded; response is not consent. Review the issue references and participation barriers.
Response rates do not settle rights or consent.
100 × distinct respondents / invited people. Record unresolved issues individually; one respondent may raise several issues.
Response, attendance and silence are not consent. Participation does not transfer decision authority or settle rights.
Other required records: Plan version; affected parcels; rights claims; consultation responses; dispute status.
Compare parcel sizes and separation to identify holdings worth discussing with owners.
What the selected record shows. The stated 2.8 ha holding has 4 parcels, averaging 0.7 ha per parcel. Its largest documented inter-parcel separation is 1,200 m.
Next step. Check the holding, tenure and access records before discussing coordination with the owner. Prepare holding comparison in the prototype creates a visible, downloadable draft. It is unassigned and not sent.
Small parcels do not establish agreement to consolidate holdings.
Total holding area / parcel count, alongside count and documented separation. This is a descriptive summary, not a validated fragmentation index or coordination decision.
Small parcels do not establish agreement to consolidate holdings. The holding area, parcel count and documented separation describe different aspects; no validated fragmentation index is produced.
Other required records: Holding ID; parcel count; parcel area hectares; separation distance; tenure.
Compare agricultural class losses and gains within the same mapped extent.
What the selected record shows. The recorded Agricultural land — demonstration class definition area changes from 100 to 90 ha. Net change is -10 ha; supplied gross loss is 18 ha and gross gain is 8 ha.
Next step. Check the matching source records before interpreting the change. Prepare change comparison in the prototype creates a visible, downloadable draft. It is unassigned and not sent.
Aggregate class changes do not identify individual conversions or their causes.
Net=later−earlier; percentage=100×net/earlier when earlier>0. Matched transitions must reproduce net=gain−loss. Net totals alone do not establish conversion.
Same boundary, definitions, observation basis and adequate map quality are required. Coverage changes and classification error are not proven land-use change. Example boundaries and transitions are fictional.
Other required records: Matched land-cover maps; built hectares; agricultural hectares; map years.
Compare documented access journeys and capacity before discussing improvements.
What the selected record shows. The supplied journey is 24 km and 65 minutes. Usable capacity is 18 against 15 required in the stated service units. Access and operating conditions: Unresolved.
Supplied travel times do not establish route safety or calculate a new route.
Compare supplied route times/distances, usable capacity and documented access/window constraints. Display feasible candidates; no route optimization is implied.
Straight-line distance is not a road route. Example routes establish no current road status, emergency clearance or safe evacuation instruction. This decision view compares supplied journeys. It does not calculate a route or run a coordinate-based analysis.
Other required records: Settlements; verified road network; service locations; travel restrictions; travel time.
Compare restoration choices using site constraints, benefits, resources and costs.
No option is preferred solely because it costs less.
Other required records: Site condition; restoration options; tenure; costs LKR; benefits; constraints.
Use the supplied soil-loss factors to identify where a detailed assessment is needed.
Verified published formula · USLE factor product
What the selected record shows. Estimated annual sheet/rill loss: 15.641 t/ha/year.
Next step. Check local factor and site evidence before selecting a detailed erosion assessment. Prepare assessment brief in the prototype creates a visible, downloadable draft. It is unassigned and not sent.
The estimate covers sheet and rill erosion, not landslides or all sediment delivery.
R × K × LS × C × P, using a mutually consistent SI factor set.
This USLE factor product is not a full RUSLE2 run, measured loss, delivered sediment, gully loss or landslide forecast. Local factors and uncertainty need review.
Other required records: Rainfall erosivity; erodibility; slope factors; land cover; conservation practices.
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service · A Guide for Predicting Sheet and Rill Erosion on Forest LandGovernment publication · 1980 technical publication SA-TP 11; Universal Soil Loss Equation, printed page 2; metric conversion appendix, printed page 40
The historical source verifies the factor product. Local factor choice and suitability still need confirmation; this is not a full RUSLE2 implementation.
Compare planned and observed hectares of the same land-use class.
What the selected record shows. Difference: -10 ha. Check the class, period and implementation evidence.
Next step. Check the class, period and implementation evidence. Prepare difference review in the prototype creates a visible, downloadable draft. It is unassigned and not sent.
A difference needs source and implementation checks before assigning a cause.
Observed value minus Planned value. Relative change = 100 × difference / Planned value when the earlier value is positive.
Other required records: Approved use plan; parcel ID; implementation date; observed use; hectares.
Identify unresolved planning comments and participation barriers.
Attendance or response does not establish agreement with the plan.
Other required records: Proposal version; required consultees; response date; objection; resolution evidence.
Find missing source, scale, coordinate and classification details in a land-use layer.
What the selected record shows. The required evidence is incomplete for this map documentation case. The items below identify what must be obtained or reconciled.
Complete metadata do not certify map accuracy.
Other required records: Layer ID; scale; coordinate system; classification edition; owner; survey date.
Check survey tasks against staff windows, effort and predecessors.
What the selected record shows. Planned duration: 3 days. Resolve overlapping resource bookings.
Next step. Resolve overlapping resource bookings. Prepare schedule review in the prototype creates a visible, downloadable draft. It is unassigned and not sent.
A feasible example schedule does not assign work or authorise a survey.
Check start/end order, operating window, effort, predecessor completion and overlapping bookings for the same resource. A conflict is flagged; no optimal schedule is invented.
Other required records: Map edition; change evidence; survey effort days; team availability; update due date.
Source. International publication.
Data needed. Map classes, map area by class, independently interpreted reference labels and a probability sample.
Method. Draw reference samples from mapped change and stable classes. Estimate accuracy with an area-weighted error matrix and report uncertainty.
Worked example. Divide the map into changed and stable areas. Sample both groups, then weight the accuracy results by the area each group covers. Recheck areas with weak reference evidence.
Next step. Send a class with weak agreement for independent interpretation or field verification.
Olofsson et al., Good practices for estimating area and assessing accuracy of land change. Sections 3–5, stratified sampling and area-adjusted accuracy.
Confirm the reference imagery, sample design and accuracy required for the intended use.
Check which existing source fields can supply the decision inputs.
Existing form reference: 30c67d24f5323223
Existing form reference: b65e4609a48e9e05
Existing form reference: 91738cf582575742
Existing form reference: ca9e78effa85e080
Existing form reference: c4b2b042a758c3f0
Your institution has its own document and image library. Use the same library for reports, photos and other evidence.
Open this screen for Land Use Policy Planning DepartmentSee the presentation example
Files added in the prototype stay in this browser. Public sharing is an access preview. Existing public reference links already work online.
Data structure keeps the existing source tree, records, charts and map. Manage structure adds a place to propose changes to definitions.
An entity type means a kind of thing or event, such as a reservoir or an inspection. Drafts stay in this browser. A demo approval does not change real definitions, data, chart links or sharing rights.
User management shows example profiles for each institution. People and Roles and access let you review the proposed account screens.
These are interface previews only. They create no account, send no email and change no access. Use example details in the preview. Institution verification does not grant a real permission.
We currently use public data and published reports where available. Please confirm whether your institution can provide data directly, so we can avoid retyping or reading figures from PDFs.
Do not enter passwords, access keys or private account details.
Use the Download answers button at the top of this page. Share the downloaded file or printed copy through your agreed review channel. Nothing is sent automatically.