Journal of Natural Resources and Environmental Management

9(1): 100-103. http://dx.doi.org/10.29244/jpsl.9.1.%15p

E-ISSN: 2460-5824
http://journal.ipb.ac.id/index.php/jpsl

Land Capability Analysis in Bogor Regency, West Java Province

Izhar Auliya a, Widiatmakab, Syartiniliab ,
a Natural Resourcesand Environmental Management Study Program, Graduate School, IPB University, IPB Dramaga Campus,
Bogor, 16680, Indonesia
b Department of Land Resources Management, Faculty of Agriculture, IPB University, IPB Dramaga Campus, Bogor, 16680,

Indonesia
c Department of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Agriculture, IPB University, IPB Dramaga Campus, Bogor, 16680, Indonesia

Article Info:
Received: xx – xx - xxxx
in revised form: xx – xx - xxxx
Accepted: xx – xx - xxxx
Available Online: xx – xx - xxxx
Keywords:
Land Use, Land Capability,
Spatial Pattern
Corresponding Author:
Izhar Auliya,
Natural Resources and
Environmental Management
Study Program, Graduate
School, IPB University;
Tel. +6281314537999
Email:
izharauliya@apps.ipb.ac.id
Abstract: The development progress, population growth, and increasing human needs
are interconnected, leading to changes in land use. Uncontrolled changes in land use
can result in mismatches with agreed-upon spatial patterns, potentially causing issues
like increased critical land areas, erosion, and floods. Bogor Regency has experienced
rapid land use changes, particularly in agriculture, with a significant shift between
1995 and 2001. The dynamics of land use change, especially the conversion of
agricultural land into built-up areas, have been substantial. The region exhibits a
diverse range of land uses, from tourism to industry. To ensure effective land use, it
is essential to consider land carrying capacity, and land capability evaluation is a
method to assess this. The research in Bogor Regency identifies land capability classes
II to VII, with classes IV and VI dominating the region. Inhibiting factors, such as
slope, erosion hazards, and soil depth, are crucial considerations. Spatial analysis
indicates a high compatibility between land capability and actual land cover, covering
a significant portion of Bogor Regency's total area. However, compatibility with
spatial patterns is mainly conditionally suitable. The findings highlight the importance
of considering land capability in guiding land use decisions for sustainable land
management.

How to cite (CSE Style 8 th Edition):

Auliya, Izhar, Widiatmaka, Syartinilia. 2023. Land Capability Analysis in Bogor Regency, West Java Province. JPSL 9(1): 100-103.
http://dx.doi.org/10.29244/jpsl.9.1.%15p

INTRODUCTION
The progress of development, population growth, and increasing human needs are interrelated events. The
progress of development to support various needs increasingly requires land, leading to significant changes in
land use. The progress of development in a region is parallel to the increase in population growth, accompanied
by an increase in the quality and quantity of living needs [1]. This has an impact on uncontrollable changes in
land use [2]. Consequently, changes in land use are no longer in line with the agreed-upon spatial patterns.
This situation occurs in almost every region, especially at the district level [3]. If this continues unchecked, it
can be ensured that the critical land area will increase, erosion and floods will occur frequently, resulting in a
decrease in land carrying capacity [4].
Land use in Bogor Regency has undergone rapid changes from 1999 to 2013, particularly in agricultural
land, where there was a significant shift between 1995 and 2001 [5]. Bogor Regency has a very high potential
for critical land covering 123.923 hectares [6]. The regency exhibits a wide variety of land use, ranging from
tourism, industry, to residential sectors. The dynamics of land use change in Bogor Regency have been very
high in the last two decades, especially the conversion of agricultural land into built-up areas. There has been

100
 Jurnal Pengelolaan Sumber Daya Alam dan Lingkungan x(x): xxx-xxx

a land use change from both wet and dry agricultural land to built-up areas covering 47.953 hectares or 16,03
percent of the total area of Bogor Regency [5].
Every change in land use must consider its carrying capacity because the balance of land carrying capacity
serves as the measure of suitability for any land use. Conversely, if land usage exceeds the capacity of its
carrying capacity, land use becomes ineffective. Therefore, land carrying capacity evaluation is needed to
assess how effectively land is being utilized in an area [7]. One of the methods that can be used to conduct
carrying capacity evaluation is land capability evaluation [8].
Land capability evaluation is one of the efforts to utilize land (land resources) according to its potential.
Assessing land potential is crucial, especially for policy development, land utilization, and sustainable land
management. One of the activities carried out by humans is to optimally utilize available land by adapting its
use to the soil's capability and providing treatment according to the necessary conditions, so that the land can
function without depleting its fertility, done to meet their livelihood needs [9]. This requires consideration of
land capability when giving guidance on land use.
The classification of land capability and its purposes according to Klingebiel and Montgomery [10] and
also explained in the Minister of Environment Regulation Number 17 of 2009 regarding Guidelines for
Determining Environmental Carrying Capacity in Spatial Planning for Regions is grouped as follows,
1. Class I has little to no limitations that restrict its use. Suitable for various purposes, especially
agriculture. Its characteristics include nearly flat to flat topography, low erosion threat, sufficient
effective depth, good drainage, ease of cultivation, good water-holding capacity, fertility, and no flood
risk.
2. Class II has some limitations or threats of damage that reduce its usability or require moderate
conservation efforts. Management needs to be careful, including conservation measures to prevent
damage. Uses may include seasonal crops, grasses, grazing fields, production forests, protected
forests, and nature reserves.
3. Class III has significant obstacles that limit land use options and require specific conservation
measures, both of which are more pronounced than in Class II. It has heavier limitations compared to
Class II, and if used for crops, soil management and conservation measures are more challenging to
implement. These constraints restrict the duration of use for seasonal crops, processing time, crop
choices, or a combination of these restrictions. Possible uses include seasonal crops, crops requiring
soil cultivation, grass crops, pastures, production forests, protected forests, nature reserves, and non-
agricultural uses.
4. Class IV has greater soil obstacles and threats of damage compared to Class III, and the range of crop
options is limited. Careful management is required for seasonal crops, and conservation measures are
more challenging to implement. It is typically used for seasonal crops, general agricultural crops,
grass crops, production forests, grazing fields, protected forests, wildlife sanctuaries, and non-
agricultural purposes.
5. Class V is not threatened by erosion but has other obstacles that are not easily eliminated, thus limiting
its usage options. It has constraints that restrict the variety of uses and crops. It is located on nearly
flat to flat topography but is often subject to flooding, rocky terrain, or unfavorable climate conditions.
6. Class VI has significant inhibiting factors that severely limit land use due to threats of damage that
cannot be eliminated. It is typically located on steep slopes, so if used for grazing and production
forests, it must be well managed to prevent erosion. Usages may include grass crops, grazing fields,
production forests, protected forests, nature reserves, and non-agricultural purposes.
7. Class VII has severe inhibiting factors and threats that cannot be eliminated; therefore, its utilization
must be conservation-oriented. If used for grasslands or production forests, intensive erosion
prevention measures are required.

101
 Jurnal Pengelolaan Sumber Daya Alam dan Lingkungan x(x): xxx-xxx

8. Class VIII is best left in its natural state. The limitations and threats are extremely severe, and
conservation measures are not possible, so it needs to be protected. It is typically used for protected
forests, natural recreation, and nature reserves.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Material
This research was conducted in Bogor Regency, which is an area with high land cover changes in the last
two decades. The research was carried out from January 2023 to September 2023.

Figure 1 Bogor Sub-District Administrative Map

Research Method
The method to be used in determining land capability criteria is matching. The matching method is carried
out by comparing and matching the criteria of land capability classes with the characteristics of land units, thus
obtaining the land potential of each land unit through tabular analysis techniques [11]. The permissible land
use for each land capability class, according to Klingebiel and Montgomery [10], can be seen in Table 1.
Table 1. Criteria for Land Use Based on Land Capability
No Land Capability Land Use
1 I All types of land use
2 II All types of land use except Psi
3 III All types of land use except Psi and Pi
4 IV Pt, all types of grazing, all types of forests
5 V All types of grazing (Pgi, Pgsd, Pgt), all types of forests
6 VI Pgsd, Pgt, all types of forests
7 VII Pgt, all types of forests
8 VIII Nature reserves and protected forests
Source: Klingebiel and Montgomery (1973); Widiatmaka et al. (2015)

102
 Jurnal Pengelolaan Sumber Daya Alam dan Lingkungan x(x): xxx-xxx

Explanation: Psi (Highly intensive agriculture); Pi (Intensive agriculture); Psd (Moderately intensive
agriculture); Pt (Limited agriculture); Pgi (Intensive grazing); Pgsd (Moderate grazing); Pgt (Limited
grazing)

Analysis Method
The analysis is conducted by dividing the land into Land Mapping Units (SPL) with similar biophysical
characteristics. The analysis is based on the methods used by Arsyad [13] and Hardjowigeno and Widiatmaka
[14]. The characteristics used are inhibiting factors with 7 permanent attributes that are difficult to change,
such as soil texture, slope, drainage, effective depth, erosion level, rock percentage, and flood hazard [13].
Land capability analysis is performed using the matching method according to Table 2. \

Table 2. Land Capability Criteria

Land Capability Classes
No Faktor Pembatas
I II III IV V VI VII VIII
1 Soil texture (t) 1)
a. Upper Layer (40 cm) t 2/ t 3 t 1/ t 4 t 1/ t 4 (*) (*) (*) (*) t5
b. Bottom layer t 2/ t 4 t 1/ t 4 t 1/ t 4 (*) (*) (*) (*) t5
2 Slope (%)2) l0 l1 l2 l3 (*) l4 l5 l6
3 Drainage3) d0/ d1 d2 d3 d4 (**) (*) (*) (*)
4 Effective soil depth 4) k0 k0 k1 k2 (*) k3 (*) (*)
5 Erosion 5) e0 e1 e1 e2 (*) e3 e4 (*)
6 Gravel/Rocks 6) b0 b0 b0 b1 b2 (*) (*) b3
7 Flood risk7) o0 o1 o2 o3 o4 (*) (*) (*)
Source :Arsyad (2010); Hardjowigeno and Widiatmaka (2007); Widiatmaka et al. (2015)
Explanation :
(*) : can have any inhibiting factor characteristics from a lower class
(**): the soil surface is always waterlogged
1) Texture : t1 (Subtle); t2 (A bit subtle); t3 (Moderate); t4 (Robust); t5 (Rough)
2) Slope : l0 (0 – 3%); l1 (3 – 8%); l2 (8 – 15%); l3 (15 – 30%); l4 (30 – 45%); l5 (45 – 65%); l6 (>65%)
3) Drainage : d 0 (Good); d 1 (Good enough); d 2 (Fairly poor); d 3 (Poor); d 4 (Extremely poor)
4) Effective soil depth : k 0 (Deep); k 1 (Moderate); k 2 (Shallow); k 3 (Extremely shallow)
5) Erosion : e0 (No erosion); e1 (Slight); e2 (Moderate); e3 (Massive); e4 (Extremely massive)
6) Gravel/Rocks : b 0 (None or few); b 1 (Moderate); b 2 (Excessively); b 3 (Huge)
7) Flood risk : o 0 (Never); o 1 (Rarely); o 2 (Sometimes); o 3 (Frequently); o 4 (Very often)

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Distribution of Land Capability Classes
The land capability of Bogor Regency is presented in Table 3. There is no class I land capability in Bogor
Regency. Class I land capability is land suitable for all types of land use without the need for specific soil
maintenance [13]. The distribution of land capability in Bogor Regency can be seen in Figure 2. Land
capability has inhibiting factors in each class, consisting of upper layer texture, lower layer texture, slope,
drainage, effective soil depth, gravel/rock content, and flood vulnerability level. These inhibiting factors
indicate that a piece of land requires management and maintenance to elevate its land capability class. The
distribution of inhibiting factors of land capability can be seen in Table 4.

103
 Jurnal Pengelolaan Sumber Daya Alam dan Lingkungan x(x): xxx-xxx

Figure 2 Bogor Regency Land Capabilities Map

Table 3. Land Capabilities Areas

Land Capability Classes Areas (Ha) Percentage (%)
II 26.838,61 9,00
III 52.143,72 17,48
IV 90.947,22 30,49
V 18.968,26 6,36
VI 76.669,34 25,70
VII 32.750,91 10,98

The best land capability class found in Bogor Regency is land capability class II covering an area of
26,838 hectares or 9.00%, and land capability class III covering an area of 52,143 hectares or 17.48% of the
total area of Bogor Regency. Based on the analysis of land capability, the land capability in Bogor Regency is
predominantly represented by land capability class IV covering an area of 90,947 hectares or 30.49%, and land
capability class VI covering an area of 76,669 hectares or 25.70% of the total area of Bogor Regency. Land
with land capability class IV has constraints that limit the types of land use that can be carried out. These
constraints require intensive management and maintenance [10]. The use of land in class IV is very limited
due to a combination of inhibiting factors such as slope, erosion hazards, effective soil depth, and susceptibility
to flooding.
The worst land capability class found in Bogor Regency is land capability class VII. Land capability class
VII has severe inhibiting factors, making it unsuitable for human activities. Class VII land can only be left in
its natural state without human intervention [10,13]. Land with land capability class VII covers an area of
32,750 hectares or 10.98% of the total area of Bogor Regency.
Land capability is influenced by inhibiting factors in each class, including upper and lower soil texture,
slope, drainage, effective soil depth, gravel/rocks, and flood vulnerability. These inhibiting factors indicate
that land requires management and maintenance to improve its capability class. Based on the land capability

104
 Jurnal Pengelolaan Sumber Daya Alam dan Lingkungan x(x): xxx-xxx

analysis, the inhibiting factors in the best land capability class are predominantly upper and lower soil texture,
covering an area of 16,489 hectares, requiring conservation practices like soil loosening to enhance its class.
In land capability class VII, the inhibiting factor identified is a very high slope class, ranging from 45 to
65%. Class VII land cannot be used for any purpose due to extremely inhibiting factors, as any land utilization
may pose risks of massive erosion and flooding in a region. Therefore, land in class VII should be left in its
natural state. Table 5 shows that the most prevalent inhibiting factor in Bogor Regency is slope, covering
85,878 hectares or 28.79%, followed by inhibiting factors like erosion hazards and effective soil depth,
covering 43,692 hectares or 14.65% of the total area of Bogor Regency. This is influenced by the hilly
topography surrounding Bogor Regency.

Table 4. The area of inhibiting factors in the Land Capability Classes in Bogor Regency.
Land Capability Areas
Class Sub Class Ha %
II DRA, KEF 10.319,22 3.46
DRA, LRG 30,32 0.01
TLA, TLB 16.489,06 5.53
III ERO 8.133,01 2.73
ERO, BJR 30.840,29 10.34
ERO, LRG 12.468,07 4.18
LRG 702,35 0.24
IV ERO 26.530,47 8.89
ERO, BJR 1.165,58 0.39
ERO, KEF 43.692,45 14.65
ERO, LRG 99,06 0.03
LRG 13.833,27 4.64
LRG, KEF 5.626,38 1.89
V KB 10.038,55 3.37
LRG, KB 8.929,71 2.99
VI ERO 405,04 0.14
KEF 37.672,65 12.63
LRG 38.591,66 12.94
VII LRG 32.750,91 10.98
298.318,06 100,00
Explanation :
ERO : Erosion Hazard; BJR : Flood Hazard; LRG : Slope; LTA : Upper Soil Layer; LTB : Lower Soil Layer; DRA :
Drainage; KEF : Effective Soil Depth; KB : Gravel/Rocks

Compatibility of Land Capability with Actual Land Cover and Spatial Pattern
The distribution of land carrying capacity in Bogor Regency can be seen in Figures 3 and 4. The
compatibility of land capability with actual land cover and spatial patterns shows significant differences. Based
on spatial analysis, the compatibility of land capability and actual land cover is dominated by land capability
classes that are consistent with their actual land cover, covering an area of 211,397.87 hectares or 70.86% of
the total area of Bogor Regency. Meanwhile, the compatibility of land capabilit y and spatial patterns is
dominated by conditionally suitable land capability classes covering an area of 152,035.08 hectares or 50.96%.

105
 Jurnal Pengelolaan Sumber Daya Alam dan Lingkungan x(x): xxx-xxx

The land capability class II, which is the best class found in Bogor Regency, is allocated quite well,
with a compatibility of 45.93% with actual land cover and 47.97% with spatial patterns. Land class III is
predominantly characterized by conditionally suitable compatibility, where soil conservation measures are
needed to reduce erosion and flooding. Conservation measures for class III land can include the construction
of terraces to minimize the slope level on class III land.
Table 5. Summary of the Area of Inhibiting Factors for Land Capability in Bogor Regency
Areas
Inhibiting Factor
Ha %
DRA, KEF 10.319,22 3,46
ERO 35.068,52 11,76
ERO, BJR 32.005,87 10,73
ERO, KEF 43.692,45 14,65
ERO, LRG 12.567,14 4,21
KB 10.038,55 3,37
KEF 37.672,65 12,63
LRG 85.878,19 28,79
LRG, DRA 30,32 0,01
LRG, KB 8.929,71 2,99
LRG, KEF 5.626,38 1,89
TLA, TLB 16.489,06 5,53
Total 298.318,06 100,00

Figure 3 Compatibility of Land Capability with Actual Land Cover Map

106
 Jurnal Pengelolaan Sumber Daya Alam dan Lingkungan x(x): xxx-xxx

Figure 4 Compatibility of Land Capability with Spatial Pattern Map

There is a significant amount of Regional Spatial Planning (RTRW) allocation that exceeds the
carrying capacity of the land capability, totaling 45,759 hectares of Bogor Regency's total area, where there is
alignment between spatial patterns and land capability. The analysis results for the entire area of Bogor
Regency indicate spatial patterns that are reasonably consistent with land capability. Still, they also suggest
the need for specific preliminary treatments in accordance with inhibiting factors from each land capability
class.

107
 Table 6. The compatibility of land capability with actual land cover and spatial patterns in Bogor Regency.
Areas Luas Luas
LCC1) PLA2) KL-PL3) PR5) KL-PR6)
(Ha) Ha %4) Ha %4)
II 26838.61 LT, HTN S 12327.83 45.93 EH, HK, HL, HPT, HP, KH, KPI, LB, S 12875.18 47.97
LK, PB
PMK, SWH CS 8366.67 31.17 PD, PP3, PP2, PP1 CS 13904.65 51.81
SP, AWN NA 6144.11 22.89 Lake NA 58.78 0.22
III 52143.72 LT, HTN S 19863.89 38.09 EH, HK, HL, HPT, HP S 6868.65 13.17
PMK, SWH CS 23844.97 45.73 KH, KPI, LB, LK, PB, PD, PP3, PP2, CS 45169.86 86.63
PP1
SP, AWN NA 8434.86 16.18 RW, Lake NA 105.21 0.20
IV 90947.22 HTN S 68941.54 75.80 HK, HL S 7396.90 8.13
LT CS 1099.39 1.21 EH, HPT, HP, PD, PP3, PP2, PP1 CS 46740.14 51.39
PMK, SWH, LK NS 15569.65 17.12 KH, KPI, LB, LK, PB NS 36488.59 40.12
SP, AWN NA 5336.64 5.87 RW, Lake NA 321.59 0.35
V 18968.26 HTN S 18937.75 99.84 HK S 864.28 4.56
LK NS 13.40 0.07 EH, HPT, HP CS 6843.91 36.08
AWN NA 17.10 0.09 KPI, LB, LK, PB, PD, PP3, PP2, PP1 NS 11241.02 59.26
RW, Lake NA 19.05 0.10
VI 76669.34 HTN S 64166.75 83.69 HK, HL S 15447.06 20.15
LT, PMK, SWH, LK NS 6981.57 9.11 EH, HPT, HP CS 15630.36 20.39
SP, AWN NA 5521.03 7.20 KH, KPI, LB, LK, PB, PD, PP3, PP2, NS 45521.13 59.37
PP1
RW, Lake NA 70.79 0.09
VII 32750.91 HTN S 27160.11 82.93 HL S 2307.47 7.05
LT, PMK, SWH, LK NS 2149.15 6.56 EH, HK, HPT, HP CS 23746.16 72.51
SP, AWN NA 3441.65 10.51 KH, LB, LK, PB, PD, PP3 NS 6694.38 20.44
Situ NA 2.90 0.01
Total 298318.06 Total 298318.06

Explanation :
1)LLC : Land Capability Class
2)LUC : Land Use Cover; LT: Fields/Garden; HTN: Forest; PMK: Settlements; SWH: Paddy fields; SP: Rivers/Water; AWN: Clouds

108
 3)LLC-LUC: Compatibility between land capability and actual land cover; S: Suitable; ; CS: Conditionally Suitable; NS: Not Suitable;
NA: Not Assessed
4) Percentage for each land capability class
5)SP: Spatial Pattern; EH: Enclave Forest Area; HK: Conservation Forest; HL: Protected Forest; HPT; Limited Production Forest; HP:

Production Forest; KH; Special Defense Area; KPI: Industrial Zoning Area; LB Wetland Zoning Area; LK: Dryland Zoning Area;
PB; Plantation Zoning Area; PD; Rural Settlement Zoning Area; PP3; Low-Density Urban Settlements; PP2: Medium-Density Urban
Settlements; PP1: High-Density Urban Settlements; RW: Reservoir Planning
6)LLC-SP: Compatibility between land capability and spatial patterns in the Regional Spatial Plan ; S: Suitable; ; CS: Conditionally

Suitable; NS: Not Suitable; NA: Not Assessed

CONCLUSION
Based on the results of the research analysis, Land capability in Bogor Regency ranges from land capability class
II to VII, with the region being predominantly characterized by land capability class IV covering an area of 90,947
hectares or 30.49% and land capability class VI covering an area of 76,669 hectares or 25.70% of the total area of Bogor
Regency. As for inhibiting factors in land capability, the dominant factors include slope, covering an area of 85,878
hectares or 28.79%, followed by inhibiting factors such as erosion hazards and effective soil depth, covering an area of
43,692 hectares or 14.65% of the Bogor Regency area. Based on spatial analysis, it is known that Bogor Regency has a
relatively high level of compatibility between land capability and actual land cover, covering an area of 211,397.87
hectares or 70.86% of the total area of Bogor Regency. Meanwhile, the compatibility between land capability and spatial
patterns is predominantly characterized by conditionally suitable areas, covering an area of 152,035.08 hectares or 50.96%
of the total area of Bogor Regency.

REFERENCES
[ 1 ] Zamroh, M. R. A. 2014. Analisis Perubahan Penggunaan Lahan Untuk Permukiman dikecamatan Kaliwungu dengan
Sistem Informasi Geografis. Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Geografis Vol.2-1 October 2014
[ 2 ] Syaifuddin, D. dan Anwar, I. (2008). Kajian Potensi Lahan Untuk Menunjang Optimalisasi Pengembangan Tanaman
Jagung di Kabupaten Gowa dan Takalar. Jurnal Agrisistem, Juni 2008, Vol.4 No.1.
[ 3 ] As-syakur, A. R. dan Adnyana, I.W.S. (2009). Analisis Indeks Vegetasi Menggunakan Citra ALOS/AVNIR-2 dan
Sistem Informasi Geografis (SIG) untuk Evaluasi Tata Ruang Kota Denpasar. Jurnal Bumi Lestari, Volume 9 No.1,
Februari 2009, hlm. 1-11.
[ 4 ] Ferdinan, F., Jamilah dan Sarifuddin. (2013) .Evaluasi Kesesuaian Lahan Sawah Beririgasi di Desa Air Hitam
Kecamatan Lima Puluh Kabupaten Batubara. Jurnal Online Agroekoteknologi, Vol 1, No. 2, Maret 2013 .
[ 5 ] Fajarini, R. 2014. Dinamika Perubahan Lahan dan Perencanaan Tata Ruang Di Kabupaten Bogor. Tesis. Institut
Pertanian Bogor
[ 6 ] Siti, H. K, Haridjaja, O., Gandasasmita, K. 2014. Model Spasial Bahaya Lahan Kritis di Kabupaten Bogor, Cianjur
dan Sukabumi. Majalah Ilmiah Globe Volume 16 No. 2, 149 – 156.
[ 7 ] Moniaga, Vicky R. B. 2011. Analisis Daya Dukung Lahan Pertanian. Anatomical Science Education, 7 (2): 61 – 68
[ 8 ] Sharififar, A., Ghorbani, H., dan Karimi, H., 2013. Integrated Land Evaluation for Sustainable Agricultural Production
by Using Analytical Hierarchy Process. Agriculture (Poľnohospodárstvo), 59 (3):131−140.
[ 9 ] Paranita, A. 2020. Evaluasi Kemampuan Lahan dan Kesesuaian Lahan Pertanian di Kabupaten Bogor. UG Jurnal Vol.
14 (02), 13 – 19.
[ 10 ] Klingebiel, A. A. & Montgomery, P. M. 1961. Land capability classification. Agric. Handb. No. 210. USDA-SCS.
21 p.
[ 11 ] Murtianto, H. 2010. Evaluasi Lahan. Bandung: Physical Geography Department UPI.
[ 12 ] Widiatmaka, Ambarwulan, W., Purwanto, M. Y. J., Setiawan, Y., Effendi, H. 2015. Daya Dukung
Lingkungan Berbasis Kemampuan Lahan di Tuban, Jawa Timur. Jurnal Manusia dan Lingkungan, Vol. 22 (2), 247
– 259.
[ 13 ] Arsyad, S. 2010. Konservasi Tanah dan Air. Serial Pustaka. IPB Press: Bogor.
[ 14 ] Hardjowigeno, S. dan Widiatmaka. 2007. Evaluasi Kesesuaian Lahan dan Perencanaan Tataguna Lahan. Gadjah
Mada University Press. Yogyakarta

109