# Urban Land Use Survey Methods: A Discussion on Their Evolution
## 1 Introduction  
This article reviews the Anglo-American literature pertinent to the survey methods of urban land uses. The term'survey' is understood, within this article, as a targeted, coordinated, and systematic inventory process that involves the collection of primary data (i.e., fieldwork) and yields records of existing land uses in the form of a database and/or a map. Figure 1 provides a snapshot of this inventory procedure through presenting the field listing form used in a survey of land uses. Maps such as those in Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the main or even the single output of a survey of urban land uses. The term 'urban land use' is used to define the organizational unit that occupies identifiable space at a fixed location and performs a specific urban function [1] (p. 31), [2] (pp. 221-226), [3] (p. 274). Except when special reference is made, no differentiation is made in this article between 'urban use' and 'urban land use' [4]. The former term indicates each individual activity occupying a spatial location (see Figure 2), while the latter indicates the _predominant_ activity within a defined spatial unit (see Figure 3). Figure 1: Example of a field listing form for the survey of urban uses [5] (p. 21). The stimulus for this literature review was a recent paper, which revealed that contemporary planning literature does not provide a comprehensive list of the available methods for the survey of urban land uses [6]. In search of the reasons for this omission, the author of this publication explored three possible explanations: (a) survey methods of urban land uses are already well-developed and there is no room for further development, (b) the analysis and planning of urban space no longer requires land use surveys, and (c) remote sensing and crowdsourced geo-platforms can provide a clear picture of the distribution and patterns of urban land use in space, eliminating the need for field surveys. The author, however, concluded that none of the above hold true. Even more, he stressed that the identified omission negatively affects the potential of urban analysis, as a sound methodological framework would improve the quality of collected data. Furthermore, such a survey would reduce the time and resources needed for the survey, allow for a wider range of analytical options, facilitate future survey updates, and simplify the conduct of comparative studies. The finding that the current literature is insufficient regarding the survey of urban land uses can be considered unexpected for two reasons. First, because contemporary planning  
Figure 3: Digital database of New York, representing the existing urban land uses per plot. Source: NYC Planning. Available at [[https://zola.planning.nyc.gov/about/](https://zola.planning.nyc.gov/about/)]([https://zola.planning.nyc.gov/about/](https://zola.planning.nyc.gov/about/)) (accessed on 4 February 2022). Figure 2: Digital database of Amsterdam representing existing urban uses. Urban uses are symbolized as hexagons, with the size of each symbol being proportional to the surface area of the corresponding use. Source: City of Amsterdam. Available at [[https://maps.amsterdam.nl/functiekaart/?LANG=en](https://maps.amsterdam.nl/functiekaart/?LANG=en)]([https://maps.amsterdam.nl/functiekaart/?LANG=en](https://maps.amsterdam.nl/functiekaart/?LANG=en)) (accessed on 4 February 2022). practice is mainly based on land use planning [7; 8; 9; 10; 11], and this was more or less the case throughout the last century [11]. In other words, established practices and frameworks for the inventory, analysis, and planning of urban land uses should already be in place. Second, because all planning begins with and resorts to some sort of analytical work; thus, existing land uses comprise the essential basis for their planning.