# Urban Land Use Survey Methods: A Discussion on Their Evolution
## 4 The Exclusion of Survey Methodology from Academic Research
Of course, it should be noted that the above new classifications were focused exclusively on the issue of identification and organization of uses into groups, completely ignoring issues related to the actual purpose for which they were prepared, i.e., for land use surveying. For example, none of these classifications provided guidance on how to prepare a survey, how to conduct a survey in the field, or how to map the surveyed uses. In contrast, all of the older classification manuals, especially the 1962 _Land Use Classification Manual_ and the 1965 _SLUCM_, addressed these issues. This oversight is compounded by the fact that contemporary literature also fails to address these issues. This is true even of the most specialized textbooks, such as _Site Analysis: A Contextual Approach to Sustainable Land Planning and Site Design_ by [PERSON], published in 2008 [86], or the _Site Planning and Design Handbook_ by [PERSON], published in 2009 [87]. Even in the most recent fifth edition of _Urban Land Use Planning_, of which [PERSON] is no longer an author, the urban land use survey chapters have been removed (see: [88]). There are, however, some handbooks, such as the _Land Use Resource Guide: A Guide to Preparing the Land Use Element of a Local Comprehensive Plan_, published by the Center for Land Use Education in 2005 [89], or [PERSON]'s _Urban Analysis_, published in 2009 [90], but even these offer a limited and somehow simplistic overview of the survey task. In addition, it is surprising to note that recent technological advancements had little impact on the survey methods of urban land uses for town planning purposes, although GIS has provided insightful tools for the spatial analysis of urban uses and urban land uses [91], while its integration with remote sensing has reshaped the methods for the survey of _land cover_[92; 93]. Specifically, the blooming technology in remote sensing and GIS,including the increased availability of accurate and comprehensive spatial data from various geo-platforms and the rapid development of hardware technology (in mobile devices, in unmanned aerial vehicles, and in satellite constellations), did not influence the field [6]. Though, a number of general-purpose field-mapping applications have been recently developed (e.g., ArcGIS Collector, Mapit Spatial, QField), which increase the convenience of the surveyor and ensure GIS interoperability, they have not contributed to the further development of the methodological part of the survey. These field-mapping applications mainly replicate the conventional (paper-based) inventory procedure conducted with field listing forms (see: [94]). Also, none of these applications have been particularly designed for the survey of urban land uses (see: [95]). Thus, their utilization requires customization, which compromises the gains in case of short-term use [96]. It should be clarified that the use of GIS generally offers increased convenience, when it comes to organizing, storing, and processing land use data, and constructing land use maps. But, again, no actual _methodological_ gain is identified in the survey procedure.