Land Use Policy Planning Department

1. Land-use change over timeChoose where to investigate and explain why

Validation required · Local land-use comparison rule

Find land-use changes, check the evidence and choose the next investigation.

CompareChoose the area, years and class. View hectares, percentages and annual change.

InspectOrder by hectares or percentage. Check decreases, increases and parcel transitions.

Follow upReview a division and prepare a decision example with its reason, action and proposed role.

One fictional example: the annual records, map images, transition table and decision record use the same data. An explicit balanced edit updates the example in the current page only.

Data and available sources

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.

Source	Time coverage	Use and limits
NSDI Landuse / LUPPD	Observation years must be confirmed	Polygon classes include forest, paddy, tea, rubber, coconut and other uses. Creation/revision years are metadata. They do not confirm a comparable annual observation series. Obtain complete project coverage.
NSDI Forest Boundary	Observation years not stated in the inspected layer	Forest polygons, forest type and forest name. Two dated versions, local completeness and accuracy need confirmation. A forest-only layer cannot fill all land-use classes.
Copernicus annual land cover, C3 v3.0.1	Annual 2015–2019 · nominal 100 m	Consistent annual broad land-cover maps and quality layers. Tree crops can enter forest/shrub classes. Temporary cropland is not split into paddy and other crops. Global accuracy is not local accuracy.
DCS paddy statistics	Maha / Yala seasonal district series	Sown/harvested extent, yield and production; extent definitions differ. Context only for this land-stock comparison. Seasonal sown/harvested extent is not a forest or field-boundary map. Do not add seasons as unique physical land area.

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.

Comparison and decision rules

Match the analysis boundary, class scheme, method, measure and source series. Show the actual area covered inside each division; do not silently substitute the full division for the project area.
Class areas plus unclassified area must equal the fixed analysis area. A blank is missing, not zero. Incomplete endpoints block whole-area change and transitions.
Net change = later minus earlier. Percentage change = 100 times net change divided by earlier area; unavailable for a zero baseline. Annual change = net change divided by elapsed years, not a forecast.
Show both hectares and percentages. The selected sort and direction explain the review order; they do not set a material-change threshold.
Transitions require matched parcel or pixel histories. Gross loss leaves a class; gross gain enters it. Net = gain minus loss. Count a changed parcel once for total converted extent.
The map generator creates fictional parcel histories and shapes for this example. It is not a method to reconstruct real conversions from area totals.
A decision example records the selected scope and period, dataset/boundary/class/method versions, figures, reason, next action, proposed role, follow-up and source references. No assignment is sent.

Client and expert checks — pending

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.

Your review

Does your institution need this decision?Is the map data list complete?Are the sources, areas and years suitable?Are the comparison method and units suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.

Other checks and responsibilities

Can staff supply or upload these map layers?Does the view help you choose areas to check?Are the right reviewers and decision-makers identified?Are the data-sharing permissions clear?

Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

How the maps will be prepared

Obtain the agreed project boundary, division boundaries, dated land-use layers and original metadata.
Check observation periods, class definitions, geometry and coverage. Align boundaries, classification, resolution and coordinate systems.
Calculate hectares with a suitable area-preserving projection or documented geodesic method. Do not treat square degrees or an undocumented source area field as hectares.
Overlay compatible dated layers to retain from/to classes and calculate class totals, losses, gains, stable area and unknown coverage. Assess local accuracy with suitable reference evidence.
Keep the input versions and processing method. Deliver permitted map layers and summary records through the API for the web views.

The current prototype processes fictional example records only. Official-source file selections remain previews; no institution data is uploaded or saved.

Matching example map images

Fictional 2015 map from the example parcel histories — 2015

Fictional 2019 map from the same parcel histories — 2019

Fictional shapes and positions. These are not official Knuckles boundaries or project results. The prototype map view follows the selected area and years.

Published references and local calculation notes

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

2. Refer proposed developments overlapping constraintsDEC-DP01-002 · Development screening · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Refer proposed developments overlapping constraints.

Validation required

Method. 100 × union of constraint overlap / proposal footprint. Count intersecting constraint areas once.

Next step. Review evidence. Refer affected sites for technical/legal review, revise the footprint, or request a field survey.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Proposal footprint [ha]; Union of overlapping constraint areas [ha]; Boundary edition; Constraint definition

Other required evidence. Proposal polygon; zoning edition; conservation boundaries; restriction type; overlap hectares.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — development screening · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Proposal footprint	75	ha
Union of overlapping constraint areas	18	ha
Boundary edition	Sample boundary1
Constraint definition	Sample constraint class
Overlap share	24	%
Overlapping area	18	ha

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.

Proposed checking role. Land-use planner and spatial data custodian.

After the action. Resolved constraints and independently checked site conditions.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

LUPPD Performance Report 2022: official planning context — Government publication. Section 1.3, PDF page 4: divisional, village and micro-watershed planning; stakeholder coordination. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
UDA published zoning map — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
NRMC Land Use Planning and Geo-Informatics — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

3. Commission missing divisional land-use plansDEC-DP01-003 · Planning coverage · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Commission missing divisional land-use plans.

Validation required

Method. 100 × distinct covered eligible units / eligible frame. Known uncovered = frame − covered − unknown.

Next step. Review evidence. Select eligible underserved units for outreach, investigate missing coverage, or revise the verified frame.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Required eligible frame [divisions]; Distinct members of that frame covered [divisions]; Frame members with unknown coverage [divisions]

Other required evidence. Division register; approved plan boundary; plan date; validity; responsible office.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — planning coverage · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Required eligible frame	100	divisions
Distinct members of that frame covered	65	divisions
Frame members with unknown coverage	5	divisions
Verified coverage	65	%
Known uncovered	30	divisions
Unknown coverage	5	divisions

Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures.

Proposed checking role. Land-use planner and spatial data custodian.

After the action. Verified eligible units receiving service and remaining unmet need.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

LUPPD Performance Report 2022: official planning context — Government publication. Section 1.3, PDF page 4: divisional, village and micro-watershed planning; stakeholder coordination. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
UDA published zoning map — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
NRMC Land Use Planning and Geo-Informatics — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

4. Check field and map classification disagreementsDEC-DP01-004 · Field verification · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Investigate field and map classification disagreements.

Validation required

Method. Compare original definitions, identifiers, units and versions against documented equivalence evidence. Preserve conflicts and unresolved mappings; do not subtract category labels or silently merge records.

Next step. Resolve source disagreement. Assign discrepancies to the custodian, accept documented corrections, or retain unresolved versions.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Original source value/definition; Comparison source value/definition; Original version; Comparison version; Documented equivalence evidence

Other required evidence. Parcel ID; mapped use; field use; inspection date; positional accuracy.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — field verification · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Original source value/definition	Forest class in land-cover register
Comparison source value/definition	Agroforestry class in field return
Original version	Sample version1
Comparison version	Sample version2
Documented equivalence evidence	Unresolved
Unresolved equivalence items	1	items

Proposed checking role. Land-use planner and spatial data custodian.

After the action. Discrepancies resolved with evidence and repeat error rate.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

LUPPD Performance Report 2022: official planning context — Government publication. Section 1.3, PDF page 4: divisional, village and micro-watershed planning; stakeholder coordination. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
UDA published zoning map — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
NRMC Land Use Planning and Geo-Informatics — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

5. Shortlist land uses compatible with local conditionsDEC-DP01-005 · Agricultural suitability · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Shortlist land uses compatible with local conditions.

Validation required

Method. Check each required item and retain its reference. A documented item is not a scientific, legal or institutional approval.

Next step. Complete the evidence. Shortlist technically feasible alternatives, reject exclusions, or request site evidence.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Land polygon; Land polygon evidence reference; soil depth; soil depth evidence reference; slope degrees; slope degrees evidence reference; rainfall; rainfall evidence reference; water access; water access evidence reference; crop requirements; crop requirements evidence reference

Other required evidence. Land polygon; soil depth; slope degrees; rainfall; water access; crop requirements.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — agricultural suitability · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Land polygon	Missing
Land polygon evidence reference
soil depth	Documented
soil depth evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
slope degrees	Documented
slope degrees evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
rainfall	Documented
rainfall evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
water access	Documented
water access evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
crop requirements	Documented
crop requirements evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
Evidence gaps	1	items

Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity.

Proposed checking role. Land-use planner and spatial data custodian.

After the action. Field-verified limiting factors and observed performance.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

LUPPD Performance Report 2022: official planning context — Government publication. Section 1.3, PDF page 4: divisional, village and micro-watershed planning; stakeholder coordination. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
UDA published zoning map — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
NRMC Land Use Planning and Geo-Informatics — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

6. Refer land-conversion applications for determinationDEC-DP01-006 · Land conversion · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Refer land-conversion applications for determination.

Validation required

Method. Check each required item and retain its reference. A documented item is not a scientific, legal or institutional approval.

Next step. Complete the evidence. Submit a recommendation to the appointed authority, request evidence, or record an appeal.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Application ID; Application ID evidence reference; current use; current use evidence reference; proposed use; proposed use evidence reference; ownership evidence; ownership evidence evidence reference; applicable rules; applicable rules evidence reference; objections; objections evidence reference

Other required evidence. Application ID; current use; proposed use; ownership evidence; applicable rules; objections.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — land conversion · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Application ID	Missing
Application ID evidence reference
current use	Documented
current use evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
proposed use	Documented
proposed use evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
ownership evidence	Documented
ownership evidence evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
applicable rules	Documented
applicable rules evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
objections	Documented
objections evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
Evidence gaps	1	items

Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity.

Proposed checking role. Land-use planner and spatial data custodian.

After the action. Documented determinations, processing time and appeal outcomes.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

LUPPD Performance Report 2022: official planning context — Government publication. Section 1.3, PDF page 4: divisional, village and micro-watershed planning; stakeholder coordination. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
UDA published zoning map — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
NRMC Land Use Planning and Geo-Informatics — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

7. Compare candidate settlement expansion areasDEC-DP01-007 · Settlement planning · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Compare candidate settlement expansion areas.

Validation required

Method. Budget minus option cost. Compare benefits, adverse effects and mandatory constraints separately; no weighted score or automatic best option.

Next step. Compare feasible trade-offs. Choose a feasible alternative with rationale and conditions, commission evidence, or defer.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Option cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects

Other required evidence. Candidate polygon; service capacity; access cost; hazard evidence; environmental constraints.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Assisted natural regeneration · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Option cost	1,500,000	LKR
Available budget	1,800,000	LKR
Mandatory constraints	Met
Expected benefit and its evidence	Compare candidate settlement expansion areas; Candidate polygon and service capacity evidence needed
Resource needs and adverse effects	Sample water, labour, access and safeguard trade-offs
Budget remaining after option	300,000	LKR

Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved.

Proposed checking role. Land-use planner and spatial data custodian.

After the action. Verified benefits, costs and adverse effects versus the agreed baseline.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

LUPPD Performance Report 2022: official planning context — Government publication. Section 1.3, PDF page 4: divisional, village and micro-watershed planning; stakeholder coordination. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
UDA published zoning map — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
NRMC Land Use Planning and Geo-Informatics — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

8. Choose what to handle first: investigations of uncultivated suitable landDEC-DP01-008 · Idle land · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Prioritize investigations of uncultivated suitable land.

Validation required

Method. 100 × distinct covered eligible units / eligible frame. Known uncovered = frame − covered − unknown.

Next step. Review evidence. Select eligible underserved units for outreach, investigate missing coverage, or revise the verified frame.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Required eligible frame [ha]; Distinct members of that frame covered [ha]; Frame members with unknown coverage [ha]

Other required evidence. Parcel ID; cultivated hectares; usable hectares; abandonment reason; tenure status.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — idle land · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Required eligible frame	100	ha
Distinct members of that frame covered	65	ha
Frame members with unknown coverage	5	ha
Verified coverage	65	%
Known uncovered	30	ha
Unknown coverage	5	ha

Count each eligible unit once for the selected service and period. Received messages, attendance, adoption and outcomes are separate measures.

Proposed checking role. Land-use planner and spatial data custodian.

After the action. Verified eligible units receiving service and remaining unmet need.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

LUPPD Performance Report 2022: official planning context — Government publication. Section 1.3, PDF page 4: divisional, village and micro-watershed planning; stakeholder coordination. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
UDA published zoning map — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
NRMC Land Use Planning and Geo-Informatics — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

9. Flag proposed activities overlapping mapped wetlandsDEC-DP01-009 · Wetland protection · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Flag proposed activities overlapping mapped wetlands.

Validation required

Method. 100 × union of constraint overlap / proposal footprint. Count intersecting constraint areas once.

Next step. Review evidence. Refer affected sites for technical/legal review, revise the footprint, or request a field survey.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Proposal footprint [ha]; Union of overlapping constraint areas [ha]; Boundary edition; Constraint definition

Other required evidence. Activity geometry; wetland boundary edition; wetland class; proposal date.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — wetland protection · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Proposal footprint	75	ha
Union of overlapping constraint areas	18	ha
Boundary edition	Sample boundary1
Constraint definition	Sample constraint class
Overlap share	24	%
Overlapping area	18	ha

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.

Proposed checking role. Land-use planner and spatial data custodian.

After the action. Resolved constraints and independently checked site conditions.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

LUPPD Performance Report 2022: official planning context — Government publication. Section 1.3, PDF page 4: divisional, village and micro-watershed planning; stakeholder coordination. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
UDA published zoning map — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
NRMC Land Use Planning and Geo-Informatics — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

10. Refer activities inside reviewed river reservationsDEC-DP01-010 · Riparian protection · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Refer activities inside reviewed river reservations.

Validation required

Method. 100 × union of constraint overlap / proposal footprint. Count intersecting constraint areas once.

Next step. Review evidence. Refer affected sites for technical/legal review, revise the footprint, or request a field survey.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Proposal footprint [ha]; Union of overlapping constraint areas [ha]; Boundary edition; Constraint definition

Other required evidence. River geometry; legally reviewed reservation width; activity footprint; boundary edition.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — riparian protection · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Proposal footprint	75	ha
Union of overlapping constraint areas	18	ha
Boundary edition	Sample boundary1
Constraint definition	Sample constraint class
Overlap share	24	%
Overlapping area	18	ha

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.

Proposed checking role. Land-use planner and spatial data custodian.

After the action. Resolved constraints and independently checked site conditions.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

LUPPD Performance Report 2022: official planning context — Government publication. Section 1.3, PDF page 4: divisional, village and micro-watershed planning; stakeholder coordination. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
UDA published zoning map — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
NRMC Land Use Planning and Geo-Informatics — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

11. Resolve unresolved tenure objections before planningDEC-DP01-011 · Tenure conflicts · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Resolve unresolved tenure objections before planning.

Validation required

Method. 100 × distinct respondents / invited people. Record unresolved issues individually; one respondent may raise several issues.

Next step. Resolve participation barriers and issues. Address concerns, revise the proposal, seek required responses, or escalate unresolved conditions.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Distinct relevant people invited [people]; People who responded [people]; Unresolved issues [issues]; Proposal/version being discussed; Required participation channels accessible

Other required evidence. Plan version; affected parcels; rights claims; consultation responses; dispute status.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — tenure conflicts · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Distinct relevant people invited	95	people
People who responded	68	people
Unresolved issues	16	issues
Proposal/version being discussed	Sample proposal1
Required participation channels accessible	Unknown
Response share	71.579	%
Unresolved issues	16	issues

Response, attendance and silence are not consent. Participation does not transfer decision authority or settle rights.

Proposed checking role. Land-use planner and spatial data custodian.

After the action. Resolved concerns, participation and compliance with recorded commitments.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

LUPPD Performance Report 2022: official planning context — Government publication. Section 1.3, PDF page 4: divisional, village and micro-watershed planning; stakeholder coordination. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
UDA published zoning map — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
NRMC Land Use Planning and Geo-Informatics — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

12. Find fragmented agricultural holdings for coordinationDEC-DP01-012 · Fragmentation · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Identify fragmented agricultural holdings for coordination.

Validation required

Method. Total holding area / parcel count, alongside count and documented separation. This is a descriptive summary, not a validated fragmentation index or coordination decision.

Next step. Review evidence. Investigate material differences and redirect planning or field verification where justified.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Parcels in the same holding [plots]; Holding total area [ha]; Largest documented inter-parcel separation [m]; Holding and tenure reference

Other required evidence. Holding ID; parcel count; parcel area hectares; separation distance; tenure.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — fragmentation · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Parcels in the same holding	4	plots
Holding total area	2.8	ha
Largest documented inter-parcel separation	1,200	m
Holding and tenure reference	Laggala Pallegama paddy holding scenario
Mean parcel area	0.7	ha/parcel
Parcel count	4	parcels

Categories must be mutually exclusive and cover the stated frame. Do not mix values, quantities, plots or hectares, or treat an HHI competition threshold as an institutional policy.

Proposed checking role. Land-use planner and spatial data custodian.

After the action. Change in the approved composition indicator with coverage disclosed.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

LUPPD Performance Report 2022: official planning context — Government publication. Section 1.3, PDF page 4: divisional, village and micro-watershed planning; stakeholder coordination. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
UDA published zoning map — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
NRMC Land Use Planning and Geo-Informatics — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

13. Review loss of agricultural land to built developmentDEC-DP01-013 · Urban expansion · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Review loss of agricultural land to built development.

Validation required

Method. Net=later−earlier; percentage=100×net/earlier when earlier>0. Matched transitions must reproduce net=gain−loss. Net totals alone do not establish conversion.

Next step. Review evidence. Accept a genuine change for planning review, investigate a discontinuity, or defer comparison.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Earlier mapped class area [ha]; Later mapped class area [ha]; Matched area leaving the class [ha]; Matched area entering the class [ha]; Same fixed analysis extent [ha]; Native class and mapping version; Earlier observation date; Later observation date

Other required evidence. Matched land-cover maps; built hectares; agricultural hectares; map years.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — urban expansion · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Earlier mapped class area	100	ha
Later mapped class area	90	ha
Matched area leaving the class	18	ha
Matched area entering the class	8	ha
Same fixed analysis extent	200	ha
Native class and mapping version	Sample matching forest/land-use class
Earlier observation date	2024-06-30
Later observation date	2025-06-30
Net class-area change	-10	ha
Relative class-area change	-10	%
Gross loss from class	18	ha
Gross gain to class	8	ha

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.

Proposed checking role. Land-use planner and spatial data custodian.

After the action. Comparable change after the chosen action and unresolved discrepancies.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

LUPPD Performance Report 2022: official planning context — Government publication. Section 1.3, PDF page 4: divisional, village and micro-watershed planning; stakeholder coordination. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
UDA published zoning map — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
NRMC Land Use Planning and Geo-Informatics — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

14. Compare access improvements for isolated planning areasDEC-DP01-014 · Service access · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Compare access improvements for isolated planning areas.

Validation required

Method. Compare supplied route times/distances, usable capacity and documented access/window constraints. Display feasible candidates; no route optimization is implied.

Next step. Resolve access/capacity evidence. Choose a permitted feasible route, postpone, or request updated access evidence.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Verified route distance [km]; Estimated route travel time [minutes]; Usable vehicle/team capacity [units]; Required capacity [units]; Access, closures and operating conditions; Operating and service window

Other required evidence. Settlements; verified road network; service locations; travel restrictions; travel time.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — service access · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Verified route distance	24	km
Estimated route travel time	65	minutes
Usable vehicle/team capacity	18	units
Required capacity	15	units
Access, closures and operating conditions	Unresolved
Operating and service window	Sample operating window
Estimated travel time	65	minutes
Capacity minus demand	3	units

Straight-line distance is not a road route. Example routes establish no current road status, emergency clearance or safe evacuation instruction.

Proposed checking role. Land-use planner and spatial data custodian.

After the action. Verified travel time, deliveries and unresolved access needs.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

LUPPD Performance Report 2022: official planning context — Government publication. Section 1.3, PDF page 4: divisional, village and micro-watershed planning; stakeholder coordination. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
UDA published zoning map — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
NRMC Land Use Planning and Geo-Informatics — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

15. Compare restoration land-use alternativesDEC-DP01-015 · Restoration planning · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Compare restoration land-use alternatives.

Validation required

Method. Budget minus option cost. Compare benefits, adverse effects and mandatory constraints separately; no weighted score or automatic best option.

Next step. Compare feasible trade-offs. Choose a feasible alternative with rationale and conditions, commission evidence, or defer.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Option cost [LKR]; Available budget [LKR]; Mandatory constraints; Expected benefit and its evidence; Resource needs and adverse effects

Other required evidence. Site condition; restoration options; tenure; costs LKR; benefits; constraints.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Assisted natural regeneration · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Option cost	1,500,000	LKR
Available budget	1,800,000	LKR
Mandatory constraints	Met
Expected benefit and its evidence	Compare restoration land-use alternatives; Site condition and restoration options evidence needed
Resource needs and adverse effects	Sample water, labour, access and safeguard trade-offs
Budget remaining after option	300,000	LKR

Affordability does not prove feasibility or scientific suitability. A missing mandatory condition keeps an option unresolved.

Proposed checking role. Land-use planner and spatial data custodian.

After the action. Verified benefits, costs and adverse effects versus the agreed baseline.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

LUPPD Performance Report 2022: official planning context — Government publication. Section 1.3, PDF page 4: divisional, village and micro-watershed planning; stakeholder coordination. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
UDA published zoning map — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
NRMC Land Use Planning and Geo-Informatics — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

16. Target detailed soil-loss assessment in planning unitsDEC-DP01-016 · Land degradation · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Target detailed soil-loss assessment in planning units.

Verified published formula · USLE factor product

Method. R × K × LS × C × P, using a mutually consistent SI factor set.

Next step. Review evidence. Compare feasible treatments, select sites for expert appraisal, or commission missing measurements.

Inputs, example and sources

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service · A Guide for Predicting Sheet and Rill Erosion on Forest Land
Government 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.

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Rainfall erosivity [MJ mm/(ha h year)]; Soil erodibility [t ha h/(ha MJ mm)]; Slope-length and steepness factor [ratio]; Cover-management factor [fraction]; Support-practice factor [fraction]

Other required evidence. Rainfall erosivity; erodibility; slope factors; land cover; conservation practices.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — land degradation · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Rainfall erosivity	950	MJ mm/(ha h year)
Soil erodibility	0.035	t ha h/(ha MJ mm)
Slope-length and steepness factor	2.8	ratio
Cover-management factor	0.24	fraction
Support-practice factor	0.7	fraction
Estimated annual sheet/rill loss	15.641	t/ha/year

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.

Proposed checking role. Land-use planner and spatial data custodian.

After the action. Measured soil/land condition and treatment performance, with uncertainty.

USDA Forest Service A guide for predicting sheet and rill erosion on forest land — Government publication. USDA guide, USLE factor definition and validation section. Published USLE factor product and sheet/rill limits; local factor selection is separate.
SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

LUPPD Performance Report 2022: official planning context — Government publication. Section 1.3, PDF page 4: divisional, village and micro-watershed planning; stakeholder coordination. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
UDA published zoning map — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
NRMC Land Use Planning and Geo-Informatics — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

17. Check differences between planned and actual useDEC-DP01-017 · Plan implementation · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Investigate differences between planned and actual use.

Validation required

Method. Observed value minus Planned value. Relative change = 100 × difference / Planned value when the earlier value is positive.

Next step. Review evidence. Investigate a material deviation, assign correction, or propose a target revision.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Planned value [ha]; Observed value [ha]

Other required evidence. Approved use plan; parcel ID; implementation date; observed use; hectares.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — plan implementation · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Planned value	100	ha
Observed value	90	ha
Difference	-10	ha
Relative change	-10	%

Proposed checking role. Land-use planner and spatial data custodian.

After the action. Subsequent variance with original and revised targets retained.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

LUPPD Performance Report 2022: official planning context — Government publication. Section 1.3, PDF page 4: divisional, village and micro-watershed planning; stakeholder coordination. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
UDA published zoning map — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
NRMC Land Use Planning and Geo-Informatics — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

18. Resolve outstanding planning consultationsDEC-DP01-018 · Public consultation · Suggested priority: High

Try this decision

Resolve outstanding planning consultations.

Validation required

Method. 100 × distinct respondents / invited people. Record unresolved issues individually; one respondent may raise several issues.

Next step. Resolve participation barriers and issues. Address concerns, revise the proposal, seek required responses, or escalate unresolved conditions.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Distinct relevant people invited [people]; People who responded [people]; Unresolved issues [issues]; Proposal/version being discussed; Required participation channels accessible

Other required evidence. Proposal version; required consultees; response date; objection; resolution evidence.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — public consultation · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Distinct relevant people invited	95	people
People who responded	68	people
Unresolved issues	16	issues
Proposal/version being discussed	Sample proposal1
Required participation channels accessible	Unknown
Response share	71.579	%
Unresolved issues	16	issues

Response, attendance and silence are not consent. Participation does not transfer decision authority or settle rights.

Proposed checking role. Land-use planner and spatial data custodian.

After the action. Resolved concerns, participation and compliance with recorded commitments.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

LUPPD Performance Report 2022: official planning context — Government publication. Section 1.3, PDF page 4: divisional, village and micro-watershed planning; stakeholder coordination. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
UDA published zoning map — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
NRMC Land Use Planning and Geo-Informatics — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

19. Correct incomplete land-use layer metadataDEC-DP01-019 · Map documentation · Suggested priority: Lower

Try this decision

Correct incomplete land-use layer metadata.

Validation required

Method. Check each required item and retain its reference. A documented item is not a scientific, legal or institutional approval.

Next step. Complete the evidence. Accept a fit source for a defined use, restrict it, or request metadata/schema correction.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Layer ID; Layer ID evidence reference; scale; scale evidence reference; coordinate system; coordinate system evidence reference; classification edition; classification edition evidence reference; owner; owner evidence reference; survey date; survey date evidence reference

Other required evidence. Layer ID; scale; coordinate system; classification edition; owner; survey date.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — map documentation · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Layer ID	Missing
Layer ID evidence reference
scale	Documented
scale evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
coordinate system	Documented
coordinate system evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
classification edition	Documented
classification edition evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
owner	Documented
owner evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
survey date	Documented
survey date evidence reference	Sample Laggala Pallegama field register / 2025
Evidence gaps	1	items

Evidence completeness alone cannot establish suitability, eligibility, safety, permission or method validity.

Proposed checking role. Land-use planner and spatial data custodian.

After the action. Resolved interoperability issues and current verified metadata.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

LUPPD Performance Report 2022: official planning context — Government publication. Section 1.3, PDF page 4: divisional, village and micro-watershed planning; stakeholder coordination. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
UDA published zoning map — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
NRMC Land Use Planning and Geo-Informatics — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

20. Schedule priority land-use map updatesDEC-DP01-020 · Survey scheduling · Suggested priority: Medium

Try this decision

Schedule priority land-use map updates.

Validation required

Method. 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.

Next step. Resolve overlapping resource bookings. Assign a feasible timetable, redistribute resources, or escalate the blocked dependency.

Inputs, example and sources

Keep the same place, observation period, definitions, units and source versions.

Analysis inputs. Required resource; Task start; Task end; Earliest permitted start; Latest permitted finish; Required resource effort [hours]; Available resource effort [hours]; Predecessor task reference; Mandatory permits and prerequisites

Other required evidence. Map edition; change evidence; survey effort days; team availability; update due date.

Fictional worked example · 2025

Laggala Pallegama — survey scheduling · Laggala Pallegama

Input or result	Value	Unit
Required resource	Watershed field team
Task start	2025-06-01
Task end	2025-06-04
Earliest permitted start	2025-05-28
Latest permitted finish	2025-06-08
Required resource effort	16	hours
Available resource effort	24	hours
Predecessor task reference	None
Mandatory permits and prerequisites	Met
Planned duration	3	days
Resource hours remaining	8	hours

Proposed checking role. Land-use planner and spatial data custodian.

After the action. On-time completion with verified outputs and resource use.

SHARED domain decision contracts — Validation required. Domain decision rules and matching fictional examples. Local comparisons, constraints, source matching, sorting and follow-up proposals; developer checks do not establish scientific or client approval.

Institution and data context

LUPPD Performance Report 2022: official planning context — Government publication. Section 1.3, PDF page 4: divisional, village and micro-watershed planning; stakeholder coordination. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
UDA published zoning map — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.
NRMC Land Use Planning and Geo-Informatics — Government publication. Full method locator not established. Institutional context; does not establish the calculation or local approval.

Confirm local scope, data rights, parameters and responsible roles in this Institution review. Published components retain their source; they do not approve the local application.

Your checks for this decisionDoes this decision belong to your institution?Is the required data list complete?Are the sources, places and time periods suitable?Can staff use the proposed entry or upload steps?Are the calculation, units and limits correct?Do the chart and result help you decide?Are the checking officer and decision authority correct?Are the access and sharing limits suitable?

What must change? Include corrected fields, rules, limits or words.Who supplies the data, who checks it, and who makes the decision?How often is this decision needed? What would make it urgent?

Field	Unit	Required
Luse_Code	Confirm if needed	No
Main_Category	Confirm if needed	No
Sub_Category	Confirm if needed	No
Tank_Name	Confirm if needed	No
Method_of_Updation	Confirm if needed	No
Year_of_Updation	Confirm if needed	No
Sheet_No	Confirm if needed	No

Field	Unit	Required
Type_ROW	Confirm if needed	No
Road_Width	Confirm if needed	No
Road Width	Confirm if needed	No
Year_of_Creation	Confirm if needed	No
Revision Method	Confirm if needed	No
Year of Revision	Confirm if needed	No
GFCODE	Confirm if needed	No
Transport_point_ID	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No

Field	Unit	Required
Parcel ID	Confirm if needed	No
Parcel er	Confirm if needed	No
Parcel st	Confirm if needed	No
Parcel Date	Confirm if needed	No
Parcel tp	Confirm if needed	No
Parcel or	Confirm if needed	No
Sheet ID	Confirm if needed	No
Creation Method	Confirm if needed	No
Year of Creation	Confirm if needed	No
Revision Method	Confirm if needed	No
Year of Revision	Confirm if needed	No
St Area	Confirm if needed	No
St Length	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
type	Confirm if needed	No
pcl_id_cov	Confirm if needed	No
lot_no	Confirm if needed	No
sht_id_con	Confirm if needed	No
plan_no	Confirm if needed	No
inset_no	Confirm if needed	No
sup_no	Confirm if needed	No
sheet_no	Confirm if needed	No
di_name	Confirm if needed	No
ds_name	Confirm if needed	No
name	Confirm if needed	No
spcific_pu	Confirm if needed	No
tenure_act	Confirm if needed	No
esri_oid	Confirm if needed	No

Field	Unit	Required
Plot Number	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No
Area_Sq_Meters	Confirm if needed	No
Present Status	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No

Field	Unit	Required
Landuse_Classification_1	Confirm if needed	No
Landuse_Classification_2	Confirm if needed	No
Classification2_Code	Confirm if needed	No
Creation_Method	Confirm if needed	No
Year_of_Creation	Confirm if needed	No
Revision_Method	Confirm if needed	No
Year_of_Revision	Confirm if needed	No
GFCODE	Confirm if needed	No
Description	Confirm if needed	No
st_area(shape)	Confirm if needed	No
st_length(shape)	Confirm if needed	No

1. Check a decision

2. Try the inputs

3. Check each decision

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

4. Existing data forms for your institution

5. Documents and images

What you can try

What your institution needs to confirm

6. Data structure management

What you can try

What your institution needs to confirm

7. Users and access

What you can try

What your institution needs to confirm

9. Anything else we should change?

Land Use Policy Planning Department

1. Check a decision

2. Try the inputs

3. Check each decision

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

Fictional worked example · 2025

4. Existing data forms for your institution

5. Documents and images

What you can try

What your institution needs to confirm

6. Data structure management

What you can try

What your institution needs to confirm

7. Users and access

What you can try

What your institution needs to confirm

8. Can you share data regularly?

9. Anything else we should change?