1. Introduction

Land management in the Almaty Region must accommodate agricultural production, settlement growth and conservation within a heterogeneous landscape. Regional statistics describe the land structure, but practical allocation decisions require information on soil condition, water access, terrain and competing uses. Geographic information systems (GIS) allow these factors to be examined together and support explicit comparisons between alternative uses [1].

The aim is to substantiate directions for land use optimization by combining official land-accounting evidence with a spatial decision framework. The analysis focuses on agricultural land and its interaction with settlement development and sensitive ecosystems [2]. It identifies relevant GIS criteria, proposes management measures and evaluates implementation conditions through an analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT).

2. Materials and Methods

The study area is the Almaty Region in southeastern Kazakhstan. The territorial reference is the region after the 2022 administrative reform, with the Balkhash, Enbekshikazakh, Zhambyl, Ili, Karasai, Kegen, Raiymbek, Talgar and Uyghur districts. Almaty city is a separate administrative unit. Historical statistics require adjustment to common boundaries before comparison [3]. The study area is outlined in Figure 1. The analytical setting includes irrigated valleys, foothills, mountain land and the Ili delta.

Fig. 1. Study area

The quantitative baseline is Table 6 of the national land report for 2024, dated 1 November 2024 [4]. The study combines descriptive structural analysis with a proposed GIS assessment procedure. Cadastral polygons, administrative boundaries, Sentinel-2 seasonal composites, elevation, soils, irrigation infrastructure and protected habitats constitute the required spatial layers [5]. Satellite classification and parcel ranking are implementation steps, rather than completed empirical outputs of this study.

The procedure harmonizes dates, land categories and coordinate systems, checks polygon topology, and joins land-balance attributes to district boundaries. Seasonal vegetation indices and land-cover trajectories would identify candidate changes, which must be checked against crop calendars and field observations. Terrain, soils, water access and settlement proximity then support overlay analysis.

For each candidate use, criteria are standardized to a common scale and combined by a weighted average, with weights summing to one [6]. Water availability, habitat safeguards and incompatible uses are treated as constraints. Agricultural, conservation and balanced scenarios would compare alternative priorities [7]. Weight sensitivity and independent field validation are required before assigning parcels to priority classes. This study establishes the decision criteria, without estimating parcel scores or scenario gains.

3. Results

In 2024, land designated for agriculture occupied 4,522.1 thousand ha, including 4,467.4 thousand ha of agricultural land-use areas. These comprised 3,898.5 thousand ha of pastures, 438.2 thousand ha of arable land, 61.6 thousand ha of hayfields, 50.4 thousand ha of fallow land and 18.7 thousand ha of perennial plantations [8]. Calculated against agricultural land-use areas, the shares are 87.3 %, 9.8 %, 1.4 %, 1.1 % and 0.4 %, respectively. This denominator excludes other land within the agricultural category and does not represent the entire regional territory.

The pasture share supports prioritizing grazing management in the proposed assessment. However, total area cannot establish accessible forage supply or local grazing pressure. Candidate pasture interventions should therefore be examined in relation to livestock demand, seasonal biomass, water points and access routes. Cropland measures require water and soil diagnostics. Settlement interfaces and the Ili delta add competing-use and conservation constraints; the delta forms part of an internationally designated wetland.

Table 1

Proposed directions for land use optimization

Table 1 links each proposed intervention to observable spatial conditions and a monitoring indicator. These are screening directions, not measured district-level diagnoses. Priority sites should be selected where verified land-use pressure overlaps with management feasibility. Productive rehabilitation is appropriate only when soil, water and access conditions support it; other sites may be better suited to restoration.

4. Discussion

GIS can make the basis of allocation decisions traceable, but implementation depends on data maintenance, analytical capacity and coordination. The SWOT matrix distinguishes internal capabilities and limitations from external opportunities and threats (Table 2).

Table 2

SWOT analysis of GIS application for land use optimization

The matrix supports four implementation responses. Combining GIS strengths with open-data opportunities enables a shared monitoring system. Addressing weaknesses through common data standards and staff training improves comparability. Using scenario analysis against climatic threats tests whether interventions remain feasible under reduced water supply. Limiting the interaction between weak data and external pressures requires field verification, controlled data access and consultation with affected land users.

5. Conclusion

The agricultural land structure provides a quantitative reason to place pasture management at the centre of land use optimization in the Almaty Region. GIS can connect this priority with irrigation, erosion control, selective land rehabilitation and conservation through explicit spatial criteria. The optimization and SWOT matrices translate the framework into proposed measures and implementation responses. Operational use requires harmonized boundaries, seasonal observations, field validation and locally agreed weights. These conditions allow regional priorities to be refined into defensible parcel-level decisions.

References:

1. Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Committee for Land Management. Consolidated Analytical Report on the State and Use of Lands of the Republic of Kazakhstan for 2024. Astana; 2024. Table 6.
2. Bureau of National Statistics of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Administrative-territorial division as of 1 January 2023. Astana; 2023.
3. Phiri D., Simwanda M., Salekin S., Nyirenda V. R., Murayama Y., Ranagalage M. Sentinel-2 Data for Land Cover/Use Mapping: A Review. Remote Sensing. 2020;12(14):2291. doi:10.3390/rs12142291.
4. Malczewski J. GIS-based multicriteria decision analysis: a survey of the literature. International Journal of Geographical Information Science. 2006;20(7):703–726. doi:10.1080/13658810600661508.
5. Ramsar Sites Information Service. Ili River Delta and South Lake Balkhash. Site No. 2020. Designated 1 January 2012. Accessed 30 September 2026.
6. Bennett R. M., van Oosterom P., Lemmen C., Koeva M. Remote Sensing for Land Administration. Remote Sensing. 2020;12(15):2497. doi:10.3390/rs12152497.
7. Gorelick N., Hancher M., Dixon M., Ilyushchenko S., Thau D., Moore R. Google Earth Engine: Planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone. Remote Sensing of Environment . 2017;202:18–27. doi:10.1016/j.rse.2017.06.031. ScienceDirect
8. Akıncı H., Özalp A. Y., Turgut B. Agricultural land use suitability analysis using GIS and AHP technique. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture . 2013;97:71–82. doi:10.1016/j.compag.2013.07.006. ScienceDirect