JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for INT-BOUNDARIES Archives


INT-BOUNDARIES Archives

INT-BOUNDARIES Archives


INT-BOUNDARIES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

INT-BOUNDARIES Home

INT-BOUNDARIES Home

INT-BOUNDARIES  2004

INT-BOUNDARIES 2004

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: A question of proportion

From:

"Pruett, Lorin" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Pruett, Lorin

Date:

Tue, 2 Mar 2004 18:58:28 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (227 lines)

Hi all,

This morning I sent the data at the bottom of this email to Clive in a
spreadsheet but it didn't get copied to [log in to unmask] (our
email address is now different than what we had in the list server).  If you
get this, I've finally resolved the list server email address issue
(hopefully you don't get any duplicates).  Anyway, I've included the data
below.

Martin is correct in the comment he raises with regard to the higher totals
of the data we provided to WRI for their 2000 study.  The purpose of the WRI
work was to total, by country, the claims, including overlapping claims and
joint development zones.  Some other considerations and/or assumptions were
made in that study that I don't recall off the top of my head.  The short
answer is that the purpose of the study was different and hence the results
of roll-ups are different (i.e., larger than the Earth's surface area).

The data below are from the General Dynamics' August 2003 Edition of the
Global Maritime Boundaries Database (GMBD) specifically to address Clive's
question.

----------Basic Areas---------------------------------
Feature                                 Area in Square Miles (Sinusoidal
Projection)
LAND                                    57,185,178.75

ISLAND                                        12.90
SHOAL                                       166.99

BANK                                                154.41

INTERTIDAL                                          535.30

                                        ---------------
Total Land                              57,186,048.35


Ocean Claims Totals
CONTIGUOUS ZONE                   2,182,225.55
DEVELOPMENT ZONE                               89,777.63

ECONOMIC ZONE                           48,081,607.28

FISHING ZONE                              3,247,411.71

TERRITORIAL SEA Other                            7,306.14

TERRITORIAL SEA                           8,620,356.98

MILITARY ZONE                                  22,315.14

SPECIAL ZONE                                   19,679.70
                                                ---------------
Total Claimed and Potential Claim to Oceans     62,270,680.13


HIGH SEAS                                       77,524,473.20
                                                ---------------
Total High Seas                         77,524,473.20


----------Land and Claimed and Unclaimed Ocean----
Total Land
57,186,048.35
Total Claimed and Potential  Claim to Oceans
62,270,680.13
Total High Seas                                           77,524,473.20

-----------------
Total Earth Surface
196,981,201.68


Land as Percentage of Earth                                       29.03%
Claimed and Potential Claim to Oceans as Percentage of Earth      31.61%
Remaining High Seas Percentage of Earth                   39.36%
                                                                ----------
Earth Surface as Percentage of Earth                            100.00%

----------Land versus Ocean --------------------------
Total Land                        57,186,048.35
Total Ocean                     139,795,153.33
                                -----------------
Total Earth Surface             196,981,201.68


Land as Percentage of Earth               29.03%

Ocean as Percentage of Earth              70.97%
                                        ---------
Earth Surface as Percentage of Earth    100.00%


----------Ocean Only - Potential Claims versus High Seas--------
Total Claimed and Potential  Claim to Oceans
62,270,680.13
Total High Seas                                           77,524,473.20

-----------------
Total Ocean
139,795,153.33


Claimed and Potential Claims to Oceans as Percentage of Ocean ONLY
44.54%
Remaining High Seas as Percentage of Ocean ONLY
55.46%

----------
Ocean as Percentage of Ocean
100.00%

------------------------------------------------------------------

The areas were calculated using the Sinusoidal Equal-Area Projection.  The
roll-ups are based on our portrayal of  claimed and potential claims to
territorial seas, contiguous zones, fishing zones, joint development zones,
special zones, military zones and economic zones generally out to 200 nm.
Internal waters are included in the territorial sea values.  Antarctica
claims are included but not the extended continental shelf claims.
Potential economic zones are based on equidistant lines and/or existing
continental shelf boundary agreements under the assumption that these would
generally be starting points for economic zones agreements.  The basemap the
calculations is WVS 1:3,000,000 although the limits and median lines were
derived from a General Dynamics modified WVS 1:250,000 basemap.

Although I did the calculations rather short-fused, I believe I eliminated
essentially all duplicate areas that result from the overlapping claims and
joint zones.   I think this narrative covers most of the questions one might
have regarding the data and the calculations that went into the results
above.

Please feel free to drop me an email if you have additional questions.
However, bear in mind that I am on travel most of this month so my reply may
be slow in coming.

Best Regards,

Lorin

Mr. Lorin Pruett
Manager, Global GIS Data Projects
General Dynamics
Advanced Information Systems
540-E Huntmar Park Drive
Herndon, Virginia, USA 20170-5100
703-456-2884 (Voice)
703-796-5622 (FAX)

[log in to unmask]
http://www.MaritimeBoundaries.com

[log in to unmask]
http://www.GlobalGISdata.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Pratt [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 12:44 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: A question of proportion


A series of datasets relating to the areas of offshore jurisdictional
zones is available from the World Resources Institute at
http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/. The data are derived from the
Global Maritime Boundaries Database (2000 edition). Due to the way the
datasets are organised, it's not easy to use them to generate the
'bottom line' figure that Clive is seeking but, with a little work, I'm
sure they could be used to shed some light on the question. If you do
wish to view them, be aware that some of the world totals given by WRI
are significantly larger than the sum of the areas of listed for
individual states; if anyone can explain these discrepancies, I'd be
grateful to hear from you.

I assume that all the areas in the WRI datasets are planimetric. I don't
know enough about geodesy to know the scale of the variations between
planimetric and geodetic areas are across the globe, but I imagine they
are likely to be considerable. Would one of the geodesists on the list
be able to comment on this point?

m a r t i n

==================================
Martin Pratt
Director of Research
International Boundaries Research Unit
Department of Geography
University of Durham
South Road
Durham DH1 3LE
United Kingdom

+44 (0)191 334 1964 (direct line)
+44 (0)191 334 1962 (fax)
[log in to unmask] (email)
http://www-ibru.dur.ac.uk (World Wide Web)
==================================


> -----Original Message-----
> From: International boundaries discussion list
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Clive Schofield
> Sent: 02 March 2004 06:24
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: A question of proportion
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> A question of maritime jurisdiction for you. I've often seen
> it written that the oceans cover 71-72% of the earth's
> surface. However, there seems to be less agreement as to the
> proportion of the oceans under some form of national
> jurisdiction (ranging from territorial sea out to extended
> continental shelf claims) with estimates ranging between 32%
> and a potential 47% (though the latter figure seems too
> high). Does anyone have a more definitive estimate as to what
> proportion of the world's oceans currently fall within
> national zones of jurisdiction and, further, what the figure
> would be were every state to claim the maximum zones
> permissible under the LOS Convention? (In writing the latter
> part of this question the word "Antarctica" looms large I suspect!).
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Clive

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager