*4.1. Is It Possible to Distinguish Collective Farmland from State Land?*

A characteristic and distinctive feature of collective land (as compared to State land) is both the type and number of buildings/dwellings adjacent to the land and the spatial distribution of buildings/dwellings. Another characteristic is the state and density of infrastructure. Clusters of buildings suggest the presence of a collective only if: buildings look similar and simultaneous changes in structures occur. If spatial patterns of buildings and farm sizes and shapes re-occur in different places, it is probably part of a joint collective spatial planning strategy, so it is more likely collective land than State land. (See Figure 3b,c).

**Figure 3.** Spatial characteristics of cooperative farmlands extracted from high-resolution EO data. (**a**) stands for the Unha collective farmlands surrounded by (dry) paddy-fields (georeferenced: Onchon county, South Pyeongan); (**b**) represents planned spatial arrangements and a centralized cluster of buildings and dwellings; (**c**) highlights buildings and houses utilize homogeneous materials and retains its similar physical shapes and simple roof structures; (**d**) includes textures of irrigation channels and features of rice (dry) paddy-fields. (Image sources: Google Earth, date of access: 9 October 2019).

It has commonly been stated that North Korea (NK) collective farmland plays a pivotal role in major food production (approximately 85%~90% of total production), such as rice, corn, beans, and potatoes [76]. In this regard, most collective farmlands are utilized as a (dry) paddy-field, so it can therefore be assumed that the collective farmland can be confirmed through the presence of (dry) paddy-fields. An area linked to or surrounded by a substantial portion of (dry) paddy-fields can be considered as a collective farmland, which is following the association element of the image interpretation (See Figure 3a). According to [77], rice fields include periodically flooded flat surfaces with the rice plant, open water surfaces on fields, stubble or rice, irrigation channels between land parcels and embankments between rice fields. These can be interpreted with the rough (or coarse) image texture caused by variation in tonal values of an image that helps to identify single objects (See Figure 3d).

The collective farmlands include ranging between 80 and 300 households and operates on a large-scale from approximately 1,300,000 to 5,000,000 m2 [76]. Thus, the relative size and high density or compactness of the settlement helps to distinguish when compared with State (farm) lands. Collective farmlands accompany a farming equipment, materials, and production facilities from the State and benefit from all the new building construction including rural dwellings (See Figure 3c). The characteristics of rural dwellings in collective farmlands are homogenous building colors in grey scales, a signature line of the tiled roof, and densely built-up block structure with single-story detached houses. This indicates a need to understand physically detectable proxies that the farming-related objects will be more captured on the ground (in spring/summer) or stored in warehouses (autumn/winter) rather than State farmlands. In addition, since agricultural production is mainly concentrated in the springtime, changes of agricultural activities and its densification, which implies collective farmlands, may be compared using time-series analysis. However, these proxies tend to be unreliable unless used with other complementary sets of proxies. It therefore requires a rigorous image interpretation of EO data in combination with other interpretation elements as well as secondary data.

On the other hand, State-owned (farm)land in NK refers to nationalized (farm)land in the process of land reforms in the past, consisting of agricultural testbed, farms for the seed-production and livestock [76]. As far as this assumption is concerned, the combination of the geometric properties of an object such as shape and (building and roof) size, orientation, density, height as well as (building and roof) colors/tones that identifies agriculture-based patches or infrastructures can be considered as workable proxies. These include small dot-shaped (for orchards) and smooth (for pastures) textures, out-buildings (sheds), dispersion value (low building density), irregularly shaped object boundaries, complex, elongated or irregular building shapes, and distinctive roof colors (e.g., blue, green, yellow and red as well as brightness etc.) and the association with agriculture-based infrastructures, monumental buildings, and welfare facilities (See Figure 4). However, the association elements should be synthesized with documented or local knowledge as the exact points of information has not yet clarified.

**Figure 4.** Spatial characteristics of State farmlands extracted from high-resolution EO data; (**a**) describes whole region of the No. 5 State farmland in Taehongdan county in Ryanggang; (**b**) shows key spatial arrangements of State farmlands embracing: agriculture-based infrastructures (e.g., fertilizer and processing factories and colleges and research institutes etc.); monumental buildings (e.g., revolutionary museums etc.); welfare facilities (e.g., house of culture, markets and shop, and kindergarten etc.); (**c**) is a site of microbial compound fertilizer factory (upper) and agricultural testbed or greenhouses (middle); (**d**) a site for potato processing factory (image sources: Google Earth, date of access: 9 October 2019).

#### *4.2. Can One See Land Use Rights (LURs)?*

A typical feature of LURs is that it usually relates to consistent patterns in space and there exists regularity in time such as seasons. The right itself must be inducted or assumed if such patterns and consistencies exist. Reversely, finding such consistencies is an indication of the right. This implies that from EO data over a number of years one can see similarities each similar season. If all indicate the same type of land use, at the same points in time over a number of years, then one may assume consistent land use, and LURs. If conversely there is a large variation in this, one has to assume that the LURs are not consistent, or do not belong to a single person or group. The variations in land use itself suggests an allocation of what the land may be used for over a longer period of time, yet in a specific time of the year. This suggest the presence of a consistent LUR of single land user. Any land use which is not observed suggests a restriction in land use or a specific allocation of land use.

The LULC in most areas between 1990 and 2000 remains unchanged, assuming existing consistent LURs due to strict land use restrictions for nature reserves, military sites, and public heritages, or unplanned and poor land management (see Figure 5). However, Figure 5a reveals more intensely developed lands (red color) are shown in POI and we note that the development is mostly associated with constructing new dwellings (with LURs) in fallow land. Moreover, Figure 5b highlights that land for agricultural use (yellow color) has significantly increased in POI. This is due to the increase of farmlands to cultivate, especially with collective farmlands, and hence the State provide new houses for the farmer households that grants LURs. In addition, Figure 5c shows more intense LULC changes in an urban area with the development of water bodies (blue color) and these provide additional evidence with respect to LURs. It demands sufficient quantity and quality of water resources for increasing urban households, and it can be inferred that developing water bodies are correlated with LURs since the increased number of urban households represents an increase in granting LURs. Lastly, Figure 5d underlines that LULC changes have occurred more in a border region than inland areas. This, we assume, is because the border in NK started allowing LURs to be sold, transferred, and leased to foreign corporations in Special Economic Zones (SEZs) by modifying socialist land tenure system for economic recovery.

**Figure 5.** The example of land use and cover changes in Ryanggang between 1990 (upper) and 2000 (lower) with the currently available data set produced by the Ministry of Environment (MoE) using Landsat TM imagery (1991–1999) and Landsat 7 ETM+ imagery (2008–2010) (image sources: [78] and revised by authors).

All the means of production and socio-cultural facilities, including land, are jointly used in NK. Meanwhile, housing and the allotment with an average size from 60 to 130 m<sup>2</sup> are owned by the State [79], but LURs are granted to individuals, and the product is allowed to belong to them. We

therefore assume that the presence of all types of houses and their accompanying allotments can be chosen to confirm the existence of LURs. To identify the (semi-) detached houses, it includes the following proxies: low building density, 1 or 2 storied houses, uniformly shaped settlement, proximity to roads, and low to intermediate imperviousness. In terms of condominium-related proxies, we consider large rectangular simple form buildings, regular alignment, more than three stories, and low to intermediate imperviousness and shadow silhouettes (see Figure 6). When it comes to the workable proxies for allotments, the following "if" statements are considered: if the land (or site) has detached small-sized buildings, if it is low built-up land, if it is low imperviousness, if it has plants or vegetation, and if it is used as buffer between houses (see Figure 6b, Figure 7, and Figure 8b).

**Figure 6.** Different types of housing and their morphological features. (**a**) Condominium or residential block buildings; (**b**) detached houses; (**c**) (semi-)detached houses; (**d**) showing different forms of housing shapes (e.g., linear, curved, rectangular patterns and different colors of roofs etc.) (Image sources: Google Earth, date of access: 16 October 2019).

Before 1998, a new housing reverted to the State, and only the right to use was given to individual households by permission. However, after the amendment of the Constitution, the building was excluded from collective ownership, enabling the possession of new housing. For the sake of legal certainty, the form of housing is divided into State-owned, cooperative-owned and individual-owned, but its ownership is very limited regarding use and transaction. According to [80], three types of housing have been investigated, with a semidetached house (or row house) being the highest proportion at 43.9%, a detached house (or single-family house) has been estimated as 33.8%, and apartments (or condominium) account for nearly one-fifth (21.4%) of housing [81].

More specifically, in the rural areas of North Korea, the 'harmonica houses' have often been observed where two or three households, and even five to six or more households, live together in a detached house. A variety of identifiable proxies such as a small roof with slate materials, chimneys on rooftops (small dot-shaped objects or a light shadow Silhouette) and a fence (with line-shaped objects) installed to distinguish garden plots have been detected in the images. The evidence reviewed here seems to suggest that the physical attributes of varying forms of dwellings through EO data acquisition have significant correlations with granting LURs. Moreover, the growing new construction/extension of residential buildings and expansion of construction activities in certain regions over time may confirm the significant increases in authorities' awareness on LURs. As shown in Figure 6, (a) shows varying geometrical attributes of apartments along Ryomyong Street in Pyeongyang in 2019, while (b) provides a typical example of detached houses that displays the roofing, chimneys and a fence for

defining spatial boundaries between neighborhoods. Furthermore, (c) presents a normative sample of semidetached houses and the building shadows that determine building heights. In addition, (d) demonstrates different forms of residential building shapes such as linear, curved, rectangular fit and different colors of roofing.

**Figure 7.** Morphology and urban structures of the Socialist lifestyle are discovered in the cooperative farmland in 2002 (**a**) and 2018 (**b**). (**c**) Changes in land use from farmland to residential areas; (**d**) changes in land use with more community-oriented development; (**e**) showing newly-built agricultural facilities; (**f**) changes of residential development at higher densities (image sources: Google Earth, date of access: 17 October 2019).

**Figure 8.** Spatial characteristics of the 'sotoji'. (**a**): between Onsong and Sambong, North Hamgyong; (**b**) the Sambong cooperative farm, Phyeongwon; (**c**) Hyesan, Ryanggang (Image sources: Google Earth, date of access: 17 October 2019).
