Otwarty dostęp

Land Use and Land Cover Change for Resilient Environment and Sustainable Development in the Ethiopian Rift Valley Region

Getahun Hassen
Getahun Hassen
, 
Amare Bantider
Amare Bantider
, 
Abiyot Legesse
Abiyot Legesse
, 
Malesu Maimbo
Malesu Maimbo
 oraz 
Dereje Likissa
Dereje Likissa
   | 30 cze 2021
Environmental Protection and Natural Resources's Cover Image
O artykule
Poprzedni artykuł
Następny artykuł
Zacytuj
Data publikacji: 30 cze 2021
Zakres stron: 24 - 41
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/oszn-2021-0007
Słowa kluczowe
© 2021 Getahun Hassen et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Figure 1

Location map of Gidabo river subbasin
Location map of Gidabo river subbasin

Figure 2

Rainfall graphs for different station.Source: Ethiopian meteorological station [2020]
Rainfall graphs for different station.Source: Ethiopian meteorological station [2020]

Figure 3

Flow chart showing the data sources and methods of analysis of the researchSource: Authors’ formulation
Flow chart showing the data sources and methods of analysis of the researchSource: Authors’ formulation

Figure 4

Classified Land Map of the Gidabo river subbasins from 1986 to 2019Source: Landsat 5 (™) and Landsat 8 (OLI).
Classified Land Map of the Gidabo river subbasins from 1986 to 2019Source: Landsat 5 (™) and Landsat 8 (OLI).

Figure 5

Population growth increased agroforestry systemSource: Field observations in the midlands agroecology
Population growth increased agroforestry systemSource: Field observations in the midlands agroecology

Figure 6

Sample grazing land in the highland agroecologySource: Field observation
Sample grazing land in the highland agroecologySource: Field observation

Figure 7

Charcoal marketing in the town of Dilla
Charcoal marketing in the town of Dilla

Figure 8

Forest encroachment for the sake of fertile landSource: Field observations
Forest encroachment for the sake of fertile landSource: Field observations

Figure 9

Indigenous acidic soil treatments (Mona)Source: Field observations from the highlands agroecology
Indigenous acidic soil treatments (Mona)Source: Field observations from the highlands agroecology

Figure 10

Traditionally conserved forest (sacred place)Source: Field observations from the midlands agroecology
Traditionally conserved forest (sacred place)Source: Field observations from the midlands agroecology

Figure 11

Sample plantation forest carried through the SWC programme
Sample plantation forest carried through the SWC programme

LULC (%) between 2000 and 2011

LULC from 2000 to 2011 Agroforestry land Bare land Cropland Forest land Grassland Settlement land Shrub/woodland Total
Agroforestry 41.4 0 2.3 0.36 0.11 0.10 0.23 44.5
Bare land 0.003 0.035 0.027 0 0.12 0.005 0.015 0.205
Cropland 2.9 0.015 27.06 1.5 2.080 0.33 1.10 34.9
Forest 1.7 - 0.77 2.9 0.012 0.013 0.35 5.7
Grassland 1.6 0.014 2.7 0.16 3.86 0.11 1.01 9.5
Settlement 0.02 0 0.012 0.001 0.005 0.35 0.006 0.39
Shrub/Wood land 0.64 0.035 0.20 0.81 1.44 0.17 1.9 5.09
Grand Total 48.263 0.099 33.069 5.7 7.6 1.078 4.611 -

Classification scheme for the classification and change detection of LULCC

RN LULCC Classes General Description
1 Forests Land with tree cover (or equivalent stocking level) of more than 10 % and area of more than 0.5 hectares (ha). The trees should reach a minimum height of 5 meters (m) at maturity in situ (FAO, 2010). According to the UNFCCC for REDD+ purposes forest cover in Ethiopia referred to as 0.5 ha of size, 20% canopy cover and 2m height.
2 Grazing Lands Grass and herb cover with permanent grass cover and some scattered trees or shrubs for livestock grazing including communal, private (protected), and free area. Relatively flat and open areas with good visibility and hill slopes are homogeneous (Eggleston et al., 2006).
3 Cropland This unit includes perennial and annual crops land area and fallow lands (Hillbrand, et al., 2017).
4 Agroforestry land Agroforestry is the collective term for land-use systems and technologies in which woody perennials (trees, shrubs, and fruits) are used deliberately on the same land-management units as crops and animals in some form of spatial arrangement or temporal sequence ((Hillbrand, et al., 2017).
5 Shrubs/woodlands Shrubs/woods refer to bushes and young tree species co-dominant with herbaceous plants in terms of coverage (Jensen, 2005).
6 Bare land Land which is unproductive or not used for cultivation or grazing (Ludi and Hurni, 2000).
7 Settlement It is simply a community where people build houses and live together (Ludi and Hurni, 2000)

LULC (%) between 1986 and 2019

LULCC 1986–2019 Agroforestry Bare land Crop land Forest land Grassland Settlement Shrub/wood land Grand total Loss
Agroforestry 37.64 0.48 1.21 0.06 0.42 0.06 39.87 2.23
Bare land 0.0010 0.001 0.002 - 0.0010 - - 0.005 0.004
Cropland 6.35 0.005 21.06 1.75 1.3 0.53 0.29 31.3 10.24
Forest land 1.05 0.002 0.63 2.5 0.121 0.051 0.3 4.6 2.1
Grassland 0.26 0.081 7.7 0.28 2.44 0.1 0.14 11 8.56
Settlement 0.04 0.067 0.045 - 0.042 0.11 0.011 0.25 0.14
Shrub/woodland 8.8 0.052 0.355 0.15 0.65 1.14 1.9 13 11.14
Grand total 54.14 0.15 30.3 5.82 4.6 2.34 2.7 100
Gain 16.5 0.15 9.24 3.3 2.2 2.23 0.8
Net change 14.27 0.146 −1 1.2 −6.36 2.09 `−10.34

Magnitude, percentage share, and rate of LULCC of 33 years

Land use/cover type Magnitude of LULC change in % Percentage share of gain or loss from 1986 to 2019 Rate of change ha/year
Agro forestry 14.2 +35.7 +443.7
Cropland 1.02 −3.2 −31.6
Shrub / Wood land 10.3 −79.3 −321.2
Grassland 6.2 −56.8 −194.1
Forest 1.1 +23.4 +33.6
Settlement 2.1 +836.2 +65
Bare land 0.14 +2,940 +4.5

Land use and land cover change of 33 years (1986 to 2019)

R.N. LULC Class 1986 2000 2011 2019
(ha) (%) (ha) (%) (ha) (%) (ha) (%)
1 Agroforestry 40,964 39.9 45,715 44.5 49,658 48.3 55,606 54.1
2 Cropland 32,143 31.3 3,5923 35 34,024 33.1 31,100 30.3
3 Shrub and Woodland 13,359 13.0 4,713 4.6 4,806 4.7 2,760 2.7
4 Grassland 11,281 11 9,790 9.5 7,794 5.2 4,876 4.7
5 Forest land 4,729 4.6 5,985 5.8 5,378 5.2 5,837 5.7
6 Settlement 257 0.25 401 0.4 980 0.9 2,406 2.3
7 Bare land 5 0.01 211 0.2 97 0.1 152 0.15
Total area 102,738 100.00 102,738 100.00 102,738 100.00 102,738 100.00

LULCC (%) between 2011 and 2019

LULCC from 2011 to 2019 Agroforestry Bare land Cropland Forest land Grassland Settlement Shrub/woodland Grand total
Agroforestry 45.6 0.4 1.01 0.14 0.88 0.31 48
Bare land 0.002 0.035 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.006 0.002 0.1
Cropland 4.9 0.0079 24.6 1.37 1.4 0.54 0.24 33
Forest 0.9 1.22 2.8 0.10 0.039 0.13 5
Grassland 1.2 0.10 3.09 1.6 2.58 0.16 0.4 9
Settlement 0.016 0.30 0.01 0.049 0.56 0.01 0.94
Shrub and Woodland 1.37 0.009 0.65 0.45 0.45 0.15 1.58 4.7
Total 53 0.15 30 7.2 4.7 2.3 2.6

LULC (%) between 1986 and 2000

LULC from 1986 to 2000 Agroforestry land Bare land Cropland Forest land Grassland Settlement land Shrub/woodland Total
Agroforestry 35 0.0032 2.6 1.49 0.12 0.02 0.15 39.88
Bare land 0.00 0.0013 0.001 0.00 0.0021 0.00 0.00034 0.0045
Cropland 3.09 0.06 24.22 0.54 2.6 0.012 0.43 31.3
Forest 0.3 0.5014 1.165 2.21 0.053 0.50 0.535 5.76
Grassland 0.024 0.086 6.3 0.11 4.08 0.00156 0.5 11.1
Settlement 0.0036 0.009 0.0094 0.00012 0.013 0.205 0.011 0.25
Shrub/Wood land 6.2 0.04 0.98 0.1134 2.68 0.118 2.98 13
Total 44.6176 0.2009 35.0904 4.46 9.5481 0.36456 4.42134 100

Accuracy assessments of land use and land cover classes

LULCC Cropland Agroforestry Forest Grassland Shrub/WL Settlement Bare land Row total Users’ accuracy
Cropland 44 1 1 3 0 1 50 88
Agroforestry 1 45 2 2 0 0 50 90
Forest 0 3 35 2 0 0 40 88
Grassland 2 0 36 0 0 2 40 90
Shrub / WL 1 2 2 1 33 1 0 40 83
Settlement 2 0 0 1 0 26 1 30 87
Bare land 3 0 0 2 0 0 25 30 83
Column total 53 51 40 43 37 27 29 280
Producer accuracy (%) b 83 88 88 84 89 96 86

Drivers of land use and land cover change in the study area

R.N. Drivers of LULCC Current drivers of LULCC (Proximate and underlying drivers) Respondents in group discussions who perceived drivers of LULCC at different agroecology. Respondents on interviews participants who perceived drivers of LULCC at different agroecology.
Highlands 4 Groups Midlands 6 Groups Lowlands 4 Groups Highlands 21 persons Midlands 28 persons Lowlands 21 persons
1 Indirect driver Demographic factors (population density, settlement) 89% 95% 91% 84% 96% 85%
2 Direct driver Economic factors (agriculture, charcoaling, fuelwood, daily labouring) 65% 92.1% 87.4% 67.6% 95% 82%
3 Indirect driver Cultural factors (Songo, and Baabbo) 70% 92.8% 68% 71% 92% 78.9%
4 Direct driver Natural factors (recurrent high-intensity rainfall and drought) 81% 73.6% 86.2% 80% 91% 83%
5 Indirect driver Policy or institutional factors (soil and water conservation) 58% 79% 57% 58% 77% 64 %
6 Indirect drivers Agricultural intensification technology (high yield crops, pesticide and fertiliser) 84% 70.3% 85% 83% 71% 84%

Source of Landsat 5 (™) and Landsat 8 (OLI)

Sensor Type Path/row No of Bands Band combination Spatial resolution Acquisition date
Landsat 5 (™) 168/056 7 RGB 432 30 m 5/Jan/1986
Landsat 5 (™) 168/056 7 RGB 432 30 m 28/Jan/2000
Landsat 5 (™) 168/056 7 RGB 432 30 m 10/Jan/2011
Landsat 8 (OLI) 168/056 11 RGB 543 30 m 31/Jan/2019
eISSN:
2353-8589
Język:
Angielski
Częstotliwość wydawania:
4 razy w roku
Dziedziny czasopisma:
Life Sciences, Ecology
Kanał RSS czasopisma