Figure 1
Location map of Gidabo river subbasin
Figure 2
Rainfall graphs for different station.
Source: Ethiopian meteorological station [2020]
Table 1
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 |
[i] Source: Downloaded from http://glovis.usgs.gov 2019
Table 2
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 |
[i] Source: Landsat 8 of 2019 and Google earth imagery (GEI)
Table 3
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) |
[i] Sources: Authors Generated from a different source
Figure 3
Flow chart showing the data sources and methods of analysis of the research
Source: Authors’ formulation
Table 4
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 | |
Table 5
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 |
[i] Source: Classified data from Landsat 5 (TM) and Landsat 8 (OLI)
Figure 4
Classified Land Map of the Gidabo river subbasins from 1986 to 2019
Source: Landsat 5 (™) and Landsat 8 (OLI).
Table 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 |
[i] Note: The bolded numbers indicate the persistent LULCC
Table 7
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 | - |
Table 8
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 |
Table 9
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 |
[i] Source: Satellite image analysis
Table 10
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% |
Figure 5
Population growth increased agroforestry system
Source: Field observations in the midlands agroecology
Figure 6
Sample grazing land in the highland agroecology
Source: Field observation
Figure 7
Charcoal marketing in the town of Dilla
Figure 8
Forest encroachment for the sake of fertile land
Source: Field observations
Figure 9
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
Figure 11
Sample plantation forest carried through the SWC programme