Remote sensing-based monitoring of water hyacinth invasion dynamics and socioeconomic impacts in Lake Abaya, Ethiopia

S/No	SensorTypes	Pass/row	Resolution	Date of Acquisition	Sources
1	Sentinel 2A	169/56, 169/55	10m	November 16/2017	https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov
2	Sentinel 2A	169/56, 169/55	10m	November 10/2018
3	Sentinel 2A	169/56, 169/55	10m	December 20/2019
4	Sentinel 2A	169/56, 169/55	10m	November 25/2020
5	Sentinel 2A	169/56, 169/55	10m	December 15/2021
6	Sentinel 2A	169/56, 169/55	10m	December 24/2022
7	Sentinel 2A	169/56, 169/55	10m	November 24/2023

Table 2.

Contextual description of the LULC classes of the Abaya Lake wetland

No	LULC types	Description
1	Water hyacinth	All floating vegetation appears denser green than the other vegetation land covers in and near the lake shoreline.
2	Water body	Consists of both turbid and clear water of the lake and other water bodies in and nearby the lake.
3	Settlement	Consists of homesteads of rural villages and buildings of urban areas (with commercial land residential purposes), camps, warehouses, roads and other infrastructures.
4	Farmland	Farmland used for growing cereals, tuber and root crops, agro-forestry practice and horticulture including currently uncultivated (arable) land and fallowed plots.
5	Vegetation	Areas of dense, tall trees with interlocked canopies, including woodland and riverine forests.
6	Shrubland	Area covered by sparse vegetation, short, hard woody stem trees (bushes), limited herbaceous plants (shrubs) and isolated trees, which often are mixed with an undergrowth of grasses.

[i] Sources: Charvát et al. 2022; Zekarias et al. 2021, with some modification by the researchers

Table 3.

Land use and land cover change of 7 consecutive years (2017–2023)

S/No	LULC Classes	LULC changes in the study years
S/No	LULC Classes	2017	%	2018	%	2019	%	2020	%
1	Water body	139,455.06	8.58	129,372.61	7.96	120,017	7.38	119,713.09	7.36
2	Water hyacinth	879.53	0.05	996.75	0.06	1,553	0.10	1,796.53	0.11
3	Farmland	1,022,032.06	62.87	1,022,919.16	62.92	1,040,971	64.03	1,055,316.48	64.91
4	Settlement	35,840.47	2.20	47,804.46	2.94	61,225	3.77	62,634.00	3.85
5	Vegetation	115,330.67	7.09	113,274.44	6.97	110,038	6.77	124,140.01	7.64
6	Shrubland	312,153.95	19.20	311,324.32	19.15	291,888	17.95	262,091.63	16.12
Total Area		1,625,691.74	100.00	1,625,691.74	100.00	1,625,691.74	100.00	1,625,691.74	100.00

S/No	LULC Classes	LULC changes in the study years
S/No	LULC Classes	2021	%	2022	%	2023	%
1	Water body	118,005.47	7.26	117,086.16	7.20	116,094.91	7.14
2	Water hyacinth	1,396.91	0.09	1,305.87	0.08	1,096.78	0.07
3	Farmland	1,065,536.85	65.54	1,070,181.59	65.83	1,075,138.29	66.13
4	Settlement	70,774.60	4.35	74,406.26	4.58	79,954.40	4.92
5	Vegetation	131,494.38	8.09	133,950.93	8.24	137,925.42	8.48
6	Shrubland	238,483.53	14.67	228,760.93	14.07	215,481.94	13.25
Total Area		1,625,691.74	100.00	1,625,691.74	100.00	1,625,691.74	100.00

[i] Source: Classified Sentinel satellite data from 2017–2023

Table 4.

Error matrices of LULC map derived from sentinel images (2017–2023)

LULC Classes	2017
LULC Classes	1	2	3	4	5	6	Total	Producer's accuracy (%)	User's accuracy (%)
1	108	3	0	0	0	0	111	96.43	97.3
2	3	200	4	2	3	4	216	86.58	92.59
3	1	11	191	0	17	5	225	89.67	84.89
4	0	15	7	211	1	11	245	95.48	86.12
5	0	0	3	3	117	5	128	84.78	91.41
6	0	2	8	5	0	390	405	93.98	96.3
Total	112	231	213	221	138	415	1330
	Overall accuracy = 91.50%, Kappa coefficient = 0.88

LULC Classes	2018
LULC Classes	1	2	3	4	5	6	Total	Producer's accuracy (%)	User's accuracy (%)
1	109	9	1	0	1	0	120	93.16	90.83
2	3	151	0	0	0	0	154	80.75	98.05
3	0	11	163	0	23	0	197	93.14	82.74
4	5	9	5	261	1	0	281	92.88	92.88
5	0	5	3	18	112	0	138	81.75	81.16
6	0	2	3	2	0	91	98	100	92.86
Total	117	187	175	281	137	91	988
	Overall accuracy = 89.78%, Kappa coefficient = 0.86

LULC Classes	2019
LULC Classes	1	2	3	4	5	6	Total	Producer's accuracy (%)	User's accuracy (%)
1	143	11	0	0	0	0	154	91.67	92.86
2	13	92	4	0	1	2	112	85.19	82.14
3	0	1	89	0	3	5	98	88.12	90.82
4	0	0	3	76	1	3	83	93.83	91.57
5	0	3	4	2	83	3	95	88.30	87.37
6	0	1	1	3	6	101	112	88.60	90.18
Total	156	108	101	81	94	114	654
	Overall accuracy = 89.30%, Kappa coefficient = 0.85

LULC Classes	2019
LULC Classes	1	2	3	4	5	6	Total	Producer's accuracy (%)	User's accuracy (%)
1	143	11	0	0	0	0	154	91.67	92.86
2	13	92	4	0	1	2	112	85.19	82.14
3	0	1	89	0	3	5	98	88.12	90.82
4	0	0	3	76	1	3	83	93.83	91.57
5	0	3	4	2	83	3	95	88.30	87.37
6	0	1	1	3	6	101	112	88.60	90.18
Total	156	108	101	81	94	114	654
	Overall accuracy = 89.30%, Kappa coefficient = 0.85

LULC Classes	2020
LULC Classes	1	2	3	4	5	6	Total	Producer's accuracy (%)	User's accuracy (%)
1	131	12	0	0	0	0	143	92.25
2	11	119	4	2	3	4	143	86.86
3	0	3	89	0	7	0	99	89.00
4	0	1	3	107	0	9	120	83.59
5	0	0	2	10	87	2	101	89.69
6	0	2	2	9	0	129	142	89.58
Total	142	137	100	128	97	144	748
	Overall accuracy = 88.50%, Kappa coefficient = 0.84

LULC Classes	2021
LULC Classes	1	2	3	4	5	6	Total	Producer's accuracy (%)	User's accuracy (%)
1	143	11	0	0	0	0	154	91.67
2	13	92	4	0	1	2	112	85.19
3	0	1	89	0	3	5	98	88.12
4	0	0	3	76	1	3	83	93.83
5	0	3	4	2	83	3	95	88.30
6	0	1	1	3	6	101	112	88.60
Total	156	108	101	81	94	114	654
	Overall accuracy = 89.29%, Kappa coefficient = 0.85

LULC Classes	2022
LULC Classes	1	2	3	4	5	6	Total	Producer's accuracy (%)	User's accuracy (%)
1	121	11	0	0	0	0	132	90.30
2	13	98	1	0	2	0	114	88.29
3	0	0	95	4	5	2	106	87.16
4	0	0	2	79	1	3	85	92.94
5	0	2	6	2	77	3	90	90.59
6	0	0	5	0	0	91	96	91.92
Total	134	111	109	85	85	99	623
	Overall accuracy = 90.05%, Kappa coefficient = 0.87

LULC Classes	2023
LULC Classes	1	2	3	4	5	6	Total	Producer's accuracy (%)	User's accuracy (%)
1	129	12	0	0	0	0	141	92.14
2	11	131	0	0	2	0	144	87.92
3	0	2	87	3	4	2	100	90.63
4	0	0	4	91	1	2	102	92.86
5	0	2	0	0	127	6	142	91.37
6	0	2	5	4	5	119	142	92.25
Total	140	149	96	98	139	129	771
	Overall accuracy = 88.72%, Kappa coefficient = 0.87

[i] 1=water body, 2=water hyacinth, 3=farmland, 4=settlement, 5=vegetation, 6= shrubland

[ii] 1=water body, 2=water hyacinth, 3=farmland, 4=settlement, 5=vegetation, 6= shrubland

Table 5.

Land transformation, magnitude, percentage share LULC of seven consecutive years (2017–2023)

LULC Classes		LULC of 2017
LULC Classes		1	2	3	4	5	6	Total	Total area gained (ha)	Total area lost (ha)	Net changes
	1	135,751.01	-	-	-	-	0.09	135,751.10	6.96	0.09	6.87
LULC of 2018	2	6.87	869.55	0.67	-	-	-	877.09	0.09	7.54	(7.45)
	3	0.09	0.09	1,035,950.94	14.46	8.00	29.34	1,036,002.92	15.28	51.89	(36.61)
	4	-	-	6.89	39,971.96	0.98	6.97	39,986.80	14.46	13.86	0.60
	5	-	-	4.31	-	108,798.59	26.33	108,829.23	398.18	30.64	367.54
	6	-	-	3.41	-	390.18	303,851.09	304,244.68	62.64	393.59	(330.95)
Total		135,757.97	869.64	1,035,966.22	39,986.42	109,197.75	303,913.82	1,625,691.82	497.61	497.61	0.00

LULC Classes		LULC of 2018
LULC Classes		1	2	3	4	5	6	Total	Total Area gained (ha)	Total area lost (ha)	Net changes
LULC of 2019	1	135,108.77	0	0.65	0	0	0	135,109.42	0	426.13	425.98
	2	425.96	871.34	0.17	0	0	0	1,297.47	426.630	0.65	−426.13
	3	0.67	1.37	1,101,785.54	14.46	8.01	9.14	1,101,819.19	15.43	32.28	−16.85
	4	0	0	6.89	40,235.84	0	6.97	40,249.70	21.28	13.86	7.42
	5	0	0	4.31	6.82	103,368.41	36.33	103,415.87	58.19	47.46	10.73
	6	0	0	3.41	0	50.18	243,746.49	243,800.08	52.44	53.59	−1.15
Total		135,535.40	872.71	1,101,800.97	40,257.12	103,426.60	243,798.93	1,625,691.73	573.97	573.97	0.00

LULC Classes		LULC of 2019
LULC Classes		1	2	3	4	5	6	Total	Total Area gained (ha)	Total area lost (ha)	Net changes
LULC of 2020	1	130,433.45	0	0.09	0	0	0	130,433.54	6.96	0.09	6.87
	2	6.87	909.77	0	0	0	0	916.64	0	6.87	−6.87
	3	0.09	0	1,108,611.39	1.93	1.07	1.22	1,108,615.70	4.71	4.31	0.4
	4	0	0	0.92	40,950.65	0	0.93	40,952.50	2.84	1.85	0.99
	5	0	0	1.91	0.91	102,531.10	4.85	102,538.77	7.77	7.67	0.1
	6	0	0	1.79	0	6.7	242,226.09	242,234.58	7	8.49	−1.49
Total		126838.5	2974.76	28967.17	14453.49	11542.76	32288.66	1,625,691.73	29.28	29.28	0.00

LULC Classes		LULC of 2020
LULC Classes		1	2	3	4	5	6	Total	Total Area gained (ha)	Total area lost (ha)	Net changes
LULC of 2021	1	129,547.76	0	0.18	0	0	0	129,547.94	14.14	0.18	13.96
	2	7.86	917.57	2.29	0	1.09	0	928.81	1.35	11.24	−9.89
	3	6.28	1.35	1,219,029.26	0.89	14.73	92.18	1,219,144.69	7.21	115.43	−108.22
	4	0	0	4.74	47,961.54	4.97	5.91	47,977.16	0.89	15.62	−14.73
	5	0	0	0	0	98,359.77	8.19	98,367.96	46.27	8.19	38.08
	6	0	0	0	0	20.48	129,704.69	129,725.17	106.28	20.48	85.8
Total		129,561.90	918.92	1,219,036.47	47,962.43	98,401.04	129,810.97	1,625,691.73	171.14	171.14	0.00

LULC Classes		LULC of 2021
LULC Classes		1	2	3	4	5	6	Total	Total Area gained (ha)	Total area lost (ha)	Net changes
LULC of 2022	1	128,142.48	-	-	-	-	-	128,142.48	11.28	-	11.28
	2	6.259	19.73	2.08	-	-	-	928.06	-	8.33	(8.33)
	3	5.03	-	−1,223,031.80	-	0.67	1.42	1,223,038.92	12.06	7.12	4.94
	4	-	-	-	−49,447.80	3.24	7.75	49,458.79	-	10.99	(10.99)
	5	-	-	5.14	-	−96,298.29	8.19	96,311.62	13.67	13.33	0.34
	6	-	-	4.84	-	9.76	127,797.26	127,811.86	17.36	14.60	2.76
Total		128,153.76	919.73	1,223,043.86	49,447.80	96,311.96	127,814.62	1,625,691.73	54.37	54.37	0.00

LULC Classes		LULC of 2022
LULC Classes		1	2	3	4	5	6	Total	Total Area gained (ha)	Total area lost (ha)	Net changes
LULC of 2023	1	124,266.96	-	2.73	-	-	-	124,269.69	14.87	2.73	12.14
	2	4.53	921.89	-	-	-	-	926.42	-	4.53	(4.53)
	3	10.34	-	1,228,300.33	-	3.13	52.46	1,228,366.26	12.49	65.93	(53.44)
	4	-	-	7.68	53,316.66	5.81	-	53,330.15	-	13.49	(13.49)
	5	-	-	-	-	95,105.19	3.22	95,108.41	14.62	3.22	11.40
	6	-	-	2.08	-	5.68	123,683.04	123,690.80	55.68	7.76	47.92
Total		124,281.83	921.89	1,228,312.82	53,316.66	95,119.81	123,738.72	1,625,691.73	97.66	97.66	0.00

LULC classes		LULC of 2017
LULC classes		1	2	3	4	5	6	Total	Total area gained (ha)	Total area lost (ha)	Net changes
LULC of 2023	1	121,971.67	324.37	0.08	0	0	0	122,296.12	4.52	324.45	−319.93
	2	4.22	1,909.11	1.72	0	0	0	1,915.05	325.33	5.94	319.39
	3	0	0.96	1,235,148.53	0	3.88	11.22	1,235,164.59	4.58	16.06	−11.48
	4	0	0	2.78	62,244.84	3.99	24.28	62,275.89	0.00	31.05	−31.05
	5	0.3	0	0	0	82,356.19	5.24	82,361.73	13.94	5.54	8.4
	6	0	0	0	0.00	6.07	121,672.28	121,678.35	40.74	6.07	34.67
Total		121,976.19	2,234.44	1,235,153.11	62,244.84	82,370.13	121,713.02	1,625,691.73	389.11	389.11	0.00

Table 6.

Age category of the respondents

Age	Frequency	Percent
15–29	38	21.84
30–49	42	24.14
50–64	47	27.01
>64	47	27.01
Total	174	100

Table 7.

Sex category of the respondents

Sex	Frequency	Percent
M	156	89.66
F	18	10.34
Total	174	100

Table 8.

Category of family size of the respondents

Family size	Frequency	Percent
2–5	42	24.14
6–10	128	73.56
11–15	4	2.30
Total	174	100

Table 9.

Educational level of the respondents

Level of Education	Frequency	Percent
Illiterate	52	29.89
Only read and write	108	62.07
Primary school	7	4.02
Secondary school	4	2.30
University/college graduate	3	1.72
Total	174	100

Table 10.

Impact of water hyacinth on crop production

Severity level of water hyacinth on crop production	Respondents		Infested land		Estimated yield lost (%)	Remark
Severity level of water hyacinth on crop production	No	%	km²	%	Estimated yield lost (%)	Remark
Severe	123	70.69	0.78	40.63	58–100
Moderate	36	20.69	0.53	27.60	25–58
Rare	15	8.62	0.61	31.77	0–25
Total	174	100	1.92	100

Table 11.

Drivers for water hyacinth expansion

S/No	Factors Responsible for the expansion of Water Hyacinth	Respondents in number	Respondents in %
1	Open access	57	32.76
2	Rapid population growth	39	22.41
3	Farmland expansion	29	16.67
4	Deforestation	21	12.07
5	Overgrazing	17	9.77
6	Urbanization and urban waste disposal	11	6.32
Total		174	100

References

Authors

Metrics

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/oszn-2026-0006 | Journal eISSN: 2353-8589 | Journal ISSN: 1230-7831

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 36 - 53

Published on: Aug 13, 2026

Published by: National Research Institute, Institute of Environmental Protection

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Keywords:

catchment,

LULC,

QGIS,

Related subjects:

© 2026 Taso Banja Dhugasa, Bayisa Itana Daba, Birhane Gebrehiwot Tesfamariam, published by National Research Institute, Institute of Environmental Protection
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Volume 37 (2026): Issue 2 (June 2026)

Remote sensing-based monitoring of water hyacinth invasion dynamics and socioeconomic impacts in Lake Abaya, Ethiopia

Figures & Tables

Figure 1.

Table 1.