Analysis of Land Cover Change Impacts on Farmers' Livelihood

Analysis of Land Cover Change and Its Effect on Farmers Livelihood in
Emfule SWS Soro Woreda, Hadiya Zone Ethiopia
MSc Thesis.
HANNA ADEBACHO
Nove, 2022
Hossana, SNNPR
Analysis of Land Cover Change and Its Impact on Farmers Livelihood in Emfule SWS Soro
Woreda, Hadiya Zone Ethiopia
A Proposal Submitted to Department of Geography and Natural Science Studies, Wachamo

University
In Partial Fulfilment of the requirement for the Award of Masters of Science Degree in
Sustainable Natural Resource Management.
Page 1
Hanna Adebacho
Major Advisor: Kibemo Detamo (Dr.)
Co-Adviser: Mulugeta Wolde
Nove, 2022
Hossana, SNNPR
APPROVAL SHEET
Wachamo UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
Date: ……………………………………….
To: __________________________________________
_____________________________
Subject: Testimonial on submission of research proposal
It is to be recalled that Hanna Adebacho has undertaken her research proposal on Analysis of Land Cover
Change and Its Impact on Farmers Livelihood in Emfule Sub-Watershed Soro Worde, Hadiya Zone Ethiopia
under my guidance as her Major advisor.
She can conduct her research as per the approve proposal. Also, I certify that the research proposal has
been prepared as per the guidelines and up to high scientific standard and is ready for further research.
Kindly consider Hanna Adebacho research proposal for approval to be defended in the upcoming
…………………. open defense session.
With regards,
Name of Advisor
Page 2
CC.
• School of Graduate Studies
• Student
STATEMENT OF THE AUTHOR
By my signature below, I declare and affirm that this thesis is my own work. I have followed all ethical
principles of scholarship in the preparation, data collection, and data analysis and completion of this thesis.
All scholarly matter that is included in the thesis has been given recognition through citation. I affirm that I
have cited and referenced all sources used in this document. Every serious effort has been made to avoid
any plagiarism in the preparation of this thesis.
This thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of masters in watershed
management from the School of Graduate Studies at Wachamo University. The thesis will be deposited in
Wachamo University Library and is made available to borrowers under the rules of the library. I solemnly
declare that this thesis has not been submitted to any other institution anywhere for the award of any
academic degree, diploma or certificate.
Brief quotations from this thesis may be used without special permission provided that accurate and
complete acknowledgement of the source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotations from,
or reproduction of, this thesis in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the School or Department
or the Dean of the School of Graduate Studies when in his or her judgment the proposed use of the
material is in the interest of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from
the author of the thesis.
Name: Signature: ______________________
Date:
School/Department:
AKNOWLEDGMENTS
Page 3
First of all my everlasting thanks go for the Almighty God to his eternal love and kindness.
I am most grateful to my advisor Ass. Professor Kibemo Detamo for his unreserved assistance, timely comments and
pertinent guidance from the very beginning of the proposal development to the final thesis. Without his support this
research would not have been accomplished.
I would also like to Thanks Wachamo University College of Social Science, Department of Geography and
Natural Resource Studies for giving me this opportunity.
Furthermore, I would like to forward my great thank to all data collection facilitators, kebele leaders,
Development Agents and study participants who were involved in this study.
Finally, my acknowledgment also goes to my Dear husband Tesfahun Weldeyesus, Samuel Tesfahun,
Herina Tesfahun and my father Mr. Adebacho Watchiso and my mother Ms.Tsedale Assefa for their caring
and convenience.
Last but not list I would like to give my great honor for best friend Demelash Lelago.
Above all I would like to thank my GOD for being with me in all of my way.
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
CBOs Community Based

Organizations
CSA
Central Statistics Agency
CSA
Central Statistics Agency
Et al et alia
ETM+
Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus
Page 4
FAO Food and
Agricultural
Organization
of United
Nations
FAO Food and Agriculture
Organization
GIS
Geographical Information System
ISDR International
Strategy for
Disaster
Reduction
LC Land Cover
LULC
Land-use and land-cover
LULCCs
Land-use land cover changes
NGOs
Nongovernmental organizations
RS Remote Sensing
SNNPR
Southern Nation Nationalities and People
UN United Nation
UNCCD
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification UNFPA
The United Nations Population Fund
USAID United
States
Agency for
International
Developmen
t
USGS United States Geological
science
UTM+
Universal Transvers Mercator
Page 5
DEDICATION
To my beloved brother Gubamo Adebacho. (Rest in Peace)
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Summary of satellite images were used in land use/land cover change detection22
Table 2: Description of identified land use and land cover types24
Table 3: Land use Land cover change magnitude between 1991 and 200630
Table 4: Area and percentage coverage of LULC (1991 and 2006)31
Table 5: Land use Land cover change matrices between 2006 and 202133
Table 6: Area and percentage coverage of LULC (2006 and 2021)34
Table 7: TerrSet geospatial modeling and monitoring36
Table 9: Accuracy Assessment38
Table 10: Martial Status of Respondents41
Table 11: Size of Households of in Emfule SWS Woreda, 202242
Table 12: Monthly Income of the respondents43
Table 13: .Land Cover Change On Farmers’ Livelihood44
Table 14:The Driving Forces Of Land Cover Changes In Emfule Sws Soro Woreda46
Page 6
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Study area Map19
Figure 2: Interview with participants23
Figure 4: Land use Land cover Map of Emfule water shade in 1991 and 2006.29
Figure 5: Land use Land cover Map of Emfule water shade in 2006 and 2021.32
Figure 6: Map of Distance from streams and slope.35
Figure 7: Map of Distance from streams and slope.35
Figure 8: Predicted Land use Land cover Map of Emfule water shade for 2036.37
Figure 9: Sex of Respondents ………………………………………………………………..39
Figure 10: Age of Respondents 40
Figure 11: Educational level of the respondents42
Figure 12: Socio-economic role of Forest 45
Table 15: The Effect Of Land Cover Change On Farmers’ Livelihood48
APPENDICES
APPENDICESxi
Appendix-1 Time budgetI
Appendix-2II Page 7
ENGLISH QUESTIONNAIREII
APPENDIX - 3V
AMHARIC QUESTIONNAREV
ABSTRACT
Land Use/ Land Cover Change (LU/LCC) is one of the major human induced global changes. Information on
LU/LCC and the forces and processes behind such changes are essential for proper understanding of how
land was being used in the past, what type of changes have occurred and are expected in the future. This
study was carried out to analyze land use/land cover changes and its impact on farmers’ livelihood in
Emfule watershed in Soro woreda. It was conducted using satellite image of Landsat5 ETM 1991 and 2006,
Landsat5 ETM+ 2021 and Idrisiterrset 2036. In addition, field observations, Key informant interview (KII)
were also conducted. ERDAS Imagine 2014, ArcGIS 10.3 and of Idrisiterrset geo spatial modeling and
monitoring, software were used for satellite image processing and map preparation and LU/LCC prediction
respectively. The main finding of this study revealed that during the year 1991 about 10,283 hectares of
lands were occupied by agriculture which increased to about 11,198 hectares of lands in 2006 which may
be caused by population growth respectively. If the current rate of LU/LCC continues,
agriculture/settlement is predicted to increase in 2036, agriculture will be expanded from 11796 hectares
Page 8
in 2021 to 11,947 hectares, bare land will be expanded from about 41 hectares in 2021 to about 45
hectares in 2036 which is the indicator of environmental degradation. LU/LCC in Emfule sub-watershed is a
result of several proximate and underlying drivers. The major proximate driving forces of LU/LCC in study
area are population increasing, agricultural expansion, fire, illegal logging and fuel wood extraction,
overgrazing and plantation of massive Eucalyptus forest. Demographic, economic, technological, institution
and policy, socio-cultural and biophysical factors constitute the major underlying drivers of LU/LCC in the
Emfule SWS. Hence, the right policy packages are required to control the expansion of agriculture at the
expense of woodland and forest resources and soil conservation in the study area.
Key words: Drivers, livelihood, Land use/Land cover change, Change prediction
1. INTRODUCTION
2. Background of the Study
Land use is defined as how the land is utilized by people and their habitats, usually with an accent on a
functional role of land for economic activities, whereas land cover is a physical characteristic of the Earth’s
surface. Land use land cover (LULC) dynamics are a well-known, accelerating, and substantial process,
mostly driven by human activities, that is contributing significantly to forest fragmentation, land
degradation, and biodiversity loss (Regasa et al, 2021). Land-use and land-cover (LULC) change has become
a fundamental and essential component in current strategies for monitoring environmental changes and
managing natural resources (Twisa&Buchroithner, 2019).
Land cover dynamics are widespread, accelerating, and adverse processes driven by both human activities
but also creating changes that impact humans. This continuous change impacts the availability of different
biophysical resources including soil, vegetation, water, animal feed and others. Consequently, land use and
cover changes could lead to a decreased availability of different products and services for human, livestock,
agricultural production and damage to the environment as well (Oumer, 2009).
Human beings affected landscapes in attempts to improve the amount, quality, and security of natural
resources critical to its wellbeing, such as food, freshwater, fiber, and medicinal products since time
immemorial (Ramankutty et al, 2006). Through the increased use of innovation, human populations have
increased its ability to derive resources from the environment, and expand its territory (Goudsblom and De
Vries 2004). Land-use and land-cover changes are so pervasive that, when aggregated globally, they
significantly affect key aspects of Earth System functioning. They directly impact biotic diversity worldwide
(Global Environmental Change, 2001).
Land degradation is an international problem felted with desertification, loss of biological diversity and
deforestation in dry lands, which covers some 47 per cent of the Earth’s surface (Biro et al, 2013).
Consequently, Africa accounts for 65 per cent of total extensive cropland degradation of the world (Biro et
al, 2013). The main causes for land degradation in Africa include demographic growth, conflicts and wars,
inappropriate soil management, deforestation, shifting cultivation, insecurity in land tenure, variation in
climatic conditions and intrinsic characteristics of fragile soils in diverse agro-ecological zones (Biro et al,
2013).
Page 9
Like the world, East Africa faces similar problem of land use land cover changes. Specially, very fast
changes are clearly place able in Ethiopia, due to rapid population growth, climate change, resettlement
programs, and other anthropogenic and natural factors. Like any other countries, human activities are the
major dominant factors adversely changing the natural status of the land scape of Ethiopian and adverse
impacts on livelihood (Adeba et al 2021). Ethiopia located in the Horn of Africa covers about 1.01 Million
Sq. km area. The land use/land cover of the country shows 46.4% to have been covered by vegetation,
0.7% by water body and the rest by other land uses (FAO, 2015).
LULC change is the major cause of environmental degradation and loss of quality on spatial and temporal
scales. LULC change contributes significantly to climate change, reduction in forest cover, and biodiversity
loss. In addition, LULC change is one of the factors that influences runoff, soil loss, and stream flows
(Bufebo and Elias, 2020). The study area, Soro Woreda is known to be productive in enset production, but
the area is exposed to sever erosion and soil loss. Understanding of the extent of land cover change,
driving forces, and consequences of land cover change is crucial to design more effective environmental
policies and appropriate land management strategies for the entire Soro woreda. However, land cover
change of Soro woreda is not investigated so far, as the result, the cause of land cover change, and
consequences are not clearly understandable (USAID, 2015).
Based on this, the objective of this study is to analyze the LC changes and its impacts on farmers’ livelihood
in Soro Woreda Hadiya zone of Ethiopia and to identify the intervention measures taken by farmers’ of the
Soro Woreda to minimize the impacts of land cover change by farmers’ livelihood.
1. Statement of the Problem
Land use is referred to how the land with biophysical resources (land cover) is being utilized such as
agriculture, logging, residential and industrial use, and so forth (Lyimo, 2019). Land use and land cover
change is driven by human actions and also drives changes that limit availability of products and services
for human and livestock, and it can undermine environmental health as well (Oumer, 2009). The extent
and pace of human activities on the land surface also accelerated during the last 300 years. More land was
converted for human use than before, and already converted land was managed more intensively to
increase the yields of agricultural and forest products (Ramankutty et al, 2006). Land use and land cover
dynamics are widespread, accelerating, and significant processes driven by human actions but also
producing changes that impact humans (Oumer, 2009).
The consequence of the land-use conversions in Africa over the last half century was two-fold. First,
agricultural land has lower fuel levels than natural vegetation areas for much, if not all, of a growing
season. It nearly always also includes periods where fuel is completely absent (e.g. immediately following
tillage and sowing). Second, agricultural land use is associated with highly controlled use of fire; active fire
suppression is practiced to protect crops, and fire is sparingly employed to burn stubble and crop residue.
In contrast, fire in areas of natural vegetation, whether occurring naturally or set by humans, tends to be
extensive; typical uses are fires for grassland regeneration and shrub control in grazing land or to flush out
game for hunting. Furthermore, given that many African countries are among those with the fastest-
growing populations in the world (UN Population Division 2011), the continued conversion of natural
vegetation into agricultural land seems inevitable.
Rapid population growth in Africa has exerted increasing pressures on land resources, leading to
observable changes in the land cover and land use. However, spatially explicit and thematically detailed
quantitative analyses of land cover change over long time periods and at regional scale have beenPage
lacking
10
(Herrmann, 2020). Before the 19th century, land in sub-Saharan Africa was used largely for hunting,
gathering, herding, and shifting cultivation. Cropland area in sub-Saharan Africa is estimated to have been
119 million ha in 1961 and 163 million ha, an increase of 37% in 40 years.in 2000 (FAO 2004).
Changes in land use and land cover have serious environmental, economic and social impacts on rural
livelihoods in many parts of the sub-Saharan African region (Maitima et al. 2010). This is aggravated by the
fact that rural households have to cope with both poverty and variability in climate considering that their
livelihood strategies are linked to sectors such as agriculture and forestry that are impacted by climate
change (Shewmake 2008).
The land is a critical resource for the livelihood of East Africans, and there has been a steady decline in the
size of land holdings per household. Following the demand for land, LULC changes in this region have
resulted in a decline of natural forests to human settlements, urban centers, farmlands, and grazing lands.
Between 1990 and 2015, the East African forest cover decreased annually by about 1%, while the human
population increased at an average annual rate of around 2%.
Deforestation and wood land degradation due to lack of awareness would accelerate livelihood shortage
and this is a critical task of the woreda governments and the local people to contribute for proper
intervention measures which should be taken by the Soro Woreda to minimize the impacts of land cover
change on farmers’ livelihood.
Land degradation is one of a serious agricultural problem that posed severe threat to food production and
the livelihood of peoples in Ethiopia. It resulted in high economic loss and threat in natural environment.
The country loses about $106 million annually through soil and nutrient loss. This directly affects the
livelihood in the country (Tsegaye, 2018).
The expansion of agricultural land at the expense of forest cover in Hadiya zone has negative implications
on the natural resources and the livelihood of local people. Hence, appropriate measures need to be
employed to reduce the dramatic change in land use and to harmonize environmental conservation with
human livelihood. Especially the problem is more serious in Soro Woreda, Hadiya zone of Ethiopia (Bufebo
and Elias 2021).
Therefore, these initiated the researcher to conduct a research on the analysis of land cover change and its
impact on farmer’s livelihood in Emfule sub-watershed Soro Woreda, Hadiya Zone Ethiopia. The analysis
has incorporated major cause of land cover change and related major negative impacts on farmer’s
livelihood in the study area. It also focus on the current intervention measures and challenges to the
woreda administration.
1. Objectives of the Study
2. General Objective
The general objective of the study is to analyze land cover change and its impact on farmers’ livelihood in
Emfule sub-watershed Soro Woreda, Hadiya Zone Ethiopia
1. Specific Objectives
• To analyze land use land cover change in Emfule SWS between 1991 and 2021 using GIS & Remote
Page 11
sensing technologies.
• To forecast future land use land cover in Emfule SWS for the coming 15 years (2036) with the help
of GIS & Remote sensing technologies.
• To investigate the land cover change on farmers’ livelihood in Emfule SWS Soro Woreda Hadiya
Zone Ethiopia
• To identify the driving forces of land cover changes in Emfule SWS Soro Woreda Hadiya Zone
Ethiopia.
• To explore the effect of land cover change on farmers’ livelihood in Emfule SWS Soro Woreda
Hadiya Zone Ethiopia
2. Research Questions
Depending on the above specific objectives, the following research questions were mentioned to be
answered by this research.
1. What kind of Land use land cover change occurred between 1991 and 2021 in Emfule sub-
watershed of Soro woreda Hadiya zone?
2. What kind of Land use land cover change will happen for the coming 15 years in 2036 in Emfule
sub-watershed Soro woreda, Hadiya zone?
3. What are the major causes of land cover changes in Emfule sub-watershed Soro Woreda, Hadiya
Zone Ethiopia?
4. What are the effects of land cover change on farmers’ livelihood in Emfule sub-watershed Soro
woreda, Hadiya Zone Ethiopia?
5. Significance of the Study
The output of this research will have its own contribution for the local community, policy makers, planners
and other researcher in the study area. It will help the community, government, environment, NGOs and
other responsible organs.
• It will provide essential information to the local and national program designers and policy makers
about the current situation of the farmers’ livelihood of Emfule SWS Soro Woreda, Hadiya Zone Ethiopia.
• The study will contribute to the improvement of livelihood by integrating responsible organs and
stakeholders working in the areas of livelihood which intended to achieve the food security in a sustainable
manner.
• This study also will have importance in motivating other researchers to conduct further research
on this issue so that they can take as a reference and adds to the existing body of literature for the
livelihood sector.
Page 12
1. Scope of the Study
The study was focus on Emfule sub watershed Soro Woreda. Thematically the study was focus on getting
data on LULCC its impacts on the livelihoods of farmers in study area.
1. Organization of the Study
The study will be organized by five chapters. These chapters also are structured as follows. The first
chapter incorporates introduction. Under introduction, background of the study, statement of the
problem, objectives of the study, basic research questions, the scope and limitations of the study,
description of the study area and operational definition of terms are described in detail.
The second chapter is about a review of related literature. In this chapter, the conceptual, theoretical and
empirical review of related literature about the land cover change including the major causes of land cover
change and its impact on framers livelihood in Soro Woreda, Hadiya Zone Ethiopia. In addition to this,
intervention measures taken by the wereda administration to minimize the impacts of land cover change
on the livelihood of farmers in the study area will be addressed.
The third chapter of this research is all about methodology of the study including the research design,
research approach, sampling design and sample determination, source of data, data collection tools and
methods as well as method of data analysis and interpretation. The fourth chapter is organized by data
presentation, interpretation and analysis.
Finally, chapter five of this research is all about the summery, conclusion and recommendation of the
findings of the study.
CHAPTER TWO
1. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2. Theoretical Literature Review
3. Concepts of Land Cover Change
Land cover refers to the physical and biological cover over the surface of land, including water, vegetation,
bare soil and/or artificial structures (Ellis, 2007).Land-use and land-cover (LULC) change has become a
fundamental and essential component in current strategies for monitoring environmental changes and
managing natural resources. Increasing anthropogenic activities around the biosphere are causing large-
scale alterations of the Earth’s land surface which act the effectiveness of global systems. LULC and its
resources have been used for the social, material, cultural, and spiritual needs of humans, while, in the
process, humans have caused significant changes. The rapid changes of LULC, particularly in developing
countries have resulted in the reduction of different vital resources including water, soil, and vegetation.
Page 13
Furthermore, the actions leading to LULC changes have a local cause. However, because of their speed,
extension, and intensity, they have numerous and critical global implications, particularly on natural
resources. The increasing change is alarming and can significantly impact the local, regional, national, and
worldwide environment (Twisa et al, 2019).
Land use and land cover change have been among the most important perceptible changes taking place
around us. (The Human use of land resources gives rise to “land use” which varies with the purpose it
serves, whether it be food production, provision of shelter, recreation, extraction and processing of
materials, and the biophysical characteristics of the land itself. Tropical ecosystems are under continuous
threat by organic and chemical pollution from agriculture and industries and the resultant degradation of
the natural resources has taken on an alarming aspect (Roy and Roy 2014). Land use and land cover change
are perhaps the most prominent form of global environmental change since they occur at spatial and
temporal scales immediately relevant to our daily existence (CCSP, 2013).
2.2.2 Types of Land Use and Land Cover Change (LULCC)
However, both in the case of land cover as well as of land use, the meaning and conceptualization of
change is much broader. In the case of land cover change, the relevant literature distinguishes between
two types of change: conversion and modification (Turner et al. 1995, 22; Skole 1994, 438). Land cover
conversion involves a change from one cover type to another. Land cover modification involves alterations
of structure or function without a wholesale change from one type to another; it could involve changes in
productivity, biomass, or phenology (Skole 1994, 438). Land cover changes are the results of natural
processes such as climatic variations, volcanic eruptions, changes in river channels or the sea level, etc.
However, most of the land cover changes of the present and the recent past are due to human actions –
i.e. to uses of land for production or settlement (Turner et al. 1995, 27). More specifically, Meyer and
Turner (1996) suggest that “Land use (both deliberately and inadvertently) alters land cover in three ways:
converting the land cover, or changing it to a qualitatively different state; modifying it, or quantitatively
changing its condition without full conversion; and maintaining it in its condition against natural agents of
change” (Meyer and Turner 1996, 238).
In a similar vein, land use change may involve either (a) conversion from one type of use to another – i.e.
changes in the mix and pattern of land uses in an area or (b) modification of a certain type of land use.
Modification of a particular land use may involve changes in the intensity of this use as well as alterations
of its characteristic qualities/attributes – such as changes from low-income to high-income residential
areas (the buildings remaining physically and quantitatively unaltered), changes of suburban forests from
their natural state to recreation uses (the area of land staying unchanged), and so on. In the case of
agricultural land use, Jones and Clark (1997) provide a qualitative typology of land use changes:
intensification, extensive, marginalization and abandonment (Jones and Clark 1997, 26-27).
Proximate Causes of Land Use and Land Cover Changes
Proximate causes of LU/LCC are immediate actions of local communities and directly exerted on land
resources due to different underlying causes such as economic, social, political, etc (Geist and Lambin,
2002; Shiferaw, 2011). They operate at the local level (individual farms, households or communities) and
explain how and why local land covers and ecosystem processes are modified and converted directly by
humans (Lambin et al., 2003; Lambin and Geist, 2007). According to Geist and Lambin (2002) agricultural
Page 14
expansion, wood extraction and infrastructure expansion are major proximate causes of LU/LCC. De
Sherbinin (2002) explained that agricultural expansion is the dominant proximate cause for LU/LCC.
Agricultural expansion comprises permanent cultivation (large scale, smallholder subsistence and
commercial), shifting cultivation (slash & burn) and cattle ranching (large-scale and smallholder) (Geist and
Lambin, 2002). Crop land and pastures are now among the dominant ecosystems on the planet, occupying
more than 35% of the world’s ice-free land surface (Paul and Lisa, 2011). Over 50% of the global
agricultural lands increased in the past 100 years. In the developing world, half of the land cover
conversion occurred in just the past 50 years (Houghton, 1994). In Ethiopia large areas, which were once
under vegetation cover are now changed to cultivated land and expose to soil erosion resulting into
environmental degradation and serious threat to the land (Amare, 2007).
Underlying Causes of Land Use and Land Cover Changes
Underlying causes of LU/LCC involves the structural (or systemic) factors that trigger the proximate causes
(Geist and Lambin, 2002; Lambin et al., 2003). They operate at the regional (districts, provinces, or country)
or even global levels by changing one or more proximate causes (Lambin et al., 2003; Lambin and Geist,
2007). They are external to the local communities and not controlled at the local level. According to De
Sherbinin (2002) and Geist and Lambin (2001, 2002) underlying causes of LU/LCC originate from a complex
interaction of social, policy and institutional, economic, demographic, technological, cultural and
biophysical factors.
Economic factor is one of the major underlying causes of LU/LCC particular for tropical deforestation (Geist
and Lambin, 2002). Economic variables such as low domestic costs (for land, labor, fuel or timber), increase
in product price (mostly for cash crops) influence land use decision making, thereby impacting the land
cover (Geist and Lambin, 2002). Besides these, change in prices, taxes, and subsidies on land use inputs
and products, change in the costs of production and transportation and access to credit, market, and
technology also plays vital role in LU/LCC (Lambin and Geist, 2007).
The analysis of land use change revolves around two central and interrelated questions: “what
drives/causes land use change” and “what are the (environmental and socio-economic) impacts of land use
change”. This section addresses the first of these questions. The precise meaning of the “drivers” or
“determinants” or “driving forces” of land use change is not always clear, commonly accepted and
understood by all those who engage in studies of land use change. Frequently, certain driving forces are
emphasized over some others and there is confusion as to the semantic categories to which these causes
of land use change belong. Two principal distinctions are made in the following. The first regards the
origins of the drivers of land use-cover change. It is almost unanimously accepted that there are two main
categories: bio-physical and socio-economic drivers. The bio-physical drivers include characteristics and
processes of the natural environment such as: weather and climate variations, landform, topography, and
geomorphic processes, volcanic eruptions, plant succession, soil types and processes, drainage patterns,
availability of natural resources. The socio-economic drivers comprise demographic, social, economic,
political and institutional factors and processes such as population and population change, industrial
structure and change, technology and technological change, the family, the market, various public sector
bodies and the related policies and rules, values, community organization and norms, property regime.
1. Global Trend of Land Use Land Cover Changes
Increasing trend of land cover/land use change, environmental pollution, land degradation, biodiversity
loss at the global scale, timely and reliable information on global land cover and its changes is urgently
Page 15
needed to mitigate the negative impact of global environment change (BYifang et al, 2015). Understanding
long-term human-environment interactions requires historical reconstruction of past land-use and land-
cover changes. Most reconstructions have been based primarily on consistently available and relatively
standardized information from historical sources (Xing et al, 2014). Knowledge of land use and land cover is
important for many planning and management activities and considered as essential element for modeling
and understanding the earth as a system. Land cover maps are presently being developed from local to
national to global scales.
The impact of changing land uses relies on the prevailing surface and subsurface hydrologic conditions. (N.
Nagarajan and S. Poongothai, 2011). Land degradation is a global problem associated with desertification,
loss of biological diversity and deforestation in dry lands, which covers some 47 per cent of the Earth's
surface. Consequently, Africa accounts for 65 per cent of total extensive cropland degradation of the
world. The main causes for land degradation in Africa include, among others, demographic growth,
conflicts and wars, inappropriate soil management, deforestation, shifting cultivation, insecurity in land
tenure, variation in climatic conditions and intrinsic characteristics of fragile soils in diverse agro-ecological
zones (F.Makeschin et al, 2011). There is a negative impact of land use land cover on livelihoods. The most
common land use is residential and agricultural. This has increased the land use in settlement, bare land,
and croplands. The main factors of change are population increase, and porous land tenure system (Kullo
et al, 2021).LULC change is significant to a range of themes and issues central to the study of global change.
The alterations of land cover change effects in the surface of the earth hold major implications for
sustainable development and livelihood systems (S Sanderson et al, 2018).
The increase in land degradation, the other major observed problem, has made large areas unsuitable for
agriculture and has reduced crop productivity. These land-use and land-cover changes have affected both
the environment and the livelihoods of local residents; especially the issue related to land degradation
requires urgent attention (Meshesha et al, 2013).
1. The Challenges of Farmer’s Livelihood
2. Shortage and landlessness of arable farm land in the highlands
In Ethiopia, the scarcity of arable farmland and landlessness increased than ever in general and very high in
the highland areas in particular (Diriba, 2020). It is a serious problem of rural livelihood (Belay et al., 2017).
It is also complicated by unequal distribution among the householders. This influenced the levels of
income, opportunities, and ownership of assets. The poor farming system such as mono-cropping
contributed to soil degradation and nutrient depletion and consequently low yield (Wendimu, 2021). But
there is a critical lack of comprehensive study on the extent of landlessness, its effects, and coping
mechanisms in the country (Adugna, 2019).
Land fragmentation
Fragmentation of farmland affects the smallholder communities highly to produce in a sustainable manner
following an inadequate policy that used to respond with the available endogenous technological changes
and population growth (Headey et al., 2014).The rational use of agricultural land is influenced by land use
limitations. One of the obstacles for agricultural development is land fragmentation. Land fragmentation is
defined as the situation in which a single farm or ownership consists of numerous spatially separated plots.
Likewise, according to Bizimana et al. land fragmentation refers to farmers operating two or more
geographically separated tracts of land, taking account of the distances between those parcels. Dominant
Page 16
problem associated with land fragmentation is the small size, irregular shape, and dispersion of parcels.
With this statement in Ethiopia, about 92.26% of rural households operate on holdings of mean 1.4 ha
which constitutes 72% of total crop area. The number of households operating on holdings smaller than or
equal to 1 ha (mean 0.73 ha) constitutes 72.1% of the total while the national average holdings estimate is
about 0.8 ha. This indicates that agricultural land fragmentation is a widespread phenomenon in highland
areas of the country. The major causes are being land distribution and redistribution, inheritance rules, and
risky peasant agriculture. In line with this Rahameto stated that land fragmentation was widespread in
North as well as South under all tenure systems and in many parts of Ethiopia.
Climate change
The climatic variability and its impact reduces the economic growth in many countries worldwide. An
increase in temperature, climate-induced diseases of crops, and an increase in the frequency of pests as
well as drought and floods and a decrease in rainfall, all which are strong indicators of climate change. It
was perceived that these indicators had adverse impacts on crop production (89.4%), human health
(82.5%), livestock (68.7%) and vegetation (52.1%) (Paudel et al, 2021).
Land degradation and deforestation
More than 85% of the Ethiopian land is degraded to various degrees (Gebreselassie et al., 2016). Land
degradation in most developing countries is becoming a major constraint to future growth and
development of rural livelihoods. Ethiopia is among the poorest country where land degradation caused
damage to its inhabitant. This physical deterioration of its area had left millions of its population in
suspicious how to live harmoniously with nature and smooth handling of their Livelihood. Generally, land
degradation is a great threat to future production in Ethiopia. It caused severe loss of fertile soil and
disturbs the sustainability of land resources due to the low supply of organic matter (Deresa and Legesse
2015).
Urbanizations
Urbanization impacts negatively the rural livelihood in general and agricultural activities in particular.
Urban expansion has reduced the areas available for agriculture, which has seriously impacted upon peri-
urban farmers that are often left with little or no land to cultivate and which has increased their
vulnerability. This has left peri-urban farmers exposed to the negative shocks of urbanization because
significant urbanization-related agricultural land loss has a positive correlation with grain production
decrease. Appropriate governing bodies should control urban development in order to control the illegal
and informal spread of urbanization on agricultural land that threatens food production (Ayele and
Tarekegn 2020).
Land administration Intervention
There are several channels through which land administration interventions can change property rights,
since property rights can be imperfect or incomplete in many different ways. This alters the farmer’s
livelihood (Lewis et al, 2014).
1. Impacts of Land Cover Change on Farmers’ Livelihoods

Page 17
2.3 Livelihood
Livelihood play great role for survival of life. Without livelihood the survival of life is impossible. So every
country of the world tries for increasing of livelihood sources. The major livelihood sources are the
agriculture. Majority world people are engaged with this occupation but very few people of the rural area
are engaged with other non-farming activities in the rural area. There are three type strategies are used for
livelihood, namely intensification of agriculture, Diversification of livelihood and migration. The people
cultivate the land and grow the seed of different crops and produced the production for their daily
consumption. Extra production they sell in the market and get money which are saved or used for other
activities of daily life while mostly used on their basic needs which are compulsory for survival of life (Khan,
2020). Livelihoods perspectives have been central to rural development thinking and practice in the past
decade.
Livelihood is primarily intended for use by policymakers, planners, and implementers of local, regional and
national government bodies interested or engaged in facilitating a more responsive, sustainable, and risk-
reducing recovery process (ISDR, 1999). More than 95% of the population of Soro Wereda is engaged in
agriculture (Tolera, 2017). Changes in land use and land cover have serious environmental, economic and
social impacts on rural livelihoods in many parts of the sub-Saharan African region (Maitima et al. 2010).
A deeper understanding of the complex interdependence between changing land use and land cover and
rural livelihoods together with coping options is crucial for decision-making. Changes in land use and land
cover have serious environmental, economic and social impacts on rural livelihoods in many parts of the
sub-Saharan African region (Kamwi et al, 2015). Land use has been considered as one important factor
influencing livelihood of farmers.The change in farming system, such as land use change, can affect farmer
livelihoods and farmer’s livelihoods strategies (Tibkaew and Shrestha 2008). Land use changes in East
Africa have transformed land cover to farmlands, grazing lands, human settlements and urban centers at
the expense of natural vegetation (Maitima et al 2009).
Land use/land cover is dynamic in nature and it provides a comprehensive understanding of the interaction
and relationship of anthropogenic activities with the environment. Changes in the condition and
composition of land use/land cover affect climate, bio-geo-chemical cycles and energy fluxes and
livelihoods of people. s a consequence, considerable land use/land cover changes have occurred in
Ethiopia during the second half of the 20th century which has an adverse impact on the communities.
The major impact of LULCC on rural livelihood that identified by many studies include: its impacts on
environment thereby rural communities’ vulnerability to climate vagaries; its impact on land resources
with related to land degradation, soil erosion, and productivity decrement; its impact on biomass energy
Supply; Vulnerability of rural communities towards erratic rain fall and water sources problem with related
to LULCC; impact on access to quality water; its negative impact on livestock rearing which related with
grazing land shrinkage for agricultural land expansion, and also its impacts on ecosystem goods and
services especially related with deforestation (Gessese, 2018).
Intervention Measures of Land Cover Change
A promising way to conserve land resources and sustain productivity and ecosystem services for the
present and the future, is by promoting the wide adoption of sustainable land management (SLM)
practices and approaches that integrate biophysical, socio-economic and institutional considerations
(D’Agostino et al, 2016). Among these intervention measures, the following are mentioned below.Page 18
Afforestation
Afforestation is aimed at planting forests on low-productive agricultural land and bare land, and the
creation of forests along rivers, canals and water bodies. It is expected that by planting trees, wooded area
will increase by 20%. Consequently, additional wood will be produced, and the environmental situation will
improve. The land that is suitable for Afforestation includes: previously productive and wooded land in the
Wooded Steppe, which was originally covered by forests, but has since been converted into land of other
categories, including waste land; some marginal agricultural land; certain highlands not covered with
forests in the Carpathian mountains; eroded and contaminated areas in various regions; land on sands,
slopes, along roads, and around water basins; land around industrial agglomerations and land which is
under cultivation (Nijnik et al, 2005).
Afforestation focuses on establishing of a proper share between arable and wooded land in rural planning,
where positive effects include direct user benefits, benefits of additional timber supply, and indirect user
benefits obtained in agriculture as a result of soil protection function of forest which mitigate the
expansion of erosion and alleviate the devastation of arable land (Nijnik et al, 2005).
Afforestation may act as a reservoir of endemic, rare, or endangered species when low tree densities are
used. Some soil properties and soil moisture were also improved. These are linked to soil functions such as
carbon sequestration, water, and nutrient cycling. This results an increase in agricultural productivity
(Segura et al, 2021).
Terracing
Terracing has been one of the most important systems for preventing soil erosion, conserving water, and
increasing agricultural production. Terracing can also contribute toward the conservation of plant
biodiversity on a local scale (Deng et al, 2021). As one of the techniques for conserving water and soil,
terracing is common in hilly and mountainous regions that are subjected to substantial population
pressure. The flat surface created by terracing is generally used for cultivation (Cevasco et al., 2014).
Terraces and contour farming practices can increase yields due to reduced soil and water erosion and
increased soil quality. These results highlight the key role of water as a determinant of crop productivity.
For example, in more humid areas, effective water management through terracing and other soil and
water conservation measures will have the effect of reducing soil erosion, therefore increasing soil organic
matter and nutrient availability in the root zone (FAO, 2011).
Agro-forestry
Agro-forestry bridges the gap that often separates agriculture and forestry by building integrated systems
that address both environmental and socio-economic objectives. Agro-forestry can improve the resiliency
of agricultural systems and mitigate the impacts of climate change. Existing research suggests that
integrating trees on farms can prevent environmental degradation, improve agricultural productivity,
increase carbon sequestration, generate cleaner water, and support healthy soil and healthy ecosystems
while providing stable incomes and other benefits to human welfare (Baylis et al, 2018).
Implementing and applying land policy
Regulations on natural resources are central to ensuring the long term sustainable use of natural resources
Page 19
and in large part determine access to and use of land, water and biodiversity resources. They also impose
limits on the impact of industrial and agricultural activities on the state of the natural resource (e.g. water
pollution, soil degradation, greenhouse gas emissions). The design of natural resources and environmental
policies is important in terms of innovation and sustainable agricultural productivity growth (OECD, 2015).
Agricultural policies play a key role in the process of agricultural economic growth. Among them,
technological change has been acknowledged as the principal driver of productivity growth (Shikur, 2020).
Land tenure and property rights affect the application of technologies for agricultural and natural resource
management. Secured property rights give sufficient incentives to the farmers to increase their efficiencies
in terms of productivity and ensure environmental sustainability (Tenawet al, 2009).
Research Gap
Based on the researcher review of the available literature on the land cover change and its impact on
farmer’s livelihood, there is a gap which requires to be filled. There is lack of studies which particularly and
basically focused on the land cover change and its impact on farmer’s livelihood. This is due to previously
conducted study on this area were:
1. Although there was a research which was conducted in Shenkolla Watershed, South Central
Ethiopia, but it was basically focused on land use/land cover change and its driving forces.
2. There was also a report about Ethiopia Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Region
(SNNPR) livelihood zone by USAID in 2005, but it was mainly gave emphasis about the livelihood in
general in SNNPR. It didn’t see from the perspective of the land cover change and its impact on farmer’s
livelihood.
3. Another research was also done in Duna Woreda, Hadiya zone of SNNPR, Ethiopia. But it was on
farmers Awareness about Land Degradation and the Practices of Soil and Water Conservation Measures.
4. Above all there was no study conducted on land cover change and its impact on farmer’s
livelihood in Soro woreda Hadiya Zone of Ethiopia. Therefore, this study will be conducted to fill the
already listed research gaps by addressing various aspects in the study area.
CHAPTER THREE
Page 20
1. Methods and Materials
3.1. General Description of the Study Area
3.1.1. Location
This chapter will examine the research methodology that will use in this study to illuminate its central
questions about analysis of land cover change and its impact on farmer’s livelihood in Soro woreda, Hadiya
Zone Ethiopia. This approach will enable o analyze the responses of respondents on and cover change and
its impact on farmer’s livelihood in the study area. In order to achieve any research objective of the study,
a clear and appropriate research methodology is vital. This is due to the fact that this part will comprise of
description of the study area, research design, sampling design, and, the source of data, methods of data
collection, methods of data analysis of the study and ethical consideration. Therefore, in this study the
researcher tries to clearly and appropriately will set the aforementioned components of the research
methodology as follows.
Location
The study is conducted in Soro Woreda, Hadiya Zone, and Southern Ethiopia. The woreda is one of ten
administrative Woreda found in Hadiya Zone of the Southern Nations Nationalities and Peoples region
(SNNPR).
The SWS lies in the agro climatic zone of moist ``woinadega`` which can be characterized as sub- humid
(hurni, 1986).the Emfule SWS is located 267 km away from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. That is via hosanna
which principal town of Hadiya. The SWS is part of Omo-gibe river major watershed. Soro is one of eleven
woreda in Hadiya zone. Its capital Gimbichu is 32 km away from Hosanna town. The area covered by SWS is
ha. Geographically the SWS located between 37033`2`` to 370 36` 18`` longitude east and 70 25` 47`` to 70
26` 52`` latitude north.
Page 21
Figure 1: Study area Map
Source: GIS & Remote sensing output
Topography
The altitude of the study area varies from 1720 to 2300 m.a.s.l. the total amount of annual rainfall in the
SWS ranges from 1000 to 1200mm. The rainfall pattern is bimodal, that is ``belg`` and ``keremt`` or
``meher``. The minimum and maximum annual temperature is approximately 140 C and 250 respectively
that falls in `` woinadega``. The mean annual temperature is about 12.50C. (Soro woreda ANRD, 2017).
Vegetation Cover
In general the vegetation status of the sub-watershed is very poor mainly because of over exploitation of
forest resources and over grazing results from higher population pressure exerted on the environment.
Two decades ago, there was some dense forest along the streams banks, particularly in the lower valley at
the bottom of SWS. During the recent field survey it was noted that this vegetation and some grazing areas
have been change to arable land and prone to severe land degradation.
There are now, no community or private woodlots. The existing vegetation in the area includes sparse
distribution of natural grasses, remnants of some indigenous trees such as cordial Africana, croton
macrostachys, acacia abide, judicial schemperiana, eryhrina Abyssinia ....etc. however, the dominant tree
planted around homesteads, on communal grazing lands and on boundaries is eucalyptus spp. That mainly
serves as a source of fuel wood, construction material and income generation and/or cash crop.
Land use/Land cover
The total land of the study area is 12,907 ha out of this 10,099 ha is land, 330 ha is grazing land,330
haForest,601 ha is built-up area, 915 ha Degraded,632 ha are others like roads, streams, etc. Page 22
The dominant land use types in the SWS are mixed farming system which accounts about 92% of the total
land area. This shows that there is a great pressure on land. In the area farmers grow mainly maize,
sorghum, teff, wheat and others.
Population
The total human population living in the sub-watershed is 11,120 of which male 5338 and female 5782.
Total numbers of household is 1,120. Number of better-off households is 33, medium households are 280
and poor households are 807.Number of adults or active labor power or age>15 years is 53% number of
children’s age group < 16 years is 47% average family size is 7. Average cultivated land holding per
household is 0.94 ha/HH, whereas total land holding 1.24 ha/HH. Population density is 1726 persons /km2.
Research Design and Sampling procedure
Both qualitative and quantitative study design was employed. Among quantitative study, cross-sectional
household survey was used to collect relevant information that addresses the study objectives. Among
qualitative study design, personal interview and field observation was used for capturing qualitative data.
First, Soro Woreda was selected purposively because of the community dependency on forest, existences
of deforestation and its visible impacts and prior knowledge of the study area. Emfule watershed was
selected purposively based on the existence of high level of Land use land cover change in consultation
with Soro Woreda ANRD experts and great care was made to ensure that the selected watershed
sufficiently represented the district in terms of socio-economic and physical characteristics. Finally, the
sampled households were selected using simple random sampling technique by getting numbered
complete list of households (sample frame) from kebeles administrations.
To determine sample size a standard formula of Freund and Williams (1983) was used. The formula uses to
calculate the sample size at 95% confidence interval is shown below:-
n=
Where: n is sample size, z is statistical certainty chosen at 93% confidence level (z = 1.81), p is proportion
of population having desired characteristics (p = 0.5) is chosen, q is 1-p and d is error accepted by
researcher (7%).
n = = 167
3.3. Sources and types of data
In order to accomplish the specified objectives of this study different kind of data was collected from both
primary and secondary data sources. The primary data was collected from interviews, focus group
discussion, field observation and remote sensing (Landsat image). The secondary data was gathered from
related published and unpublished materials. From this all qualitative and quantitative data was obtained.
3.4. Data collection methods

Page 23
3.4.1. Satellite Image and GIS data collection
For data collection time series Land sat images of 1991, 2006 and 2021 was used to collect land cover
change data and to assess the extent of LULC change of the study area which is acquired from the U.S.
Geological Survey’s Earth Resources Observation and Science (USGS). For this study, three years (1991,
2006 and 2021) of Landsat satellite images were acquired (Source: www: earth explores) as indicated in
Table 1. Hence, these three year’s Landsat images were preferred in order to investigate the trend of 30
years LULCC within 15 year intervals. The downloaded satellite images were in tiff format and stacked in
ERDAS IMAGINE 2014 software and developing function in it to stack each layer to produce one single layer
composing of each band. Then from the stacked band the study area was extracted (Table 1).
Table 1: Summary of satellite images were used in land use/land cover change detection
No . Image Types Path/Row Acquisition Spatial Source

of satellite Date Resolution(m
)
1 Landsat TM 169/055 February199 30*30 USGS
1
2 Landsat 169/055 February200 30*30 USGS
ETM+ 6
3 Landsat 169/055 February202 30*30 USGS
ETM+ 1
Table.1. Source: WWW.earth explorer (USGS)
3.4.2. Household and field survey data collection
Structured questionnaire was used in order to make a face to face interview with sample respondents in
addition to field observation and survey by using GPS. Interview was made to collect data from the
respondents to identify the cause of LULC change and to assess its effects in the study area. Field
observation was also made to support and strengthen the data obtained by interviews and questionnaires.
Field observations was made and tried to grasp knowledge on some of the environmental and socio-
economic conditions of the Kebele. Interview was prepared to support the survey result and to dig out
ideas which are not clearly mentioned quantitative result part (Figure 2).
Page 24
Figure 2: Interview with participants
3.5. Data analysis
3.5.1. Satellite Image Analysis
I. Image pre-processing
Pre-processing involve those operations that are normally required prior to the main data analysis and
extraction of information. To address the objectives land sat thematic mapper (TM), and enhanced
thematic mapper plus (ETM+) were used. In addition, aerial photographs, topographic map with the scale
1:50,000 and Google earth were employed. The raw data were geo-referenced by ArcGIS software version
10.3 and clipped with the boundary of the study area for further processing.
A.Image enhancement
To improve the visual interpretation image enhancement is done for increasing the apparent distinction
between features in the scene (Lillesand and Kiefer, 2000). So that image analysis, classification and
interpretation is healthier. In addition, image enhancement was used to increase the details of the image
by assigning the image maximum and minimum brightness values to maximum and minimum display
values, it was done on pixel values, and this makes visual interpretation easier and assists the human
analyst. The original low dynamic range of the image was stretched to full dynamic range which is from 0
to 256 by using histogram equalization. Moreover, spatial enhancement of convolution of kernel 5 by 5 of
high pass filtering was done on the images of the respective years.
A.Image classification analysis
In this study, supervised classification methods were used. It is a method in which the analyst defines small
training sites on the image, which were representative of each desired land cover category. The delineation
of training areas representative of a cover type was most effective when an image analyst has knowledge
of the geography of a region and experience with the actual properties of the cover classes. For this study,
five major LULC types (Forest,Water, Built-up area, Farm land and degraded land) were identified for the
Page 25
purpose of mapping (Table 2). A combination of information collected from the field and a satellite image
were effectively used in the preparation of the legend. Identification of some of the LULC classes were
carried out by field visiting and discussions with elders to have a clear understanding of the main LULC
types but also to establish what types of changes are expected over time. Categorization of LULC types
were culminated in the production of the LULC legend, establishment of its characteristics, and
identification and mapping of LULC types. (Table 2).
Table 2: Description of identified land use and land cover types
No. Land use/land General Description

cover class
1 Forest Land covered with trees
reaching 2 m in height, 0.5
ha in area and a canopy
cover of 20% without other
land use. Areas dominantly
occupied both by planted
and natural forests
2 Grassland Lands predominantly
covered with grasses and
fobs that used for
communal grazing.
3 Built-up area Residential houses,
administrative buildings,
small industrial areas and
rural villages
4 Farmland Areas used crop production,
mostly of cereals in
subsistence farming.
5 Degraded land Are parts of the land surface
which is mainly covered by
bare soil and exposed rocks.
Source: FAO
II. Accuracy assessment
LULC maps derived from remote sensing always contain some sort of errors due to several factors, which
range from classification technique to method of satellite data capture. In order to wisely use the maps
and ground truths the errors must be quantitatively evaluated in terms of classification accuracy and
intended to produce information that describes reality. Therefore, an accuracy classification assessment
was carried out to verify to what extent the produced classification is compatible with what actually exists
on the ground (Congalton, 1991). It involves the production of references (samples) that evaluate the
produced classification. These references were produced from Google earth and GPS (Global Positioning
System) points during field work, which were independent of the ground truths used in the classification.
Page 26
III. Matrix of LULCC
The change matrixes were determined by overlaying two land use and land cover maps at a time in Arc GIS
10.3 software. The areas which were converted from each of the classes to any of the other classes were
computed (Gautam et al., 2003) (Figure 6).
Figure 3: General Framework of LULCC
3.5.2. Survey Data Analysis
Additionally Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20 was used for analysis in order to
identify the causes and the effects of Land use Land cover change. Some descriptive data were presented
with frequency, percentage and arithmetic means in tables and figures. Page 27
CHAPTER FOUR
1. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Presentation, Analysis, and Interpretation of Spatial Data
4.1.1. Land use/ land cover map of 1991, 2006 and 2021
Land use/land cover unit of the study area were categorized in to five types; these are: forest, grassland,
built-up area, farmland and degraded land. From the 1991 land use and land cover map interpretation; the
areal coverage of Agriculture was accounted for 10,283 ha (79.6%) from the total study area. The grass
land, vegetation land, built-up area and bare land were occupied about 13 ha (0.1%), 2504 ha (19.4%), 5 ha
(0.039%) and 102 ha (0.79%) respectively. From the total land coverage, agricultural land were accounted
for about 11,198 ha (86.58%) in the year 2006. Built-up area and bare land take the share of 21 ha (0.16%)
and 21 ha (0.16%) respectively. The remaining area was covered with vegetation and water 1655 ha (13%)
and 12ha (0.1%) respectively. In 2021 the agricultural coverage units was about 11,796 ha or 91% of the
total area and vegetation accounts about 976 ha (8%). Land category under built-up area,
bareland/Degraded/ and water accounted around 82 ha (6.6%), 41 ha (0.3%) and 12 ha (0.1%), respectively
(Table 3 and Figure 4).
4.1.2. LULCC Analysis between 1991 & 2006
During the year 1991 about 10,283 hectares of lands were occupied by agriculture which increased to
about 11,198 hectares of lands in 2006 which may be caused by population growth as the following map.
Page 28
Figure 4: Land use Land cover Map of Emfule water shade in 1991 and 2006.
Source: Image analysis
From the total land occupied by agriculture about 778 hectares of lands were lost to other LULC whereas
about 1693 hectares of lands were gained by agriculture from other land use land cover of 1991.From the
total land occupied by agriculture about 9505 hectares of lands remained unchanged until 2006.Between
1991 and 2006 agriculture has lost 20 hectares of lands to bare land, 12 hectares to built up area, 746
hectares of lands to vegetation and no hectares of lands were changed to water bodies.
Table 3: Land use Land cover change magnitude between 1991 and 2006
¹3 2006
1991 ¹3 Agricultu Bare land Built up Vegetati Water Grand
re area on Total
Agricultu 9505 20 12 746 0 10283
re
Bare land 76 1 0 25 0 102
Built up 0 ¹3 4 1 ¹3 5
area
Vegetati 1617 0 5 881 1 2504
on
Water 0 0 ¹3 2 11 13
Page 29
Grand 11198 21 21 1655 12 12907
Total
Also between the above mentioned times agriculture gained 76 hectares from bare lands, 1617 hectares
from vegetation. Bare lands occupied about 102 hectares of lands in 1991 which decreased to 22 hectares
in 2006.Between 1991 and 2006, bare land was decreased by about 80 hectares of lands. Bare land gave
about 101 hectares of land among which 76 hectares to agriculture and about 25 hectares to vegetation.
On the other hand bare land gained about 21 hectares new lands from other land use land cover. It gained
about 20 hectares from agriculture and about 1 hectare from water.
Built up area expanded from about 5 hectares of lands in 1991 to about 21 hectares in 2006. Between 1991
and 2006 built up area gained about 17 hectares of lands from other land use land cover. It gained about
12 hectares from agriculture and 5 hectares from vegetation. Built up area lost only 1 hectare of lands
which were changed to vegetation.
The land occupied by vegetation decreased from about 2504 hectares in 1991 to about 1655 hectares in
2006. Between these two time periods vegetation lost about 1623 hectares of lands. From the total lost
lands about 1617 hectares were changed to agriculture, about 5 hectares were changed built up area, and
1 hectare of land was changed to water bodies. Similarly vegetation gained 746 hectares from agriculture,
25 hectares from bare lands, 1 hectare from built up area and 2 hectares from water bodies.
Water body occupied about 13 hectares of lands in 1991 and it decreased to about 12 hectares in
2006.Between 1991 and 2006 water body lost about 2 hectares of lands. These lands were changed to
vegetation between these two times about 11 hectare of lands was remained unchanged.
4.1.2.1 LULCC Matrices of 1991 and 2006
As clearly described in the above table, regarding the magnitude and percentage of change between 1991
and 2006 agriculture and built up area have shown positive magnitude that indicate their increases. But
bare land, vegetation and water bodies have shown negative magnitude that shows their deterioration in
the Emfule water shade.
Table 4: Area and percentage coverage of LULC (1991 and 2006)
LULC 1991
2006 1991-2006
Area(Ha) ¹3 Area(Ha) ¹3 Change(Ha Change in
) %
Agriculture 10283 79.6 11198 86.58 915 8.9%
Bare Land 102 0.79 21 0.16 -81 -79%
Built up 5 0.039 21 0.16 16 320% Page 30
Vegetation 2504 19.4 1655 13 -849 -34%
Water 13 0.1 12 0.1 -1 -8%
Total area 12907 100%
4.1.2.2. LULCC Analysis between 2006 & 2021
During the year 2006 about 11,198 hectares of lands were occupied by agriculture which increased to
about 11,796 hectares of lands in 2021. Totally agriculture has gained about 1018 hectares of lands from
other land use land cover as a result of population pressure between 2006 and 2021.Agriculture has gained
about 1 hectare from built up area, about 1,017 hectares from vegetation. On the other hand agriculture
has lost about 420 hectares of land to other land use land cover. It lost about 18 hectares to bare land, 50
hectares to built up area and 352 hectares to vegetation.
Figure 5: Land use Land cover Map of Emfule water shade in 2006 and 2021.
Bare land occupied about 22 hectares of lands in 2006 but it slightly increased to about 42 hectares
.Therefore between the two study periods bare land has gained about 42 hectares of lands. It received
about 39 hectares from agriculture and about 2 hectares from vegetation. Bare land has also lost 22
hectares of lands to agriculture.
Built up area which occupied about 21 hectares of lands in 2006 was increased to about 82 hectares of
lands in 2021.Between these two times built up area gained about 61 hectares from other land use land
cover. It gained 50 hectares from agriculture and 12 hectares from vegetation land. It also lost only 1
Page 31
hectare to agriculture while about 20 hectares remained unchanged.
Table 5: Land use Land cover change matrices between 2006 and 2021
¹3 2021
2006 ¹3 Agricultu Bare land Built up Vegetati Water Grand
re area on Total
Agricultu 10778 18 50 352 0 11198
re
Bare land 0 21 0 0 0 21
Built up 1 ¹3 20 0 0 21
area
Vegetati 1017 2 12 624 0 1655
on
Water 0 ¹3 ¹3 0 12 12
Grand 11796 41 82 976 12 12907
Total
Vegetation land has occupied about 1655 hectares of lands in 2006 and it decreased to about 994 hectares
in 2021.During this time vegetation has lost about 1019 hectares of lands. Among them 995 hectares were
changed to agriculture, 2 hectares changed to bare land, 12 hectares changed to built up area and 10
hectares changed to water bodies. The new land that vegetation gained from other Land use land cover is
about 558 hectares .These were about 357 hectares from agriculture and about 1 hectare from water
bodies.
Water body increased from 3 of hectares in 2006 to about 24 hectares in 2021.Between 2006 and 2021
water body gained about 24 hectares of lands, specifically 14 hectares from agriculture and 10 hectares
from vegetation. The land that water body lost was about 3 hectare which changed to agriculture.
4.1.2.3. LULCC Matrices 2006 and 2021
As shown in the above table between 2006 and 2021 agriculture, bare land and built up area have shown
positive magnitude confirming their increase due to the population growth and increased environmental
degradation. On the other hand the vegetation cover has shown negative magnitude that show its
decreases.
Page 32
Table 6: Area and percentage coverage of LULC (2006 and 2021)
LULC 2006
2021 2006-2021
Area(Ha) ¹3 Area(Ha) ¹3 Change(Ha Change in
) %
Agriculture 11198 86.58 11796 91 598 5%
Bare Land 21 0.16 41 0.3 20 95%
Built up 21 0.16 82 0.6 61 290%
Vegetation 1655 13 976 8 -679 -41%
Water 12 0.1 12 0.1 0 0%
Total area 12907 100% 12907 100
4.1.2.4 Predict diction of future Land use land cover in 2036 in Emfule water shade.
In order to predict future land use land cover in Emfule water shade, the researcher has first identified
factors that contribute for land use land cover. After the preparation of variables, Euclidean distance was
generated from the variables in TerrSet geo spatial modeling and monitoring. To standardize the factors
into the same scale the fuzzy operator tool was used. Accordingly the main factors are:
• Proximity to the existing Built up area
Places which are closer to the existing built up areas are more vulnerable to be changed. Because such
areas are changed to settlement as people prefer to settle closer to the existing settlement. Therefore
these four factors are used in this research as the major variables determine future land use land cover
change. To standardize distance from built up area.
• Proximity to major roads
Distance from major roads is another factor affecting land use land covers change, because areas near to
major roads are also quickly changed to settlement due to accessibility. The Euclidean distance from both
factors was prepared in TerrSet 18.2 according to the following maps.
Page 33
Figure 6: Map of Distance from streams and slope.
• Biophysical factors
Among the biophysical factors the most contributor of Land use land cover change is elevation. Because for
the gentler slope, there high vulnerability to be changed, because such plain topography area are quickly
changed to settlement and farm lands from other land use land cover type. Because of this the researcher
has used elevation as one factor for future land use land cover prediction.
Figure 7: Map of Distance from streams and slope.
The above map shows the distance from streams and slope of the study area.
• Distance from streams
Existing streams are another factor to be considered for future land use land cover prediction,
This is because areas closer to streams are required for conservation and peoples never prefer areas that
are closer to streams for settlement because areas closer to streams are sometimes full of vertical slope
and rugged topography that make it difficult for settlement. Generally these for factors were standardized
in TerrSet geospatial modeling and monitoring according to the following table.
Table 7: TerrSet geospatial modeling and monitoring Page 34

Variable name Function shape Function type Control points
Distance from built Monotonically Sigmoidal a:0;b:3434
up decreasing
Distance from major Monotonically Sigmoidal a:0;b:7785
roads decreasing
Distance from Monotonically Sigmoidal a:0;b:1613
streams increasing
Slope Monotonically Sigmoidal a:0;b:97
decreasing
Source: USGS
After the factors are standardized, these factors were used as main drivers for the future Land use land
cover change in LCM(Land change modeler) of Idrisiterrset geo spatial modeling and monitoring. Using the
change prediction tool in IdrisiTerrset geo spatial modeling and monitoring the land use land cover map of
2036 was forecasted or predicted as the following map.
Figure 8: Predicted Land use Land cover Map of Emfule water shade for 2036.
For the coming 15 years or in 2036 the land use land cover change looks like the following table. In 2036,
agriculture will be expanded from 11796 hectares in 2021 to 11,947 hectares. Bare land will be expanded
from about 41 hectares in 2021 to about 45 hectares in 2036 which is the indicator of environmental
degradation.
Page 35
LULC TYPE Area in Hectares
Agriculture 11947
Bare Land 45
Built up area 135
Vegetation 768
Water 12
Total 12,907
Table 8: LULC type of the study area
Built up area will be increased from about 82 hectares in 2021 to about 135 hectares in 2036.Vegetation
will decrease from 976 hectares in 2021 to about 768 hectares in 2036 which is also another indicator of
environmental degradation. Water will be remained as it is in 2036.
4.1.2.5. Accuracy Assessment
Table 9: Accuracy Assessment
Classified data
Built up Vegetat Agricult Bare Row. User Commis Referen Built up
ion ure Land Tot accurac sion ce Data
y error.
18 1 1 0 20 90% 10% Vegetat
ion
0 19 0 1 20 95% 5% Agricult
ure
0 0 20 0 20 100% 0% Bare
Land
0 1 2 17 20 85% 15%
Column total 18 21 23 18
80 Producer
Accuracy
100% 90.4% 86.9%
94.4%
Omission error 0% 9.6%
Page 36
13.1% 0
Over all accuracy =
Kappa Statistic =, where: N=Total ground truth
= summation of the diagonal, = sum of the product of row and column totals for each class.
K = = = 0.93
1. Causes and Effect of LULCC in the study area
4.2.1. Socio- demographic characteristics of respondents
4.2.1.1. Gender of a respondents
Figure 9: Sex of Respondents Source: Field Survey, 2022
The survey of the study revealed a male dominated agricultural sector with males constituting 88% of the
population with females constituting 12% as the heads of household in the study area (Figure 4.1). The
findings above suggest that, the study area is male dominated (88%).
Figure 10: Age of Respondents Source: Field Survey, 2022
4.2.1.2. Age of the Respondents
All age groups of the present study are categorized under productive groups of age between 23 and 66.
Such age group is believed to have advantages of forest resources management or conservation activities.
However, certain people in these age groups might have lacked the knowledge of wise use of natural
resources and the low opportunity of training on forest conservation activities.
From the context of age, the highest number of respondents (48 in percent) were on the age group of 61
and above years followed by 51-60,41-50and 31-40 with a percentage of (32%) and (13%) and
7%respectively, as shown in figure 4.2.
Page 37
Marital status of the household LULCC (N=167)
Yes No Total
N (%) N (%) N (%)
Married 96.3% 0% 96.3%
Widower 3.614% 0% 3.614%
Total 100% 0% 100%
4.2.1.3. Martial statues of the Respondents
Table 10: Martial Status of Respondents
Source: Field Survey, 2022
As a result, most of the respondents who were participated in this study were married, followed by single
and divorced and widowed respectively. So this helped to the researcher to get appropriate data in the
focal point with full of responsibility. From the survey it was found out that a large majority that is about
96.3 percent of the respondents was married and 3.614 percent were widowed. There was no single and
divorced respondent. Given the fact that majority of the respondents are married, it is appropriate to infer
that, their stay in the communities and their livelihood sustainability depend largely on the land and its
resources relative to those that are singles or divorced that are quite mobile and can therefore migrate to
other parts of the country in search for other livelihood options.
Conversely, the larger group who are married cannot easily migrate and will be the hardest hit when their
livelihoods sources are adversely affected. This implies that, efforts should be made to sustain the
livelihoods opportunities in these fringe communities to help arrest rural urban migration of the youth by
way of encouraging them to stay in the rural areas to work on the farms and take advantage of the nature
abound forest resources.
4.2.1.4. Size of Household
Table 11.below presents the distribution of household sizes of the sampled households. The data revealed
that households with 1-4 person, 4-10 and 10 and above and above person constituting 12%, 49% and
66.6% respectively.
Table 11: Size of Households of in Emfule SWS Woreda
Page 38
Household size Respondents
(N=167)
Yes No Total
N (%) N (%) N (%)
1-4 person 15(13.5%) 3(7.7%) 18(12%)
4-10 person 38(34.2%) 11(28.2) 49(32.6%)
10 and above person 75(75%) 25(64.1%) 100(66.6%)
Source: survey data 2022
Families with more labor capacity tend to extract more natural resources (Hedge and Enters 2000). In
general large families require more resources to meet their subsistence needs, therefore have a higher
propensity to extract resources from the reserve. Household size in this study was considered as the
number of individuals who reside in the respondent’s household. Cherdchuchai and Otsuka (2006) found
that the household size, number of household members and working members, captures the quantity of
human capital. Household size has important practical implications for labor availability which acts as the
basis for a household to decide whether or not to participate in different activities.
4.2.1.5. Educational level of the Respondents
Figure 11: Educational level of the respondents
Source: Survey data 2022
Figure 10. elaborates the level of education attained by the sample household head who was the central
decision maker in choosing livelihood strategies of the household. The data revealed that 72% of
household heads were unable to read and write. When we come to the primary education attainment of
the household 21.3% attended primary school whereas very little number of households 6.7% was involved
in secondary education.
Literacy has been noted to be one of the factors enabling farmers to acquire and process relevant
information effectively. Education has the possibility of influencing household’s livelihood strategies and
also determines the income derived from the activities undertaken by the household. Yunez-Naude and
Taylor (2001) suggested that education is crucial to raising economic productivity, competitiveness and
combating poverty.
This may be due to that education may create awareness on effects of Land use and may create alternative
livelihood strategy rather than depending on Agricultural products only. Besides, education creates wise
use of resources and may also involve in conservation activities.
4.2.1.6. Occupational category of the Respondents

Page 39
Table 12: Monthly Income of the respondents
Variables LULCC(N=167)
Yes
No N (%)
N (%) Monthly income
Below 1000 birr
104(62%) 7(4.1%) 1001-2500 birr
52(31%) 4(2.3%) 2501-4000 birr
¹3 ¹3 4001-5500 birr
¹3 ¹3 5501 and above
¹3 ¹3 Income source
Crop farming only
77(69.3%) 26(66.7%) Animal farming only
21(18.9%) 1(2.5%) Mixed farming
15(13.5%) 6(15.3%) Charcoal production
10(9%) 3(7.7%) Other activities
Source: Field Survey, 2022
And finally from the level of income perspective, as shown on Table. 52% and 62% of the respondents
belonged to the income level between 1001-2500 and below 1000 birr respectively.
Most of the farmers depend on farm activities to generate sufficient livelihood in order to sustain their life
(Figure 10). However, forest is one of the resource on which most of the community depends to generate
income and household consumption. As shown in Figure 10, crop farming was 69% and mixed farming was
14%as the main source of income for the farmers. On the other hand the result indicated that livestock
production (3%) of the respondents; charcoal production (9%) and other sources such as daily labor, small
scale trading and firewood selling (5%) used as very important source of livelihood (Figure 10). From this
result, it is possible to say that Land resources are one of the main direct income and livelihood sources to
the local community in the area. The income generated from the above sources is used to cover other
household expenses, government and social obligations such as clothing, school fees for children,
payments of fertilizers and other.
4.2. Economic characteristics of the Respondents, and its implication on LULCC
4.2.2.1 Land Cover Change on Farmers’ Livelihood
Page 40
Table 13: .Land Cover Change On Farmers’ Livelihood
No Questions Yes In percent No In percent

onland cover (1%) (1%)
change on
farmers’
livelihood
1 Additional 118 71.1 48 28.9
forest land is
cleared
2 Grazing land 106 63.9 60 36.1
is converted
in to crop
land
3 Plantation 146 88 20 12
forest is
converted in
to farm land
4 Previously 101 60.8 65 39.2
degraded
lands are
restored
Land use Land cover change
Increasing 155 93 11 6.6
Decreasing 11 6.6 155 93
No change 0 0 0 0
Source: Own Survey, 2022
Table 13. Shows us land cover change on farmers’ livelihood. According to the result, from the total of 166
respondents, 118 (71.1%) of them replied yes as additional forest land is cleared and 48 (28.9%) of them
responded no. In addition, in case of grazing land is converted in to crop land, 63.9 % of respondents
responded yes, while 36.1% of respondents replied no. Additionally, 146 (88%) of participants responded
yes as plantation forest is converted in to farm land, to the reverse, 12% of them answered no. Finally, in
the case of previously degraded lands were restored, 60.8% of them responded yes, and 39.2 of the
participants responded no.This implies that, if this trend is allowed to continue without proper mechanism
in place to check the threat, the forest resources in these communities will be exhausted in near future
leading to loss of alternative livelihood opportunities.
Figure 12: Socio-economic role of Forest Source: Own Survey, 2022
Based on the statistical result, the observed accessibility and increased utilization pattern of the remaining
forest is evident that there has been further deterioration of forests and other natural resources and
contribute to increase in temperature. This may be attributed to the increase in population followed by
high agriculture expansion. Most of the rural poor maintain diversified livelihood strategies, because they
Page 41
cannot obtain sufficient income from a single source to survive and to reduce risks. This is why the largest
part of smallholder farmers is not really depending only on agriculture but also utilize forest products to
increase their household income.
All of the households in the study area indicated that their main sources of household consumption of
energy were forest wood (100%). As summarized in Table 12 more than half (97%) of households use
construction wood for building their houses and animal browsing and some (54%) households utensils.
This finding was similar to that reported by FAO (2012) which states forest wood as the main source of fuel
for cooking in most part of Ethiopia. The result shows that the source of energy, for both cooking and
lighting in the study area is largely biomass energy, particularly trees. Consequently, vast numbers of trees
are cut each year, adding significantly to the rate of deforestation.
Similarly, among households who are depending on forest and whose livelihood and most of their incomes
from communal forest, own forest and from both types of forest.
4.2.2. The Driving Forces Of Land Cover Changes In Emfule Sws Soro Woreda
Table 14:The Driving Forces Of Land Cover Changes In Emfule Sws Soro Woreda
No Questions on Yes In percent No In percent

the driving (1%) (1%)
forces of
land cover
changes in
Emfule SWS
Soro Woreda
1 Farmland 111 66.9 55 33.1
expansion
2 Livestock 99 59.6 67 40.4
grazing
3 Logging 84 50.6 82 49.4
Timber
4 Firewood 110 66.3 56 33.7
Collection
5 Charcoal 95 57.2 71 42.8
production
6 Increased 121 72.9 45 27.1
settlement
7 Agriculture 125 75.3 41 24.7
8 Population 124 74.7 42 25.3
growth/pres
sure
9 Increasing 88 53.0 78 47.0
forest
product
price Page 42
10 Land use 97 58.4 69 41.6
policy
problem
11 Lack of 106 63.9 60 36.1
awareness
on
Sustainable
LULCC
management
Table 14: indicated the driving forces of land cover changes in Emfule SWS Soro Woreda. The major driving
forces of land cover changes in this study were farmland expansion, livestock grazing, logging timber,
firewood collection, charcoal production, increased settlement, and agriculture, population
growth/pressure, increasing forest product price, land use policy problem and lack of awareness on
sustainable LULCC management. Based on this, 66.9% of participants responded yes as farmland expansion
is driving forces of land cover changes, while 33.1% they responded no. Livestock grazing and logging
timber accounts 59.6% and 50.6% yes respectively according to the participants response. Whereas, 40.4%
and 49.4% of the respondents responded no respectively. Firewood collection and charcoal production as
driving forces of land cover changes in Emfule SWS Soro Woreda accounts 66.3% and 57.2% yes based on
the participants’ response. While 33.7% and 42.8% of the respondents responded no for both driving
forces. Participants whom considered as a driving force of LULCC is increased settlement, so based on their
response, 72.9% replied yes and the remaining 27.1% responded no.
Those participants whom responded agriculture as a cause comprises 75.3% yes, while the other 24.7% of
them replied no. In the case of Population growth/pressure, 74.7% of the participants responded yes and
the remaining 25.3% of them responded no, it is not. Finally from the context of the three driving forces
such as increasing forest product price, land use policy problem and lack of awareness on sustainable
LULCC management, 53.0%, 58.4% and 63.9% of the participants responded yes respectively. On the other
hand, 47.0%, 41.6% and 36.1% of them responded no. This implies that, if this trend is allowed to continue
without proper mechanism in place to check the threat, the forest resources in these communities will be
exhausted in near future leading to loss of alternative livelihood opportunities.
4.2.3 The Effect Of Land Cover Change On Farmers’ Livelihood
Table 15: The Effect Of Land Cover Change On Farmers’ Livelihood
Page 43
No Questions on Yes In percent No In percent
the effect of (1%) (1%)
land cover
changes
1 Loss of 128 77.1 38 22.9
biodiversity
2 Soil fertility 122 73.5 44 26.5
decline
3 Prolonged 109 65.7 57 34.3
drought
occurrence
4 Erratic 97 58.4 69 41.6
rainfall and
variability
5 Increased 115 69.3 51 30.7
temperature
and
desertificatio
n
6 Increased 119 71.7 47 28.3
flood
7 Gully 112 67.5 54 32.5
formation
and land
fragmentatio
n
The result from participants interview revealed that there was changing patterns in the date for
commencement of farming activities. Participants also mentioned that the study area has been
characterized by erratic rainfall pattern in recent times. The major rainy seasons in the area starts from
June to august and the farming seasons coincides with the rainy seasons due to the reliance on rainfall for
cultivation. Due to the erratic nature of the rainfall, periods for planting have been affected dramatically.
This is because it has become increasingly difficult to accurately predict the weather and the climate. Day-
to-day and medium-term planning of farm operations has become more difficult. As a result, many farming
activities and operations are either commenced rather too early or too late leading to poor yields. The
implication are that poverty are exacerbated by the poor yield syndrome leading to much more pressure
on the forest and the livelihood opportunities it provide.
The change in planting and harvesting seasons with climate change coupled with erratic and inadequate
rain fall resulted in the decrement in agricultural outputs across years. As a result, these changes brought
negative effect on the livelihood of the community. It’s obvious that the above changes are a direct cause
of population pressure and the participants also mentioned that the changes in their livelihood are the
direct or indirect cause of LULC changes.
For most of the household in the area, their main source of income comes from agricultural outputs. And
Page 44
these agricultural outputs are declining every year leading to low income level. Due to the declining crop
yield coupled with low income levels, petty trading and charcoal production serve as alternative income
generating practice to help supplement their major livelihood venture (farming) for few people in the study
area. However, interviewers indicated that, due to the declining of soil fertility, currently agricultural
production and other income source from agriculture product is becoming as a main source of income in
the area.
From the survey, respondents indicated that various strategies they have employ to mitigate the effects of
soil fertility on their livelihood patterns. The study revealed that 29.3 percent of the respondents have
tried to plant trees and restore amount of forest in the area to address decline in soil fertility and improve
the yields.
Figure 13: Gully formation and soil erosion
Chapter Five
5.Summary, Conclusion and Recommendation
1. Introduction
The objective of this research was to analyze land cover change and its impact on farmers’ livelihood
Pagein
45
Emfule SWS Soro Woreda, Hadiya Zone Ethiopia. According to the results of analysis and discussion,
conclusions were made on the analysis of land cover change and its impact on farmers’ livelihood in Emfule
SWS Soro Woreda, Hadiya Zone Ethiopia. In order to clarify the given objectives, descriptive analysis
expressed by the percentage and frequency to analyze the respondents demographic partswere able to
analyze land cover change and its impact on farmers’ livelihood in Emfule SWS Soro Woreda, Hadiya Zone
Ethiopia.
5.2 Summary
The demographic analysis regarding the age group indicated that, majority of the respondents 52.4% of
them were male while 47.6% were female. In terms of their age group, the highest number of respondents
30.1% in percent were on the age group of 31-40 years followed by 41-50 and 20-30 with a percentage of
28.9% and 19.9% respectively. From the perspective of the marital status of respondents,62.65% of the
respondents were married, 24.70% were single and the remaining 7.83% and 4.82% of the respondents
were divorced and widowed respectively. Ithe case of their educational background, 69.28% of the
respondents were diploma holders followed by up to grade 12 which accounts 21.08%. The remaining
8.43% and 0.60% of the respondents were can only read and write and degree, masters holders and above.
From the result obtained from the analysis, land cover change has effect on farmers’ livelihood. According
to the result, 71.1% of the participants replied yes additional forest land was cleared, In addition to the
above; the grazing land was also converted in to crop land due to the fact that 63.9 % of respondents
responded yes, while 36.1% of respondents replied no. The plantation forest also converted in to farm land
based on their response as they responded yes (88%). But, the previously degraded lands were not
restored, because of the majority of the participants responded no (60.8%). Even this was more
strengthening by the interviewee result.
On the other hand, as the driving forces of land cover changes in Emfule SWS Soro Woreda, 66.9% of
participants responded yes as farmland expansion is driving forces of land cover changes. Similarly,
livestock grazing and logging timber are also other driving forces which account 59.6% and 50.6% yes
respectively according to the participants response. In addition to the above driving forces, firewood
collection and charcoal production were also had their own share of 66.3% and 57.2% yes based on the
participants’ response. Increased settlement, accounts 72.9% yes, agriculture comprises 75.3% yes,
Population growth/pressure 74.7% yes and finally increasing forest product price, land use policy problem
and lack of awareness on sustainable LULCC management, 53.0%, 58.4% and 63.9% of the participants
responded yes respectively.
From the case of the effect of land cover change on farmers’ respondents those who replied land cover
change results loss of biodiversity accounts 77.1% by replying yes and 22.9 no. Soil fertility decline
comprises 73.5% yes according to the respondents’ response. In addition, it also resulting prolonged
drought occurrence 65.7% (yes) and erratic rainfall and variability 58.4% (yes) due to the participants’
response. On the other hand increased temperature and desertification, increased flood and gully
formation and land fragmentation accounts also respectively 69.3%, 71.7% and 67.5% yes.
5.3 Conclusion
Based on the findings of this study the following conclusions were drawn in line with the research
objectives which means onanalyzing land cover change and its impact on farmers’ livelihood in Emfule
SWS Soro Woreda, Hadiya Zone Ethiopia. Page 46
The result from the GIS & Remote sensing analysis has revealed that there rapid Land use land cover
change in Enfule water shade that is causing the degradation of natural vegetation and water bodies.In
opposite way land use land cover such as farm land,built up area and bare lands are being increased at the
expence vegetation land.
Land cover change has effect on farmers’ livelihood. According to the result, obtained from the
participants, additional forest land was cleared, the grazing land was converted in to crop land, the
plantation forest also converted in to farm land in the study area. But, the previously degraded lands were
not restored.
The major driving forces of land cover changes in this study were farmland expansion, livestock grazing,
logging timber, firewood collection, charcoal production, increased settlement, and agriculture, population
growth/pressure, increasing forest product price, land use policy problem and lack of awareness on
sustainable LULCC management.
Land cover changes lead to loss of biodiversity, soil fertility decline, prolonged drought occurrence, erratic
rainfall and variability, increased temperature and desertification, increased flood and gully formation and
land fragmentation
5.4 Recommendation
Based on the major findings, the following recommendations were forwarded:
• Due to the existence of rapid vegetation degradation in the study area,concerned bodies like
environmental protection office should pay necessary attention to atleast stop the rapid change vegetation
lands into agriculture and bare land.
• Since the future prediction of land use land cover shows worest degaradtion of the natural
resource such as vegetation,concerned body should plan to implement the green legacy properly in this
watershed.
• Expansion of agriculture especially small scale agriculture by small holder farmers is the major
proximate/direct causes of LU/LCC in Emfule sub-watershed causing loss of several hectares of forest and
woodlands. Therefore, controlling the expansion of agriculture at the expense of forest and woodlands
requires the right policy packages by national and regional governments such as livelihood diversification
and improving the productivity of existing farm lands through the provision of improved production inputs.
• Population growth is the major root cause for LU/LCC in the study area. Traditional practices such
as early marriages and polygamy and illegal migrations are the reasons for population growth. Therefore,
controlling the population growth and its associated impacts on the natural environment requires the right
policy packages by national and regional governments such as awareness creation, provision of family
planning services, increasing productivity, working on the pushing factors of migration and controlling
illegal settlements.
• Poverty and food insecurity were the other most important root cause for land use/land cover
change in the study area. Combating this problem therefore requires designing of good polices and
strategies. Thus both national and regional governments should design policies and strategies likePage
creating
47
and strengthening environmental friendly non-farm/off-farm income generating activities and provision of
safety net programs.
• Even though there are some positive benefits especially on forest resources under the jurisdiction
of PFM/PRM still there is resource degradation.
• The finding of this study also revealed high loss of resources such as soil fertility, forest, woodland
and range lands under the jurisdiction of Woreda administrations.
References
AdugnaEneyew Bekele, Drabik, D., Liesbeth Dries &Heijman, W. (2017). Large-scale land
Investments, household displacement, and the effect on land degradation in Semiarid
Agro-pastoral areas of Ethiopia. DOI: 10.1002/ldr.3756.
Ajayi,V. O. (2017). Primary Sources of Data and Secondary Sources of Data.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320010397.
Akhtar, I. (2016). Research Design. New Delhi.
AyelignTebeje Belay. (2019). Driving Forces That Determine Land Use Conversion Trend
In Urban Areas: The Case of Gondar City. A Master's Thesis, Institute of Architecture,
Building Construction and City development Addis Ababa University.
Belay Haile Gessese (2018)Impact of Land Use/Land Cover Change on Rural Communities Livelihood of48
Page
Ethiopia Department of Natural Resource, MizanTeferiAtvet College, Ethiopia
Fleming, J., &Zegwaard, K. E. ( ). Methodologies, methods and ethical considerations
for conducting research in work-integrated learning.
Greener, S. (2008). Business Research Methods. ISBN 978 87- 7681-421-2
Goundar, S. (2012). Research Methodology and Research Method.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333015026
Hearn, S., &Buffardi, A. L. (2016). What is impact? A Methods Lab publication.Hemed, M.
(2015). Cross- Sectional Studies. Geneva.
Kehr, Flavius, Kowatsch, & Tobias. (2015). "Quantitative Longitudinal Research: A Review
of IS Literature, and a Set of Methodological Guidelines" (2015). ECIS 2015 Completed
Research Papers. Paper 94. ISBN 978-3-00-050284-2 http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis
2015_cr/94
Kivunja, C. &Kuyini, B. A. (2017). ―Understanding and Applying Research Paradigms in
Educational Contexts.‖ International Journal of Higher Education Vol. 6(5). Retrieved
December 23 2018 from (http://ijhe.sciedupress.com)
Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. Second Revised
Edition. New Delhi: New Age International.
Kothari, C. R. (2006). Research Methodology, Methods and Techniques. 3rd edition. New York:
Willey Eastern ltd.
Mcdonald, R. &Marcotullio, P. J. (2011). Global Effects of Urbanization on Ecosystem
Services. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199563562.003.0024:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284889297.
Mutuku, M., &Nguluu, S. (2016). Factors Affecting Adoption of Soil and Water Management
Practices in Machakos County, Kenya. Journal of Advanced Agricultural Technologies

Page 49
Vol. 3, No. 4, December 2016.
Taherdoost, H. (2016).Sampling Methods in Research Methodology; How to Choose
a Sampling Technique for Research. International Journal of Academic Research in
Management (IJARM), 2016, 5.hal-02546796.
Techo, V. P. (2016). Research Methods-Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed methods. DOI:
10.13140/RG.2.1.1262.4886. : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305215626.
TesfayeBoru (2018). Research Design and Methodology. University of South Africa, PHD
Thesis. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21467.62242. https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/329715052.
Turner, A. G. (2003). Sampling frames and master samples. United Nations Secretariat
Statistics Division ESA/STAT/AC.93/3.
Appendix-1 Time budget
Time period 2021

No Activitie DEC JAN FEB MAR AP MA JU
s
1
Researc
h title
selectio
n and
submiss
ion
2 Submiss
ion of
the
draft
thesis
proposa
l
Page 50
3 Submiss
ion of
the
final
thesis
proposa
l
4 Develop
ing
questio
nnaire
and
prepara
tion of
other
data
collecti
on
materia
ls
5 Field
data
collecti
on
6 Data
organiz
ation
and
analysis
7 Present
ation of
finding
and
discussi
on
Page 51
8 Submiss
ion of
the first
thesis
draft
9 Submiss
ion of
the
second
thesis
draft
10 Submiss
ion of
the
final
thesis
draft
11 Thesis
defense
Appendix-2
ENGLISH QUESTIONNAIRE
WACHAMO UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES
DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND ENVIROMENTAL STUDIES
This questionnaire is prepared to conduct a research on entitled on “Analysis on Land use Land cover
change impact in farmers livelihood Emfule SWS in Sorro Woreda Southern Ethiopia” Achievements’ Pagefor
52
the award of a Masters’ of Science degree in Watershed Management from the Department of Geography
and Environmental Studies.
Part I: Background of the Respondents
1. Sex: Male Female
2. Age: From 20- 30 from 31- 40 from 41- 50 from 51-60 61 and above
3. Marital status: Single married Divorced widowed
4. Educational status: unable reading and writing primary
D secondary
1. Occupational category: Self Employed Ci Civil Servant NGO /private company worker
Other
2. Monthly income Below 1000 birr : 1001-2500 birr 2501-4000 birr
5501 and above
5. Size of household:
1-4 4-10 4- 10 and above
Part II: Way for Farmland Expansion
No Way for farmland Yes No

expansion
1 Additional forest
land is cleared
2 Grazing land is
converted in to crop
land
3 Plantation forest is
converted in to
farmland
4 Previously degraded
lands are restored
and used for crop
cultivation
Page 53
Part III: Questions on Socio-Economic Role of Forests and its Status
No Questions on Forest Yes No

products
1 Timber
2 Fuel wood
3 Construction wood
4 Fodder for animal
5 Household utensils
6 Animal browsing &
grazing
7 Charcoal
Part IV: Questions on the Major Causes of LULCC
Causes of LULCC Yes No

Farmland Expansion
Expansion of plantation
forest
Livestock Grazing
Logging Timber
Firewood Collection
Charcoal Production
Increased settlement
Reduction in agricultural
land productivity
Page 54
Population growth /
pressure/
Increasing forest product
price
Land use policy problem
Lack of awareness on
sustainable LULCC
management
Lack of participatory LULCC
governance
Lack of incentives for LULCC
conservation
Part V: Questions on Effect of LULCC on livelihood
S/N Questions on Effect Yes No

of LULCC on
livelihood
1 Loss of biodiversity
2 Soil fertility decline
3 Prolonged drought
occurrence
4 Erratic rainfall and
variability
5 Increased
temperature and
desertification
6 Increased flood
8 Gully formation and
land fragmentation
1. What is your source of income?
A) crop/animal farming b) charcoal production c) off-farm activities d/ others
1. What type of farming practice are dominant land-uses for you?
A) Crop cultivation b) Animal raring c) Mixed farming
1. . How many years have you been cultivating a land?

Page 55
a.<1 year b) 1-5 years c) 6-10 years d) > 10 years
2. The size of your farm(s) in hectare:
b.1-2 hectare b) 3-4 hectare c) 5-6 hectare d) 7 and above hectare
3. For what purpose do you use your own land?
a) Grazing b) crop cultivation c) tree plantation d) other (specify) -----------------
1. What types of crops do you grow? a) Cash Crops b) Food Crops c) Both
a) < 15,000 b) 15,000-30,000 c) 30,001-45,000d) > 45,000
12. What do you think about the status of LULCC in your area?
a)Increasing b) Decreasing c) No change
Thank You for Your Cooperation!!!
APPENDIX - 3
AMHARIC QUESTIONNARE
::
1. 1/ 2/
Page 56
2. 1/ 20-30 2/ 31-40 3/ 41-50 4/ 51-60 5/ 61
3. 1/ 2/ 3// 4/
4. 1/ 2/ 3/
4/
1. 1/ 2/ 3/ 4/
2. 1/ 1-4 2/4-10 3/ 10
1.
1.
//
Page 57
///
1.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Page 58
9.1/ / 2/ 3/ 4/
10. ?
1/ 2/ 3/
11. / ?
1/ < 1 2/ 1-5 3/ 6-10 4/ >10
1. -------------------
1/< 1-2 2/ 3-4 3/ 5-6 4/ 7
1.
1/ 2/ 3/ 4/ -----------
14. ?
1/ 2/ 3/
15. ?
1/ 2/ 3/
Page 59

Analysis of Land Cover Change Impacts on Farmers' Livelihood

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analysis of Land Cover Change Impacts on Farmers' Livelihood

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analysis of Land Cover Change and Its Effect on Farmers Livelihood in

Emfule SWS Soro Woreda, Hadiya Zone Ethiopia

A Proposal Submitted to Department of Geography and Natural Science Studies, Wachamo

Major Advisor: Kibemo Detamo (Dr.)

Co-Adviser: Mulugeta Wolde

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

Subject: Testimonial on submission of research proposal

• School of Graduate Studies

STATEMENT OF THE AUTHOR

Name: Signature: ______________________

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

CBOs Community Based

To my beloved brother Gubamo Adebacho. (Rest in Peace)

Table 2: Description of identified land use and land cover types24

Table 4: Area and percentage coverage of LULC (1991 and 2006)31

Table 6: Area and percentage coverage of LULC (2006 and 2021)34

Table 7: TerrSet geospatial modeling and monitoring36

Table 9: Accuracy Assessment38

Table 10: Martial Status of Respondents41

Table 11: Size of Households of in Emfule SWS Woreda, 202242

Table 12: Monthly Income of the respondents43

Table 13: .Land Cover Change On Farmers’ Livelihood44

Figure 1: Study area Map19

Figure 2: Interview with participants23

Figure 6: Map of Distance from streams and slope.35

Figure 7: Map of Distance from streams and slope.35

Figure 9: Sex of Respondents ………………………………………………………………..39

Figure 10: Age of Respondents 40

Figure 11: Educational level of the respondents42

Figure 12: Socio-economic role of Forest 45

Table 15: The Effect Of Land Cover Change On Farmers’ Livelihood48

Appendix-1 Time budgetI

2. Background of the Study

1. Statement of the Problem

1. Objectives of the Study

5. Significance of the Study

1. Organization of the Study

1. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2. Theoretical Literature Review

3. Concepts of Land Cover Change

2.2.2 Types of Land Use and Land Cover Change (LULCC)

Proximate Causes of Land Use and Land Cover Changes

Underlying Causes of Land Use and Land Cover Changes

1. Global Trend of Land Use Land Cover Changes

1. The Challenges of Farmer’s Livelihood

2. Shortage and landlessness of arable farm land in the highlands

Land degradation and deforestation

Land administration Intervention

1. Impacts of Land Cover Change on Farmers’ Livelihoods

Intervention Measures of Land Cover Change

Implementing and applying land policy

3.1. General Description of the Study Area

Source: GIS & Remote sensing output

Land use/Land cover

Research Design and Sampling procedure

3.4. Data collection methods

No . Image Types Path/Row Acquisition Spatial Source

Table.1. Source: WWW.earth explorer (USGS)

3.4.2. Household and field survey data collection

3.5. Data analysis

3.5.1. Satellite Image Analysis

A.Image classification analysis

Table 2: Description of identified land use and land cover types