Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Advances in Space Research 72 (2023) 694–710
www.elsevier.com/locate/asr

Modeling and mapping the spatial–temporal changes in land use

and land cover in Lagos: A dynamics for building a sustainable
urban city
Mfoniso Asuquo Enoh a,⇑, Richard Ebere Njoku b, Uzoma Chinenye Okeke c
a
Department of Geoinformatics and Surveying, University of Nigeria, Nigeria
b
Department of Surveying and Geoinformatics, Federal University of Technology, Owerri, Nigeria
c
Department of Surveying and Geoinformatics, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Nigeria

Received 24 February 2022; received in revised form 6 June 2022; accepted 17 July 2022
Available online 5 August 2022

Abstract

Lagos is Africa’s most populous megacity and one of the world’s fastest-growing urban areas. Lagos city’s land use and land cover
(LU/LC) classes have changed dramatically in recent decades as a result of its continuing population growth and other human and
anthropogenic activities. The UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development must be adopted in order to preserve the available land
cover classes in Lagos. Goal 11 of the Sustainable Development Goals aims to make cities and human settlements more inclusive, safe,
resilient, and long-term. The use of remote sensing and geographic information systems (GIS) to track the progress of SDG 11 is an
essential strategy. Remote sensing and geographic information systems were used to model and analyze the data in this study. To achieve
this aim, remotely sensed data, such as Landsat 7 ETM + and 8 OLI, was used to determine the rate of changes in Lagos from 2010 to
2020 by adopting the Maximum Likelihood Classifier (MLC) and then project the likely changes that may occur by 2025 and 2030.
Observed ground truthing information was adopted for validation and for checking the accuracy of the classification. The result shows
that from 2010 to 2015 and to 2020, built-up area had increased from 11.73 % to 12.81 % and finally to 29.51 %, while agricultural land
declined by 11.84 % to 3.37 % and then to 2.99 %. Water bodies and wetland percentages decreased from 19.00 % and 19.50 % in 2010 to
17.39 % and 8.48 % in 2015, and to 18.37 % and 16.92 % in 2020. Forest land and bare land classes have also changed from 25.4 % and
12.52 % in 2010, to 33.37 % and 24.58 % in 2015, and to 18.10 % and 14.11 % in 2020. The study shows that remote sensing and GIS are
excellent tools for monitoring the environment and for the development of a sustainable city.
Ó 2022 COSPAR. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Lagos; Land Cover; Sustainable Cities; Sustainable Development; United Nations

1. Introduction boom in world megacities, especially within developing

All over the universe, there is an unprecedented increase
in urban cities (Shaw and Das, 2018; Zhou et al., 2019).
This rapid increase in urban areas tends to promote a
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: enohmfoniso@yahoo.com (M. Asuquo Enoh),
richard.njoku@futo.edu.ng (R. Ebere Njoku), ibe.uzoma@gmail.com
(U. Chinenye Okeke).
countries. The Economic and Social Department of the
United Nation (2018) highlights that within the last six dec-
ades, cities have been expanding, with a record showing
that more than half of the world’s population are now
urban dwellers (Osman et al., 2018; United Nations,
2020). According to the World Bank (2020), it is projected
that by 2030, more than 60 percent of the world population
will be urbanized, with the figure rising to 75 % (9.8 billion)
by 2050 (Li et al., 2013, Simwanda and Murayama, 2018).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2022.07.042
0273-1177/Ó 2022 COSPAR. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
M. Asuquo Enoh et al.
Considering this fact, it is obvious that cities may face sus-
tainable challenges and slums will become a way of life for
most urban dwellers living mainly in developing countries.
An et al. (2018) documented that over the years, urbaniza-
tion tends to alter existing land use (human aspect) and
land cover (biophysical aspect) (LU/LC) patterns and pro-
duce changes with forest areas being cleared, agricultural
land ploughed or grazed upon, wetlands drained, and open
spaces encroached and transformed to land use for an
entire different function (Singh et al., 2017, Zeng et al.,
2019). Awotwi et al. (2018) reported that alterations of nat-
ural LU/LC and their associated changes often lead to loss
of biodiversity, desertification, climate change, urban heat
island, depletion of the ozone layer, soil erosion, and envi-
ronmental pollution (Singh et al. 2017, Vigneshwaran and
Kumar, 2018). Owing to these effects, mapping the spatial–
temporal LU/LC changes provides the government and
decision makers with information and the necessary tool
for planning and management of the available natural
resources for the achievement of a sustainable city. Sustain-
ability tends to be the quantitative and qualitative avail-
ability of resources. It highlights the level of stability that
exists between man’s activities, due to its social behavior
and knowledge as compared to agricultural production
(Farshad and Zinck, 1993). Sustainability addresses nota-
ble environmental issues such as deforestation, pollution,
resource degradation, and ozone layer depletion that affect
man and influence the resilience of cities (Bonafoni et al.
2017, Rigden and Li, 2017).
The United Nation (UN) member states have officially
adopted an agenda to fix world problems by 2030. The
UN 2030 agenda has proposed 17 sustainable development
goals (SDGs) based on the success of the millennium devel-
opment goals (MDGs). It considered the fact that the
action adopted in one locality may influence the outcome
of the action adopted in another locality, with development
being made to equate with economic, social, and environ-
mental stability. The SDGs are the United Nation’s blue-
print for achieving a sustainable future for all nations by
2030. It is a call for all countries considered by the World
Bank as poor, middle-income, and rich to build a better life
for their citizens while ending poverty, hunger, and protect-
ing the environment (United Nations and Nations, 2015).
To monitor the progress of each of the 17 SDGs, the UN
established sets of indicators and targets (Fu et al., 2017,
United Nations, 2020). Sustainable Development Goal 11
(SDG 11) is one of the 17 sustainable development goals
(SDGs) established by the UN for all countries. It contains
10 targets, with 7 being outcome–oriented, while the other
3 are characterized as process–oriented. SDG 11 was estab-
lished to ensure that all countries have safe, inclusive, resi-
lient, and sustainable cities (United Nations and Nations,
2015). For all countries to have a sustainable city, they
must create business opportunities, careers, and affordable
and safe housing. It must invest in public transportation
and produce green public space while improving urban
planning.
695
Advances in Space Research 72 (2023) 694–710
Remote sensing technology has emerged and has
become an important tool for assessing the process of the
SDGs (Zhou et al., 2019). The technology is a cost-
effective tool as compared to the conventional method for
mapping LU/LC with remotely sensed data (McCord
et al., 2017). Remote sensing can be integrated with GIS
techniques for monitoring the achievement of the SDG
indicators. Time series mapping with remotely sensed data
such as Landsat, Sentinel 1, and Sentinel 2 is now freely
available and has been successfully used over the years to
monitor urban sprawl, land use and land cover changes,
land surface temperature, urban heat island, air quality in
urban areas, and access green and public spaces
Ejemeyovwi (2010). Remotely sensed data covers a large
geographic area, which can provide vital information
about the location, rate, nature, trend, and magnitude of
changes associated with the LU/LC of a location (Zhou
et al., 2019). GIS can be adopted for mapping and analyz-
ing the various patterns that are acquired with remote sens-
ing data. Case studies show that remotely sensed data can
be used to extract and update built–up areas (Shackelford
et al. 2004; Sohn and Dowman, 2007), impervious zones,
transportation and green areas (Huang et al. 2007, Jin
et al. 2011), monitor urban growth and sprawl, and inves-
tigate LU/LC data (Shahtahmassebi et al., 2016, Yang and
Li, 2015). All over the world, the relevance of remote sens-
ing, GIS, and models for studying the spatio-temporal
changes of LU/LC dynamics toward achieving SDG goal
11 and its different indicators has been acknowledged (Fu
et al., 2017; Benneth and Smith, 2017). Evolutionary (neu-
ral networks) models, mathematical (linear and static)
models, multi–agent models, expert system models, hybrid
models, cellular automata (CA), and Markov chain models
have all been developed for LU/LC studies (Koch and
Krellenberg, 2018, Phukan et al., 2013, and Ejemeyovwi,
2010).The CA_Markov model is a reliable, robust, and
one of the most widely used models for prediction and
analysis of LU/LC change dynamics (Wang et al., 2019;
Feng and Liu, 2013; Padonou et al., 2017).
Lagos has witnessed an unprecedented increase in its
population size in the last few decades (World Bank,
2020). The population of the city rose from an estimated
Table 1
Lagos population, 1886–2018 (in millions).
Year Population
(in km2) (in millions)
1886 3.85 0.025
1911 46.6 0.074
1921 52.3 0.010
1931 66.3 0.130
1952 69.9 0.270
1963 69.9 0.670
1991 96.53 5.80
2006 950.72 13.4
2018 3,345 23.2
M. Asuquo Enoh et al. Advances in Space Research 72 (2023) 694–710

Fig. 1. The Administrative Map of Lagos Urban City.

25,000 inhabitants in 1886 to about 74,000 in 1911 (Okude

and Ademiluyi, 2006). By 1975, 2000, and 2018, Lagos
recorded an estimated population count of 3.3 million,
13.4 million, and 23.2 million, respectively (United
Nations and Nations, 2015), (Table 1; Fig. 2). Between
1975 and 2000, the average annual population growth rate
of Lagos was 5.6 %, making the city documented as one of
the world’s most populated urban agglomerations.
Between 2000 and 2018, the population of Lagos rose by
3.8 %, which made the region one of the fastest growing
agglomerations in the world (Adepoju et al., 2006). The
population of Lagos has been projected to be more than
Fig. 2. Graphical presentation of the population growth of Lagos, from
30 million by 2030 and close to 60 million inhabitants by 1886 to 2018 (in millions). Source. United Nations and Nations, 2015.
2050. With this upsurge in population size, it is estimated
that by 2050, Lagos will be ranked as the third largest mega
city in the world after selected cities in China and India per km2. With the rate of population growth of the study
(UN-Habitat, 2006; United Nations, 2020). The city is cur- area, the city is documented to be the largest mega city in
rently experiencing a population density of 5,000 people Africa. The study aims at modeling and mapping the land
696
M. Asuquo Enoh et al.
use and land cover (LU/LC) changes in Lagos for the
achievement of a sustainable city. To achieve this aim,
the maximum likelihood post classification method is
adopted for comparison in order to identify the changes
in the LU/LC dynamics from 2010 to 2015 and from
2015 to 2020.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. A description of the study area
Lagos is the largest urban megacity in Africa and one of
the fastest growing agglomerations in the world (Datu,
2014; Obiefuna et al., 2012). The city has a flat terrain
(low elevation) and exists between latitudes 6022 N and
6042 N and longitudes 2042E and 3042E within the
South–Western geo–political region of Nigeria (Odumosu
et al., 1999). The state shares boundaries with Ogun State
in the North and East directions, the Atlantic Ocean in
the South and the Republic of Benin in the West (Fig. 1).
Lagos’s aerial extent is approximately 3,700 km2, with
about 725 km2 (19.6 %) of its landmass occupied by wet-
lands and water bodies (Odumosu et al., 1999; Datu,
2014). The main water bodies which drain the area and
contribute to the shape of the topography are the Yewa,
Ogun, and Imede Rivers. Others are Lagos, Lekki, and
Olode Lagoons (Soladoye and Ajibade, 2014). The city
often experiences two seasons, called the wet and dry sea-
sons. These seasons are controlled by the tropical maritime
and tropical continental air masses, which blow from the
Atlantic Ocean to bring the wet season and from the
Sahara desert to bring the dry season (Aderogba, 2012).
The wet climate lasts from April to October, with June
being the wettest month, while the dry climate lasts from
November to March, with January being categorized as
the driest month. The wettest and driest months have an
average rainfall of 315.5 mm and 13.2 mm, respectively.
The average temperature associated with the study area is
found to be between 28.5 °C and 25.0 °C.
2.2. Data Acquisition and sources
In the study, Landsat and other ancillary data were uti-
lized to monitor the changes in the LU/LC of Lagos for
three epochs. Ground truth data for the LU/LC classes,
Google data, as well as geomorphological maps, were
included as ancillary data. During the dry season, ground
truth data was acquired using a global positioning system
(GPS) and provided as reference data points. Landsat data
Table 2
The characteristics of the Landsat data adopted for the study.
Satellite data Sensor Path/Row
Landsat 7 ETM+ 190/55, 190/56, 191/55 191/56
Landsat 8 OLI 190/55, 190/56, 191/55 191/56
Landsat 8 OLI 190/55, 190/56, 191/55 191/56
697
Advances in Space Research 72 (2023) 694–710
sets, Landsat 7 ETM+ (Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus)
for 2000 and Landsat 8 OLI (Operational Land Imager) for
2015 and 2020, have a spatial resolution of 30 m and were
chosen for their quality and availability. These cloud-free
data were obtained from the Global Land Cover Facility
(GLCF) earth website at the paths and rows of 190/55,
190/56, 191/55, and 191/56, respectively. To prevent the
effects of seasonal changes, all satellite images were
acquired during the same months. Table 2 depicts the char-
acteristics of the Landsat data adopted for the study. The
supplementary data included a topographic map, a base
map, and a Google Earth image. Fig. 3 highlights the
methodology flow diagram for the study.
2.3. Image preparation and classification
Signals that are measured by space satellites are often
influenced by atmospheric particles (Islam et al. 2018).
Due to these influences, satellite images are often prepro-
cessed for atmospheric, geometric, and radiometric correc-
tions. Preprocessing increases the quality of image data by
reducing or removing internal and exterior radiometric and
geometric errors (Liu et al., 2007). In this study, a series of
sequential procedures of image preprocessing were carried
out with the ArcGIS 10.5, and ERDAS Imagine 10.5 soft-
ware packages. These procedures include image gap-filling,
sub-setting, and enhancement, as well as radiometric and
geometric corrections. Landsat 7 ETM + images, which
are obtained after May 31, 2003, from the USGS Earth
Explorer website, often show zig-zag patterns over the
satellite ground route. This error was caused by a failure
in the ETM + sensor’s Scan Line Corrector (SLC);
(Mohammady et al., 2015). To rectify the scan line error
for the Landsat 7 ETM+ (2010), which was used in this
study, the radiometric correction was conducted, and with
the Landsat toolbox inbuilt in the ArcGIS software. To
refine the visual perception of the image bands, the false
color composite (FCC) of band combinations (4, 3, and
2) for the ETM + image and (5, 4, and 3) for the OLI/
TIRS image were created and then enhanced with the his-
togram equalization tool. The satellite imageries were co-
registered with the Universal Transverse Mercator
(UTM) zone 32 N coordinate system on the World Geode-
tic System (WGS) 1984 ellipsoid. The layer stacking was
done by the layer-stacking tool of the ERDAS Imagine
software by combining different satellite spectral bands in
the RGB format for all the images (2010, 2015, and
2020) before overlying the shape-file of the study area
(Lagos) to create the Area of Interest (AOI) and then
Acquisition date Spatial resolution Source
2010–12–18 30 m USGS
2015–12–08 30 m USGS
2020–12–20 30 m USGS
M. Asuquo Enoh et al.
Fig. 3. The methodology flow diagram of the study.
sub–setting. The supervised classification techniques were
done with the ERDAS Imagine (2015) software, with a
basis on the maximum likelihood classification. This
method is much preferable and widely adopted by
researchers, owing to expert knowledge of the study area
(Bossler, 2010). The classification scheme adopted for the
study according to Bossler (2010) was built–up area, bare
land, agricultural land, wetland, forest land, and water
bodies (Table 3).
The supervised classification operation requires an ana-
lyst to train areas for each of the classification schemes
(Bossler, 2010). These training areas are utilized for speci-
fying the spectral reflectance signature for each of the
LU/LC categories. The signatures aid the classifier in
assigning the pixels into a category with the same spectral
pattern. During the supervised classification process, train-
ing pixel samples are selected by the analyst by delineating
polygons within the respective sites. Spectral signatures for
the LU/LC types acquired from satellite data are recorded
by utilizing pixels enclosed by polygons. The post–classifi-
cation method is frequently used to reduce misclassification
698
Advances in Space Research 72 (2023) 694–710
and improve accuracy because it displays the size, changes,
and percentage changes of the respective LU/LC.
2.4. Accuracy assessment
Accuracy assessment is the final stage of the image clas-
sification process. It is the degree to which the image clas-
sification process agrees with the ground truth information
(Bossler, 2010). With accuracy assessment, the possible
sources of errors are highlighted in a classified image, hence
the information associated with the data is identified (Liu
et al., 2007). The image classification procedure is incom-
plete without performing an accuracy assessment of the
data (Bradley 2009). An important technique known as
the error matrix or confusion matrix is often associated
with accuracy assessment (Mujabar and Chandrasekar,
2013; Story and Congalton, 1986). The error matrix per-
mits the pixels of a classified image to be compared with
the pixels of the reference image for known classes
(Szuster et al., 2011). It is a square array that highlights
the number of classes in the rows and columns by equating
M. Asuquo Enoh et al.
Fig. 4. Lagos classified LU/LC maps for 2000, 2015, and 2020.
them to the number of LU/LC classes that are being
assessed. The categories that are correctly classified are pre-
sented within the major diagonal. Entries which are non–
diagonal within the error matrix indicate errors of omission
(non–diagonal column entries) or commission (non–diago-
nal row entries). Many other accuracy measures, such as
the overall accuracy (OA), the producer’s accuracy (PA),
and the user’s accuracy (UA), exist (Coppins et al., 2004;
699
Advances in Space Research 72 (2023) 694–710
Boschetti et al., 2004). The producer’s accuracy is com-
puted as the correctly classified pixels divided by the total
reference pixels for the class indicated (Bradley, 2009;
Mohammady et al., 2015). A user’s accuracy is computed
as the correctly classified pixels divided by the total classi-
fied pixels. Overall accuracy is computed by dividing the
sum total of all the correctly classified pixels by the total
number of pixels for all the classes (Congalton and
M. Asuquo Enoh et al. Advances in Space Research 72 (2023) 694–710

Table 3
The classification scheme adopted for the study (Bossler, 2010).
Classification classes Description
Built–up All residential, commercial, industrial areas, villages, settlements, and transportation facilities.
Bare land Areas of barren land, rocks, stock quarries, landfill sites, exposed soil, and active excavation.
Agricultural land Cultivated and uncultivated agricultural lands, such as fallow areas and crop fields.
Wetland Mangroves, swamps, and marches occupy land areas.
Forest land Areas of protected forest, deciduous forest, plantations, and land areas occupied by dense trees are characterized by their dark
green color.
Water bodies Rivers, permanently open water, canals, reservoirs, lagoons, lakes, and ponds

Green, 2019; Liu et al., 2007). The Kappa test K is a com- (Teferi et al., 2013). The LU/LC classes that decrease in
parison of predetermined producer ratings and user- size are depicted with a negative value (–), while the classes
assigned ratings (Viera and Garrett, 2005). K value above that increase in size are represented with a positive sign (+).
0.8 indicates strong to perfect agreement, while 0.6–0.8 The annual rate of change (R) was evaluated according to
indicates moderate; and 0.4–0.6 depicts good agreements the procedures outlined by Batar et al., (2017) and Teferi
(Liu et al., 2007). K is calculated by using the equation (1). et al., (2013). Simple mathematical equations (2), (3), and
K ¼ P ðAÞ  P ðEÞ=1  P ðEÞ ð1Þ (4) are frequently used to calculate trend (K), percentage
change (A), and annual rate of change (R).
Where P (A) is the number of times the k rater agrees,
K ¼ T2  T1 ð2Þ
and P (E) is the number of times the k raters are expected
to agree only by change (Mujabar and Chandrasekar, T1  T2
A¼  100 ð3Þ
2013). T2
T1  T2
R¼ ð4Þ
2.5. Detection of LU/LC changes n
Where K, A, and R depict the magnitude of change, per-
2.5.1. Post-Classification of LU/LC centage change, and the annual rate of change respectively.
In the study, the post-classification comparison (PCC) n is the number of years, with T1 and T2 representing the
method was performed with the ArcGIS 10.5 software initial and final dates, respectively.
and was adopted with the intention of identifying changes
associated with the LU/LC (Mondal et al. 2015). The PCC 2.6. Change prediction and modeling
is a technique that is frequently adopted in LU/LC studies
for comparing data that exists in different sources (Mundia 2.6.1. Model of the Markov chain
and Aniya, 2006; Yuan et al., 2005). The cross–tabulation The Markov chain analysis is a model for simulating
matrix is computed from overlay operations, generated complex activities such as land use change (Liping
from the PCC methods. The method generates pixel agree- et al., 2018). It is a stochastic process based on probabil-
ment and disagreement, which are usually calculated using ity, where a particular land use can be transformed from
the error matrix method. The reference data is represented one form to another (Thomas and Laurence, 2006; Liping
by the rows of the error matrix table, while the classified et al., 2018). This transformation analysis is dependent on
data is represented by the columns (Teferi et al. 2013; transition probability, which indicates that a particular
Morisette and Khorram). pixel of land use at any given time t0 may likely change
to another land use at a time t1 (Ma et al., 2012). Accord-
2.5.2. Gain and loss analysis (Net Change) ing to Singh et al., (2015) and Subedi et al., (2013), the
Net change analysis is computed as the difference transition probability matrix can be depicted mathemati-
between the gain and loss for each of the study classes cally as (5):
(Pontius et al., 2004; Teferi et al., 2013). Gain is repre- 0 1
p11 . . . p1n !
sented as the amount of the LU/LC class i which is added B . X
.. C
n
Pij ¼ B .. C 0 6 pij 6 1 and
from time 1 to time 2, while loss is categorized as the lost @ .. . . A P ij ¼ 1; i; j ¼ 1; 2;    ; n
j¼1
amount of LU/LC class j during the classification process pm1    pmn
between time 1 and time 2. In the study, the gains and ð5Þ
losses of the LU/LC analysis were determined from the S ðtþ1Þ ¼ P ij  S ðtÞ ð6Þ
cross-tabulation of the different study years.
Here, P is the probability that a particular land use class
2.5.3. Annual rate of change (R), percentage change (A), can be transformed from a state i to another state j; n is the
and trend (K) land use class, and S is the status of land use. The state of
Trend K (magnitude of change) is the degree of increase the type of land use (St) at the initial time t and the final
or decrease in the respective size of the LU/LC classes time t þ 1 ðSt þ 1Þ is given in (6).
700
M. Asuquo Enoh et al.
2.6.2. The cellular automata model
Cellular Automata Markov model (CA_Markov) is a
prediction model that combines the concept of cellular
automata and the Markov chain (Singh et al., 2017). The
CA_Markov model is dynamic, represented with time
and space as discrete variables (Ma et al., 2012). The
CA_Markov model is represented as follows in reports
by Liping et al. (2018), Singh et al. (2017), and Mondal
et al. (2015), as shown in (7):
S ðt; t þ 1Þ ¼ f ððS t Þ; N Þ ð7Þ
Assuming S is depicted as finite groups of cells at
timeðt; t þ 1Þ, N is represented as the neighborhood of
given cells, while f is expressed as the rule of local space.
3. Results and interpretation of the study
3.1. LULC dynamics for the study periods of 2010, 2015, and
2020
Table 4 summarizes the aerial extent of the LU/LC
classes and their respective proportions for the study years
(2010, 2015, and 2020). The spatial–temporal analysis
shows that build–up has progressively increased through-
out the study, from 430.449 km2 (11.73 %) in 2010 to
470.09 km2 (12.813 %) in 2015 and 1082.623 km2
(29.508 %) in 2020. The analysis shows that built-up areas
dominate a significant part of the study area in 2020. Agri-
cultural land had decreased from 434.455 km2 (11.843 %)
in 2010 to 123.545 km2 (3.367 %) in 2015 and
109.959 km2 (2.997 %) in 2020, and had covered a smaller
part of the study region. Throughout the study period,
other LU/LC classes (water body, wetland, forest land,
and bare land) had either increased or decreased. In
2010, wet land and water bodies covered 715.213 km2
(19.496 %) and 697.166 km2 (19.004 %), respectively. Both
classes decreased to 311.018 km2 (8.477 %) and
638.095 km2 (17.392 %) in 2015 and then increased to
620.744 km2 (16.919 %) and 673.839 km2 (18.366 %) in
2020. In 2010, 2015 and 2020, forest land was recorded
as 931.83 km2 (25.4 %), 1224.230 km2 (33.367 %) and
664.086 km2 (18.1 %), while bare land was 459.481 km2
(12.525 %), 901.993 km2 (24.584 %) and 517.720 km2
(14.11 %) respectively.
Table 4
Aerial coverage of LU/LC classes in 2010, 2015, and 2020.
Study Years 2010
2 2
LU/LC classes Area (km ) Area (%)
Built–up 430.449 11.733
Water body 697.166 19.004
Wetland 715.213 19.496
Agricultural land 434.455 11.843
Forest land 931.83 25.4
Bare land 459.481 12.525
Total 3668.971 100
Advances in Space Research 72 (2023) 694–710
3.2. LU/LC study maps and prediction status
The final LU/LC output maps for the study years (2010,
2015, and 2020) based on Landsat 7 (ETM + ) and Land-
sat 8 (OLI) satellite data are depicted in Fig. 4.
3.3. Changes and the annual rate of change
Table 5 depicts the LU/LC change per class for the
study. According to the spatial–temporal analysis, built–
up areas had recorded positive changes of 39.64 km2
(1.08 %), 612.53 km2 (16.695 %) and 612.53 km2
(17.775 %) during the study periods (2010–2015, 2015–
2020, and 2010–2020). These positive changes may have
been attributed to rural–urban migration, as more people
are attracted to the study area, due to pull factors (job
opportunities, better infrastructure, and other incentives).
Between (2010–2015, 2015–2020, and 2010–2020), agricul-
tural land had recorded negative changes of 310.91 km2
(8.48 %), 13.59 km2 (0.37 %), and 324.496 km2
(8.85 %). Depreciation (negative changes) in agricultural
land may have been linked to land degradation (erosion,
and flooding) as well as the conversion of agricultural sites
to built-up areas and highways. Other LU/LC classes also
recorded both positive and negative changes. Water bodies
had depicted positive changes of 35.744 km2 (0.97 %) as
well as negative changes of 59.07 (1.61 %) and –
23.327 km2 (0.64 %). The positive changes in water bodies
may have been due to intensive rainfall and seasonal flood-
ing, while the negative changes may be linked to land
encroachment and urban development engulfing the study
area. Wetland recorded a positive change of 309.726 km2
(8.44 %) as well as negative changes of 404.195 km2
(11.02 %) and 94.469 km2 (2.58 %). Like water bod-
ies, the positive changes of wetland may also be as a result
of intensive rainfall and flooding, while the negative
changes may also be linked to land encroachment, urban
development, climate change and deforestation. The posi-
tive change of the forest class (292.4 km2) during the
(2010–2015) periods may be due to afforestation practices,
while the negative changes (560.144 km2 and
267.774 km2) during the (2015–2020), and (2010–2020) per-
iod may result from lumbering activities, population
2015 2020
Area (km ) Area (%) Area (km2) Area (%)
470.090 12.813 1082.623 29.508
638.095 17.392 673.839 18.366
311.018 8.477 620.744 16.919
123.545 3.367 109.959 2.997
1224.230 33.367 664.086 18.100
901.993 24.584 517.720 14.111
3668.971 100 3668.971 100
701
M. Asuquo Enoh et al. Advances in Space Research 72 (2023) 694–710

Table 5
Change and the annual rate of change per LU/LC class.
LU/LC Categories Change in 2010–2015 Change in 2015–2020 Change in 2010–2020 Annual Rate of Change (km2/year)
Change Km2 Change (%) Change Km2 Change (%) Change Km2 Change (%) 2010–2015 2015–2020 2010–2015
Built–up 39.641 1.08 612.533 16.695 652.174 17.775 7.928 122.507 130.435
Water body  59.071 1.612 35.744 0.974 –23.327 0.638 11.814 7.149 4.665
Wetland  404.195 11.019 309.726 8.442 94.469 2.577 80.839 61.945 18.894
Agricultural land 310.91 8.476 13.586 0.37 324.496 8.846 62.182 2.717 64.899
Forest land 292.4 7.967 560.144 15.267 267.774 7.3 58.48 112.029 53.555
Bare land 442.512 12.059 384.273 10.473 58.239 1.586 88.502 76.855 11.648

growth and land encroachment. The positive changes
(442.512 km2 and 58.239 km2) of bare land during the
(2010–2015), and (2010–2020) study periods may be traced
to deforestation and land degradation, while its negative
changes (384.273 km2) during the (2010–2015) may be a
result of increase in population. The annual rate of change
for built, water body, wetland, agricultural land, forest
land, and bare land during the 2010–2015, 2015–2020,
and 2020–2020 periods is depicted in Table 5.
3.4. LU/LC change dynamics gain and loss
Table 6 depicts the gains, losses, and net changes for
each of the LU/LC classes during the 1st period (2010–
2015), 2nd period (2015–2020), and 3rd period (2010–
2020). During the 1st period, the built-up area, water body,
wetland, agricultural land, and forest land classes lost
192.68 km2, 54.48 km2, 723.21 km2, 263 km2, and
621.09 km2 of their previously existing areas, while gaining
617.55 km2, 281.79 km2, 786.51 km2, 669.43 km2, and
303.96 km2. The wetland had recorded the greatest loss,
while also achieving the greatest gain during the 1st period,
and with a net change of 63.30 km2. Wetland land may
have recorded losses, because a greater part of its area
has been converted to agriculture and residential sites. It
may also have benefited extensively from the contributions
of water bodies, bare land, and forest land. Forest land
may have been lost due to lumbering activities, population
growth, and other anthropogenic activities ongoing in the
study area. It may also have benefited from bare and wet
land. Agricultural land had gained massively during the
1st period. The gain in agricultural sites may have been
linked to the conversion of bare and forest land into agri-
cultural areas. It may also have been as a result of mecha-
nized agriculture. Built-up also recorded gains and losses
during the 1st period. The gains associated with the built-
up area during this period may be traced to rural–urban
migration, population growth, and increase in the birth
rate. During the 2nd period, the built–up, water body, wet-
land, agricultural land, and forest land classes lost
28.29 km2, 139.9 km2, 97.62 km2, 557.92 km2, and
79.48 km2 while also gaining 59.82 km2, 460.97 km2,
95.91 km2, 116.34 km2, and 170.18 km2. During this period
(2nd period), the greatest loss and gain were recorded in
agricultural land and water bodies. Agricultural land may
have had a great loss, because a greater part of its area,
may have been over flooded or may have been converted
to built-up areas. Water body may have gained extensively,
as their area expanded to include wetland, agriculture, and
forest land. During the 3rd period, built-up, water body,
wetland, agricultural land, and forest land classes respec-
tively lost 192.81 km2, 52.94 km2, 786.63 km2, 365.30 km2
and 602.53 km2 while gaining 647.81 km2, 539.04 km2,
31.67 km2, 413.39 km2 and 368.31 km2. These LU/LC
classes also depicted net changes of 455 km2, 486.10 km2,
754.96 km2, 48.09 km2 and 234.22 km2. During this period
(3rd period), the greatest loss and gain were documented in
wetlands and in built-up areas. Wetland may have lost, and
built–up may have gained as a result of increase in urban
population, as people had converted wetland areas into res-
idential, commercial and relaxation centres. Water bodies
may also have gained greatly in this period, as their areas
overflowed and submerged other LU/LC areas. The spatial
dynamics of the gains, losses, and net changes for the three
study periods (2010–2015), (2015–2020), and (2010–2020)
are displayed in Fig. 5.
Fig. 6 depicts the final gain and loss in various LU/LC
output maps for the study between 2010 and 2020, based
on Landsat 7 (ETM + ) and Landsat 8 (OLI) satellite data.
The map is prepared with six LU/LC types, namely agri-
cultural land, bare land, built-up land, forest land, water
bodies, and wetland.

Table 6
Gains, losses and net changes for the LU/LC for periods 1, 2 and 3 (in km2).
Study Years 2010–2015 (1st period) 2015–2020 (2nd period) 2010–2020 (3rd period)
LU/LC classes Losses Gains Net changes Losses Gains Net changes Losses Gains Net changes
Built–up 192.68 617.55 424.87 28.29 59.82 31.53 192.81 647.81 455.00
Water body 54.48 281.79 227.31 139.90 460.97 321.07 52.94 539.04 486.10
Wetland 723.21 786.51 63.30 97.62 95.91 1. 71 786.63 31.67 –754.96
Agricultural land 263.00 669.43 406.43 557.92 116.34 441.58 365.30 413.39 48.09
Forest land 621.09 303.96 –317.13 79.48 170.18 90.70 602.53 368.31 –234.22

702
M. Asuquo Enoh et al.
Fig. 5. Gains and losses in LU/LC (in km2) between (a) 2010 and 2015;
(b) 2015 and 2020; and (c) 2010 and 2020.
3.5. Accuracy assessment total for the study periods 2010,
2015, and 2020
In this study, the accuracy assessment was conducted
using 50 points, with the basis on the ground truthing
information and visual interpretation. The assessment
was carried out with the Erdas Imagine (ver. 2015) soft-
ware for the creation of an error matrix. The overall accu-
racy (OA), producer accuracy (PA), user accuracy (UA),
and the Kappa statistics (K) were calculated from the error
matrix table as shown in Table 7. From the table, we see
that the overall image classification accuracy for 2010,
2015, and 2020 is 78 %, 84 %, and 90 %, respectively, with
Kappa statistics of 0.70, 0.78, and 0.86. The classification
result is considered reliable since the overall accuracy is
above 80 %, with no single class below 70 % and kappa
coefficient values close to 1.
3.6. Analysis of projections and modeling
3.6.1. Matrix of transition probability
The transition probability matrix highlights the proba-
bility that a particular LU/LC class will transform into
another LU/LC class. This matrix is produced by multiply-
ing the column within the transition probability matrix by
the number of cells. Table 8 depicts a 6  6 matrix table.
Here, the rows show the older LU/LC classes while the col-
umns highlight the new LU/LC class categories.
703
Advances in Space Research 72 (2023) 694–710
Table 8 is a 6  6 error matrix for the projected study
years (2025 and 2030). Here, the row categories highlight
the LU/LC classes while the columns depict the changes
that have occurred. According to the study, the probability
of a build–up changing itself is 0.9204, the probability of a
build–up changing to water bodies is 0.0248, the probabil-
ity of a build–up changing to wet land is 0.0010, the prob-
ability of a build–up changing to agricultural and forest
lands is 0, and the probability of a build–up changing to
bare land is 0.0538. Water bodies have a 0.0120 chance
of becoming built–up LU/LC, a 0.9436 chance of becom-
ing themselves, a 0.0086 chance of becoming wet land
LU/LC, a 0.0001 chance of becoming forest LU/LC, and
a 0.0346 chance of becoming bare LU/LC. Wet land has
a probability of 0.0380 of converting to build–up, 0.1380
of converting to a water body, 0.5114 of converting to
itself, 0.0214 of converting to agricultural land, 0.1122 of
converting to forest land, and 0.1790 of converting to bare
land. The probability of agricultural land transferring to
build–up is 0.0959, transferring to a water body is 0.0022,
transferring to wet land is 0.3357, transferring to itself is
0.1125, transferring to forest land is 0.4415, and transfer-
ring to bare land is 0.0123. The probability of forest land
changing to build-up is 0.0967, changing to a water body
is 0.0025, changing to wet land is 0.3098, changing to agri-
cultural land is 0.0694, changing to itself is 0.4473, and
changing to bare land is 0.0743. The probabilities of bare
land converting to built–up, water bodies, wet land, agri-
cultural land, forest land, and itself are 0.5546, 0.0154,
0.0387, 0.0048, 0.0293, and 0.3572, respectively. The statis-
tical analysis further reveals in Table 8 (B), that the prob-
ability of build–up which transmits to itself is 0.8773, which
transmits to a water body is 0.0472, which transmits to wet
land is 0.0037, which transmits to agricultural land is
0.0003, which transmits to forest land is 0.0017, and which
transmits to bare land is 0.0698. The probability of a body
of water changing to build up is 0.0420, changing to itself is
0.8925, changing to wet land is 0.0143, changing to agricul-
tural land is 0.0005, changing to forest land is 0.0035, and
changing to bare land is 0.0472. The probability of wet
land converting to build–up is 0.1683, converting to a
water body is 0.2048, converting to itself is 0.3116, convert-
ing to agricultural land is 0.0220, converting to forest land
is 0.1224, and converting to bare land is 0.1709. The prob-
ability of agricultural land changing to build –up is 0.1613,
changing to a water body is 0.0523, changing to wet land is
0.3468, changing to itself is 0.0506, changing to forest land
is 0.2851 and changing to bare land is 0.1039. The proba-
bility of forest land changing to build–up is 0.1919, chang-
ing to a water body is 0.0499, changing to wet land is
0.3233, changing to agricultural land is 0.0459, changing
to itself is 0.2676, and changing to bare land is 0.1214.
The probability of bare land converting to built–up, water
bodies, wet land, agricultural land, forest land and itself is
0.7135, 0.0392, 0.0450, 0.0051, 0.0300 and 0.1671
respectively.
M. Asuquo Enoh et al.
Fig 6. (continued)
Table 9 highlights the aerial statistical analysis for pro-
jected LU/LC classes for the years 2025 (5 year planning
period) and 2030 (10 year planning period). In 2025,
built-up LU/LC is projected to cover an area of
1408.691 km2 (38.395 %), while water bodies, wetland,
agricultural land, forest land, and bare land are projected
at 759.532 km2 (20.701 %), 585.972 km2 (15.971 %),
74.507 km2 (2.031 %), 431.977 km2 (11.774 %), and
428.292 km2 (11.673 %), respectively. Built-up LU/LC is
projected to be 1621.996 km2 (44.208 %), water body at
704
Advances in Space Research 72 (2023) 694–710
817.542 km2 (22.283 %), wetland at 445.682 km2
(12.147 %), agricultural land at 58.044 km2 (1.582 %), for-
est land at 333.631 km2 (9.093 %), and bare land at
392.076 km2 (10.686 %) in 2030 (10-year planning period).
3.7. LU/LC study maps and current status
The final LU/LC output maps for the projected years
(2025 and 2030) are based on the scenarios of the previous
years. These maps are depicted in Fig. 7.
M. Asuquo Enoh et al. Advances in Space Research 72 (2023) 694–710

Fig. 6. Gain and loss maps in the LU/LC classes from 2010 to 2020.

Table 7
Accuracy assessment for supervised classification of Landsat 7 EMT+, and OLI classified images (2010, 2015, and 2020).
Class Reference Totals Classified Totals Number Correct Producers Accuracy (%) Users Accuracy (%) Kappa Index
(a) Accuracy assessment Total (2010)
Water 6 6 3 50.0 50.0 0.4318
Build-up 26 25 23 50.0 60.0 0.5455
Forest 5 4 3 60.0 75.0 0.7222
Agricultural land 10 8 7 70.0 87.5 0.8438
Wetland 3 4 3 100.0 75.0 0.7340
Totals 50 50 39
Overall classification Accuracy = 78.0 %; Overall kappa statistics = 0.7046
(b) Accuracy assessment Total (2015)
Water 6 6 3 66.67 66.67 0.6212
Build-up 26 25 26 57.14 80.00 0.7674
Forest 5 4 3 66.67 100.00 1.0000
Agricultural land 10 8 7 85.71 75.00 0.7093
wetland 3 4 3 100.00 75.00 0.7340
Totals 50 50 42
Overall classification Accuracy = 84.0 %; Overall kappa statistics = 0.7843
(c) Accuracy assessment Total(2020)
Water 6 6 5 83.33 83.33 0.8106
Build-up 30 28 27 62.50 100.00 1.0000
Forest 4 4 3 75.00 75.00 0.7283
Agricultural land 7 8 7 100.0 87.50 0.8547
wetland 3 4 3 100.0 75.00 0.7340
Totals 50 50 45
Overall classification Accuracy = 90.00 %; Overall kappa statistics = 0.8637

705
M. Asuquo Enoh et al. Advances in Space Research 72 (2023) 694–710

Table 8
The Transition Probability Matrix.
LU/LC classes Build–up Water body Wet land Agricultural Land Forest Land Bare Land
A 2025: Probability of changing to:
Build-up 0.9204 0.0248 0.0010 0.0000 0.0000 0.0538
Water body 0.0120 0.9436 0.0086 0.0001 0.0011 0.0346
Wet land 0.0380 0.1380 0.5114 0.0214 0.1122 0.1790
Agricultural Land 0.0959 0.0022 0.3357 0.1125 0.4415 0.0123
Forest Land 0.0967 0.0025 0.3098 0.0694 0.4473 0.0743
Bare land 0.5546 0.0154 0.0387 0.0048 0.0293 0.3572
B 2030: Probability of changing to:
Build - up 0.8773 0.0472 0.0037 0.0003 0.0017 0.0698
Water body 0.0420 0.8925 0.0143 0.0005 0.0035 0.0472
Wet land 0.1683 0.2048 0.3116 0.0220 0.1224 0.1709
Agricultural Land 0.1613 0.0523 0.3468 0.0506 0.2851 0.1039
Forest Land 0.1919 0.0499 0.3233 0.0459 0.2676 0.1214
Bare land 0.7135 0.0392 0.0450 0.0051 0.0300 0.1671

Table 9
Statistical analysis of projected LU/LC classes in 2025 and 2030.
Study Years 2025 (5 years planning period) 2030 (10 years planning period)
2
LU/LC classes Area (km ) Area (%) Area (km2) Area (%)
Built up 1408.691 38.395 1621.996 44.208
Water body 759.532 20.701 817.542 22.283
Wetland 585.972 15.971 445.682 12.147
Agricultural land 74.507 2.031 58.044 1.582
Forest land 431.977 11.774 333.631 9.093
Bare land 428.292 11.673 392.076 10.686
Total 3668.971 100 3668.971 100

3.8. Discussion infrastructural needs and services, and tackle insecurity

The study focuses on the application of remote sensing
and GIS for modeling and mapping the land use and land
cover (LU/LC) changes in Lagos for raising a sustainable
Lagos city. The United Nations defines 10 targets and 15
indicators for addressing the SDG goal 11. The respective
targets highlight the SDG goals, while the indicators depict
the metrics by which countries seek to know. Table 10
shows selected targets and their indicators for the achieve-
ment of SDG goal 11.
Table 4 depicts the summary of the LU/LC changes in
Lagos city. According to the study, the built–up class
increased progressively throughout the study year, from
430.449 km2 in 2010 to 10.82.62 km2 in 2020. This incre-
ment in the built-up area may be attributed to urbaniza-
tion, migration, and infrastructural development in
Lagos. In Lagos, urbanization has some negative conse-
quences, such as an increase in crime, the spread of disease,
the overstretching of available basic amenities, environ-
mental pollution, the reduction of public spaces, and the
development of slums. The projected analysis shows that
by 2025 (5–year planning period), the built–up area of
Lagos will increase by 1408.69 km2 and by 2030 (10–year
planning period), the trend may rise to 1621.99 km2. To
attain sustainability and achieve SDG goal 11 in Lagos
by 2030, there is a need to build affordable houses, upgrade
slums, expand the public transportation network, address
706
challenges.
The study shows that there has been a progressive
decrease in urban agriculture in Lagos, from 434.45 km2
in 2010 to 109.95 km2 in 2020. This decline in agricultural
land may be attributed to urbanization and other infras-
tructural development. The projected values show that by
2025 and 2030, urban agriculture cover in Lagos will fur-
ther decline to 74.50 km2 and 58.04 km2 respectively. From
the study, we see that urbanization is threatening the exist-
ing food production system in Lagos, as man’s survival is
completely dependent on it. The conversion of residential
areas into agricultural land increases the food requirements
of Lagos residents, who are competing for limited natural
resources (water and land). Since urban agriculture in
Lagos is fast disappearing into other land cover, there is
a need to adopt sustainable agriculture as an ideal route
for achieving SDG goal 11. Since food is an integral part
of society, agricultural systems must be less wasteful and
more productive, green infrastructure must be improved,
and innovative methods of agriculture must be established
to tackle food insecurity.
The study showed that forest cover had declined from
931.83 km2 in 2010 to 664.08 km2 in 2020. This reduction
in the forest environment may be linked to deforestation
and urban expansion in the study area. By 2030, the pro-
jected analysis shows that the forest cover will further
decline to 333.631 km2. Going by the trend, we see that for-
M. Asuquo Enoh et al.
Fig. 7. Lagos LU/LC projected maps for 2025 and 2030.
est loss in Lagos city is a threat to attaining sustainability.
Hence, afforestation and sustainable practices should be
encouraged. Forests and trees provide the essential cover
required to maintain a sustainable city. They provide the
necessary ecosystem services for human well-being and
for the achievement of Goal 11 of the SDGs. A green city
surrounded by forests and trees is a healthy and safe place
to live. Trees and forests serve as natural filters for harmful
air pollutants. They promote resilience and safety in cities
by providing shade and cool air. Shades and cool air min-
imize extreme temperatures and mitigate the effects of cli-
mate change.
There was an increment in bare land from 451.48 km2 in
2010 to 901.99 km2 in 2015 and a decline to 517.72 km2 in
2020. This increment and reduction in bare land and open
space may be linked to human activities and other infras-
tructural development. The projected study shows that by
2030, bare land and open spaces will decline by
392.076 km2. Reducing bare land and open green spaces
in Lagos is a threat to the city’s sustainability. Hence, plan-
ning the city to include open spaces is an important step
towards the achievement of SDG goal 11 by 2030. Open
spaces promote air quality, minimize traffic noise, reduce
707
Advances in Space Research 72 (2023) 694–710
temperature and promote diversity (Burke and Ewan,
1999). It is an important part of the urban landscape that
is intended to celebrate cultural diversity, engage with nat-
ural phenomena, and preserve memories (Thompson,
2002).Urban bare and open spaces mitigate the effects of
urban pollution and minimize the effects of urban heat
islands.
Water (including wet land) is an integral part of life, as
man cannot live without it. The study shows that by 2030,
there will be a reduction in the wetland class and an incre-
ment in the water body. Since wetlands play an important
role in sustaining urban cities, there is a need to protect
them if Lagos is to achieve SDG goal 11 by 2030. Wet-
lands can protect urban cities and make them safe and
resilient by providing vital ecosystem functions, including
flood control. It supplies urban areas with water and pro-
vides the green open spaces required for recreational
activities.
3.9. Conclusion
The study involves the application of remote sensing
and GIS for modelling and monitoring the land use and
M. Asuquo Enoh et al. Advances in Space Research 72 (2023) 694–710

Table 10
Selected Targets and Indicators of the UN SDG Goal 11, ‘‘The proportion of the urban population that lives in slums, informal settlements, or in
inadequate housing.”
Targets
Target 11.1–‘‘highlight that by 2030, ensure
access for all to adequate, safe, and affordable
housing and basic services and upgrade
slums.”
Target 11.3–‘‘highlight that by 2030, enhance
inclusive and sustainable urbanization and
capacity for participatory, integrated and
sustainable human settlement planning and
management in all countries.”
Target 11.6–‘‘highlight that by 2030, reduce the
adverse per capita environmental impact of
cities, including by paying special attention to
air quality and municipal and other waste
management.”
Target 11.7–‘‘highlight that by 2030, provide
universal access to safe, inclusive and
accessible, green and public spaces, in
particular for women and children, older
persons and persons with disability.”
Current Indicators
‘‘The proportion of the urban population that
lives in slums, informal settlements, or in
inadequate housing.”
‘‘Ratio of land consumption rate to population
growth rate.”
‘‘Proportion of cities with a direct participation
structure of civil society in urban planning and
management that operates regularly and
democratically.”
‘‘The proportion of urban solid waste regularly
collected and with adequate final discharge out
of total urban solid waste generated by cities.”
‘‘The average share of the built–up area of cities
that is open space for public use for all, by sex,
age, and people with disabilities.”
‘‘Proportion of a person’s victims of physical or
sexual harassment, by sex, age, disability status,
and place of occurrence, in the previous
12 months.‘‘
Background explanation to Lagos city
Uncontrolled urbanization promotes informal
settlements and poverty, leading to spatial
inequalities in Lagos. Due to this, it has become
necessary to develop politics for the
identification and quantification of the number
of people living in slums, poor housing, and
informal settlements. A sustainable and
prosperous city intends to minimize spatial
inequalities while providing solutions to urban
poverty.
Lagos is experiencing an unprecedented increase
in its population. Due to this, it is important to
acquire information on its existing LU/LC and
the resulting changes. Consideration should
involve alterations, owing to changes from one
land use to the other.
In Lagos, solid waste is often produced on a
daily basis. These wastes are not properly
managed and end up in drainage channels as a
result. A safe and resilient city seeks to manage
all of its generated waste and improve
cleanliness. Sustaining solid waste management
is essential for a sustainable city and should
include recycling, waste reduction, re-use, and
properly disposing of systems.
Public spaces in Lagos are fast disappearing,
owing to an increase in population. To reclaim
urban spaces, there is a need to humanize the city
and make it communal. Public spaces improve
community cohesion, quality of life, and civil
identity.
Sexual harassment violates human rights. In
Lagos, women and girls are subjected to
violence, thereby reinforcing their subordination
to men, their dignity, and posing a hazard in
public spaces.

land cover (LU/LC) changes in Lagos with a view to build-
ing a sustainable Lagos city. Lagos is the largest mega city
in Africa and one of the fastest growing cities in the world.
Urbanization in the city tends to threaten existing land use
classes in a way that agricultural land, forest cover, open
spaces, and wetland areas are converted to residential sites.
To sustain the available land cover classes in the study
area, there is a need to expand green public spaces, build
affordable houses, improve resilience to risk assessment
and protect forests, water bodies and agricultural land.
The United Nations 2030 Agenda includes a goal on
human dwelling places (SDG 11), which aims to make
the human environment inclusive, safe, resilient, and sus-
tainable. As a result, the study sees remote sensing and
GIS as an important technique for monitoring the progress
of SDG goal 11. In the study, remotely sensed data (Land-
sat 7 ETM + 2000 and Landsat 8 OLI 2015/2020) were
used to access the spatial–temporal LU/LC changes of
Lagos from 2010 to 2020 for the purpose of building a sus-
tainable, safe, and inclusive city. Projection analysis was
conducted to assess the LU/LC changes that may likely
708
take place in Lagos by 2025 (5 year planning period) and
2030 (10 year planning period). Ground truthing informa-
tion was collected for validation and to check the accuracy
of the study. The results show that from 2010 to 2015 and
to 2020, the built-up area had progressively increased from
430.449 km2 (11.73 %) to 470.09 km2 (12.81 %) and to
1082.623 km2 (29.51 %). Agricultural land had declined
from 434.455 km2 (11.84 %) to 123.545 km2 (3.37 %) and
to 109.959 km2 (2.99 %). Throughout the study, water bod-
ies and wetland areas increased and decreased progres-
sively, from 697.166 km2 (19.00 %) and 715.213 km2
(19.50 %) in 2010 to 638.095 km2 (17.39 %) and
311.018 km2 (8.48 %) in 2015, and to 673.839 km2
(18.37 %) and 620.744 km2 (16.92 %) in 2020. Forest land
and bare land had changed from 931.83 km2 (25.4 %) and
459.481 km2 (12.52 %) in 2010 to 1224.230 km2 (33.37 %)
and 901.993 km2 (24.58 %) in 2015 and to 664.086 km2
(18.10 %) and 517.720 km2 (14.11 %) in 2020, respectively.
The study shows that remote sensing and GIS are excellent
tools for monitoring the environment for the achievement
of sustainable and safe cities.
M. Asuquo Enoh et al. Advances in Space Research 72 (2023) 694–710

Declaration of Competing Interest Feng, Y., Liu, Y., 2013. A heuristic cellular automata approach for
modelling urban land use change based on stimulated annealing. Int. J.
Geograph. Inform. Sci. 27 (3), 449–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/
The authors declare that they have no known competing 13658816.2012.695377.
financial interests or personal relationships that could have Fu, H., Shao, Z., Fu, P., Cheng, Q., 2017. The Dynamics analysis between
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. urban nighttime economy and urbanization using DMSP/OLS night-
time light data in China from 1992 to 2012. Remote Sens. 9 (5), 416.
References https://doi.org/10.3390/rs9050416.
Huang, J., Lu, X., Sellers, J., 2007. Landscape urban planning. A global
comparative analysis of urban form: Applying spatial metrics and
Adepoju, M., Millington, A., Tansey, K.T., 2006. Land-use and Land-
remote sensing. Landscape Urban Plann. 82 (4), 184–197. https://doi.
cover change detection in Metropolitan Lagos (Nigeria): 1984–2002.
org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.02.010.
ASPRS 2006 Annual Conference Reno, Nevado.
Islam, T., Sah, M., Baral, S., Roychoudhury, R., 2018. A Faster technique
Aderogba, K., 2012. Climate change and sustainable growth and
on rice disease detection using image processing of affected area in
development in Lagos metropolis, Nigeria. Int. J. Soc. Sci. Educ. 2
agro-field. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on
(4), 667–681. https://doi.org/10.17142/ijbas-2012.1.1.18.
Inventive Communication and Computational Technologies
An, Y., Tsou, J.Y., Wong, K., Zhang, Y., Liu, D., Li, Y., 2018. Detecting
(ICICCT), pp. 62–66. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICICCT.2018.8473322.
Land use changes in a rapidly developing city during 1990–2017 using
Jin, M., Kessomkiat, W., Pereira, G., 2011. Satellite-observed urbaniza-
satellite imagery. A case study in Hangzhou urban area. China.
tion characters in Shanghai, China: Aerosols, Urban heat island effect
Sustainability 10 (9), 3303. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093303.
and land-atmospheric interactions. Remote Sensing 3 (1), 83–99.
Awotwi, A., Anornu, G.K., Quaye-Ballard, J.A., Annor, T., 2018.
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs3010083.
Monitoring land use and land cover changes due to extensive gold
Koch, F., Krellenberg, K., 2018. How to contextualize SDG 11. Looking
mining, urban expansion and agriculture in the Pra River Basin of
at indicators for sustainable urban development in Germany. ISPRS
Ghana, 1986–2025, Land Degrad. Dev. 29, 3331–3343. https://doi.org/
Int. J. Geoinf. 7 (12), 464. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi7120464.
10.1002/Idr.3093.
Liping, C., Yujun, S., Saeed, S., 2018. Monitoring and predicting land use
Batar, A., Watanabe, T., Kumar, A., 2017. Assessment of Land use and
and land cover changes using remote sensing and GIS techniques – A
Land cover change and forest fragmentation in the Garhwal
case study of a hilly area, Jiangle. China. PLoS One 13 (7), e0200493.
Himalayan Region of India. Environment 4 (2), 34. https://doi.org/
Liu, C., Paul, F., Lalit, K., 2007. Comparative Assessment of the measures
10.3390/environments4020034.
of thematic classification accuracy. Remote Sens. Environ. 107 (4),
Benneth, M., Smith, L., 2017. Using multitemporal night–time lights data
606–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2006.10.010.
to compare regional development in Russia and China, 1992–2012.
Ma, C., Zhang, G.Y., Zhang, X.C., Zhao, Y.J., Li, H.Y., 2012.
INT. J. of Remote Sensing 38 (1), 5962–5991. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Application of Markov model in wetland change dynamics in Tianjin
01431161.2017.1312035.
Coastal Area. China. Procedia Environ Sci. 13, 252. https://doi.org/
Bonafoni, S., Baidnelli, G., Roti, A., Verducci, P., 2017. Albedo and
10.1016/j.proenv.2012.01.024.
surface temperature relation in urban areas: Analysis with different
McCord, S.E., Buenemann, M., Karl, J.W., Browning, D.M., Hadley, B.
sensors. In: 2017 Joint Urban Remote Sensing Event (JURSE), pp. 1–
C., 2017. Integrating remotely sensed imagery and existing multiscale
4. https://doi.org/10.1109/JURSE.2017.7924612.
field data to derive rangeland indicators: application of Bayesian
Boschetti, L., Flasse, S., Brivio, P., 2004. Analysis of the conflict between
additive regression trees. Range Ecol. Manag. 70 (5), 644–655. https://
omission and commission in low spatial resolution dichotomic
doi.org/10.1016/j.rama.2017.02.004.
thematic products: the Pareto Boundary. Remote Sens. Environ. 91
Mohammady, M., Moradi, H.R., Zeinivand, H., Temme, A., 2015. A
(3–4), 280–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2004.02.015.
comparison of supervised, unsupervised and synthesis land use classi-
Bossler, J.D., 2010. Manual of Geospatial Science and Technology, (2nd
fication methods in the North of Iran. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 12
Ed.). Taylor, London.
(5), 1515–1526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-014-0728-3.
Bradley, B.A., 2009. Accuracy Assessment of mixed land cover using a
Mondal, M.S., Sharma, N., Kappas, M., Garg, P.K., 2015. Critical
GIS–designed sampling scheme. Int. J. Remote Sens. 30 (13), 3515–
assessment of land use and land cover dynamics using multi-temporal
3529. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431160802562263.
satellite images. Environments 2 (1), 61–90. https://doi.org/10.3390/
Burke, J., Ewan,, 1999. Sonoran preserve master plan for the Phoenix
environments2010061.
Sonoran desert. City of Phoenix Parks, Recreation and Library
Mujabar, P.S., Chandrasekar, N., 2013. Shoreline change analysis along
Department, Phoenix.
the coast between Kanyakumari and Tuticorin of India using Remote
Congalton, R.G., Green, K., 2019. Assessing the accuracy of remotely
Sensing and GIS, Arab. J. Geosci. 6, 647–664. https://doi.org/10.1007/
sensed data principles and practices, (3rd ed.). CRC Press. Taylor and
s12517-011-0394-4.
Francis group, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 159–171.
Mundia, C.N., Aniya, M., 2006. Dynamics of land use/land cover changes
Coppins, P., Jonekheere, I., Nackaerts, K., Muys, B., Lambin, E., 2004.
and degradation of Nairobi city. Kenya. Land Degradation & Dev. 17,
Digital change detection methods in ecosystem monitoring: A review.
97–108. https://doi.org/10.1002/Idr.702.
INT. J. of Remote Sensing 25 (9), 1565–1596. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Obiefuna, J.N., Nwilo, P.C., Atagbaza, A.O., Okolie, C.J., 2012. Land
0143116031000101675.
cover dynamics associated with the spatial changes in the wetlands of
Datu, K., 2014. A flood–free Lagos: The regional imperative Retrieved
Lagos/Lekki Lagoon system of Lagos. J. Coast. Res Nigeria. https://
from: https://ng.boell.org/2014/07/29/flood–free–Lagos–regional–im-
doi.org/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-12-00038.1.
perative, .
Odumosu, T., Balogun, Y., Ojo, K. (Eds.), 1999. Lagos State in maps. Rex
Ejemeyovwi, D., 2010. Using satellite image for Land use and Land cover
Charles publication, Ibadan, pp. 1–50.
mapping degradation and change detection in the Niger delta
Okude, A.S., Ademiluyi, I.A., 2006. Implications of the changing pattern
environment in Delta State University sites I, II, III. A PAper
of Land cover of the Lagos coastal area of Nigeria. Am–Eurasian J.
Presented at the 1st InternationAl conference of centre of Environment
Sci. Res. I 1, 31–37.
And Niger DeltA studies (CENDS).
Phukan, P., Thakuriah, G., Saikia, R., 2013. Land use and Land cover
Farshad, A., Zinck, J.A., 1993. Seeking agricultural sustainability. Agric.
change detection using Remote Sensing and GIS techniques–A case
Ecosyst. Environ. 47 (1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8809(93)
study of Golaghat district of Assam. India. Int. Res. J. Earth Sci. 1 (1),
90132-9.
11–15.

709
M. Asuquo Enoh et al.
Pontius, R.G., Shusas, E., McEachern, M., 2004. Detecting important
categorical land changes while accounting for persistence. Agric.
Ecosyst. Environment. 101, 251–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
agee.2003.09.008.
Rigden, A., Li, D., 2017. Attribution of surface temperature anomalies
induced by land use and land cover change. Geospatial Res. Lett. 44
(13), 6814–6822. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL073811.
Shackelford, A., Davis, C., Wang, X., 2004. Automated 2–D building
footprint extraction from high resolution satellite multispectral
imagery. IGARSS. IEEE Int. Geosci. Remote Sens. Symp. 3.
https://doi.org/10.1109/IGARSS.2004.1370739.
Shahtahmassebi, A., Song, J., Zheng, Q., Blackburn, G., Wang, K.,
Huang, L., Pan, Y., Moore, N., Shahtahmassebi, G., Haghighi, R.,
Deng, J., 2016. Remote sensing of impervious surface growth: A
framework for quantifying urban expansion and re-densification
mechanisms. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 46, 94–112. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2015.11.007.
Shaw, R., Das, A., 2018. Identification per–urban growth in small and
medium towns using GIS and Remote Sensing technique: A case study
of English Bazar urban agglomeration, West Bengal, India. Egypt. J.
Remote Sens. Space Sci. 21 (2), 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ejrs.2017.01.002.
Simwanda, M., Murayama, Y., 2018. Spatiotemporal patterns of urban
land use change in rapidly growing city of Lusaka, Zambia: Implica-
tions for sustainable urban development. Sustain. Cities Soc. 39, 262–
274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.01.039.
Singh, P., Kikon, N., Verma, P., 2017. Impact of land use change and
urbanization on urban heat island in Lucknow city, Central India. A
remote sensing based estimate. Sustain. Cities Soc. 32, 100–114.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.02.018.
Singh, S.K., Mustak, S., Srivastava, P.K., Szaba, S., Islam, T., 2015.
Predicting spatial and Decadal LULC changes through Cellular
Automata Markov Chain Models using Earth Observation datasets
and Geo-information. Environ. Process 2 (1), 61–78. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s40710-015-0062-x.
Sohn, G., Dowman, I., 2007. Data fusion of high-resolution satellite
imagery and LiDAR data for automatic building extraction. ISPRS J.
Photogramm., Remote Sens. 62 (1), 43–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
isprsjprs.2007.01.001.
Soladoye, O., Ajibade, L.T., 2014. A groundwater quality study of Lagos
state, Nigeria. Int. J. Appl. Sci. Technol. 4 (4), 271–281.
Story, M., Congalton, R.G., 1986. Accuracy Assessment: A user’s
perspective photogram. Eng. Rem. S. 52 (3), 397–399.
Subedi, P., Subedi, K., Thapa, B., 2013. Application of a hybrid cellular
automaton–Markov (CA–Markov) model in Land use change predic-
tion: A case study of saddle creek drainage basin, Florida. Appl. Ecol.
Environ Sci. 1 (6), 126–132. https://doi.org/10.12691/aees–1–6–5.
710
Advances in Space Research 72 (2023) 694–710
Szuster, B., Chen, Q., Borger, M., 2011. A comparison of classification
techniques to support land cover and land use analysis in tropical
coastal zones. Appl. Geogr. 31 (2), 525–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apgeog.2010.11.007.
Teferi, E., Bewket, W., Uhlenbrook, S., Wenninger, J., 2013. Under-
standing recent land use and land cover dynamics in the source region
of the Upper Blue Nile, Ethiopia: Spatially explicit statistical modeling
of systematic transitions. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 165, 98–117. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2012.11.007.
Thomas, H., Laurence, H., 2006. Modeling and projecting land-use and
land-cover changes with Cellular Automation in considering landscape
trajectories: An improvement for simulation of plausible future states,
EARSeL eProceedings, European Association of Remote Sensing
Laboratories, 5(1). 63–76.
UN, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division,
2018. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision, Methodol-
ogy Working Paper report No. ESA/P/WP.252. New York: United
Nations.
UN-Habitat, 2006. State of the world’s cities. 2006/7. The Millennium
Development Goals, and urban sustainability: 30 years shaping the
habitat agenda. London and Sterling: United Nations Human Settle-
ments Programme, Earthscan Publications Ltd., London and Sterling.
United Nations & Nations, U., 2015. Transforming our world. The 2030
agenda for Sustainable Development. In General Assembly 70 session.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2.
United Nations, 2020. Retrieved from United Nations Department of
Economic and Social Affairs: https://www.un.org/development/desa/
en/news/population/world-population-prospects–2017.html
Vigneshwaran, S., Kumar, S.V., 2018. Urban Land cover mapping and
change detection analysis using high resolution sentinel-2A data.
Environ. Nat. Resour. J. 17 (1), 22–32. https://doi.org/10.32526/
ennrj.17.1.2019.03.
World Bank, 2020. Urban population–Nigeria. World Urbanization
Prospects: 2018 revision. [accessed 2020 June 15]. https://data.world-
bank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS.
Yang, J., Li, P., 2015. Impervious surface extraction in urban areas from
high spatial resolution imagery using linear spectral unmixing. Remote
Sens. Appl.: Soc. Environ. 1, 61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rsase.2015.06.005.
Yuan, F., Sawaya, K.E., Loeffelholz, B.C., Bauer, M.E., 2005. Land cover
classification and change analysis of the twin cities (Minnesota)
metropolitan area by multi-temporal Landsat remote sensing. Remote
Sens. Environ. 98 (2), 317–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rse.2005.08.006.
Zhou, L., Sun, Q., Dang, X., Wang, S., 2019. Comparison on multi–scale
urban expansion derived from nightlight imagery between China and
India. Sustainability 11 (16), 4509. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11164509.