Draft Report For The Landcover Change Study and GIS Based Land Suitability Analysis 2

1
LANDCOVER CHANGE STUDY AND GIS-BASED LAND

SUITABILITY ANALYSIS (LSA) IN ADJUMANI, ARUA,
MADI-OKOLLO, MOYO, OBONGI AND YUMBE
DISTRICT, WEST NILE
2
Table of Contents
Acknowledgment...................................................................................................................................9
Executive Summary..............................................................................................................................10
1.0 Introduction..............................................................................................................................14
1.1 Background............................................................................................................................15
1.2 Landuse and Landcover in Uganda..................................................................................18
1.3 Land use and land cover change statistics in Uganda................................................19
1.4 Major drivers of land use and land cover change.........................................................21
1.5 Impacts of land use and land cover change...................................................................22
1.3 Objectives of the assignment............................................................................................23
1.4 Scope of the study................................................................................................................24
2.0 Approach and Methodology...........................................................................................................25
2.1 Landcover and Land Use (LCLU) change mapping for the past 10 years...............26
2.1.1 Collection of Ancillary Data.............................................................................................26
2.1.2 Quality checking of the Ancillary data...........................................................................26
2.1.3 Acquisition of the Imagery and pre-processing............................................................27
2.1.4 Image Classification.........................................................................................................30
2.1.5 Using ground reference data to carry out accuracy assessments............................33
2.1.6 Overall Accuracy Assessment Procedure for 7 West Nile District............................35
2.1.7 Preparation of final land cover and vegetation maps..................................................37
2.1.8 Land covers change detection and assessment.............................................................37
2.1.9 Derivation of Statistics.........................................................................................................38
2.2 GIS-based Land Suitability Analysis................................................................................38
2.2.1 Multi-criteria evaluation (MCE) for decision-making support.............................39
2.2.2 GIS-based Land Suitability Analysis workflow.............................................................40
2.2.3 GIS-based Land Suitability Analysis factors/parameters....................................41
2.2.4 GIS-based Land Suitability maps development.....................................................42
3.0 Results for Landcover and Land Use (LCLU) Change.......................................................................43
3.1 Landcover and Land Use (LCLU) Change Mapping of West Nile District..................43
3.1.1 Adjumani District imagery for Adjumani District...........................................................43
3.1.2 Landcover for Adjumani District.....................................................................................45
3.1.3 Landcover Change for Adjumani District......................................................................48

3
3.2.1 Satellite Imagery for Arua District.............................................................................51
3.2.2 Landcover for Arua District.............................................................................................53
3.2.3 Landcover Change for Arua District..............................................................................56
3.3.1 Satellite Imagery for Arua City....................................................................................59
3.3.2 Landcover for Arua City..................................................................................................61
3.3.3 Landcover Change for Arua District..............................................................................64
3.4.1 Satellite Imagery for Madi-Okollo District................................................................67
3.4.2 Landcover for Madi-Okollo District...........................................................................70
3.4.3 Landcover Change for Madi-Okollo District..................................................................73
3.5.1 Satellite Imagery for Obongi District.........................................................................76
3.5.2 Landcover for Obongi District....................................................................................79
3.5.3 Landcover Change for Obongi District.....................................................................82
3.6.1 Satellite Imagery for Yumbe District.........................................................................85
3.6.2 Landcover for Yumbe District.....................................................................................88
3.6.3 Landcover Change for Yumbe District.....................................................................91
3.7.1 Satellite Imagery for Moyo District............................................................................94
3.7.2 Landcover for Moyo District.......................................................................................96
3.7.3 Landcover Change for Moyo District........................................................................99
3.8.1 Satellite Imagery for Terego District.......................................................................102
3.8.2 Landcover for Terego District...................................................................................104
3.8.3 Landcover Change for Terego District...................................................................107
4.0 Results for GIS Based Land Suitability Analysis in West Nile Region.............................................110
4.1 Layers used in the GIS Based Crop Land Suitability Analysis................................110
4.1.1 Organic Matter Suitability..........................................................................................111
4.1.2 Altitude suitability........................................................................................................112
4.1.3 Rainfall Suitability........................................................................................................113
4.1.4 Temperature Suitability..............................................................................................114
4.1.4 Soil Depth Suitability..................................................................................................115
4.1.4 Soil Drainage Suitability.............................................................................................116
4.1.5 Soil Ph Suitability........................................................................................................117
4.1.7 Soil Texture Suitability...............................................................................................118
4.1.7 Slope suitability............................................................................................................119

4
4.2 GIS based crop land suitability modeling.....................................................................120
4.2.1 Cropland Suitability in Adjumani District.....................................................................120
4.2.2 Cropland Suitability in Arua District.............................................................................123
4.2.3 Cropland Suitability in Arua City.............................................................................126
4.2.4 Cropland Suitability in Madi-Okollo District..........................................................129
4.2.5 Cropland Suitability in Moyo District......................................................................132
4.2.6 Cropland Suitability in Obongi District...................................................................135
4.2.7 Cropland Suitability in Terego District...................................................................138
4.2.8 Cropland Suitability in Yumbe District...................................................................141
5.0 Conclusions...................................................................................................................................144
6.0 Recommendations........................................................................................................................146
7.0 References....................................................................................................................................147
List of Figures
Figure 1: Major drivers of land use and land cover change.......................................22

Figure 2: Map showing the study area.......................................................................25
Figure 3: West Nile Satellite Imagery for 2010 used for classification.......................29
Figure 6: Flow chart showing the steps taken for final products...............................32
Figure 7: Technical Team carrying out landcover ground truthing.............................35
Figure 8: Workflow of the land suitability analysis......................................................40
Figure 9: Adjumani District Imagery for 2010............................................................43
Figure 10: Adjumani District Imagery for 2015...........................................................44
Figure 11: Adjumani District Imagery for 2020...........................................................44
Figure 12: Adjumani District Landcover for 2010.......................................................45
Figure 13: Adjumani District Landcover for 2015.......................................................46
Figure 14: Adjumani District Landcover 2020............................................................47
Figure 15: Adjumani District Landcover Change 2010-2015.....................................48
Figure 16: Adjumani District Landcover Change 2010-2020....................................49
Figure 17: Adjumani District Landcover Change 2015-2020.....................................50
5
Figure 18: Arua District Imagery 2010.......................................................................51

Figure 21: Arua District Landcover 2010...................................................................53
Figure 24: Arua District Landcover Change 2010-2015.............................................56
Figure 27: Arua City Imagery 2010...........................................................................59
Figure 28: Arua City Imagery 2015............................................................................59
Figure 29: Arua City Imagery 2020............................................................................60
Figure 30: Arua City Landcover 2010........................................................................61
Figure 33: Arua City Landcover Change 2015-2020..................................................64
Figure 36: Madi-Okollo District Imagery 2010............................................................67
Figure 39: Madi-Okollo District Landcover 2010........................................................70
Figure 42: Madi-Okollo District Landcover Change 2010- 2015................................73
Figure 45: Obongi District Imagery 2010...................................................................76
Figure 46: Obongi District Imagery 2015...................................................................77
Figure 47: Obongi District Imagery 2020..................................................................78
Figure 48: Obongi District Landcover 2010...............................................................79
6

Figure 51: Obongi District Landcover Change 2010- 2015........................................82
Figure 54: Yumbe District Imagery 2010...................................................................85
Figure 57: Yumbe District Landcover 2010................................................................88
Figure 60: Yumbe District Landcover Change 2010-2015.........................................91
Figure 63: Moyo District Imagery 2010......................................................................94
Figure 64: Moyo District Imagery 2015......................................................................94
Figure 65: Moyo District Imagery 2020.....................................................................95
Figure 66: Moyo District Landcover 2010.................................................................96
Figure 69: Moyo District Landcover Change 2010-2015...........................................99
Figure 70: Moyo District Landcover Change 2010-2020..........................................100
Figure 71: Moyo District Landcover Change 2015-2020..........................................101
Figure 72: Terego District 2010...............................................................................102
Figure 73: Terego District 2015...............................................................................102
Figure 74: Terego District 2015..............................................................................103
Figure 75: Terego District Landcover 2010..............................................................104
Figure 78: Terego District Landcover Change 2010-2015.......................................107
7

Figure 81: West Nile Organic Matter Content.........................................................111
Figure 82: West Nile Altitude...................................................................................112
Figure 83: West Nile Rainfall 2020.........................................................................113
Figure 84: West Nile Temperature 2020..................................................................114
Figure 85: West Nile Soil Depth...............................................................................115
Figure 86: West Nile Soil Drainage..........................................................................116
Figure 87: West Nile Soil ph.................................................................................... 117
Figure 88: West Nile Soil Texture............................................................................118
Figure 89: West Nile Slope......................................................................................119
Figure 90: Maize Suitability in Adjumani District......................................................120
Figure 91: Simsim Suitability in Adjumani District....................................................121
Figure 92: Soya beans Suitability in Adjumani District.............................................122
Figure 93: Beans Suitability in Arua District.............................................................123
Figure 94: Cassava Suitability in Arua District.........................................................124
Figure 95: Maize Suitability in Arua District.............................................................125
Figure 96: Beans Suitability in Arua City..................................................................126
Figure 97: Cassava Suitability in Arua City..............................................................127
Figure 98: Sweat Potatoes Suitability in Arua City...................................................128
Figure 99: Cassava Suitability in Madi-Okollo District..............................................129
Figure 100: Millet Suitability in Madi-Okollo District.................................................130
Figure 101: Simsim Suitability in Madi-Okollo District..............................................131
Figure 102: Cassava Suitability in Moyo District......................................................132
Figure 103: Groundnuts Suitability in Moyo District.................................................133
Figure 104: Simsim Suitability in Moyo District........................................................134
Figure 105: Cassava Suitability in Obongi District...................................................135
Figure 106: Maize Suitability in Obongi District........................................................136
Figure 107: Simsim Suitability in Obongi District....................................................137
Figure 108: Cassava Suitability in Terego District...................................................138
Figure 109: Simsim Suitability in Terego District......................................................139
Figure 110: Sorghum Suitability in Terego District...................................................140
8
Figure 111: Beans Suitability in Yumbe District.......................................................141

Figure 112: Cassava Suitability in Yumbe District...................................................142
Figure 113: Groundnuts Suitability in Yumbe District...............................................143
List of Tables
Table 1: National land cover statistics (1990–2015) (Source: NFA)..........................21

Table 2: Compliance matrix between interpreter and validation based results..........36
Table 3: Adjumani District Landcover 2010...............................................................45
Table 6: Adjumani District Landcover change 2010-2015.........................................48
Table 9: Arua District Landcover 2010.......................................................................53
Table 10: Arua District Landcover 2015.....................................................................54
Table 11: Arua District Landcover 2020.....................................................................55
Table 12: Arua District Landcover change 2010-2015...............................................56
Table 13: Arua District Landcover Change 2015-2020..............................................57
Table 14: Adjumani District Landcover Change 2015-2020.......................................58
Table 15: Arua City Landcover 2010.........................................................................61
Table 18: Arua City District Landcover change 2010-2015........................................64
Table 19: Arua City Landcover change 2010-2020....................................................65
Table 20: Arua City Landcover change 2015-2020....................................................66
Table 21: Madi-Okollo Landcover 2010.....................................................................70
Table 24: Madi-Okollo District Landcover Change 2010-2015..................................73
9
Table 27: Table 25: Obongi District Landcover 2010.................................................79

Table 28: Obongi District Landcover 2015.................................................................80
Table 29: Obongi District Landcover 2020.................................................................81
Table 30: Obongi District Landcover Change 2010-2015..........................................82
Table 33: Yumbe District Landcover 2010.................................................................88
Table 36: Yumbe District Landcover Change 2010-2015..........................................91
Table 39: Moyo District Landcover 2010...................................................................96
Table 42: Moyo District Landcover Change 2010-2015.............................................99
Table 43: Moyo District Landcover Change 2010-2020...........................................100
Table 44: Moyo District Landcover Change 2015-2020...........................................101
Table 45: Terego District Landcover 2010...............................................................104
Table 48: Terego District Landcover Change 2010-2015........................................107
Table 51: Priority crops for each district...................................................................110
10
Acknowledgment
I would like to thank GIZ Country Office for giving me this opportunity to undertake
Landcover and Land Use (LCLU) change mapping for the past 10 years and produce
the Land Suitability Analyses for West Nile Region. Special thanks go to Ms. Heinze,
Claudia, Head of Component I Response to increased demand on Government
Services and creation of economic opportunities in Uganda (RISE) for her guidance
during this assignment and for putting in place the technical team of GIZ and District
Local Government officials who helped us carry out field validation mission in West
Nile District and making our stay in West Nile Region very comfortable.
I also want to thank Mr. Thomas Ujjiga, the Technical Advisor Response to Increased
Demand on Government Service and Creation of Economic Opportunities in Uganda
(RISE) for the guidance and support during the District stakeholders’ consultation
meetings in all the 7 District. I would like to appreciate the support rendered to us by
Ms. Tumuhairwe Diana the communication specialist of RISE project and Ms. Alina
Zalewski, Development Advisor Arua/ Madi-Okollo during the district consultations.
Thanks to the drivers of GIZ Arua Field Office for wonderful and comfortable drive in
the field.
Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my team Mr Alex Tumukunde, Mr
Kelonye Wiseman, and Mr. Ampeire Nobert for the great work done. Your efforts
during the field validations, soil sample collections, and district consultation meetings
are appreciated.
11
Executive Summary
The bjectives of the assignment were to undertake Landcover and Land Use (LCLU)
change mapping for the past 10 years (i.e. 2010; 2015; 2020) in the District of
Adjumani, Arua, Madi-Okollo, Moyo, Obongi, Terego, Yumbe and Arua City; and
produce the Land Suitability Analyses (LSA) to derive potential suitability for different
Land Utilization Types (LUTs). Landcover and land use (LCLU) mapping was
carriedout using a method that combines both expert knowledge and supervised
classification.
The examination of the landcover and landuse change in different ecosystems for three
epochs 2010, 2015 and 2020 from the District of Adjumani, Arua, Madi-Okollo, Moyo,
Obongi, Terego, Yumbe and Arua City was done, while paying attention to particular
phenomena, such as climate change, soil moisture content change, soil fertility and
groundwater change. The analyse was done on landcover and landuse change in
different geographical locations, such as woodlots, forests, annual cropland, wetlands,
bushland, settlements and grassland. Cconducted GIS-based Land Suitability Analyses
using remote sensing software for image processing to derive landcover and landuse
maps.
Adjumani District
From 2010 to 2015, Adjumani District lost 140,959ha of forests and 51,173ha of
bushland. The district experienced a lot of deforestation between 2010-2015 in the
central part, degradation across the district and little regeneration was observed.
From 2010 to 2020, Adjumani District lost 129, 952 hectares of forests and 53,454
hectares of grasslands. The district experienced a lot of deforestation between 2010-
2020 in the central and southern parts, degradation across the district and little
regeneration was observed in south and north. From 2015 to 2020, Adjumani District
lost 103,819 hectares of woodlands and 51,256 hectares of wetlands. The district
experienced a lot of degradation between 2015-2020 across the district. From the
suitability modeling, the central part of adjumani district is highly suitable for Maize,
Soya and Simsim growing while the north and south are moderately suitable.
Arua District
From 2010 to 2015, Arua District lost 3,764 hectares of Bushland and 71 hectares of
wetlands. The district experienced regeneration with little degradation in north east
12
part of the district. From 2010 to 2020, Arua District lost 11,994 hectares of Bushland
and 77 hectares of wetlands. The district experienced regeneration in central and of
lot of degradation in East and North East part. From 2015 to 2020, Arua District lost
8,230 hectares of Bushland and 17,184 hectares of woodlands. The district
experienced degradation and regeneration in all sub-counties. From the suitability
modeling analysis, the Southern and north east parts of Arua district are highly
suitable for beans growing while the North West and south west are moderately
suitable. The North east parts of Arua district are highly suitable for Cassava growing
while the rest of the district is moderately suitable. The whole of Arua district is
moderately suitable for maize growing with few atreas of the district highly suitable.
Arua city
From 2010 to 2015, Arua City lost 4,736 hectares of Forests and 132 hectares of
woodlands. The district experienced deforestation in all sub-counties, degradation in
the central part and regeneration in the East. From 2010 to 2020, Arua City lost
2,935 hectares of Forests and 961ha of Bushlands and 1,130ha of Woodland. The
district experienced deforestation in all sub-counties, degradation in the central and
East. From 2015 to 2020, Arua City lost 1,599 hectares of Bushland and 998
hectares of woodlands. The district experienced degradation in the Eastern parts.
From the suitability modeling analysis, the east parts of Arua City are highly suitable
for beans growing while the west and some parts of central are moderately suitable.
The urbanization is expanding in the central part of the City. The whole of Arua City
is moderately suitable for beans’ growing while the west parts are moderately
suitable and central not suitable. The whole district is moderately suitable for sweat
potatoes growing.
Madi-okollo District
From 2010 to 2015, Madi-Okollo lost 13,633 hectares of Forests and 20,271 hectares
of Wetlands. The district experienced deforestation, degradation and regeneration in
all sub-counties. From 2010 to 2020, Madi-Okollo lost 39,899 hectares of Bushland,
4,011ha of Forests and 14,768 hectares of Wetlands. The district experienced
deforestation and degradation across all sub-counties, regeneration in the central
sub-counties. From 2015 to 2020, Madi-Okollo lost 63,282 hectares of Bushland and
13
27,825 hectares of Grasslands. The district experienced degradation in all sub-

counties and regeneration in the central and northern parts. From the suitability
modeling analysis, 50% of Madi-Okollo district is highly suitable for cassava growing
while the 40% are moderately suitable and 10% not suitable. 85% of Madi-Okollo
district is highly suitable for millet growing while the 5% are moderately suitable and
10% not suitable. 35% of Madi-Okollo district is highly suitable for millet growing
while the 45% are moderately suitable and 20% not suitable.
Obongi District
From 2010 to 2015, Obongi District lost 14,916 hectares of Forest land, 2,472
hectares of Wetland and 73 ha of Woodland. The district experienced deforestation
and degradation, degradation and regeneration in all sub-counties. The district
experienced deforestation, degradation and regeneration in all sub-counties. From
2010 to 2020, Obongi District lost 8,512 hectares of Forest land, 845 ha of Bushland,
7,435 hectares of Grasslands, 8881ha of Wetlands and 73ha of Woodlands. The
district experienced degradation and regeneration in all sub-counties. From 2015 to
2020, Obongi District lost 7,181ha of Bushland, 6409ha of Wetlands and 10,940ha of
Grasslands. From the suitability modeling analysis, 50% of Obongi district is highly
suitable for cassava growing while the 30% are moderately suitable and 20% not
suitable. 50% of Obongi district is highly suitable for maize growing, 30% are
moderately suitable and 20% not suitable. 70% of Obongi district is highly suitable for
simsim growing while the 5% are moderately suitable and 25%.
Yumbe District
From 2010 to 2015, Yumbe District lost 11,559 hectares of Forest land, 3,010
hectares of Wetland. The district experienced deforestation and degradation in East
and West sub-counties and regeneration in all sub-counties. From 2010 to 2020,
Yumbe District lost 89,629 hectares of Bushland, 7926ha of Forest, 3,214 hectares of
Wetland and 1,072ha of Wetland. The district experienced deforestation and
degradation in East and West sub-counties and regeneration in the West. From 2015
to 2020, Yumbe District lost 98,976 hectares of Bushland, 204 hectares of Wetland
and 2,736ha of Woodland but gained Forest cover of 3,633ha. The district
experienced degradation in all sub-counties and regeneration in west sub-counties.
14
From the suitability modeling analysis, 60% of Yumbe district is highly suitable for
beans growing while the 40% are moderately suitable. 60% of Yumbe district is
highly suitable for cassava growing while the 35% are moderately suitable and 5%
not suitable. 85% of Yumbe district is highly suitable for groundnuts growing while the
10% are moderately suitable and 5% not suitable.
Moyo District
From 2010 to 2015, Moyo District lost 20,652 hectares of Forest land and 2,841
hectares of Wetland. The district experience a lot of deforestation in central and
north, degradation in West and East of the district. There was lot of regeneration in
all sub-counties. From 2010 to 2020, Moyo District lost 12,775 hectares of Forest
land and 2,427 hectares of Wetland. The district experienced deforestation in central
and north east parts, degradation in southern parts and regeneration in all sub-
counties. From 2015 to 2020, Moyo District lost 15,276 hectares of Bushland, 11,139
hectares of Grassland, and experienced degradation and regeneration in all sub-
counties. From the suitability modeling analysis, 85% of Moyo district is highly
suitable. 75% of Moyo district is highly suitable for groundnuts and simsim growing
while the 20% are moderately suitable and 5% not suitable.
Terego District
From 2010 to 2015, Terego District lost 8,677 hectares of Forestland, 2,697 hectares
of Wetland, experienced degradation in the East part of the district, and regeneration
was also observed in all sub-counties. From 2015 to 2020, Terego District lost 5,808
hectares of Forestland, 23,506ha of Bushland, 2,841 hectares of Wetland and
experienced a lot of degradation although regeneration was observed in the sub-
county of Odupi in the East. From 2010 to 2020, Terego District lost 39,419 hectares
of Bushland, 261 hectares of Wetland, and experienced a lot of degradation in the
East and scanty deforestation. From the suitability modeling analysis, 55% of Terego
district is highly suitable for cassava growing while the 40% are moderately suitable
and 5% not suitable. 90% of Terego district is highly suitable for simsim growing
while the 5% are moderately suitable and 5% not suitable. 60% of Terego district is
highly suitable for Sorghum growing while the 40% are moderately suitable.
15
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Background
Human activities, especially the conversion and degradation of habitats, are causing
global biodiversity declines [1]. The notable activities include the cutting down of trees,
charcoal burning and poor farming methods, among others, which undermine the
functionality of ecosystems [2]. The rapid conversion of natural vegetation, for
example, to farmlands, could be attributed to farming techniques and agronomic
approaches that aim at modern agricultural intensification [3]. For instance, in the
Equateur province of the Democratic Republic of Congo, the agricultural expansion
through shifting cultivation is the main proximate cause of deforestation [4]. In the
northern portion of the Brazilian Atlantic Forest, generally 76% of the households use
fuelwood regularly and consume on average 686 kg/person/year of tree biomass;
poorer people, however, consume 961 kg/person/year [5,6].
Anthropogenic land use activities (such as management of croplands, forests,

grasslands, and wetlands) and changes in land use/cover (such as conversion of
forest lands and grasslands to cropland and pasture, afforestation), cause changes
superimposed on natural fluxes [7]. Tower, ground-based, and satellite observations
indicate that tropical deforestation results in warmer, drier conditions at the local scale
[8]. These conditions lower agricultural productivity, with reduced soil moisture
content and pasture, and lead to human migration, resource conflicts, and loss of
biodiversity, among others [9–12].
In the Kenyan Eastern Mau Forest Reserve, forest-to-cropland conversions are

undermining the ecosystem’s capacity for carbon sequestration [13]. In the
Ngerengere River in Tanzania, changing land use affects surface runoff and increases
floods in the mountainous areas [14]. Geographical information systems and remote
sensing (GIS and RS) techniques can be used to explore the temporal and spatial
characteristics of land use/cover changes [15]. For example, in Uganda, GIS and RS
were applied to assess the impacts of land use/cover change on terrestrial carbon
stocks [16]. The information about land use is often stored in geospatial databases,
typically acquired and maintained by national mapping agencies. Such databases
16
consist of objects represented by polygons that are assigned class labels indicating
the objects’ land use [17]. Therefore, land use/cover information can be directly
interpreted from appropriate remote sensing images [18].
Presently, the diversity of conversions of natural ecosystems to land use systems is a

critical challenge in Uganda. This is driven by the need to meet the livelihoods of
smallholders, high demand for forest products, urban expansions, and infrastructural
developments (such as the construction of highways, hydropower dams, and
industrial parks, among others). As a result, the country has witnessed massive
losses of natural vegetation and intensification of human activities. This condition is
worsened by the overexploitation of resources, use of unsustainable harvesting and
agronomic practices, and climate changes. Some of the threatened ecosystems
include Mt Elgon in Eastern Uganda, the Mabira Central Forest Reserve, the Lubigi
wetland system, and Lake Victoria, among others [19–22]. As a result, the country is
faced with a number of environmental problems such as frequent occurrences of
landslides and floods that cause deaths and loss of property, loss of biodiversity, low
agricultural output, and reduced forest and wetland goods and services, among others
[23–25]. This study takes note of a number of studies that have been conducted in the
country to quantify changes in land use/cover [26–28]. However, no study has
redefined and reclassified land use systems and estimated their future scenario at a
country level using a Markov chain model [29]. With high population increase causing
increased demand for arable and settlement land, fragile ecosystem goods and
services are under enormous pressure to meet the needs of the people. This case is
evident with a number of fragmented patches of arable land across the country.
In response to the global refugee crisis, the United Nations (UN) has adopted the
New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants (2016) on an international level. The
NYC Declaration has become the basis for the Comprehensive Refugee Response
Framework (CRRF), with the overall objective of the CRRF to support governmental
and administrative bodies affected by refugee crises at national, regional and local
level and thus to strengthen a ‘whole society’ approach to refugee response. In
Uganda, the reception of refugees and the development-oriented design of refugee
policy are regulated in the Refugee Act of 2006 and the corresponding regulations of
2010 (Refugee Regulations). The main implementation strategies of the legal
17
framework are the so-called Self-Reliance Strategy (SRS) of 1998 and the Settlement
Transformation Agenda (STA) of 2016. The STA has been integrated in the National
Development Plan (NDP III) which is regarded as a good practice.
In addition, UNHCR and the World Bank have collaborated with the Ugandan
government to develop the Refugee and Host Population Empowerment Strategy
(ReHoPE) which aims to implement the STA. The strategy includes an urgent
appeal from the UHNCR to international development partners to participate in the
implementation of ReHoPE.
GIZ in partnership with the Ugandan Ministry of Local Governments is implementing

the Response to increased demand on Government Service and creation of economic
opportunities in Uganda (RISE) Programme in the refugee-hosting District of Adjumani,
Arua, Madi-Okollo, Moyo, Obongi, Terego and Arua City. Originally, the RISE
programme was designed for the three refugee-hosting District of Adjumani, Arua and
Moyo. However, in 2020 the District of Madi-Okollo and Obongi were created out of
Arua and Moyo District, respectively. Likewise, in 2020 Arua City and Terego district
have been created out of Arua district. Since the RISE program supports refugee-
hosting District, the newly created District, by default became part of the program as
they host the refugee settlements. RISE is a 4-year program funded by the European
Union (EU) and the German Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and
Development (BMZ). The program aims to strengthen local authorities in delivering
government services to all people in the refugee-hosting District in Northern
Uganda and to enable greater economic resilience and self-resilience among both
refugees and host communities. The implementation of the program activities is
ensured through the partnership with the District Local Governments (DLGs) of
Adjumani, Arua, Madi-Okollo, Moyo, Obongi, Terego and Arua city.
The RISE program has two specific objectives: 1) Strengthen local authorities’
coordination and development planning, as well as local authority-led service delivery
to refugees and the host populations and; 2) Increase economic self-reliance of
refugees and host populations. The RISE program targets 50% host communities and
50% refugees as beneficiaries.
The German Government has commissioned the Water Supply and Sanitation Program
18
for Refugees and Host Communities in Northern Uganda through the Special Initiative
of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ):
Tackling the root causes of displacement, reintegrating refugees. The programme is
jointly implemented with the Ministry of Water and Environment (MWE) during a period
of three years.
Within the refugee settlements in Northern Uganda, universal access to basic drinking
water supply cannot yet be ensured. Despite the pledges of aid organizations for
new wells and boreholes, a significant part of the drinking water in refugee
settlements is still provided by water tankers. Hygiene conditions are poor and only
some of the households have their toilets and hand washing facilities. Many people
use communal latrines and open defecation is common. Because of the refugee
influx, the demand for drinking water and sanitation has also increased in host
communities. Operation and maintenance of existing hand pumps and newly installed
solar- powered wells with stand posts is currently still inadequate. Therefore, measures
to sustain water supply and sanitation services in line with national and international
refugee strategies cannot be achieved yet.
1.2 Landuse and Landcover in Uganda

Land use and land cover change (LULCC) can result from both intentional and non-
intentional human activities or as a result of natural causes. However, human forces
are now known to be altering the natural global landscape at unprecedented
magnitudes and at different spatial-temporal scales (Turner et al., 2009). LULCC also
induced changes in ecosystem goods and services which are vital for livelihoods
(Maitima et al., 2009). In the twenty-first century, LULCC is a topic of global concern
because it affects sustainable development and human wellbeing (Turner et al.,
2009). In many developing countries, land degradation as a result of undesired
LULCC has led to reduction in food production, and threatened livelihoods (Maitima et
al., 2009).
Many studies on LULCC change have been conducted in Uganda at different spatial
and temporal scales for different reasons. For example, Anaba et al. (2017) focused
on the impacts of LULCC on water quality in the Murchison Bay of Lake Victoria.
Wadembere and Kobugabe (2017) investigated urbanization and its effects in western
Uganda. In northern Uganda Gorsevski et al. (2012) assessed the effect of armed
19
conflict on forest ecosystem while Nyeko (2010) looked at land use change and water
resources management in Aswa basin of northern Uganda. In eastern Uganda, Frank
Mugagga et al. (2015) were interested in land use change, carbon stocks, and climate
variability in Mt. Elgon region while F Mugagga et al. (2012) investigated LULCC and
implications to landslides occurrences in Mt. Elgon, eastern Uganda. On the other
hand Li et al. (2016), Zhou et al. (2017), Jagger and Kittner (2017), and Mwanjalolo et
al. (2018) LULCC on a national scale. What emerges from the literature is that LULCC
is complex and driven by both natural and anthropogenic factors that interact in space
and time.
Uganda is geared to attain a middle-income economy by 2040 in the background of a

young and rapidly growing population (growth rate of above 3.03% per annum). The
total population was 34 million in 2014 and is projected to reach 80 million by 2040
(UBOS, 2014). But environmental resources such as forest, wetlands, water,
grassland to mention but a few, provided direct sources of livelihoods to over 80% of
the population (UBOS, 2014). Population pressure and other socioeconomic and
natural drivers are leading to unprecedented LULCC changes at different spatial and
temporal scales in Uganda (UBOS, 2014). It is also important to note that Uganda is
so diverse in terms of the landscapes, sociocultural, and economic settings which
compound LULCC. Given the above background, government agencies and policy
makers may need to invest in redesigning current land use policies and/or develop
new approaches so that the policies meet specific local contexts with specific drivers,
causes and impacts. To provide a basis to rethink the old and current approach to
land resources management, this study systematically reviewed 42 LULCC studies
conducted in Uganda from 1998 to 2018. The aim was to document and synthesis the
findings to shed more light on the impacts and the drivers of LULCC at regional and
local scales. Such information is needed to provide decision support to stakeholders
at different levels regarding land use planning and management.
1.3 Land use and land cover change statistics in Uganda

Agriculture and built up areas/settlements have increased while forest and woodland
have decreased over the period (1998–2018). This trend is also supported by data
from UBOS (2019) see (Table 3). The table indicates that built up areas increased
from about 365 km2 in 2005 to 670 km2 in 2010 and to 1360 km2 in 2015. Agriculture
20
meanwhile increased from 84,695 km2 in 1990 to 95,211 km2 in 2000 then to
100,000 km2 in 2005–2010, and finally to 105,317 km2 in 2015; Forest decreased in
area from 49,334 km2 in 1990 to 36,655 km2 in 2005, and finally to 19,535 km2 in
2015; Wetland change however, has been case specific with local studies reporting a
mixed of increasing and decreasing trend as later discussed. However, on a national
scale, wetland area appears generally stable.
According to the Ministry of Water and Environment (MW&E), 2015 Uganda lost on
average
122,000 ha/year of forest between 1990 and 2015, in favor of agricultural area
expansion. Similarly the Ministry of Water and Environment (MW&E) (2016), indicated
that national area of wetlands declined by 30% between 1994 and 2008, and slightly
increased by 0.03% between 2008 and 2014.
The numbers of urban centers increased from 67 in 1991 to 259 in 2014, while urban
population increased from 0.6 million people in 1969 to 6.4 million people in 2014
(UBOS, 2014). The implication is that the interaction of population growth and other
drivers of LULC change is favoring agriculture and built-up/urban areas expansion at
the expense of forest, woodlands, wetlands, as later discussed in Section.
On local scales, Barasa et al. (2011) reported increase in agriculture and decrease in
forest between 1975 and 1999 in western Uganda. Similar trend was also reported in
the same region by Majaliwa et al. (2010) between 1973 and 2009. In eastern
Uganda, Frank Mugagga et al. (2015) reported increased agriculture at the expense
of forest between 1960 and 2006. Increase in agriculture and urban areas expansion
was also reported between 1987 and 2005 by Mbazira (2014), and between 2007–
2013 by Akello et al. (2016) in eastern Uganda. In central Uganda, a similar trend
was reported between 1995 and 2003 by Anaba et al. (2017), while in northern
Uganda Nyeko (2010) reported a decrease in agriculture over the period 1986–2001.
The reported trends also confirm what is observed at national level, except for the
Acholi subregion (northern Uganda).
Note that the trends of forest cover and agriculture in northern Uganda are different
from the national trend and those in other regions. First, only 9.5% of the reviewed
21
LULCC studies were from northern Uganda. Fewer studies meant less representation
of the actual situation on the ground. Northern Uganda also experienced armed
conflict from 1986 to mid-2000s. During the period of the armed conflict, people were
restricted to live in Internally Displaced Person’s camp (IDP’s). The people had little or
no access to their land, and could therefore not exploit the resources therein. With
return of peace in northern Uganda, IDP’s life ended in the late 2008. There are now
good roads linking all parts of the region to the grater markets within Uganda, and with
South Sudan and DR. Congo. There has also been rapid expansion of commercial
farming (by the so-called ‘investors’) in the northern District of Nwoya and Amuru in
the last ten years. The dynamics and the trajectory of LULCC in northern Uganda
have thus changed. It is not surprising that the study of Gorsevski et al. (2012) found
high rate of deforestation in northern Uganda coinciding with the time after life at the
IDPs camps.
Table 1: National land cover statistics (1990–2015) (Source: NFA)
1.4 Major drivers of land use and land cover change

Only 38% of the studies analyzed the drivers of LULCC. However, even articles that
did not analyze LULCC drivers have alluded to some or all the drivers in (Figure 1) as
responsible for observed change. Figure 1 also indicates that population and
agricultural area expansion are the most reported major drivers of LULCC in Uganda.
For example, Anaba et al. (2017) and Wandera, (2014) in central, Wadembere and
22
Kobugabe (2017) and Hartter and Southworth (2009) in western, and Gorsevski et al.
(2012) in northern Uganda all emphasized population as the main driver of LULCC.
However, Nakalembe et al. (2017) found that it was lack of policy implementation but
not population driving LULCC in northern Uganda. On the other hand, Nyeko (2010)
reported insecurity as the major driver of LULCC in northern Uganda and not
population or policy implementation. In eastern Uganda, Place and Otsuka (2000)
discussed unemployment to be the key driver of LULCC, whereas according to Frank
Mugagga et al. (2015), it was population and lack of cultivatable land driving LULCC
in eastern region. On a national scale, however, increased demand for forest
products, lack of policy implementation, and agricultural area expansion have been
reported as major drivers of LULCC in addition to population Li et al. (2016), Zhang et
al. (2017), and Jagger and Kittner (2017).
Figure 1: Major drivers of land use and land cover change

23
(Source: NFA).
1.5 Impacts of land use and land cover change

LULCC is having a wide range of impacts on the environment and the people of
Uganda at different spatial and temporal scales. For example, Barasa et al. (2011)
reported that decrease in forest, wetland, and woodland as a result of increased
agriculture between 1975 and 1999 resulted in reduced tree species diversity in
western Uganda. In the Mt. Elgon area in eastern Uganda, Frank Mugagga et al.
(2015) noted that increased farmland at the expense of forest has led to land with high
carbon stocks and reduced the potential of Mt. Elgon areas as a carbon sink.
Similarly, Akello et al. (2016) reported that between 2007 and 2013 deforestation,
wetland encroachment, poor attitudes, population pressure, and political interference
led to poor water quality and lack of formal jobs in Ngora district in eastern Uganda.
On the other hand, Egeru and Majaliwa (2010) reported decline in forage quality,
reduced grazing area, and increased floods and drought in Teso in eastern Uganda
between 1973 and 2001. In the Machismo bay, central Uganda, Anaba et al. (2017)
reported increased flooding, water quality decline, and reduced crop yield between
1995 and 2003. Between 1973 and 2009, Majaliwa et al. (2010) reported changes in
soil properties as a result of increased agriculture, increased demand for fuelwood,
and population pressure in western Uganda. In other parts of Uganda, LULCC was
reported to have had negative effects on total fuel consumed (Jagger & Shively,
2014), as well as reduced slope stability affected by hydrological conditions triggering
debris flows (F Mugagga et al., 2012), threatened conservation and chimpanzees
(Mwavu & Witkowski, 2008). LULCC also increased water quality degradation and
increased water treatment cost (Anaba et al., 2017), led to increased waterborne
diseases and reduced ecosystem benefits (Jagger & Kittner, 2017).
1.3 Objectives of the assignment

The main objective of this assignment was to analyse the past and current Landcover
change of the six District of Adjumani, Arua, Madi-Okollo, Moyo, Obongi, Terego,
Yumbe and Arua City while also producing the necessary recommendations for
suitable interventions. It is believed that the assessment will help to guide future
strategic spatial planning of DLGs. The specific objectives of the assignment were:
i. Undertake Landcover and Land Use (LCLU) change mapping for the past 10
24
years (i.e. 2010; 2015; 2020) in the District of Adjumani, Arua, Madi-Okollo,
Moyo, Obongi, Terego, Yumbe and Arua City;
ii. Produce the Land Suitability Analyses (LSA) to derive potential suitability for
different Land Utilization Types (LUTs).
1.4 Scope of the study

The assignment covered the seven (7) District (Map 1) of Adjumani, Arua, Madi-Okollo,
Moyo, Obongi, Terego, Yumbe and Arua City where both programmes are
implemented. The consultant carried out the landcover and land use (LCLU) mapping
using a method that combines both expert knowledge and supervised classification.
The assignment involved the examination of the landcover and landuse change in
different ecosystems for three epochs 2010, 2015 and 2020 from the District of
Adjumani, Arua, Madi-Okollo, Moyo, Obongi, Terego, Yumbe and Arua City, while
paying attention to particular phenomena, such as climate change, soil moisture content
change, soil fertility and groundwater change; analyse landcover and use change in
different geographical locations, such as woodlots, tree plantations, farmlands, grazing
lands, wetlands, hills, slopes and mountains; study the landcover and use change as
resulting from different practices (e.g. bush fires or burnings, forest harvesting);
scrutinise the landcover and use changes resulting from settlements (e.g. locals,
refugees); examine the landcover and use changes resulting from infrastructure
development (e.g. roads, facilities, schools, towns, markets, health centres); conduct
GIS-based Land Suitability Analyses using the ArcGIS software. The consultant used
remote sensing software Erdas Imagine for image processing to derive landcover and
landuse maps.
The consultant used the major determinants of land use such as demographic
indicators (population size and density; technology; level of affluence; political
structures); economic factors (systems of exchange or ownership; slope; altitude, and
attitudes and values). The consultant modelled inputs that included physical, and
economic factors and considered the interaction between different actors (e.g. public
sector, academia, research institutes and think tanks; environmental NGOs and CSOs,
host and refugee communities) and their influences on the environmental context.
25
The study final report provides a set of useful possible recommendations that will help
the DLGs to make informed policy decisions to counteract environmental degradation
throughout the selected refugee-hosting District. Furthermore, the consultant produced
data that will contribute to fill certain data gaps identified by the National Environment
Management Authority (NEMA) as limiting the capacity of local administrators. The
overall analysis, comprising both the landcover/use change study and the LSAs, will
help both programmes, the DLGs and other programme stakeholders to understand
how the factors causing landcover/use change could interface with the planned/desired
District development.
The study produced Landcover and Land Use (LCLU) change mapping for the past 10
years in three epochs of 2010, 2015 and 2020 in the District of Adjumani, Arua, Madi-
Okollo, Moyo, Obongi, Terego, Yumbe and Arua City; and produced Land Suitability
Analyses (LSA) to derive potential suitability for different Land Utilization Types
(LUTs).
Figure 2: Map showing the study area

26
2.0 Approach and Methodology

High resolution Remote Sensing (RS) data from the years 2010, 2015 and 2020 for
District of Adjumani, Arua, Madi-Okollo, Moyo, Obongi, Terego, Yumbe and Arua City
was used to carryout landcover mapping. The acquisition of these images was
paramount to undertake the Landcover Change Study as well the LSA. High quality
climate data from Uganda National Meteorological Authority was used and obtained
latest secondary data from reputable and verifiable National Ministries and Public
Institutions, such as OPM, MWE, NEMA, UBOS and Makerere University. Up to date
secondary climatic, administrative shapefiles, forests, protected areas, wetlands,
roads, rivers, soil and DEM data was procured.
2.1 Landcover and Land Use (LCLU) change mapping for the past 10 years
2.1.1 Collection of Ancillary Data
Collection of ancillary data is important as a baseline for the project and was
collected through national teams as reference material. This activity involved
gathering information from previous reports, publications and studies within the
scope of the project, historical reference locations, existing land use land cover
maps, high spatial resolution imagery and other satellite imagery data. The sole
purpose of this activity was to have sufficient spatial and related attribute information
on land use land cover mapping and from relevant key stakeholders involved in the
project.
On identifying and collecting existing ancillary data, stakeholder involvement was key
in assessing and verification of the consistency and accuracy of the data collected.
This also required reworking of the existing methodology and documenting of
metadata from existing land use land cover maps. The specific tasks undertaken
during this activity therefore included gathering existing and or historical land use
maps and previously collected ground reference data, iidentifying through
consultative forums the land use land cover classification scheme to be used within
the country, re-working and documenting the metadata of the existing land use land
27
cover and related vegetation products and eensuring that enough relevant ancillary
data is made available for classification of satellite imagery to the required
classes/categories.
2.1.2 Quality checking of the Ancillary data

Ancillary datasets collected from the various sources were checked for accuracy,
consistency and completeness based on various quality standards. This was an
important procedure to determine fitness-for-use of particular datasets collected from
the various institutions related to the project, and was mostly facilitated through
studying the metadata of a particular dataset. Quality control and quality assurance
are a crucial component and are required continuously throughout the project period
as it helps ensure data integrity before products are generated and used.
Quality checking and assessment of such datasets involved checking for consistency
and completeness based on elements such as data Completeness that assesses the
presence or absence of data at the various levels of coverage to determine if at these
levels, the datasets are sufficient to adequately represent various spatial
phenomena, lineage which assesses the historical significance of the dataset in
terms of the original source that it was derived from and the various transformational
changes it has undergone to its present format, positional accuracy which assesses
the nominal accuracy of the dataset based on their true locations on the ground to
determine the tolerance of a dataset, attribute accuracy that provided deviation of the
descriptive information associated with a spatial dataset and their conformity to the
true representation and topological consistency that addressed the fidelity of data
structure relationships thus linking the datasets to the model structures used. The
specific tasks under this activity included receiving ancillary data, performing initial
quality checks and assessment and requesting for clarification from all relevant
stakeholders, verification, re-working and validation of the ancillary data, subjecting
the data to independent quality assessments and identified data gaps with relation to
classification of the required land cover categories.
2.1.3 Acquisition of the Imagery and pre-processing

The images were acquired covering 7 District for the epochs 2010, 2015 and 2020 at
10m spatial resolution with all the required bands and with a minimum cloud cover.
The imagery scenes were purchased from the USGS and Quick Bird imagery
28
providers and pre-processed them using remote sensing applications such as

ERDAS Imagine and ArcGIS. Data pre-processing involved image orthorectification
using ground control points and Digital Elevation Models represented using local
coordinate systems. Image equalization and normalization was also performed for
quality and uniformity of the images before they are calibrated and mosaicked for
classification.
Quality checks are important for remote sensing imagery as it forms a critical
component for achieving high quality results for the outputs intended. These quality
checks were based on the geometric and radiometric aspect of the images using
both visual means and statistical methods to achieve stipulated Root Means Square
Error (RMSE) of 0.5m or better from orthorectification.
For image pre-processing, consideration was made to the various image parameters
such as dates of acquisition, cloud cover and the type of sensor involved. This
consideration is important in ensuring consistency in producing image mosaics and
therefore consistency in the representation of land use and land cover characteristics
of a particular area. For understanding of the various land covers in West Nile
District, considerations were made to perform an initial unsupervised land image
classification on the extracted image mosaics to get an initial picture of the
representation of the various land use land cover characteristics.
The specific tasks within this activity therefore included carrying out image statistics
to determine the suitability of maximum likelihood classification or Support Vector
machine classifiers/ algorithms, acquisition of Landsat satellite imagery datasets for
West Nile District for the epochs 2010, 2015 and 2020, image pre-processing where
the satellite imagery data were orthorectified to match with existing data using ground
control points and DEMs ,and thereafter based on the quality of the images,
calibration, mosaicking and clipping was done to prepare them for classification,
geometric and radiometric image corrections were applied to the 3 epochs including
atmospheric corrections (TOA), initial parameters were established to ensure that the
imagery collected and pre-processed met the needs of the project. Such parameters
included image acquisition dates, amount of cloud cover, and the type of sensors for
each of the imagery scenes selected, carried out image enhancement to improve on
visual interpretation, carried out preliminary unsupervised image classification on the
29
3 epochs to provide for initial understanding of the various land use land cover types
in West Nile District. The following imagery 2010, 2015 and 2020 were purchased
and processed;
Figure 3: West Nile Satellite Imagery for 2010 used for classification
30
2.1.4 Image Classification

To achieve adequate land use land cover classification, a proper classification
scheme consistent with the existing classification schemes and definitions in West
Nile District was selected in order to properly represent the land use land cover
characteristics. Selecting the appropriate levels of detail for image classification was
important as an over-abundance of land cover categories can lead to considerable
confusion among cover types, whilst an under-representation may sometimes not
meet the user demands.
This therefore called for a detailed study of the existing classification schemes to
guide in choice of an appropriate structure to represent the land cover characteristics
of West Nile District with guidance from policy documents, the objectives of the
mapping exercise, specific stakeholder interests, area definition and set standards
through consultative forums.
Reference was also made to the IPCC guidelines used in developing globally used
standards that also meet country specific classification scheme standards. IPCC land
use land cover categories for schema 1 level of classification contains the following
classes: Forest land (Dense Forest, Moderate Forest, Sparse Forest, Planted
31
Forest), Woodland (Closed and Open woodland); Grassland (Open Grassland,

Closed Grassland), Bushland (Open Bushland, Closed Bushland); Cropland
(Perennial Cropland, Annual Cropland); Wetland (Wetland, Water Body); Settlement;
Other Land (Bare Soil, Rocks).
These classes were subjected to consultation and verification through stakeholder

discussions. The following thirteen classes were settled on for Schema II:
 Forestland
 Open Bushland
 Closed Bushland
 Grassland
 Open Woodland
 Closed Woodland
 Riverine Vegetation
 Bare Area
 Urban Area
 Cropland Plantation
 Cropland Small Scale
 Waterbody
 Wetland
For schema 2, the thirteen classes were narrowed down to eleven with the merging
of open and closed woodland to woodland and open and closed bushland to a single
bushland class.
Before classification, image processing steps of image selection for identification of

cloud free images; layer stacking of image bands to obtain scene composites; band
combination analysis and image enhancements and corrections were performed. The
figure below provides a summary of all the steps carried out from image acquisition
to the final classification product.
32
Figure 6: Flow chart showing the steps taken for final products
The initial stage of image processing involved extraction of the individual bands
followed by layer staking where the various bands of the multispectral Landsat image
were composited into a single multi-band image. This ensures that the various bands
of a multispectral image are utilized in determining the land use land cover
characteristics of a given area. Considerations were made to the thermal band and
the panchromatic band to ensure consistency in the spatial resolutions of the images
since they differ in spatial resolution from the rest of the bands.
Statistical computation using Eigen values, Eigen vectors and mean spectral values
are useful in assessing the spectral quality of the imagery. Generating such statistical
information from satellite imagery was useful in determining variability and correlation
33
between bands of the multispectral image that is significant in indicating the ability to
discriminate various classes during classification.
Image mosaics were created from the composites as products of layer stacking to
represent wall-to-wall coverage of West Nile District. Subsets representing west Nile
District extracted using the AOI file depicting the country boundary were produced for
the 3 epochs of the dataset.
Supervised classification (object oriented) was done in Arc GIS to produce output
files in vector format. On screen digitization was employed to conduct the
classification. Visual interpretation was essential in determining the classes. This
process involved extraction of information from the satellite images as polygons
which were then coded by assigning them to the correct class.
Thorough knowledge of the different land cover classes is important. The most
current year which is 2020 was the first to be classified. Quality checks were
performed on the first draft 2020 classification using high resolution imagery that was
accessed through the Google Earth platform before the ground truthing exercise. The
first draft 2020 was verified using field validation points. Necessary corrections were
done and the final draft produced followed by the generation of the accuracy report.
The 2020 Land Cover served as the base file for classifying the years 2010 and
2015. The 2020 file was saved as the 2010 and 2015 to avoid confusion or
replacement of the file. The 2010 and 2015 images were then overlaid. The changes
are easily noticed. Editing of the 2020 file based on the 2010 and 2015 images
produced the Land Use Land Cover files for the years 2010, 2015 and 2020.
Change analysis was conducted to generate change maps that show the exact areas
where changes occurred and the transition among classes. The land use and land
cover statistics were generated in ArcGIS and tables created in Excel. The
development of land cover land use maps were done at the scale of 1:50,000 for the
District maps.
2.1.5 Using ground reference data to carry out accuracy assessments

This activity involved collection of ground reference points in order to train the
computer to recognize the various land cover categories in the imagery and to
34
assess the categorical accuracy of the resulting classification. The collected

reference data for accuracy assessment for 2020 imagery was also used to establish
random ground control points for follow up monitoring.
Reference information and training data for classifying imagery for earlier dates i.e.
1990-2010 was developed from review and study of existing land use land cover and
vegetation data, reports and publications and through use of Google Earth platform
for the high resolution times-series imagery. Change detection was also used to
distinguish irregular changes and for identification of erroneous classes. Ground
reference data is collected from the field on randomly generated points at selected
zones for image classification accuracy assessment. A number of criteria were
considered when evaluating the suitability of any ground reference data set for land
cover classification such as: Sufficiency of reference samples to achieve required
confidence levels; a random method has to be considered and should be systematic
and representative of the area of study; and the reference data must be of around the
same time as the satellite image.
A plan for selecting locations for collecting ground control points for data verification
using stratified random sampling involved identifying a sample of each land cover
class proportionate to the population size of the class when viewed against the entire
population. Then the number of points per land use category was identified and used
to generate the number of such points within a sampling frame. The stratified random
sampling technique was then be applied to randomly distribute points across the
sampling frame and across each land cover category in relation to their area
coverage in the sampling zone.
Accuracy assessment to analyze and modify the result of the classification was
conducted for the 2020 land cover classification with a recorded accuracy of 85%.
The accuracy assessment of the land use land cover maps was produced using a
confusion matrix to compare the reference points generated from the land cover
classification to the sample points collected from ground reference locations. A report
of accuracy analysis with the methods used and source of reference points being
indicated.
Ground referencing activity was done in all the 7 District including Arua District.
Ground reference data (a total of 1,400 points) were collected from the field on
randomly generated points at selected zones using field verification form (Annex I).
35
The probability sampling design was the preferred approach. It combines random or
stratified sampling to get points to validate the land cover predefined in the first draft
classification and perform accuracy assessment of the same. In view of this, the data
collection method was systematic, and representative of the entire area that had
been classified. The randomness of

selection was to avoid selection bias of the land cover.
Figure 7: Technical Team carrying out landcover ground truthing
2.1.6 Overall Accuracy Assessment Procedure for 7 West Nile District

The acceptable threshold for overall accuracy according to USGS classification is
75%.
Ground Referencing points were split in two ways. Some of the points were used in
refining the classification and the remaining points were used for accuracy
assessment. Of the 1,400 points collected, 700 points were used in improving the
classification by correcting the wrongly classified regions while 105 points were used
in checking the accuracy of the classification. Accuracy assessment is critical for a
map generated from any remote sensing data. Error matrix is the most common way
to present the accuracy of the classification results. Overall accuracy, user’s and
producer’s accuracies, and the Kappa statistic were derived from the error
36
matrices. The Kappa statistic incorporates the off diagonal elements of the
error matrices and represents agreement obtained after removing the proportion of
agreement that could be expected to occur by chance.
Kappa (Kˆ) = observed accuracy – chance agreement
1- Chance agreement
Table 2: Compliance matrix between interpreter and validation based results
FIELD DATA
Bar Croplan Cropl Gra W
2015_LULC Closed Closed Fore Open Open Riverine Urba Wat
e d and ss et TO PA
CLASSIFICA Bushla Woodla st Bushl Woodl Vegetati n er
Are Plantati Small lan lan TAL %
TION nd nd land and and on Area body
a on Scale d d
66.6
Bare Area 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 7
Closed 75.0
0 9 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
Bushland 12 0
Closed 83.3
0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Woodland 6 3
Cropland 94.1
0 0 0 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Plantation 17 2
Cropland 100.
0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Small Scale 10 00
75.0
Forestland 0 0 1 0 0 9 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
12 0
94.7
Grassland 0 0 0 0 1 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0
19 4
Open 87.5
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 0 0 0
Bushland 8 0
Open 70.0
0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 0
Woodland 10 0
Riverine 100.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Vegetation 1 00
80.0
Urban Area 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0
5 0
100.
Waterbody 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
1 00
100.
Wetland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
1 00
TOTAL 2 10 8 16 13 9 20 10 10 1 4 1 1
10
CA%
100 90 62.50 100 76 100 90 70 70 100 100 100 0
Overall Accuracy (%) = (2+9+5+16+10+9+18+7+7+1+4+1+1)/105 * 100 = 90/105 * 100 = 85.71%
Kappa=105(90) – ((3*2)+(12*10)+(6*8)+(17*16)+(10*13)+(12*9)+(19*20)+(8*10)+(10*10)+(1*1)+(5*4)+(1*1)+(1*1))
(105)2 – ((3*2)+(12*10)+(6*8)+(17*16)+(10*13)+(12*9)+(19*20)+(8*10)+(10*10)+(1*1)+(5*4)+(1*1)+(1*1))
Kappa = 0.8386 (indicating a high agreement) Kapp
The overall accuracy of classification imagery dated 2020 was 85.71% and the
Kappa coefficient was 83.86%. for the whole of west Nile Region. The individual
district accurancy assessment are:
i. Adjumani District: The overall accuracy of classification Adjumani district

imagery dated 2020 was 80.41% and the Kappa coefficient was 77.06%.
ii. Arua District: The overall accuracy of classification Arus district magery
dated 2020 was 89.87% and the Kappa coefficient was 86.12%.
37
iii. Arua city: The overall accuracy of classification Arua City imagery dated
2020 was 80.14% and the Kappa coefficient was 76.67%.
iv. Madi-okollo District: The overall accuracy of classification Madi-Okollo
v. Obongi District: The overall accuracy of classification obongi district
vi. Yumbe District: The overall accuracy of classification Yumbe imagery dated
vii. Moyo District: The overall accuracy of classification Moyo imagery dated
viii. Terego District: The overall accuracy of classification Terego imagery dated
2.1.7 Preparation of final land cover and vegetation maps

This activity ensured that well designed land use land cover maps for each of the 4
epoch, as well as the change maps well represented at suitable scales depended on
the spatial extents of West Nile District. Consideration was made to the various map
elements discussed and agreed upon between the consultant and related
stakeholders to ensure proper representation of map features.
Preparation of the final land cover maps for the 3 epochs resulting from the land use
land cover classification were presented in user appropriate formats and to the
required cartographic standards in both hard and soft copy formats. A proper legend
was developed.
2.1.8 Land covers change detection and assessment

This activity involved carrying out change detection analysis on the land use land
cover thematic data generated from classification in the previous stages. Three
change pairs: 2010-2020, 2010-2015 and 2015-2020 were generated. Vector based
approach gives out the best change files showing the exact areas of change,
transition among classes, positive and negative changes (losses and gains) and
areas. The generated change files were used to create land cover change maps
between the 3 epochs of study representing the various changes in vegetation types
and land use land cover. The Landuse and Landcover change in were experience in
three forms: Regeneration, Degradation and Deforestation. Regeneration was
considered as natural process of restoring degraded landcover or deforested areas.
38
Degraded areas were easily identified with changes such as transition from
wetland/woodland/bushland to grassland/bare area/agricultural land. Degradation
occurs when land lose the capacity to provide important goods and services to
nature. Deforestation was considered as any change from forestland to any other
landcover class.
Changes detection results were represented in form of statistics tables and graphs.
Maps were used to represent areas of potential deforestation, degradation and
regeneration from various spatial analysis techniques that would reveal vulnerable
areas within the ecosystem of West Nile District and the potential drivers of such
changes. The maps were prepared in a uniform coordinate system (projected
coordinate system WGS 84 36S).
2.1.9 Derivation of Statistics

It is always important to derive statistics from the classification files created in a
study. This goes a long way in helping the researcher and the other stakeholders in
conducting environmental assessment. The transition among the classes as gains
and losses are determined through the use of statistics. Statistics for the land cover,
land cover change; vegetation type and vegetation type files for the three epochs
were extracted and displayed in the form of tables and graphs. Area was presented
in hectares with the minimum mappable unit set at 0.5 hectares. This involved
extraction of statistics from the land cover, land cover change files and importing the
statistics into Excel and generation of tables and graphs.
2.2 GIS-based Land Suitability Analysis

GIS-based Land Suitability Analysis was conducted, whereby land suitability was
determined through a systematic and multi-criteria analysis. Climatic, ecological,
economic factors, as well as their ability to recover if impacted, and how they could
interface with the planned/desired development were assembled to rank the land
elements within the landscape. The ranking was agreed and decided in a participatory
and inclusive approach. The ranks were used to prepare the different layers used in
the multi-criteria analysis used to determine suitability of site for a specific development
or intervention.
The consultant worked together with the technical experts provided by both
programme team and DLG to define the objective of the suitability assessment per
39
district. The objective of the suitability assessment differed per District, as each district
has different strategic objectives in terms of local economic as well as infrastructure
development. The decision criteria suitable for each of the identified objectives in each
of the district were selected. The consultant related the land attributes to the suitability
for a particular objective. For final criteria selection, the consultant was guided by the
reviewed literature, stakeholder consultation meetings with relevant actors and
acquired the most District.
For each of the decision criterion, a suitability map was generated by transforming the
GIS map layer containing the relevant land elements into suitability scores. The
criterion and sub- criterion suitability maps were then weighted and combined to
generate final suitability maps of each one of the District of Adjumani, Arua, Madi-
Okollo, Moyo, Obongi and Yumbe.
2.2.1 Multi-criteria evaluation (MCE) for decision-making support

The multi-criteria evaluation for decision-making support was suitable for this kind of
decision analysis for land use issues because of its treatment of multiple objectives,
and its capability to handle many different types of criteria. MCE is useful in reflecting
the preferences of decision makers and in allowing sensitive analysis, which enables
decision makers to rest the validity of the weighs used and the ranking of the
alternatives. Quantitative GIS based land suitability analysis was used in this
assignment. The first one was formation of effectiveness matrix consisting of
standardized scores and second was formation of weight vector consisting of priority
weighs corresponding to the criteria. The scenario weighting for the MCE was done in the
stakeholder meetings per District organized by GIZ.
The following steps were followed to develop GIS-based Land Suitability Analysis;
i. Identified factors having a significant effect on land suitability for suitable
developments or interventions and based on principles of sustainable
development and the evaluation of criteria suitability.
ii. Applied analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method for the assessment of the
relative importance (weights) of the criteria and sub-criteria.
iii. Applied simple additive weighting (SAW) method for estimation of the land
suitability index (LSI).
40
iv. Evaluated land suitability according to environmental and socio-economic

criteria.
v. Reclassified LSI into land suitability classes and their representation on land
suitability maps.
vi. Selected and evaluated of alternative sites.
vii. Developed and used land suitability approach in this study as demonstrated in
the workflow scheme below.
Only those quantitative factors that are directly and indirectly related to the
considered land suitability for development activity were selected and during the
factor identification process. ArcGIS and Erdas Imagine software were used for data
conversion and analysis. The final district suitability maps produced were grouped
into highly suitable, moderately suitable, and not suitable areas for developments or
interventions.
2.2.2 GIS-based Land Suitability Analysis workflow

The GIS-based Land Suitability Analysis was carried out to generate land suitability
maps for suitable developments or interventions following the below workflow (Fig.8).
41
Figure 8: Workflow of the land suitability analysis
2.2.3 GIS-based Land Suitability Analysis factors/parameters

The following factors/parameters were used in development of the Land suitability
analysis;
(i) Slope- The slope map clearly indicated areas with gentle slope of less than
3°.
(ii) Altitude (DEM) indicated areas at high or low elevation levels.
(i) Landuse/cover- Land use/Land cover map were prepared by using satellite
image.
(ii) Climatic factors (Rainfall and Temperature)
(iii) Ecological factors
(iv) Socio-economic factors
The stakeholders and project expert teams agreed on factors that to be used and
42
decided in a participatory and inclusive approach. These factors were used to

determine suitability of site for a specific development or intervention. The parameters
were given weightage as per the Analytic Hierarchy Process method by creating a
separate field in each layer in Arc GIS software. Each class associated with each layer
was given a rank and stored as separate field in geo-database. The product of
weightage and rank were computed and stored in another field. These vector layers
were then integrated in ArcGIS environment.
Decisions were made in an organized way to generate priorities for comparisons and
scale of numbers were needed to indicates how many times more important or
dominant one element is over another element with respect to the criterion or
property they were compared. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a theory of
measurement through pair wise comparison. The comparisons were made using a
scale of absolute judgements that represents how much more; one element
dominates another with respect to a given attribute. The derived priority scales were
synthesized by multiplying them by the priority of their parent nodes and adding for
all such nodes. In this study, for the determination of suitability analysis, preference
was given to physical, ecological, climatic and socio-economic parameters by using
correlation analysis module. Once the database of all GIS layers was created, the
consultant will extract the GIS attribute data and writing to ASCII files.
2.2.4 GIS-based Land Suitability maps development
The multi-criteria evaluation was carried out through the following tasks;
(i) converted the data to the BEST CHOICE format;
(ii) performed a multi-criteria evaluation of the alternatives; and
(iii) performed a sensitivity analysis to examine the robustness of the results
of evaluation ranking,
Integrated analysis for land suitability was done where weightage was given physical
parameters, by comparing each parameter with respect to the other parameter. The
weightage were assigned for all the parameters, according Importance matrix for
suitability analysis scale. Finally, all the land suitability map layers were combined in
a GIS environment to prepare the final land suitability model based on weighted
index model. The land use suitability map was grouped into three categories namely
highly suitable, moderately suitable, and not suitable.
43
The suitability results were reviewed in ArcGIS environment through extract, sorting
and writing the ASCII files ranking results. The ASCII files were imported to the existing
Dbase file and joined the ranking in the Dbase file to ArcGIS software coverage
depicting the alternatives and viewing the results.
3.0 Results for Landcover and Land Use (LCLU) Change
3.1 Landcover and Land Use (LCLU) Change Mapping of West Nile District
Landcover and Landcover Change mapping was carried out using satellite data from
the years 2010, 2015 and 2020 for District of Adjumani, Arua, Madi-Okollo, Moyo,
Obongi, Terego, Yumbe and Arua City.
3.1.1 Adjumani District imagery for Adjumani District

Below are Adjumani District imagery for 2010, 2015 and 2020 (Figure 9, 10 and 11
respectively).
44
Figure 9: Adjumani District Imagery for 2010

45
3.1.2 Landcover for Adjumani District

Below is Adjumani District landcover for 2010, 2015 and 2020 (Figure 12, 13 and 14
respectively).
46
Figure 12: Adjumani District Landcover for 2010
In 2010, Adjumani district had 47% forest landcover followed by Bushland and
Annual crops (Table 3).
Table 3: Adjumani District Landcover 2010

Land Cover 2010 Area (ha) % coverage
Annual Cropland 42704 14.2
Bushland 56009 18
Forest 145163 47
Grassland 57352 18
Settlement 944 0.3
Water Body 3071 1.0
Wetland 2566 0.8
Woodland 3516 1.1
47
Figure 13: Adjumani District Landcover for 2015
In 2015, Adjumani district the highest land cover was annual cropland (40%) followed
by grassland (25.7%) and Bushland (20%) (Table 4).

2015 Landcover Area (ha) % Coverage
Woodland 16671 5.4
Wetland 4836 1.6
Water Body 4204 1.4
Settlement 1009 0.3
Grassland 80058 25.7
Forest 17758 5.7
Bushland 62402 20.0
48
Figure 14: Adjumani District Landcover 2020
In 2020, Adjumani district highest land cover was annual cropland (60.9%) followed
by Bushland (20.1%) and woodland (6.6) (Table 5).

Landcover for 2020 Area % Coverage
Bushland 62613 20.1
Forest 15211 4.9
Grassland 3898 1.3
Settlement 3411 1.1
Waterbody 4844 1.6
Wetland 11146 3.6
Woodland 20569 6.6
49
3.1.3 Landcover Change for Adjumani District

The figures 15, 16 and 17 below show Adjumani District landcover change 2010-
2015, 2010-2020 and 2015 -2020 respectively.
Figure 15: Adjumani District Landcover Change 2010-2015
From 2010 to 2015, Adjumani District lost 140,959 hectares of forests followed by
51,173 of bushland (Table 6). The district experienced a lot of deforestation between
2010-2015 in the central part, degradation across the district and very little
regeneration was observed (Figure 15).
Table 6: Adjumani District Landcover change 2010-2015

Landcover Change
2010 Area 2015 Area
Land Cover Area (ha)
(ha) (ha)
2010-2015
Annual Cropland 42704 16671 -26033
Bushland 56009 4836 -51173
Forest 145163 4204 -140959
Grassland 57352 1009 -56343
Settlement 944 80058 79114
Water Body 3071 17758 14687
Wetland 2566 62402 59836
Woodland 3516 124388 120872
50
From 2010 to 2020, Adjumani District lost 129, 952 hectares of forests and 53,454
hectares of grasslands. Other landcover classes gained (Table 7). The district
experienced a lot of deforestation between 2010-2020 in the central and southern
parts, degradation across the district and little regeneration was observed in south
and north (Figure 16).

Landcover Change (ha)
Land Cover 2010 Area (ha) 2020 Area (ha)
2010-2020
Annual Cropland 42704 189614 146910
Bushland 56009 62613 6604
Forest 145163 15211 -129952
Grassland 57352 3898 -53454
Settlement 944 3411 2467
Water Body 3071 4844 1773
Wetland 2566 11146 8580
Woodland 3516 20569 17053
51
From 2015 to 2020, Adjumani District lost 103,819 hectares of woodlands and
51,256 hectares of wetlands. Other landcover classes gained (Table 8). The district
experienced a lot of degradation between 2015-2020 across the district (Figure 17).

2015 Area 2020 Area Landcover Change Area (ha)
Land Cover
(ha) (ha) 2015-2020
Annual
16671 189614
Cropland 172943
Bushland 4836 62613 57777
Forest 4204 15211 11007
Grassland 1009 3898 2889
Settlement 80058 3411 -76647
Water Body 17758 4844 -12914
Wetland 62402 11146 -51256
Woodland 124388 20569 -103819
52
3.2.1 Satellite Imagery for Arua District

Below are Arua District imagery for 2010, 2015 and 2020 (Figure 18, 19 and 20
respectively).
Figure 18: Arua District Imagery 2010

53

54
3.2.2 Landcover for Arua District

Below is Arua District landcover for 2010, 2015 and 2020 (Figure 21, 22 and 23
respectively).
Figure 21: Arua District Landcover 2010
In 2010, Arua district highest land cover was Annual cropland (74.9%) followed by
Bushland (17.1%) and Forest (7%) (Table 9).
Table 9: Arua District Landcover 2010

2010 Landcover Area (Ha) % Coverage
Bushland 13954 17.1
Forest 5732 7.0
Grassland 80 0.1
Wetland 113 0.1
Woodland 338 0.4
Settlement 286 0.4
55
In 2015, Arua district the highest land cover was annual cropland (44.9%) followed by
woodland (24.5%) and Bushland (12.5%) (Table 10).

Bushland 10190 12.5
Forest 6729 8.3
Grassland 7550 9.3
Settlement 350 0.4
Wetland 42 0.1
Woodland 19977 24.5
56
In 2020, Arua district the highest land cover was annual cropland (74.9%) followed by
Forests (16.3%), and Grassland (3.2%) and Woodlands (3.2) (Table 11).

Bushland 1960 2.3
Forest 14186 16.3
Settlement 139 0.2
Grasslands 2760 3.2
Wetlands 36 0.0
Woodlands 2793 3.2
57
3.2.3 Landcover Change for Arua District

The figures 24, 25 and 26 below show Arua District landcover change 2010-2015,
2010-2020 and 2015 -2020 respectively.
Figure 24: Arua District Landcover Change 2010-2015
From 2010 to 2015, Arua District lost 3,764 hectares of Bushland and 71 hectares of
wetlands. There was reduction in annual cropland (Table 12). The district
experienced regeneration with little degradation in north east part (Figure 24).
Table 12: Arua District Landcover change 2010-2015

2010 Area 2015 Area Landcover Change Area
Landcover
(ha) (ha) (ha) 2010-2015
Bushland 13954 10190 -3764
Forest 5732 6729 997
Grassland 80 7550 7470
Wetland 113 42 -71
Woodland 338 19977 19639
58
From 2010 to 2020, Arua District lost 11,994 hectares of Bushland and 77 hectares
of wetlands. There was reduction in settlements (Table 13). The district experienced
regeneration in central and of lot of degradation in East and North East part (Figure
25).
Table 13: Arua District Landcover Change 2015-2020

Landcover
(Ha) (ha) (ha)
Bushland 13954 1960 -11994
Forest 5732 14186 8454
Settlement 286 139 -147
Wetland 113 36 -77
Woodland 338 2793 2455
59
From 2015 to 2020, Arua District lost 8,230 hectares of Bushland and 17,184
hectares of woodlands. There was also a reduction in settlements and wetlands
(Table 14). The district experienced degradation and regeneration across the district
(Figure 26).
Table 14: Adjumani District Landcover Change 2015-2020

Landcover
(Ha) (ha) (ha)
Bushland 10190 1960 -8230
Forest 6729 14186 7457
Grassland 7550 2760 -4790
Wetland 42 36 -6
Woodland 19977 2793 -17184
60
3.3.1 Satellite Imagery for Arua City

Below are Arua City imagery for 2010, 2015 and 2020 (Figure 27, 19 and 20
respectively).
Figure 27: Arua City Imagery 2010

61

62
3.3.2 Landcover for Arua City

Below is Arua City landcover for 2010, 2015 and 2020 (Figure 30, 31 and 32
respectively).
Figure 30: Arua City Landcover 2010
In 2010, Arua City the highest land cover was annual cropland (75.8%) followed by
Forests (15.3%), and Woodland (3.3%) and Bushlands (2.9%) (Table 15).
Table 15: Arua City Landcover 2010

Landcover 2010 Area (Ha) % Coverage
Bushland 1010 2.9
Forest 5325 15.3
Settlement 740 2.1
Woodland 1134 3.3
Grassland 195 0.6
63
In 2015, Arua city the highest land cover was annual cropland (81.3%) followed by
settlements (5.4%), and Bushland (4.7%) and Woodlands (2.9%) (Table 16).

Bushland 1648 4.7
Forest 589 1.7
Grassland 708 2.0
Settlement 1875 5.4
Woodland 1002 2.9
64
In 2020, Arua City the highest land cover was annual cropland (83.3%) followed by
settlements (7.3%), and Forest (6.9%) and Woodlands (2.3%) (Table 17).

Bushland 49 0.1
Forest 2390 6.9
Grassland 673 1.9
Settlement 2536 7.3
Waterbody 4 0.0
Woodland 809 2.3
65
3.3.3 Landcover Change for Arua District

The figures 33, 34 and 35 below show Arua City landcover change 2010-2015, 2010-
2020 and 2015 -2020 respectively.
Figure 33: Arua City Landcover Change 2015-2020
From 2010 to 2015, Arua City lost 4,736 hectares of Forests and 132 hectares of
woodlands (Table 18). The district experienced deforestation in all sub-counties,
degradation in the central part and regeneration in the East (Figure 33).
Table 18: Arua City District Landcover change 2010-2015

2010 Area 2015 Area Change 2010-2015
Landcover
(ha) (ha) Area (ha)
Annual
26305 28226
Cropland 1921
Bushland 1010 1648 638
Forest 5325 589 -4736
Woodland 1134 1002 -132
66
From 2010 to 2020, Arua City lost 2,935 hectares of Forests and 961ha of Bushlands
and 1,130ha of Woodland (Table 19). The district experienced deforestation in all
sub-counties, degradation in the central and east parts (Figure 34)
Table 19: Arua City Landcover change 2010-2020

2010 Area 20120 Area Change 2010-2020
Landcover
(Ha) (ha) Area (ha)
Annual
26305 28909
Cropland 2604
Bushland 1010 49 -961
Forest 5325 2390 -2935
Woodland 1134 4 -1130
67
From 2015 to 2020, Arua City lost 1,599 hectares of Bushland and 998 hectares of
woodlands. There was also a reduction in Grassland (Table 20). The district
experienced degradation in the Eastern parts (Figure 35)
Table 20: Arua City Landcover change 2015-2020

2015 Area 2020Area Change 2010-2020 Area
Landcover
(Ha) (ha) (ha)
Annual
28226 28909
Cropland 683
Bushland 1648 49 -1599
Forest 589 2390 1801
Grassland 708 673 -35
Woodland 1002 4 -998
68
3.4.1 Satellite Imagery for Madi-Okollo District

Below are Madi-Okollo imagery for 2010, 2015 and 2020 (Figure 36, 37 and 38
respectively).
Figure 36: Madi-Okollo District Imagery 2010

69

70

71
3.4.2 Landcover for Madi-Okollo District

Below is Madi-Okollo District landcover for 2010, 2015 and 2020 (Figure 30, 31 and
32 respectively).
Figure 39: Madi-Okollo District Landcover 2010
In 2010, Madi-Okollo highest land cover was annual cropland (46.5%) followed by
Bushland (25.3%), and Wetlands (17.1%) (Table 21).
Table 21: Madi-Okollo Landcover 2010

Landcover 2010 Area (ha) % Coverage
Bushland 50382 25.3
Forest 17675 8.9
Grassland 423 0.2
Settlements 123 0.1
Waterbody 3829 1.9
Wetland 34193 17.1
Woodland 2677 1.3
72
Bushland (37%), and Grasslands (14.5%) (Table 22).

Bushland 73765 37.0
Forest 4042 2.0
Settlement 167 0.1
Waterbody 4341 2.2
Wetland 13922 7.0
Woodland 3460 1.7
73
Wetland (9.7%), and Forests (6.9%) (Table 23).

Bushland 10483 5.3
Forest 13664 6.9
Grassland 987 0.5
Settlement 882 0.4
Waterbody 3208 1.6
Wetland 19425 9.7
Woodland 4597 2.3
74
3.4.3 Landcover Change for Madi-Okollo District

The figures 42, 43 and 45 below show Madi-Okollo landcover change 2010-2015,
2010-2020 and 2015 -2020 respectively.
Figure 42: Madi-Okollo District Landcover Change 2010- 2015
From 2010 to 2015, Madi-Okollo lost 13,633 hectares of Forests and 20,271 hectares
of Wetlands (Table 24). The district experienced deforestation, degradation and
regeneration in all sub-counties (Figure 42).
Table 24: Madi-Okollo District Landcover Change 2010-2015

2010 Area 2015 Area
Landcover Area (ha) Change 2010-2015
(ha) (ha)
Bushland 50382 73765 23383
Forest 17675 4042 -13633
Grassland 423 28812 28389
Settlements 123 167 44
Waterbody 3829 4341 512
Wetland 34193 13922 -20271
Woodland 2677 3460 783
75
From 2010 to 2020, Madi-Okollo lost 39,899 hectares of Bushland, 4,011ha of

Forests and 14,768 hectares of Wetlands (Table 25). The district experienced
deforestation and degradation across all sub-counties, regeneration in the central
sub-counties (Figure 43).

2010 Area 2020 Area Area (ha) Change 2010-
Landcover
(ha) (ha) 2020
Annual
92752 148687
Cropland 55935
Bushland 50382 10483 -39899
Forest 17675 13664 -4011
Waterbody 3829 3208 -621
Wetland 34193 19425 -14768
Woodland 2677 4597 1920
76
From 2015 to 2020, Madi-Okollo lost 63,282 hectares of Bushland and 27,825
hectares of Grasslands (Table 26). The district experienced degradation in all sub-
counties and regeneration in the central and north parts of the district (Figure 44)

Landcover
(ha) (ha) 2020
Annual
73423 148687
Cropland 75264
Bushland 73765 10483 -63282
Forest 4042 13664 9622
Grassland 28812 987 -27825
Waterbody 4341 3208 -1133
Wetland 13922 19425 5503
Woodland 3460 4597 1137
77
3.5.1 Satellite Imagery for Obongi District

Below are Obongi District imagery for 2010, 2015 and 2020 (Figure 45, 46 and 47
respectively).
Figure 45: Obongi District Imagery 2010

78

79

80
3.5.2 Landcover for Obongi District

Below are Obongi District landcover for 2010, 2015 and 2020 (Figure 48, 49 and 50
respectively).
Figure 48: Obongi District Landcover 2010
In 2010, Obongi District highest land cover was Bushland (25.2%) followed by Forest
(21.6%), and Annual cropland (19.6%) (Table 27).
Table 27: Table 25: Obongi District Landcover 2010

Bushland 21336 25.2
Forest 18265 21.6
Settlement 64 0.1
Waterbody 6700 7.9
Wetland 9736 11.5
Woodland 1600 1.9
81
In 2015, Obongi District highest land cover was Bushland (32.7%) followed by
Annual Cropland (29.1%), and Grassland (16.4%) (Table 28).
Table 28: Obongi District Landcover 2015

Bushland 27672 32.7
Forest 3349 4.0
Settlement 106 0.1
Waterbody 6273 7.4
Wetland 7264 8.6
Woodland 1527 1.8
82
In 2020, Obongi District highest land cover was annual cropland (42%) followed by
Bushland (24.2%), and Forests (11.5%) (Table 29).
Table 29: Obongi District Landcover 2020

Bushland 20491 24.2
Forest 9753 11.5
Settlement 2920 3.4
Waterbody 5877 6.9
Wetland 9204 10.9
Woodland 855 1.0
83
3.5.3 Landcover Change for Obongi District

Below are Obongi District landcover Change for 2010- 2015, 2010-2020 and 2015-
2020 (Figure 51, 52 and 53 respectively).
Figure 51: Obongi District Landcover Change 2010- 2015
From 2010 to 2015, Obongi District lost 14,916 hectares of Forest land, 2,472
hectares of Wetland and 73 ha of Woodland (Table 30). The district experienced
deforestation and degradation, degradation and regeneration in all sub-counties,
(Figure 51).
Table 30: Obongi District Landcover Change 2010-2015

2010 Area 2015 Area
Landcover Area Change 2010-2015
(ha) (ha)
Bushland 21336 27672 6336
Forest 18265 3349 -14916
Grassland 10355 13860 3505
Waterbody 6700 6273 -427
Wetland 9736 7264 -2472
84
Woodland 1600 1527 -73
The district experienced deforestation, degradation and regeneration in all sub-

counties, (Figure 52). From 2010 to 2020, Obongi District lost 8,512 hectares of
Forest land, 845 ha of Bushland, 7,435 hectares of Grasslands, 8881ha of Wetlands
and 73ha of Woodlands (Table 31).

2010 Area 2020 Area
(ha) (ha)
Annual
16635 35591
Cropland 18956
Bushland 21336 20491 -845
Forest 18265 9753 -8512
Grassland 10355 2920 -7435
Waterbody 6700 9204 2504
Wetland 9736 855 -8881
85
Woodland 1600 1527 -73
The district experienced degradation and regeneration in all sub-counties, (Figure

53). From 2015 to 2020, Obongi District lost 7,181ha of Bushland, 6409ha of
Wetlands and 10,940ha of Grasslands (Table 32).

2015 Area 2020 Area
(ha) (ha)
Bushland 27672 20491 -7181
Forest 3349 9753 6404
Grassland 13860 2920 -10940
Waterbody 6273 9204 2931
Wetland 7264 855 -6409
86
Woodland 1527 1527 0
3.6.1 Satellite Imagery for Yumbe District

Below are Yumbe District imagery for 2010, 2015 and 2020 (Figure 54, 55 and 56
respectively).
Figure 54: Yumbe District Imagery 2010

87

88

89
3.6.2 Landcover for Yumbe District

Below are Yumbe District landcover Change for 2010- 2015, 2010-2020 and 2015-2020
(Figure 57, 58 and 59 respectively).
Figure 57: Yumbe District Landcover 2010
In 2010, Yumbe District highest land cover was annual cropland (47.3%) followed by
Bushland (43.1%), and Forests (7.5%) (Table 33).
Table 33: Yumbe District Landcover 2010

Bushland 100282 43.1
Forest 17400 7.5
Grassland 1197 0.5
Settlement 464 0.2
Wetland 3219 1.4
Waterbody 57 0.0
Woodland 65 0.0
90
In 2015, Yumbe District highest land cover was Bushland (47.1%) followed by Annual
Cropland (37.3%), and Grassland (10.2%) (Table 34).

Bushland 109629 47.1
Forest 5841 2.5
Settlement 1069 0.5
Waterbody 209 0.1
Wetland 306 0.1
Woodland 5077 2.2
91
In 2020, Yumbe District highest land cover was Annual Cropland (88.9%) followed by
Bushland (4.6%), and Forest (4.1%) (Table 35).

Bushland 10653 4.6
Forest 9474 4.1
Grassland 125 0.1
Settlement 2364 1.0
Waterbody 5 0.0
Wetland 819 0.4
Woodland 2341 1.0
92
3.6.3 Landcover Change for Yumbe District

Below are maps showing Yumbe District landcover Change for 2010- 2015, 2010-
2020 and 2015-2020 (Figure 60, 61 and 62 respectively).
Figure 60: Yumbe District Landcover Change 2010-2015
From 2010 to 2015, Yumbe District lost 11,559 hectares of Forest land, 3,010
hectares of Wetland (Table 36). The district experienced deforestation and
degradation in East and West sub-counties and regeneration in all sub-counties,
(Figure 60).
Table 36: Yumbe District Landcover Change 2010-2015

Landcover
(ha) (ha) 2015
Bushland 100282 109629 9347
Forest 17400 5841 -11559
Grassland 1197 23728 22531
Wetland 3219 209 -3010
Waterbody 57 306 249
Woodland 65 5077 5012
93
From 2010 to 2020, Yumbe District lost 89,629 hectares of Bushland, 7926ha of
Forest, 3,214 hectares of Wetland and 1,072ha of Wetland (Table 37). The district
experienced deforestation and degradation in East and West sub-counties and
regeneration in the West (Figure 61).

2010 Area 2020Area Area (ha) Change
Landcover
(ha) (ha) 2010-2020
Bushland 100282 10653 -89629
Forest 17400 9474 -7926
Grassland 1197 125 -1072
Wetland 3219 5 -3214
Woodland 65 2341 2276
94
From 2015 to 2020, Yumbe District lost 98,976 hectares of Bushland, 204 hectares
of Wetland and 2,736ha of Woodland but gained Forest cover of 3,633 ha (Table 38).
The district experienced degradation in all sub-counties and regeneration in west
sub-counties (Figure 62).

Landcover
(ha) (ha) 2020
Bushland 109629 10653 -98976
Forest 5841 9474 3633
Grassland 23728 125 -23603
Wetland 209 5 -204
Woodland 5077 2341 -2736
95
3.7.1 Satellite Imagery for Moyo District

Below are the Moyo District imagery for 2010, 2015 and 2020 (Figure 63, 64 and 65
respectively).
Figure 63: Moyo District Imagery 2010

96

97
3.7.2 Landcover for Moyo District

Below are Moyo District landcover Change for 2010- 2015, 2010-2020 and 2015-
Figure 66: Moyo District Landcover 2010
In 2010, Moyo District highest land cover was annual cropland (41.7%) followed by
Forests (23.4%) and Bushland (13.2%) (Table 39).
Table 39: Moyo District Landcover 2010

Bushland 13770 13.2
Forest 24330 23.4
Grassland 9435 9.1
Settlement 741 0.7
Waterbody 5826 5.6
Wetland 6524 6.3
98
In 2015, Moyo District highest land cover was Bushland (42.2%) followed by Annual
Cropland (34.7%) and Grassland (12.5%) (Table 40).

Forest 3678 3.5
Bushland 43922 42.2
Wetland 3683 3.5
Waterbody 2661 2.6
Settlement 964 0.9
99
In 2020, Moyo District highest landcover was Annual Cropland (52.3%) followed by
Bushland (27.5%) and Forest land (11.1%) (Table 41).

Grassland 1921 1.8
Bushland 28646 27.5
Forest 11555 11.1
Settlement 846 0.8
Waterbody 2564 2.5
Wetland 4097 3.9
100
3.7.3 Landcover Change for Moyo District

Below are maps showing Moyo District landcover Change for 2010- 2015, 2010-2020
and 2015-2020 (Figure 69, 70 and 71 respectively).
Figure 69: Moyo District Landcover Change 2010-2015
hectares of Wetland (Table 42). The district experience a lot of deforestation in
central and north, degradation in West and East of the district. There was lot of
regeneration in all sub-counties (Figure 69).
Table 42: Moyo District Landcover Change 2010-2015

2010 Area 2015 Area Area (Ha) Change
Landcover
(ha) (ha) 2010-2015
Bushland 13770 43922 30152
Forest 24330 3678 -20652
Grassland 9435 13060 3625
Waterbody 5826 2661 -3165
Wetland 6524 3683 -2841
101
hectares of Wetland (Table 43). The district experienced deforestation in central and
north east parts, degradation in southern parts and regeneration in all sub-counties.
(Figure 70).

2010 Area 2020 Area Change 2010-2015
Landcover
(ha) (ha) Area (Ha)
Bushland 13770 28646 14876
Forest 24330 11555 -12775
Grassland 9435 1921 -7514
Waterbody 5826 2564 -3262
Wetland 6524 4097 -2427
102
From 2015 to 2020, Moyo District lost 15,276 hectares of Bushland and 11,139
hectares of Grassland (Table 44). The district experienced degradation and
regeneration in all sub-counties. (Figure 71).

2015 Area 2020 Area Area (Ha) Change
Landcover
(ha) (ha) 2010-2015
Bushland 43922 28646 -15276
Forest 3678 11555 7877
Grassland 13060 1921 -11139
Waterbody 2661 2564 -97
Wetland 3683 4097 414
103
3.8.1 Satellite Imagery for Terego District

Below are the Terego District imagery for 2010, 2015 and 2020 (Figure 72, 73 and 74
respectively).
Figure 72: Terego District 2010

104

105
3.8.2 Landcover for Terego District

Below are Terego District landcover Change for 2010- 2015, 2010-2020 and 2015-
Figure 75: Terego District Landcover 2010
In 2010, Terego District highest land cover was annual cropland (66.3%) followed by
Bushland (22.2%) and Forest (8.6%) (Table 45).
Table 45: Terego District Landcover 2010

Bushland 25705 22.2
Forest 9910 8.6
Settlement 359 0.3
Wetland 2959 2.6
Woodland 77 0.1
Grassland 30 0.0
106
In 2015, Terego District highest landcover was annual cropland (52.6%) followed by
Bushland (36%) and Grassland (6.7%) (Table 46).

Bushland 41618 36.0
Forest 1233 1.1
Grassland 7752 6.7
Settlement 262 0.2
Wetland 381 0.3
Woodland 3597 3.1
107
In 2020, Terego District highest land cover was annual cropland (93%) followed by
Forests (3.5%) and Bushland (1.9%) (Table 47).

Bushland 2199 1.9
Forest 4102 3.5
Settlement 351 0.3
Waterbody 1 0.0
Wetland 1311 1.1
Woodland 156 0.1
108
3.8.3 Landcover Change for Terego District

Below are maps showing Terego District landcover Change for 2010- 2015, 2010-
2020 and 2015-2020 (Figure 78, 79 and 80 respectively).
Figure 78: Terego District Landcover Change 2010-2015
From 2010 to 2015, Terego District lost 8,677 hectares of Forestland and 2,697
hectares of Wetland (Table 48). The district experienced scanty deforestation in the
district and degradation in the East part of the district. Regeneration was also
observed in all sub-counties (Figure 78).
Table 48: Terego District Landcover Change 2010-2015

2010 Area 2015 Area Change Area (ha) 2010-
Landcover
(ha) (ha) 2015
Annual
76700 60897
Cropland -15803
Bushland 25705 41618 15913
Forest 9910 1233 -8677
Wetland 2959 262 -2697
Woodland 77 381 304
109
From 2015 to 2020, Terego District lost 5,808 hectares of Forestland, 23,506ha of
Bushland and 2,841 hectares of Wetland although there was gain in Woodland
(Table 49). The district experienced a lot of degradation. Regeneration was observed
in the sub-county of Odupi in the East (Figure 79).

2010 Area 2020 Area Change Area (ha) 2010-
Landcover
(ha) (ha) 2015
Annual
76700 107620
Cropland 30920
Bushland 25705 2199 -23506
Forest 9910 4102 -5808
Wetland 2959 1 -2958
Woodland 77 1311 1234
110
From 2010 to 2020, Terego District lost 39,419 hectares of Bushland and 261
hectares of Wetland. There were gain in Woodland and Forestland (Table 50). The
district experienced a lot of degradation in the East and scanty deforestation. (Figure
80).

2015 Area 2020 Area Change Area (ha)
Landcover
(ha) (ha) 2010-2015
Annual
60897 107620
Cropland 46723
Bushland 41618 2199 -39419
Forest 1233 4102 2869
Wetland 262 1 -261
Woodland 381 1311 930
Grassland 3597 156 -3441
111
4.0 Results for GIS Based Land Suitability Analysis in West Nile Region
4.1 Layers used in the GIS Based Crop Land Suitability Analysis
The West Nile District GIS-based Land Suitability Analysis was conducted, whereby
land suitability was determined through a systematic and multi-criteria analysis.
Climatic and ecological factors were used in the model analysis to see how they could
interface with the planned/desired development through assembled ranking of the land
elements within the landscape. The ranks were used to prepare the different layers
used in the multi-criteria analysis used to determine suitability of site for a specific
development or intervention.
For each of the decision criterion, a suitability map was generated by transforming the
GIS map layer containing the relevant land elements into suitability scores. The
criterion and sub- criterion suitability maps were then weighted and combined to
generate final suitability maps of each one of the District of Adjumani, Arua, Madi-
Okollo, Moyo, Obongi and Yumbe.
The following factors/parameters were used in development of the Land suitability

analysis; Slope- The slope map clearly indicated areas with gentle slope of less than
3°, altitude (DEM) indicated areas at high or low elevation levels, landuse/cover- Land
use/Land cover map were prepared by using satellite image, climatic factors (Rainfall
and Temperature), soil factors (depth, drainage, ph and organic matter) and NDVI.
During the district stakeholders’ consultation, each district identified three priority
crops for production under the Enterprise (Table 51). The crop suitability analysis and
modeling was done on only these priority crops.
Table 51: Priority crops for each district

DistrictPriority District Priority Crops District Priority Crops
Crops
Adjuman  Soya beans Madi-  Simsim Terego  Cassava
i  Simsim Okollo  Cassava  Simsim
 Maize  Millet  Sorghum
Arua  Cassava Moyo  Cassava Yumbe  Cassava

 Beans  Simsim  Beans
 Maize  Groundnuts  Groundnuts
Arua  Cassava Obongi  Cassava
City  Beans  Simsim
 Sweet Potatoes  Maize
112
4.1.1 Organic Matter Suitability
Figure 81: West Nile Organic Matter Content
Figure 81 above shows the organic matter content of the study area. The soil organic
matter consists of plant and animal detritus at various stages of decomposition, cells
and tissues of soil microbes, and substances that soil microbes synthesize. The
percentage organic matter layer was used in the suitability model by grouping of the
organic matter content which best supports high yields for specific crop. Different
crops require different quantities of soil organic matter content for growth.
113
4.1.2 Altitude suitability
Figure 82: West Nile Altitude
Figure 82 shows the altitude of the study area. Altitude refers to the height of a
particular location in relation to sea level or ground level. Altitude Suitability is the
categorization of different heights above sea level in which specific crops are best
adapted to have the highest production. Different crops require different altitude for
growth.
114
4.1.3 Rainfall Suitability
Figure 83: West Nile Rainfall 2020
Figure 83 shows the rainfall of the study area for 2020. Rainfall is the amount of rain
that falls in a place during a particular period usually measured by the depth in
inches. Rainfall Suitability is grouping the amounts of rainfall received in a region by
whether these amounts will be sufficient for supporting crop growth for the entire
growing period or whether it falls into either excess or deficit hence reduces the
production in a way. Different crops require different amount of rainfall for growth.
115
4.1.4 Temperature Suitability
Figure 84: West Nile Temperature 2020
Figure 84 shows the temperature of the study area for 2020. Temperature is a
physical quantity that expresses hot and cold in a location. Temperature suitability
refers to the categorization of optimum temperature conditions for specific crop
production whereby increase or decrease from these thresholds results in the
reduction in growth of shoots, roots or a complete stop of growth and death of plant.
Different crops require different temperature for growth.
116
4.1.4 Soil Depth Suitability
Figure 85: West Nile Soil Depth
Figure 85 shows the soil depth of the study area. Soil depth defines the root space
and the volume of soil from where the plants fulfil their water and nutrient demands.
Soil depth suitability refers to grouped soil in terms of how deep or shallow they are
and the effect this has in comparison to the depth in which the specific crop produces
the most based on how water, nutrients and mechanical support are accessible to
the plant. Different crops require different soil depth for growth.
117
4.1.4 Soil Drainage Suitability
Figure 86: West Nile Soil Drainage
Figure 86 shows soil drainage of the study area. Soil drainage is a natural process by
which water moves across, through, and out of the soil as a result of the force of
gravity. Soil drainage suitability refers to grouping the effect of the ease of flow or
retention of water on a specific crop by either increase or decrease in crop health and
productivity. Different crops require different soil drainage for growth.
118
4.1.5 Soil Ph Suitability
Figure 87: West Nile Soil ph
Figure 87 shows the soil ph of the study area. Soil pH is a measure of the acidity and
alkalinity in soils. Soil pH suitability refers to determining and grouping different pH
levels according to the effect they have on improving nutrient uptake by specific
crops thereby affecting the production. Different crops require different soil drainage
for growth.
119
4.1.7 Soil Texture Suitability
Figure 88: West Nile Soil Texture
Figure 88 shows the soil texture of the study area. Soil texture refers to the
proportion of sand, silt and clay sized particles that make up the mineral fraction of
the soil. Soil texture suitability is the grouping of different soil characteristics such as
water-holding capacity, permeability, and soil workability which affect plant growth.
These differences act by the promotion of specific plant growth through the actual
condition the crop requires in order to get maximum support and water through which
nutrients are availed to the crop. Different crops require different soil texture for
growth.
120
4.1.7 Slope suitability
Figure 89: West Nile Slope
Figure 89 shows the slope of the study area. Slope is the rise or fall of the land
surface. Percentage slope suitability refers to the categorization of the slope based
on the optimum requirements for the specific crop. Crop stability lessens or increases
based on the adjacent steepness of the land. Different crops require different slope
for growth.
121
4.2 GIS based crop land suitability modeling

Using the above parameter for crop suitability maps were developed using GIS
analysis modeling. Crop suitability was taken as a measure of how well the qualities
of a land unit match the requirements of a particular crop. Various variables are used
based on the different effects they have on the production of specific crops by either
decreasing or increasing the latter.
4.2.1 Cropland Suitability in Adjumani District
Figure 90: Maize Suitability in Adjumani District
The maize require 50-100cm of rainfall, temperature of 21°C- 27°C, good effective
depth, favourable morphological properties, good internal drainage, an optimal
moisture regime, sufficient and balanced quantities of plant nutrients and chemical
properties, soils with a pH from 5 - 8 but 5.5 - 7 is optimal, altitude range of 800 -
3000 m above sea level, large amounts of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and
potassium (K) as well as a smaller amount of sulfur (S) and some micronutrients.
122
From the suitability modeling, the central part of adjumani district is highly suitable for
maize growing while the north and south are moderately suitable (Figure 90).
Figure 91: Simsim Suitability in Adjumani District
Sim sim grows well in rain-fed area, requires high heat and light requirements and is
sensitive to low temperatures. Growth and fruiting are favored by temperature of
around 37 degrees centigrade, moderate rains, high soil temperatures for germination.
From the suitability modeling, the central part of adjumani district is highly suitable for
simsim growing while the north and south are moderately suitable (Figure 91).
123
Figure 92: Soya beans Suitability in Adjumani District
Soya bean is moderately drought tolerant requiring a minimum of 400mm of well

distributed rainfall. High moisture although dry weather is necessary for ripening.
Soya beans grow well under warm and humid conditions. Soil temperatures should
be above 15°C and for growth about 20-25 0C. Soya beans grow on a wide range of
soils but thrive best on sand, clay loams and alluvial soil of good fertility. The soils
should be well drained, fertile and rich in calcium with a pH range of 5.6-7. Soya
beans perform well between 0-2000 m above sea level. Soya beans require large
amounts of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K) as well as a smaller
amount of sulfur (S) and some micronutrients. From the suitability modeling, the
central part of Adjumani district is highly suitable for soya bean growing while the
north and south are moderately suitable (Figure 92).
124
4.2.2 Cropland Suitability in Arua District
Figure 93: Beans Suitability in Arua District
Beans require 50-100cm of rainfall, Temperature of 21°C- 27°C, good effective

depth, good internal drainage, an optimal moisture regime, sufficient and balanced
quantities of plant nutrients and chemical properties, soils with a pH from 5 - 8, but
5.5 - 7 is optimal, altitude range of 800 - 3000 m above sea level and large amounts
of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K). From the suitability modeling
analysis, the Southern and north east parts of Arua district are highly suitable for
beans growing while the North West and south west are moderately suitable (Figure
93).
125
Figure 94: Cassava Suitability in Arua District
Cassava grows well in well-drained, light-textured, deep soils of intermediate fertility.

Require optimum soil pH between 4.5 and 6.5, grows well up to 1500 m altitude and
requires optimum temperature range is 20-30deg and 500-6000 mm of rainfall per
year. From the suitability modeling analysis, North east parts of Arua district are
highly suitable for Cassava growing while the rest of the district is moderately
suitable (Figure 94).
126
Figure 95: Maize Suitability in Arua District
The maize crops require 50-100cm of rainfall, temperature of 21°C- 27°C, good
effective depth, favourable morphological properties, good internal drainage, an
optimal moisture regime, sufficient and balanced quantities of plant nutrients and
chemical properties, soils with a pH from 5 - 8 but 5.5 - 7 is optimal, altitude range of
800 - 3000 m above sea level, large amounts of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and
From the suitability modeling, the whole of Arua district is moderately suitable for
maize growing with parts of the district are highly suitable (Figure 95).
127
4.2.3 Cropland Suitability in Arua City
Figure 96: Beans Suitability in Arua City

analysis, the east parts of Arua City are highly suitable for beans growing while the
west and some parts of central are moderately suitable and central not suitable. The
urbanization is expanding in the central part of the City (Figure 96).
128
Figure 97: Cassava Suitability in Arua City

year. From the suitability modeling analysis, the whole of Arua City is moderately
suitable for beans growing while the west parts are moderately suitable and central
not suitable (Figure 97).
129
Figure 98: Sweat Potatoes Suitability in Arua City
Sweet potatoes grow best where the air temperature remains very warm, from 75° to
95°F (24-35°C) throughout the growing season, preferably 55 to 65 degrees) with
high humidity, annual rainfall between 850 and 1500 mm, high altitude ranging from
1000 to 2000m and requires sandy loam soils. The whole district is moderately
suitable for sweat potatoes growing. (Figure 98).
130
4.2.4 Cropland Suitability in Madi-Okollo District
Figure 99: Cassava Suitability in Madi-Okollo District

year. From the suitability modeling analysis, 50% of Madi-Okollo district is highly
131
Figure 100: Millet Suitability in Madi-Okollo District
Millet crop thrives well in areas of warm, dry climate with annual rainfall of 45cm,
Temperature ranging between 25 to 30°C. Millet grows well in sandy loamy soils and
shallow black soil having good drainage and humus. Requires ph range from 6-7.5.
From the suitability modeling analysis, 85% of Madi-Okollo district is highly suitable
for millet growing while the 5% are moderately suitable and 10% not suitable (Figure
100).
132
Figure 101: Simsim Suitability in Madi-Okollo District
Sim sim grows well in rain-fed area, requires high heat and light requirements and is
From the suitability modeling analysis, 35% of Madi-Okollo district is highly suitable
for millet growing while the 45% are moderately suitable and 20% not suitable
(Figure 101).
133
4.2.5 Cropland Suitability in Moyo District
Figure 102: Cassava Suitability in Moyo District

year. From the suitability modeling analysis, 85% of Moyo district is highly suitable for
cassava growing while the 10% are moderately suitable and 5% not suitable (Figure
102).
134
Figure 103: Groundnuts Suitability in Moyo District
Groundnuts require temperature between 27-30˚C for good germination and growth,
minimum annual rainfall of between 450 to 1250 mm and warm climate, fine textured
soils, high yields are obtained on slightly acid soils with pH 6.0 to 6.4, well drained,
light coloured, loose, friable, sandy loam soil, well supplied with calcium and a
moderate amount of organic matter. A well-drained soil facilitates adequate
exchange of air to meet nitrogen, carbon dioxide and oxygen requirements of the
groundnut crop. From the suitability modeling analysis, 75% of Moyo district is highly
suitable for groundnuts growing while the 20% are moderately suitable and 5% not
135
Figure 104: Simsim Suitability in Moyo District
Simsim grows well in rain-fed area, requires high heat and light requirements and is
From the suitability modeling analysis, 75% of Moyo district is highly suitable for
simsim growing while the 20% are moderately suitable and 5% not suitable (Figure
104).
136
4.2.6 Cropland Suitability in Obongi District
Figure 105: Cassava Suitability in Obongi District

year. From the suitability modeling analysis, 50% of Obongi district is highly suitable
for cassava growing while the 30% are moderately suitable and 20% not suitable
(Figure 104).
137
Figure 106: Maize Suitability in Obongi District
The maize crops require 50-100cm of rainfall, temperature of 21°C- 27°C, good
effective depth, favourable morphological properties, good internal drainage, an
optimal moisture regime, sufficient and balanced quantities of plant nutrients and
chemical properties, soils with a pH from 5 - 8 but 5.5 - 7 is optimal, altitude range of
800 - 3000 m above sea level, large amounts of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and
From the suitability modeling analysis, 50% of Obongi district is highly suitable for
maize growing, 30% are moderately suitable and 20% not suitable (Figure 106).
138
Figure 107: Simsim Suitability in Obongi District
From the suitability modeling analysis, 70% of Obongi district is highly suitable for
107).
139
4.2.7 Cropland Suitability in Terego District
Figure 108: Cassava Suitability in Terego District

year. From the suitability modeling analysis, 55% of Terego district is highly suitable
(Figure 107).
140
Figure 109: Simsim Suitability in Terego District
From the suitability modeling analysis, 90% of Terego district is highly suitable for
109).
141
Figure 110: Sorghum Suitability in Terego District
Sorghum requires warm-weather condition with high temperatures for good

germination and growth. Requires temperature of 27 to 30°C for optimum growth
and development. Sorghum grows best on well-drained fertile soils with a moderate
amount of organic matter at soil pH values between 6 and 7.5. Requires rainfall
conditions of approximately 82-130 mm per month. From the suitability modeling
analysis, 60% of Terego district is highly suitable for Sorghum growing while the 40%
are moderately suitable (Figure 110).
142
4.2.8 Cropland Suitability in Yumbe District
Figure 111: Beans Suitability in Yumbe District

analysis, 60% of Yumbe district is highly suitable for beans growing while the 40%
are moderately suitable (Figure 111).
143
Figure 112: Cassava Suitability in Yumbe District

year. From the suitability modeling analysis, 60% of Yumbe district is highly suitable
(Figure 111).
144
Figure 113: Groundnuts Suitability in Yumbe District
Groundnuts require temperature between 27-30˚C for good germination and growth,
minimum annual rainfall of between 450 to 1250 mm and warm climate, fine textured
soils, high yields are obtained on slightly acid soils with pH 6.0 to 6.4, well drained,
light coloured, loose, friable, sandy loam soil, well supplied with calcium and a
moderate amount of organic matter. A well-drained soil facilitates adequate
exchange of air to meet nitrogen, carbon dioxide and oxygen requirements of the
groundnut crop. From the suitability modeling analysis, 85% of Yumbe district is
highly suitable for groundnuts growing while the 10% are moderately suitable and 5%
not suitable (Figure 112).
145
5.0 Conclusions
Adjumani District
Adjumani District experienced deforestation between 2010 to 2015, and 2010 to

2020. Experienced loss of woodlands and wetlands. The central part of Adjumani
district is highly suitable for maize growing while the north and south are moderately
suitable. Adjumani district is highly suitable for simsim growing while the north and
south are moderately suitable. The central part of Adjumani district is highly suitable
for soya bean growing while the north and south are moderately suitable.
Arua District
The district experienced a lot of deforestation and degradation in 2015-2020 and

regeneration of landcover in 2010-2015 compared to 2010-2020 and 2015-2020.
There was an expansion in the settlement in the District between 2015 and 2020.
The whole district is suitable for beans however cassava is suitable in the eastern
side of the district.
Arua City
The district experienced a lot of deforestation and degradation between 2010-2015.

The city experience regeneration of landcover in 2015-2020 and urban expansion
between 2015 and 2020. Most of the land in the city is suitable for Cassava, beans
and Sweet Potatoes.
Madi-Okollo District
The district experienced a lot of deforestation and degradation between 2015-2020.

The district experience regeneration of landcover between 2010-2015 compared to
2010-2020 and 2010-2020. In 2020 there was an expansion of settlements in the
District. The whole district is suitable for cassava and Simsim.
Moyo District
The district experienced deforestation and wetland loss between 2010 to 2015, and
2010 to 2020. Between 2015 to 2020, the district experienced loss of Bushland and
Grassland. 85% of Moyo district is highly suitable for cassava growing while the 10%
are moderately suitable and 5% are not suitable. 75% of Moyo district is highly
suitable for groundnuts and Simsim growing while 20% are moderately suitable and
5% not suitable.
146
Obongi District
The study shows a lot of change in 2010-2015 and 2010-2020 and less change in
2015-2020. Most of the changes occurred in the north and southwest of the district. A
lot of wetlands were degraded into agriculture in 2010-2015. The district experience
regeneration of landcover in 2015-2020. From 2015-2020 there was an expansion of
settlement in the north of the District. The whole Eastern part of the district is not
suitable for cassava, Maize and Simsim as it contains wetlands and restricted areas.
The central area of the district in Gimara Subcounty is a restricted protected area that
has also been degraded.
Terego District
The study shows a lot of degradation in 2015-2020. The district experience

regeneration of landcover between 2010-2015. In 2020 there was an expansion of
settlements in the District. The whole district is suitable for cassava and Sorghum.
Yumbe District
The study shows a lot change in 2010-2015 and 2010-2020 and more degradation of
environment from 2015-2020. A lot of deforestation and degradation occurred in the
west of the district in 2010-2020 and 2010-2020. The district experienced
regeneration of landcover in 2010-2015 compared to 2010-2020 and 2010-2020. In
2020 there was an expansion of settlement in southeast of the District. The north
area of the district contains the restricted protected area Mt Kei that has been
degraded in 2010-2020 and 2015-2020. The whole district is suitable for cassava and
beans but highly suitable for Groundnuts.
147
6.0 Recommendations
i. There is an urgent need to sustain the productivity of agricultural lands
through matching crop requirements with the resource available through land
suitability analysis.
ii. The District Local Government Planners and land users should use the
produced land-use and landcover change and suitability maps to guide in
identifying alternative land uses.
iii. The land suitability of the area should be enhanced by implementing

appropriate interventions such as soil and water conservation, improving soil
fertility, and agronomic practices.
iv. There is a need to ensure restoration of the lost landcover and protection of
the remaining landcover.
v. The District Local Governments should practice sustainable land resource

planning and management through appropriate best practices e.g., climate-
smart agriculture, re-afforestation, and proper land-use practices.
vi. It is recommended that the current land-use pattern need to be modified

according to its suitability classes and plan land management measures
accordingly.
vii. To achieve successful land management, introducing alternative income

generation mechanisms could help the poor farmers who are dependent on
fragile land for many years. This also possibly will reduce the pressure on the
land and provide an opportunity for rehabilitation and restoration of the area.
viii. For sustainability, there is a need to build the capacity of DLGs to generate
future landcover maps and carry out land suitability analysis of the remaining
crops using GIS and Remote Sensing applications.
148
7.0 References
1. Newbold, T.; Hudson, L.N.; Hill, S.L.; Contu, S.; Lysenko, I.; Senior, R.A.; Börger,
L.; Bennett, D.J.; Choimes, A.; Collen, B.; et al. Global effects of land use on local
terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 2015, 520, 45. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
2. Popp, A.; Calvin, K.; Fujimori, S.; Havlik, P.; Humpenöder, F.; Stehfest, E.;
Stehfest, E.; Bodirsky, B.L.; Dietrich, J.P.; Doelmann, J.C.; et al. Land-use futures in
the shared socio-economic pathways. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2017, 42, 331–345.
[CrossRef]
3. Sambou, S.; Lykke, A.M.; Sambou, H.; Guiro, I.; Sambou, B.; Mbow, C. Land use-
land cover change and drivers of deforestation in the Patako protected area (Center-
West of Senegal). Am. J. Environ. Prot. 2015, 4, 306–317. [CrossRef]
4. Samndong, R.A.; Bush, G.; Vatn, A.; Chapman, M. Institutional analysis of causes
of deforestation in REDD+ pilot sites in the Equateur province: Implication for REDD+
in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Land Use Policy 2018, 76, 664–674.
[CrossRef]
5. Godar, J.; Gardner, T.A.; Tizado, E.J.; Pacheco, P. Actor-specific contributions to

the deforestation slowdown in the Brazilian Amazon. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
2014, 111, 15591–15596. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Specht, M.J.; Pinto, S.R.R.; Albuquerque, U.P.; Tabarelli, M.; Melo, F.P. Burning
biodiversity: Fuelwood harvesting causes forest degradation in human-dominated
tropical landscapes. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2015, 3, 200–209. [CrossRef]
7. Smith, P.; Clark, H.; Dong, H.; Elsiddig, E.A.; Haberl, H.; Harper, R.; House, J.;
Jafari, M.; Masera, O.; Mbow, C.; et al. Agriculture, forestry and other land use
(AFOLU). In Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. IPCC Working
Group III Contribution to AR5; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014.
8. Lawrence, D.; Vandecar, K. Effects of tropical deforestation on climate and

agriculture. Nat. Clim. Chang.
2015, 5, 27. [CrossRef]
9. Lapola, D.M.; Martinelli, L.A.; Peres, C.A.; Ometto, J.P.; Ferreira, M.E.; Nobre,
C.A.; Aguiar, A.P.D.; Bustamante, M.M.; Cardoso, M.F.; Costa, M.H.; et al. Pervasive
transition of the Brazilian land-use system. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2014, 4, 27. [CrossRef]
10. Barni, P.E.; Fearnside, P.M.; de Alencastro Graça, P.M.L. Simulating

deforestation and carbon loss in Amazonia: Impacts in Brazil’s Roraima state from
reconstructing Highway BR-319 (Manaus-Porto Velho). Environ. Manag. 2015, 55,
259–278. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
11. Alkama, R.; Cescatti, A. Biophysical climate impacts of recent changes in global
forest cover. Science 2016, 351, 600–604. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
149
12. Kweka, E.J.; Kimaro, E.E.; Munga, S. Effect of deforestation and land use
changes on mosquito productivity and development in western Kenya highlands:
Implication for malaria risk. Front. Public Health 2016, 4, 238. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Were, K.O.; Singh, B.R.; Dick, Ø.B. Effects of land cover changes on soil organic
carbon and total nitrogen stocks in the Eastern Mau Forest Reserve, Kenya. In
Sustainable Intensification to Advance Food Security and Enhance Climate
Resilience in Africa; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 113–133.
14. Natkhin, M.; Dietrich, O.; Schäfer, M.P.; Lischeid, G. The effects of climate and
changing land use on the discharge regime of a small catchment in Tanzania. Reg.
Environ. Chang. 2015, 15, 1269–1280. [CrossRef]
15. Rawat, J.S.; Kumar, M. Monitoring land use/cover change using remote sensing
and GIS techniques: A case study of Hawalbagh block, district Almora, Uttarakhand,
India. Egypt. J. Remote Sens. Space Sci. 2015, 18, 77–84. [CrossRef]
16. Zhang, F.; Zhan, J.; Zhang, Q.; Yao, L.; Liu, W. Impacts of land use/cover change
on terrestrial carbon stocks in Uganda. Phys. Chem. Earth Parts A/B/C 2017, 101,
195–203. [CrossRef]
17. Yang, C.; Rottensteiner, F.; Heipke, C. Classification of land cover and land use
based on convolutional neural networks. ISPRS Ann. Photogramm. Remote Sens.
Spat. Inf. Sci. 2018, 4, 251–258. [CrossRef]
18. Lillesand, T.; Kiefer, R.W.; Chipman, J. Remote Sensing and Image
Interpretation; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014.
19. Masette, M.; Isabirye-Basuta, G.; Baranga, D.; Chemurot, M. Levels of tannins in
fruit diet of grey-cheeked mangabeys (Lophocebus ugandae, Groves) in Lake
Victoria Basin forest reserves. J. Ecol. Nat. Environ. 2015, 7, 146–157.
20. Shaban, K.S.; Okumu, J.O.; Paul, O.; Joseph, O. Assessing community-based
organizations’ influence on trees and grass planting for forest, soil and water
management around Mt. Elgon National Park in Uganda. For. Trees Livelihoods
2016, 25, 161–172. [CrossRef]
21. Arinaitwe, K.; Rose, N.L.; Muir, D.C.; Kiremire, B.T.; Balirwa, J.S.; Teixeira, C.
Historical deposition of persistent organic pollutants in Lake Victoria and two alpine
equatorial lakes from East Africa: Insights into atmospheric deposition from
sedimentation profiles. Chemosphere 2016, 144, 1815–1822. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. Kayima, J.K.; Mayo, A.W.; Nobert, J. Ecological Characteristics and

Morphological Features of the Lubigi Wetland in Uganda. Environ. Ecol. Res. 2018,
6, 218–228. [CrossRef]
23. Gabiri, G.; Obando, J.A.; Tenywa, M.M.; Majaliwa, J.G.; Kizza, C.L.; Zizinga, A.;
Buruchara, R. Soil and nutrient losses under cultivated bush and climbing beans on
terraced humid highland slopes of Southwestern Uganda. J. Sci. Res. Rep. 2015, 8,
1–16. [CrossRef]
150
24. Musau, J.; Sang, J.; Gathenya, J.; Luedeling, E. Hydrological responses to
climate change in Mt. Elgon watersheds. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud. 2015, 3, 233–246.
[CrossRef]
25. Nakileza, B.R.; Majaliwa, M.J.;Wandera, A.; Nantumbwe, C.M. Enhancing

resilience to landslide disaster risks through rehabilitation of slide scars by local
communities in Mt. Elgon, Uganda. Jàmbá J. Disaster Risk Stud. 2017, 9, 1–11.
26. Nakalembe, C.; Dempewolf, J.; Justice, C. Agricultural land use change in
Karamoja region, Uganda. Land Use Policy 2017, 62, 2–12. [CrossRef]
27. Li, J.; Oyana, T.J.; Mukwaya, P.I. An examination of historical and future land use
changes in Uganda using change detection methods and agent-based modelling. Afr.
Geogr. Rev. 2016, 35, 247–271. [CrossRef]
28. Solberg, S.; May, J.; Bogren, W.; Breidenbach, J.; Torp, T.; Gizachew, B.
Interferometric SAR DEMs for Forest Change in Uganda 2000–2012. Remote Sens.
2018, 10, 228. [CrossRef]

Draft Report For The Landcover Change Study and GIS Based Land Suitability Analysis 2

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

Draft Report For The Landcover Change Study and GIS Based Land Suitability Analysis 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

LANDCOVER CHANGE STUDY AND GIS-BASED LAND

1.2 Landuse and Landcover in Uganda..................................................................................18

1.3 Land use and land cover change statistics in Uganda................................................19

1.4 Major drivers of land use and land cover change.........................................................21

1.5 Impacts of land use and land cover change...................................................................22

1.3 Objectives of the assignment............................................................................................23

1.4 Scope of the study................................................................................................................24

2.0 Approach and Methodology...........................................................................................................25

2.1.1 Collection of Ancillary Data.............................................................................................26

2.1.2 Quality checking of the Ancillary data...........................................................................26

2.1.3 Acquisition of the Imagery and pre-processing............................................................27

2.1.4 Image Classification.........................................................................................................30

2.1.5 Using ground reference data to carry out accuracy assessments............................33

2.1.6 Overall Accuracy Assessment Procedure for 7 West Nile District............................35

2.1.7 Preparation of final land cover and vegetation maps..................................................37

2.1.8 Land covers change detection and assessment.............................................................37

2.1.9 Derivation of Statistics.........................................................................................................38

2.2 GIS-based Land Suitability Analysis................................................................................38

2.2.1 Multi-criteria evaluation (MCE) for decision-making support.............................39

2.2.2 GIS-based Land Suitability Analysis workflow.............................................................40

2.2.3 GIS-based Land Suitability Analysis factors/parameters....................................41

2.2.4 GIS-based Land Suitability maps development.....................................................42

3.0 Results for Landcover and Land Use (LCLU) Change.......................................................................43

3.1.1 Adjumani District imagery for Adjumani District...........................................................43

3.1.2 Landcover for Adjumani District.....................................................................................45

3.1.3 Landcover Change for Adjumani District......................................................................48

3.2.1 Satellite Imagery for Arua District.............................................................................51

3.2.2 Landcover for Arua District.............................................................................................53

3.2.3 Landcover Change for Arua District..............................................................................56

3.3.1 Satellite Imagery for Arua City....................................................................................59

3.3.2 Landcover for Arua City..................................................................................................61

3.3.3 Landcover Change for Arua District..............................................................................64

3.4.1 Satellite Imagery for Madi-Okollo District................................................................67

3.4.2 Landcover for Madi-Okollo District...........................................................................70

3.4.3 Landcover Change for Madi-Okollo District..................................................................73

3.5.1 Satellite Imagery for Obongi District.........................................................................76

3.5.2 Landcover for Obongi District....................................................................................79

3.5.3 Landcover Change for Obongi District.....................................................................82

3.6.1 Satellite Imagery for Yumbe District.........................................................................85

3.6.2 Landcover for Yumbe District.....................................................................................88

3.6.3 Landcover Change for Yumbe District.....................................................................91

3.7.1 Satellite Imagery for Moyo District............................................................................94

3.7.2 Landcover for Moyo District.......................................................................................96

3.7.3 Landcover Change for Moyo District........................................................................99

3.8.1 Satellite Imagery for Terego District.......................................................................102

3.8.2 Landcover for Terego District...................................................................................104

3.8.3 Landcover Change for Terego District...................................................................107

4.1.1 Organic Matter Suitability..........................................................................................111

4.1.2 Altitude suitability........................................................................................................112

4.1.3 Rainfall Suitability........................................................................................................113

4.1.4 Temperature Suitability..............................................................................................114

4.1.4 Soil Depth Suitability..................................................................................................115

4.1.4 Soil Drainage Suitability.............................................................................................116

4.1.5 Soil Ph Suitability........................................................................................................117

4.1.7 Soil Texture Suitability...............................................................................................118

4.1.7 Slope suitability............................................................................................................119

4.2 GIS based crop land suitability modeling.....................................................................120

4.2.1 Cropland Suitability in Adjumani District.....................................................................120

4.2.2 Cropland Suitability in Arua District.............................................................................123

4.2.3 Cropland Suitability in Arua City.............................................................................126

4.2.4 Cropland Suitability in Madi-Okollo District..........................................................129

4.2.5 Cropland Suitability in Moyo District......................................................................132