Amanuel Kumsa

ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

DEPARTEMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
GIS AND REMOTE SENSING BASED ANALYSIS OF POPULATION AND

ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE: THE CASE OF JARMET WETLAND AND ITS
SURRUONDING ENVIRONMENTS IN WESTERN ETHIOPA
BY AMANUEL KUMSA
JUNE, 2015
1
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
DEPARTEMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
GIS AND REMOTE SENSING BASED ANALYSIS OF POPULATIN AND

ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE: THE CASE OF JARMET WETLAND AND ITS
SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENTS IN WESTERN ETHIOPIA
By: Amanuel Kumsa

Thesis submitted to school of Graduate Studies of Addis Ababa University in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Geography and
Environmental Studies
Approval by Board of Examiners
External Examiner: Dr. Ephrame G/Mariam Signature_________________

Internal Examiner: Dr. Muluneh W/ Tsadike Signature_________________
Advisor: Dr. Asmamaw Legass Signature_________________
Chairman, Department Head
Addis Ababa University
June, 2015
I
DECELARATION
This is to certify that the research work presented in the thesis entitled “GIS and remote sensing
based analysis of population and environmental change: The case of Jarmet wetland and its
surrounding environments in western Ethiopia”. I declare that the work recorded in this thesis
in my own, and no part of the work here has been submitted for any other degree or qualification
in any university.
Amanuel Kumsa
School of Graduate Studies
June, 2015
II
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Special thanks to the Almighty God for his guidance and grace that allowed me to stay until
this time and my work come to be successful. To the highest God be glory great things he has done
for me and his shepherd is protect me from everything.
I wish to express my deepest gratitude and appreciation to my advisor Dr. Asmamaw Legass
head of department of Geography and environmental studies for his direction and support to
complete this research. I thanks him for his patience to read my numerous drafts and point out
every little mistakes. His encouragement and support played an important role throughout the
preparation of this work. Also, his constant support and evaluation have always been there behind
the achievement of my research.
I am also grateful and I would like to thanks Prof. Sileshi Nemomissa Department of Plant
Biology and Biodiversity management for his kind help.
My sincere gratitude go to Mr. Dessalegn Gurmessa the expert of GIS and remote sensing for his
support by spending his time, money and brilliant knowledge starts from the first to the final thesis
writing, organizing and editing. His graciousness, generosity, patience and deep support will
always be gratefully and humbly acknowledged.
I am thankful to Ethiopian Mapping Agency, Ethiopian Geological Survey, National
Meteorological Service Agency, Central Statistical Agency and Alibo Bureau of Agriculture for
their support in providing data required for this study.
I am highly indebted to all of my family and my friends who have supported me throughout
my studies in their very individual ways. Especially I would like thanks to Mrs. Elizabeth Kumsa,
Naol sileshi and Iyasu Kumsa they encouraging me to undertake to study MA education, great
strength, support, and love in the time of need. They being with me in support all the time and for
their dedication they did steering me in life.
Last but not least, I would like to extend to my appreciation to Webanchi Fikadu and Mekdes
Taye the workers of Ethiopian geological survey for their support by providing data in terms of
geology of my study area and they help me as brotherly.
III
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGES
DECLARATION..................................................................................................................................... VII
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ………………………………………………………………………….VIIII
LIST OF TABLES ……………………………………………………………………………………...VII
LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………………………..VII
LIST OF PLATES……………………………………………………………………………………....VII
LIST OF ACRONYMS………………………………………………………………………………...VIII
ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………………………….X
CHAPTER ONE ........................................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background of the Study................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem and Justification ..................................................................................... 4
1.3 Objectives of the Study ……………………………………………………………………………6
1.3.1 General objective……………………………………………………………………………....6
1.3.2 Specific objectives……………………………………………………………………………6
1.4 Research Questions ......................................................................................................................... 7
1.5 Significance of the Study ................................................................................................................ 7
1.6 Limitation of the Study ................................................................................................................... 8
1.7 Approaches used in the Study ......................................................................................................... 8
1.8 Thesis Organization ........................................................................................................................ 9
CHAPTER TWO ........................................................................................................................................ 10
LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................................................... 10
2.1 Values and Functions of Wetlands................................................................................................ 10
2.2 Threats of Wetland and Environments .......................................................................................... 13
2.3 Policy Action for Conservation and Use of Wetland and Environments ...................................... 15
2.4 Classification and types of Ethiopian wetlands ............................................................................ 20
2.5 Population Growth Drives Wetland and Environmental Changes ................................................ 22
2.6 Application of Remote sensing and GIS for wetland and environmental change analysis………23
2.6.1 Application of Remote sensing for wetland and environmental change analysis…………….24
2.6.2 Application of GIS for wetland and environmental change analysis…………………………25
CHAPTER THREE .................................................................................................................................... 28
DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA.............................................................................................. 28
IV
3.1 Climate .......................................................................................................................................... 30
3.1.1 Rainfall………………………………………………………………………………………..30
3.1.2 Temperature…………………………………………………………………………………..32
3.2 Geology of the Study Area............................................................................................................ 32
3.2.1 Paleozoic Sand stone………………………………………………………………...................33
3.2.2 Mesozoic Sand stone…………………………………………………………………………..33
3.2.3 Quaternary Soils……………………………………………………………………………….33
3.3 Soil, Vegetation and Wildlifes ...................................................................................................... 34
3.4 Elevation Data ............................................................................................................................... 35
3.5 Population ..................................................................................................................................... 36
3.6 Socio Economic Activity .............................................................................................................. 37
3.6.1 Agriculture……………………………………………………………………………………38
3.6.1.1 Crop production…………………………………………………………………………...38
3.6.1.2 Animal husbandry…………………………………………………………………………38
CHAPTER FOUR ....................................................................................................................................... 40
RESEARCH METHODS AND SAMPLING TECHNIQUES .............................................................. 40
4.1 Research Methods ......................................................................................................................... 40
4.2 Conceptual Frameworks ............................................................................................................... 41
4.3 Reconnaissance survey ................................................................................................................. 42
4.4 Sampling Techniques .................................................................................................................... 43
4.5 Data Type and Sources ................................................................................................................. 43
4.5.1 Primary data sources………………………………………………………………………….43
4.5.2 Secondary data sources………………………………………………………………………47
4.6 Data Analyses ............................................................................................................................... 47
CHAPTER FIVE ........................................................................................................................................ 48
SPATIAL DATA PROCESSING AND ANALYZING......................................................................... 48
5.1 Satellite Image Pre-Processing and Classification ........................................................................ 48
5.2 Image Processing .......................................................................................................................... 49
5.3 Image Classification ...................................................................................................................... 50
5.4 Post Classification (Smoothing).................................................................................................... 52
5.5 Classification Accuracy Assessment ............................................................................................ 53
CHAPTER SIX ........................................................................................................................................... 56
V
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ........................................................................................................... 56
6.1 Results ........................................................................................................................................... 56
6.1.1. Remote Sensing and GIS Analysis of LULC Types and their Areal Extent of Jarmet wetland
and its surrounding area. ..................................................................................................................... 56
6.1.2 Land use/ land cover detection from 1972-2015………………………………………………..62
6.1.3 Trend and rates of Land use/ land cover change………………………………………………..65
6.1.4 Nature of land use/land cover change from 1972 to 2015………………………………………68
6.1.5 Drivers of land use/ land cover change…………………………………………………………72
6.1.6 Impacts of LULC Change of Jarmet Wetland and its Surrounding Environments as a Response
to Population Dynamics ...................................................................................................................... 74
6.2 Discussions ................................................................................................................................... 79
CHAPTER SEVEN .................................................................................................................................... 84
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ............................................................... 84
7.1 Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 84
7.2 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 84
7.3 Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 86
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 87
ANNEXES .................................................................................................................................................. 97
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Causes of wetland loss (after dugan, 1990). ................................................................................. 14
Table 2. Areal extent of Ethiopian wetlands ............................................................................................... 20
Table 3. Major types of Ethiopian wetlands ............................................................................................... 21
Table 4. Landsat TM, MSS, ETM+ bands and wavelength ranges……………………………………….25
Table 5. Population density, household and housing units between, 1990, 2007 and 2013. ...................... 37
Table 6. Characteristics of the spatial data used for land cover change mapping in the study area. .......... 45
Table 7. Error matrix resulting from classifying training set pixels for landsat etm+2015 ........................ 54
Table 8. Land use/land cover classification scheme ................................................................................... 56
Table 9. Land cover classes of the study area in hectare and percent ......................................................... 57
Table 10. Land cover classes of the study area in hectare and percent ....................................................... 58
Table 11. Land cover classes of the study area in hectare and percent. ...................................................... 59
VI
Table 14. LULC change statistics of jarmet wetland and its surrounding environmental area between1972-
2015. ................................................................................................................................................... 62
Table 15. Trend and rate of change analysis of lulc in the study area. ....................................................... 66
Table 16. Change detection matrics of 1972 to 2015.................................................................................. 69
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig.1. Location map of the study area. ........................................................................................................ 28
Fig.2. Tributaries of Blue Nile watershed. .................................................................................................. 29
Fig.3. Alibo mean monthly rainfall data from 1990 to 2014. ..................................................................... 31
Fig .4. Mean monthly rainfall data of Jarmet from 1990 to 2014 ............................................................... 31
Fig.5. Average temperature and rainfall in both station from 1990 to 2014………………………………32
Fig.6. Geological map of the study area. .................................................................................................... 33
Fig.7. Major soil types of the study area. .................................................................................................... 34
Fig.8. Elevation map of the study area....................................................................................................... 36
Fig.9. Population density of the study area ................................................................................................. 36
Fig.10. GIS and remote sensing methodology flow charts ......................................................................... 41
Fig.11. Conceptual framework of land use/land cover drivers. .................................................................. 42
Fig.12. Unsupervised classification of landsat MSS 1972 and 2015ETM+. .............................................. 51
Fig.13. Land use/land cover map of the study area in 1972 ....................................................................... 57
Fig.18. Land use/land cover change in1972-2015. ..................................................................................... 63
Fig.19. Land use/land cover trend of the study area in 1972-2015 ............................................................. 68
Fig.20.Land use/ land cover change analysis for 1972 to 2015 .................................................................. 72
LIST OF PLATES
Plate 1. Eucalyptus plantation surrounding wetland rivers ........................................................................ 76
Plate 2. Birdlife of Jarmet wetland.............................................................................................................. 77
Plate 3. Factors of land degradation of the study area ................................................................................ 79
Plate 4. Forest conversion to Farmland and Shrubland conversion to Grassland……………..………..…74
Plate 5. Eucalypts and other plantation inside Jarmet wetland ................................................................... 82
VII
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AOI Area of Interest
CIA Central Intelligence Agency
CSA Central Statistical Agency
DEM Digital Elevation Model
DCDC Decision Center for a Desert City
DN Digital Number
EMA Ethiopian Mapping Agency
ENVI Environment for Visualizing Image
EPA Environmental Protection Authority
EPE Environmental Policy of Ethiopia
ERDAS Earth Resource Data Analysis System
EROS Earth Resources Observation and Science
ESDI Environmental Satellite Data and Information
ETM+ Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus
EWRP Ethiopian Wetland Research Program
FAO Food and Agricultural Organization
FCC False Color Composite
FGD Focus Group Discussions
FGDC Federal Geographic Data Committee
GCPS Ground Control Points
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GIS Geographic Information System
GLCF Global Land Cover Facility
GLOVIS Global Visualization Viewer
GPS Global Positioning System
GSE Geological Survey of Ethiopia
HoAREC Horn of Africa Regional Environmental Center
ISODATA Iterative Self Organizing Data Analysis Technique Algorithm
VIII
ITCZ Inter Tropical Convergence Zone
IUCNS International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
LULC Land Use/ Land Cover
MEDaC Ministry of Economic Development and Co-operation
MoFED Ministry of Finance and Economic Development
MSS Multi Spectral Scanner
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NMSA National Meteorological Service Agency
0c Degree Celsius
PCA Principal Component Analysis
RMSE Root Mean Square Error
RS Remote Sensing
SRTM Shuttle Radar Topographic Missions
TCC True Color Composite
TM Thematic Mapper
UNEP United Nations Environmental Program
UNPD United Nations Population Division
USDA United State Department of Agriculture
USDOS United State Department of State
USGS United State Geological Survey
UTM Universal Transverse Mercator
WBISPP Woody Biomass Inventory and Strategic Planning Project
WCED World Commission on Environment and Development
WGS Worldwide Geodetic System
WRS Worldwide Reference System
IX
ABSTRACT
Wetlands are one of the crucial natural resources. They provide invaluable biodiversity resources, aid in
water quality improvement, support ground water recharge, help in moderating climate change and support
flood control. Environment is in the other hand, where we live and something we are very familiar with our
day to day life. The change of those natural resources are a result of population growth, unwise use of
natural resources, lack of conservation policy implementation and unsustainable cultivation. GIS, Remote
Sensing and GPS were a useful tool for wetland and environmental change analysis and to improve on the
classification accuracy. This study investigate population and environmental change of Jarmet wetland and
its surrounding area change analysis over the period of 1972 to 2015. The purpose of this study was to
show land use/ land cover change of Jarmet wetland and its surrounding environment over years as a
response to population growth. For this purpose multi-temporal satellite imageries (Landsat MSS 1972,
TM1986, ETM+ 2000, 2005 and 2015 and SRTM 2000) were obtained and used for LULC change analysis,
elevation analysis and change detection analysis. ERDAS Imagine 2010, ARC GIS 9.3, Global Mapper11,
ENVI 4.7, and DNR Garmin softwares were used to process the image data and accuracy assessment
analysis. The result of LULC showed that there is spatial reduction in wetland, forest, Shrubland and
grassland in the period of 43 years (1972-2015) by -1,722.8 ha, -296.2 ha, -1,718.7 ha and -661.9 ha
respectively, due to increase in the farmland and plantation area as a response to overpopulation, lack of
environmental policy implementation and irresponsible for natural resource degradation. The accuracy
assessment of LULC change are done for recent satellite image showed that the overall accuracy 84.06%
with Kappa index 75.19% this means this classification is accurately classified and handle greater than
75% of error. Depend on the problem of selection and generalization we can’t achieve accuracy 100%.
Finally, this study suggests that create strictly natural resource conservation law, stopping illegal
expansion of farmland, educating society about the value of natural resource especially wetland and create
a source of income for society rather than farming.
Keywords: GIS, Remote Sensing, Jarmet and others wetland change, Environmental change, population
growth, LULC change, Change Detection analysis, Accuracy Assessment Analysis
X
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
Many definitions for wetlands have been proposed and utilized over the years (Ramsar
Convention, 1971; Mac et al., 1998) and these definitions have been developed for various
purposes, such as research studies, general habitat classifications, natural resource inventories and
environmental regulations. But, no universal definition of wetland exists up to wetland protection
law implemented. Before the beginning of wetland protection laws in 1960s wetlands were broadly
defined by scientists working in specialized fields (Lefor and Kennard, 1977). A botanist’s
definition would emphasize on plants; soil scientists would focus on soil properties, hydrologists’
definition would emphasize of the water table and geographers and environmentalists’ definition
would emphasize the function and services of wetlands. Wetlands are useful natural resources and
usually attract different types of wildlife and birds. They are also a fragile ecosystem that could
irreversibly degrade with human impacts. The united states geological survey(USGS) (1992)
defined wetland as a general term applied to land areas which are seasonally or permanently water
logged, including lakes, rivers, estuaries and fresh water marshes, an area of low lying land
submerged or inundated periodically by fresh or saline water. Although, many definition are
proposed for the factor of population growth on wetland and environment of surrounding area.
According to UNPD (2009) the world’s population are nearly one billion in 1800 and currently it
has grown approximately to 7 billion. The recent estimation of population projection suggested
that the world population will rise somewhere between 7.5 and 10.5 billion by 2050, depending
on changes in national level fertility and mortality rates. When the population increases over years
at the same time the wetland and the earth’s ecosystems, that support peoples livelihoods and
wellbeing are rapidly degrading. Increases in human population size have dynamic, nonlinear
impacts on the wetland and environment, with feed backs, thresholds and synergies amplifying
risk and spending wetland and environmental change or degradations beyond the rate of population
growth (Harte, 2007).
Thomas Malthus (1978) says in his statement ‘‘the power of population is indefinitely greater than
the capacity of the earth to produce subsistence for man’’. This shows as if the number of
population grows the natural resources and environments are degraded. Because, if the population
1
increases in number the populations carrying capacity on natural environment also increases.
Although, population growth and human activity placing unprecedented and unsustainable
demand on wetland and surrounding environments. Increasing demand for natural resources, the
intensification of agriculture, the productions of hazardous waste, rapidly growing populations and
globalizing economy and urbanization, all have contributed to wetland and environmental changes
(DCDC, 2007).
The outcomes of the impacts of human on wetlands are manifested through land use/ land cover
changes. Because, land use/ land cover changes are especially agricultural extensification converts
and ultimately degrades natural habitats and wetland resources. Habitat degradation not only
threatens biodiversity, wetland and environments; it also disrupts the soils natural regulatory
functions, resulting in soil erosion, reduced water holding capacity and nutrient depletion, as well
as wetland change and other forms of natural environment degradations. Although, wetland is an
inherently dynamic system which can be created, modified, and destroyed by a range of natural
processes, the direct and indirect consequences of human activity are the main causes of wetland
and environmental change and loss worldwide (Williams,1991). Degradation on wetlands includes
habitat loss and fragmentation, resource extraction, drainage and reclamation, pollution and so on.
The change of wetlands has created numerous problems including decrease and extinction of wild
flora and fauna, loss of natural soil nutrients, water reservoirs and of their subsequent benefits.
They have affected on various traditional occupations, socioeconomic conditions and cultural
activities.
According to Finlayson and Moser (1991) wetlands occupy of about 6 percent of the land surfaces
of the world, or approximately 890 million ha but an estimate of 50% of world’s wetland may have
been altered or lost in the last 50 years (Dugan, 1993). In tropical and sub-tropical areas
conversions of wetlands to alternative land uses have accelerated wetland loss since the 1950s and
agriculture is considered the principal cause for wetland loss or change (Moser et al., 1996). Africa
is the best known for its savannas and hot desert, 1% of its surface area (345,000km2) is covered
by wetlands. In an Ethiopian context, more than 85% of population live in rural areas and depend
on agriculture for employment. The total land area of Ethiopia is 113,000,000 hectares or
1,130,000 km2. Out of which 2 – 3.5 % is covered by high forests, whereas wetland constitutes
only 1.15% (13,699km2), 23.1% covered by Shrublands and 12.8% covered by savanna and
2
grasslands. Ethiopian highlands produce in excess of 110 billion meter cubic of water, of which
74% flows into rivers draining into Sudan, Egypt, Kenya and Somalia (EPA, 2004; WBISPP,
2005). On the other hand, the recent data on forest resources of Ethiopia reported in FAO (2010)
puts Ethiopia among countries with forest cover of 10‐30%.
Extensive loss of wetlands has occurred in many countries throughout the world (Mitsch and Gosse
link, 1993). Ethiopia is one of the world countries known by loss of environments and wetlands.
In many countries like Ethiopia, local economies depend on wetlands for fisheries, reed harvesting,
grazing, drinking ground water, irrigation and recreation. A large number of Ethiopians depend on
wetland resources for their survival (Wood and Dixon, 2002). The causes of wetland degradation
include the conversion of wetlands for intensive irrigation agriculture, the expansion of human
settlement, industrial pollution, pesticides and fertilizers and water diversion for drainage and the
construction of dams. Wetland conversion often results in water depletion, the displacement of
populations, the destructions of traditional production systems, habitat degradation, salinization,
increase of water borne disease and other adverse ecological impacts (WCED, 1987).
The study area, Jarmet wetland is located in western part of Ethiopia and was claimed to have high
diversity of wildlife, birds and surrounded by high forests. Currently, the area of the wetland has
reduced and there are no wildlife life (except the most common ones such as hyena and common
jackals). The surrounding high forest was replaced by agriculture and only remnant mature trees
are scattered across the study area. Although the underlying factors can be anticipated, there is no
recorded and quantified data to understand the original extent of the wetland and its current size.
Second, there is no data that depict which land use type was converted to which. Third, the amount
of the high forest surrounding the wetland is unknown. Fourth, there are also smaller wetlands
which are part of Jarmet wetland and their status over years are also not known.
For the present study Geographic Information System (GIS) and remote sensing technologies are
used for analyzing population and environmental changes of Jarmet wetlands and its surrounding
areas. GIS and remote sensing data are appropriate tools for analyzing and monitoring of wetland
distribution, change area and spatio-temporal dynamic multiplicity. Remote sensing has many
advantages for analysis of wetland and environmental changes and also provides information on
surrounding land use and their changes over time. Landsat MSS, TM and ETM+ are a common
data type for wetland classification and analysis of its spatial and temporal dynamic change. This
3
study attempt to investigate five multitemporal and multispectral Landsat images between 1972,
1986, 2000, 2005 and 2015 from USGS (Landsat GLCF) Path 170/Row 053 and path 182/ row
053 for analysis and detect changes happened in this study area. Remote sensing data are the basis
of GIS which has the function of collecting, storing, managing, analyzing and describing all or
part of the data which regards to spatial and geographical distribution , Global Positioning System
(GPS), on the other hand can identify exactly the change of location, time and speed of any kind
of object (Wang et al.,2008). The satellite based remote sensors are low cost, affordable GIS tools
for effective analysis and detect the wetland and environmental change in surrounding areas as a
response.
Traditionally, wetlands and environments are delineated, analyzed and mapped by using ground
survey. However, the surveys are difficult and time consuming (Yasouka et al., 1995). Remote
sensing is one of the technologies that can provide cost and time effective solutions to mitigate
these problems (Gold berg, 1998). In addition, remote sensing technologies can supply the
following information for analysis of wetland and environmental change; (1) areal extent of
wetland and environments of surrounding area (2) identify the wetland and environmental
resources change as to type (3) characterize the general wetland land use/land cover type and (4)
identify spectral analysis of remote sensor data (Lyon and Mc carthly, 1995).
1.2 Statement of the Problem and Justification

In rural Ethiopia, natural resources are the basis of the livelihoods of local communities. People
usually use various services of these natural resources and also change their nature through, e.g.,
expansion of agriculture. Wetlands are important ecosystem that support various components of
natural resources. According to Cowardin et al., (1979), wetlands are valuable land resources that
fulfill diverse natural, social and production functions. They also provide a range of ecosystem
services. This means wetlands are used as transitional lands between terrestrial and aquatic systems
that provide many goods and services including flood water retention, water quality maintenance,
wildlife habitat, and soil erosion control. Wetlands are essential ecological features in any
landscape. In their natural condition, wetlands supply numerous economical, ecological and
cultural benefits to local communities, including water protection and unique opportunities for
education and recreation (Rai, 2008; Liu et al., 2010; Olhan et al., 2010; Munyat, 2011). Holland
et al., (1991) and Liu and Cameroon (2001) says wetlands are indispensable part of the global
4
ecosystem. They support a high level of biological diversity and provide a host of services
including primary and secondary productivity. They regulate water and nutrient flows and provide
important habitats for wildlife. Cartney and Hera (2004) say that wetlands are important habitats
because the heterogeneity in hydrology and soil conditions which they support results in broad
variety of ecological niches, and they usually support enormous biodiversity.
They are, however, prone to changes due to population growth whereby their size and pristine
nature change through time. As indicated in the background section of this paper, wetlands are a
source of livelihood for many citizens in Ethiopia as elsewhere in different parts of the world.
However, unregulated and unwise resource use from the wetland ecosystem, lack of appropriate
policies and institutional setup that controls and regulates proper utilization and management of
the resource, among other problems, has resulted in a serious degradation of wetlands and wetland
resources, and eventually led to their disappearance in Ethiopia ( Afwork Hailu,2006). In Ethiopia,
many wetlands are converted to farmland and sometimes used in uncoordinated way, due to lack
of information on its environmental benefits (Deribe, 2008). Including some of the facts mentioned
above and other associated problems, the wetlands in Ethiopia are severely degraded and have lost
their natural characteristics, and converted into rough grazing lands where no more of their natural
functions and benefits could be available for use (Dixon and Wood, 2003). The major causes for
their disappearance is improper drainage, construction of deep drainage ditches, double cropping,
growing of perennial crops and grazing after crop harvesting. The cultivation of eucalyptus
(Eucalyptus on the wetland edges and also teff (Eragrostis tef) in the wetlands have reportedly
contributed to the drying out of wetlands (Dugan, 1990).
Particularly, in Jarmet wetland and its surrounding there are no studies with regard to its current
status, threats, or values of wetlands or even the need for their conservation and sustainable
utilization. This wetland has been degraded over years due to human activities. It has been
variously reported that population growth has created unprecedented pressure on natural resources
(e.g., FAO, 2006; Lal, 2006). Jarmet wetland is also not an exception. In Jarmet wetland and its
surrounding area human impacts were mentioned as major factor driving environmental changes
and affecting the size and quality of the wetland. Population growth and agricultural practices are
major forms of wetland and environmental changes of these areas. This wetland was surrounded
by forests and claimed to be larger in size harboring a variety of wildlife such as Red Buck, wild
5
pig, bush buck, wolf and leopard. It has been also used as nesting sites for migratory and resident
bird species. Currently, this wetland is highly degraded, reduced in size and has lost its previous
services. Although there are these claims of the pristine nature of Jarmet wetland, a study that aims
at understanding the changes of the wetland and its surrounding environment with regard to land
use and land cover dynamics is very important to propose conservation measures. With the advent
of new tools such as GIS and remote sensing made it possible to carry out time series analyses of
changes in the natural environment such as Jarmet wetland and its surrounding areas.
The pressure on the environment and wetland caused by human activities such as deforestation,
over cultivation, over grazing, pollution and by natural events such as drought refers to
environmental changes. Environmental changes are compounded by population growth, resulting
in declining resources and higher demand and this will be a likely factor that intensifies conflict
over the coming decades (UNEP, 2009).
1.3 Objectives of the Study

1.3.1 General Objective
The overall objective of this study is to assess the impacts of population growth on natural resource
bases, with a focus on Jarmet wetland and the surrounding areas using GIS and remote sensing
techniques and different datasets.
1.3.2 Specific Objectives

The specific objectives will be pursued in order to achieve the general objective of the study.
These are:-
- To assess the land use/land cover changes of Jarmet wetland and its surrounding
environment over the study periods.
- The study investigates the trend and rate of LULC change of Jarmet wetland and its
surrounding environments.
- To explore the causes of change detection of wetland and its surrounding environments of
the last (43 years).
- To identify impact of land use/ land cover change of the wetland and its surrounding
environments.
6
1.4 Research Questions
The central working of this research questions enable the assessment of changes and classification
of Jarmet wetland and the surrounding environment from 1972-2015. Many researchers argue that
the major causes of wetland and its surrounding environmental change are largely emanate from
the interaction of humans with the natural environment. For this study, the research questions
include:-
 What is the extent of Jarmet wetland change in terms of its size?

 What are land use/land cover trend in terms of the unprecedented change in the size of the
wetland?
 Are the wetlands being converted for other land use purposes within the study area?
 What are the major derivers of Jarmet wetland and its surrounding environmental change?
 How people perceived changes in the Jarmet wetland and its surrounding forests in terms
of wildlife, birds and other uses?
 What type of problems happened societies living close to the degraded wetland areas and
surrounding environments?
1.5 Significance of the Study

Turner (1997) stated that most of the worlds environmental and wetland issues and global changes
are attributed to population and land use changes. Population, wetland and land use
change/dynamics influences and affects; climate change, loss of biodiversity, pollution,
degradation, erosion and the sustainability of resource use. According to Kevin (2000) wetland
and environmental change takes place under the influence of a number of driving forces such as,
population, technology, political and socio-economic changes, climate changes and all at country
level of spatial desegregation.
Hence, this study analysis the impact of population change on environmental dynamism of Jarmet
wetland and its surrounding areas over the study periods. The causes of population dynamics and
changes of wetland and environmental implications through direct and indirect observation by
using remote sensing, GIS, GPS, questionnaires, interviews, focus group discussion(FGD),
population and livestock data, satellite imageries and topographic map. The integration of remote
sensing and GIS for the analysis of socio economic household survey data within an information
7
system will makes possible for analysis of change detection and their dynamics over years. The
findings of this study may reveal the major factors of population changes on wetland and other
natural environments. Therefore, the significance of the present research may provide direction for
protection (policy formulation), teaching populations the values of wetlands and other natural
environments, to inform the importance of Jarmet wetland watershed for the country and create
the way of conservations before destroyed, and design the future importance of wetland resources
for population lives close to Wetlands, uplands, woreda and the country in general.
1.6 Limitation of the Study

In this study there was a major limitation as a result of resolution difference of Landsat images.
Landsat image of 1972 was acquired with the multispectral scanner (MSS) which has spatial
resolution of 60 meters, whilst the image 1986 was acquired with thematic mapper (TM) with
spatial resolution of 30 meters. The remaining images of 2000, 2005 and 2015 were acquired with
enhanced thematic mapper plus (ETM+). Those all have a spatial resolution of 30 meters. If
different land use/ land cover found within 30 and 60 meter, it captured as one and give pixels
depending on majority land coverage. This limitation was corrected for through image thinning of
the 1972, it still prevented its use for projecting into the future so as to have a consistent result.
Getting cloud free satellite images and sufficient previous researches on the study area particular
and the country in general are another bottlenecks. In addition, there is no sufficient data for
hydrology, soils, populations and livestocks in the study area. Although, at local level in the district
there was no responsible officer in charge of environment/wetlands hence limited information was
found. Furthermore, lack of published and unpublished research material at the study area woreda,
lack of enough time, money, material and information.
1.7 Approaches used in the Study

The study area was delineated based on population and environmental changes of Jarmet wetland
and its surrounding areas. The socio- economic activity of society, environmental constraints, food
security, land use land cover changes, natural environmental resource factors, local development
impacts are analyzed by using GIS, remote sensing and GPS technology. The land use land cover
change, wetland and environmental change and the factors of these changes for the last 43 years
were evaluated and analyzed from satellite images and ground surveys. By using GIS the areal
extent of wetland and environments of surrounding area changes over years were analyzed. Using
8
remotely sensed data for land use/ land cover change of wetland and its surrounding environments
over years analysis, change detections analysis, image classification and accuracy assessment
analysis. Using GPS for enhancing the ability to capture more detailed and timely information for
the ground truth about the boundaries of wetland land cover class identification like; forest,
grassland, shrubs, agricultural land, wetland and other natural resource of the area at various scales.
In order to understand the possible causes of wetland and environment of surrounding area changes
and address the issues (the main factors of degradations or changes) that enhance the change
detection, land use land cover analysis in addition to socio-economic activities and natural factors
of the area was assessed through primary and secondary data collections.
1.8 Thesis Organization

This study is composed of seven chapters. The first chapter deals with general background of the
study and constitutes the introduction, statement of the problems, objectives of the study, research
questions, approaches used in the study, limitations of the study and thesis organizations. Chapter
two focuses on review of literature related to the topic. In chapter three, descriptions of the study
area, geology, rainfall and temperature, soil, elevations, population and socio- economic activities
are briefly described. Chapter four, devoted to research methods and sampling techniques used in
the study, conceptual frame work, reconnaissance survey, data source and type (data collection)
and analysis methods. Chapter five, devoted to spatial data processing and analyzing; satellite
image preprocessing (geometric and radiometric correction, noise removal), satellite image
processing, image classification and accuracy assessment. Chapter six, employed results and
discussion of the main findings and data analysis in wetland and environmental changes over years,
land use land cover change analysis over years, change detection analysis, trend and rate of wetland
and its surrounding environmental change analysis, impacts of land use/land cover change, drivers
of LULC change and nature of LULC change analysis. Finally, summary, conclusions and
recommendation of the study are presented in chapter seven.
9
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Values and Functions of Wetlands
Wetlands are important resource in sub-Saharan Africa that sustains rural livelihoods, particularly
in areas with low or unpredictable rainfall, land scarcity or where uplands have poor soil
characteristics and thus low potentials for agriculture (Dixon, 2002; Dixon and Wood, 2003).
Wetlands are provides a variety of food sources and cover for nest sites of migratory birds.
Wetlands are also a great use to humans because of the diverse natures of habitats they provide for
different species (Turner and Jones, 1991). In many parts of the world, wetlands are used for
recreation, cultivation, education and timber production. As such, wetlands provide areas for both
consumptive and non-consumptive uses. Consumptive use involves hunting and fishing, while
non-consumptive uses includes, bird watching and studying animals and plants. Wetlands are
fulfill a range of environmental functions depending on their type and location. They provide
valuable resources for rural communities especially in developing countries like Ethiopia.
The function of wetlands are the physical, chemical and biological process occurring in and
making up on an ecosystem. Processes include the movement of water through the wetland in to
streams or the oceans and the decay of organic matter. Only 2.6% of world’s water is fresh (Illueca
and Rast, 1996). The remainder is found in the oceans and brackish water. Only a fraction of
world’s fresh water is available for consumption because so much of it is locked up on polar
icescapes and glaciers (Illueca and Rast, 1996). Fresh water resources are finite, but global
consumption rates are known to increase 2-3% every year (Illueca and Rast, 1996). Wetlands are
the main custodians of these valuable water resources. They act as ‘’banks’’ from where water
may be drawn and ground water replenished. Values of wetlands are ‘’estimate usually subjective,
of worth, merit, quality or importance’’ (Richardson, 1994). Wetland ‘’values’’ may drive from
outputs that can be consumed directly, such as food, recreation, or timber and indirect uses.
Which arise from the functions occurring within the ecosystem, such as water quality, and flood
compassable future direct out puts or indirect uses such as biodiversity or conserved habitats; and
from the knowledge that such habitats or species exist (known as existence value Serageldin,
1993). Wetlands provide natural resources and services for humanity. The loss of ecosystem
services of wetland can have economic and environmental consequences. Multiple authors
10
acknowledge a vast variety of literature has been published attempting to give wetlands an
economic values (Mitsch and Gosse link, 2000; Bendor et al., 2008). Economically, wetlands
support livelihoods providing numerous services and products to human kind. The main
importances and functions of wetlands are given below;
1. Hydrological function: wetlands provide a number of important functions in regulating water

flow through hydrological system. They slow the speed of water moving through system and act
as natural reservoirs, storing large amount of water. This regulates the downstream flow, maintain
it during the dry season and controlling flooding during the wet season. Wetlands recharge ground
water and are important for maintaining the water table. All of these factors are extremely
important for communities living and farming around or down stream of wetland. Large wetlands
also can have an effect on rainfall, humidity, and stabilization of local microclimate through high
potential evapotranspiration rates of dense wetland vegetation (Messele Fisseha, 2003).
1.1 Water balance: is a hydrologic functions of wetlands and it play a critical role in regulating
the movement of water within watersheds as well as in the global water cycle (Mitsch and Gosse
link, 1993). Wetlands store precipitations and surface water and then slowly release the water in
to associated surface water resources, ground water and the atmosphere. Wetlands help maintain
the level of water table and exert control on the hydraulic head (O’Brien and winter, 1988). The
extent of ground water recharge by wetland is dependent upon soil, vegetation, site, perimeter to
volume ratio, and water table gradient (Weller, 1981; Carter and Novitzki, 1981). Weller (1981)
stated that researchers have discovered ground water recharge of up to 20% of wetland volume per
season.
1.2 Climate control: climate control is another hydrologic function of wetlands. Many wetlands
return over two-thirds of their annual water inputs to the atmosphere through evapotranspiration
(Richardson and Mc carthy, 1994). Brinson (1993) observed that wetlands might also act to
moderate temperature extremes in adjacent uplands.
2. Water supply: wetlands acts as reservoirs for the watershed and they release the water they
retain (from precipitation, surface water and ground water) in to associated surface water and
ground water. Forested wetlands, marshes, riverine and plaustrine wetlands have been noted to
have significant water storage and ground recharge (Weller, 1981; Brown and Sullivan, 1988).
11
3. Flood protection: wetlands help protect adjacent and downstream properties from potential
flood damage. According to Mitsch and Gosse link (1993), the value of flood controls by wetlands
increases with; (1) wetland area, (2) proximity of wetland to flood waters, (3) location of the
wetland (along a river, lake or stream), (4) amount of flooding that would occur without the
presence of wetlands and (5) lack of other upstream storage areas such as ponds, lakes and
reservoirs.
4. Erosion control: wetland plants hold the soils in place with their roots, absorb wave energy and
reduce the velocity of stream or river currents. Coastal wetlands buffer shore lines against the wave
action produced by hurricanes and tropical storm (Mitsch and Gosse link, 1993).
5. Regulation function: refers to the critical role wetlands play in regulating ecological and
biophysical processes. Many regulating services that wetlands provide are related to their capacity
to purify water, retain flood waters and provide a buffer to terrestrial areas at risk of flooding or
pollution. Although, wetlands are helps as storage and recycling nutrient, human waste, organic
waste, ground water recharge and discharge. Vegetations in wetlands can absorb strong winds and
tides, making them excellent for shore protection.
5.1 Ground water recharge: wetlands may have an important influence on the recharge or
discharge of ground water. Ground water recharge refers to the movement of surface water down
through soil in to zone in which permeable rocks and overlying soil are saturate.
5.2 Ground water discharge: ground water discharge in contrast, refers to the movement of
ground water out in to the soil surface. Although poorly understood, it appears that most wetlands
are ground water discharge or through flow areas.
6. Carrier functions: wetlands provide services to human beings like, agriculture, irrigation, stock
farming (grazing), wildlife cropping/resources, transport, energy production, tourism and
recreation and human habitation and settlement.
7. Production function: wetlands give production functions for human beings such as, water,
food, fuel wood, and raw materials for buildings.
8. Information function: wetlands give information functions like, research, education and
monitoring uniqueness, rarity or naturalness and role in cultural heritage.
12
2.2 Threats of Wetland and Environments
Wetlands are the most productive ecosystems due to their functions and attributes. They are
essential to wellbeing of Ethiopians as they contribute significant economic and social benefits to
the country. Despite their high productivity and provision of many benefits; wetland and
environments are still facing a serious threats (Abebe et al., 2003). Other problems that develop
time include a decline in agricultural productivity in the cultivated wetlands which may eventually
lead to reduce overall availability of land for crop production. In the same way as continuous
cultivation of crops around wetland will dry it out, afforestation of land upstream of a wetland may
reduce the amount of water in lower reaches of catchment, leading to a lowering of the water table
and wetland drying.
Although, wetlands are dynamic ecosystems there changes are naturally over times as a
consequences of processes which as erosion, sedimentation and coastal flooding. However, human
activities either within wetland and environment or in the catchment in which they are situated can
alter these natural processes or accelerate the rate of change, threatening the wetlands continued
existence. Many wetland and environments have been extensively and irreversibly modified as
humans try to increase agricultural productivity. One of the main impacts of disruption to wetland
and environments of Jarmet is over extraction of water for intensive agriculture, overgrazing,
pesticides and other agro chemicals can pollute the wetlands and other surrounding environments.
Another threats of wetland and environments are population growth and demand for more food
and greater economic development. Agriculture is not only the activity that damages wetlands and
environments, population around wetlands and uplands often grow quickly, leading to pressure on
natural resources.
According to Yilma Abebe (2003) wetlands and their values remain little understood and their loss
is increasingly becoming an environmental disaster. While rates of wetland loss are documented
for the developed world. The limited study of these ecosystems in developing countries like
Ethiopia are little to say. The most threats of wetlands face results from their misuse many are also
related to unsustainable resource extraction. Another important reason for their vulnerability is the
fact that they are dynamic systems undergoing continual change (Barbier et al., 1996). As a result,
many wetland are temporary features that disappear, reappear and re-create themselves over time
(Barbier et al., 1996). Dugans (1990) claims that 65% of wetland disturbances are of human origin,
13
while remainder have natural origins. Out of these 73% of disturbance are thought to result from
direct human actions, while the remaining 27% are believed to come from indirect source.
Table 1. Causes of wetland loss (after Dugan, 1990).
Human actions Natural causes

Indirect
Direct
Drainage Sediment diversion Subsidence
Dredging Hydrological alterations Sea level rise
Filling Subsidence Land degradation
Conversion Agriculture Hurricanes and storms
Construction Deforestation Erosion
Discharge Soil erosion Biotic effects
Mining Pollution Earthquakes
Abstraction
Source: Wetlands of Ethiopia, (2003)
The major threats of wetland of Jarmet and its surrounding area are human activities. The most or
serious threats of this area are include the following.
- Unsustainable use of wetland resources through overgrazing, over cultivation, over

abstraction of water for domestic use, agriculture and improper use of forest practices.
- Establishment of new human and livestock settlements in wetland areas.
- Cutting and burning of aquatic and other vegetation for, housing and commercial activities
like a charcoal and fire wood.
- Lack of an operational national wetland policy and cross cutting sectorial policies.
- Limited funds where by wetland management institutions, lack adequate and continuous
fund personnel for monitoring, management, and research and community awareness.
- Lack of community participations in management of various wetland resources in the
woreda and countries in general. Generally, conversion of wetlands, agricultural
encroachment, demographic pressures, over grazing and climate change are the major
factors threatening wetlands.
2.2.1 Major Factors of Wetland Threat

There are several factors of wetland threat in the world. Those factors are;
14
1. Reclamation and conversion of wetland: conversion, drainage and reclamation of wetlands
for agricultural development, human settlement and industrial development is one of the
biggest threats to wetland and environmental change in the world wide.
2. Over exploitation of wetland goods and services: increasing human populations and
changes from subsistence to commercial exploitation of wetland resources continue to exert
increasing pressures on limited wetland resources, resulting in a decline of services and
quality as well as quantity of products derived from wetlands.
3. Demographic pressures: population pressures is tightly interconnected with the growing
needs of wetland for food resources and combined with a poor knowledge of the ecological
functions of wetlands and environmental resources. Due to population pressure and
subsequent demand for more resources to sustain in rural livelihoods, wetlands and
environments are now under threat in Jarmet wetland and environments of surrounding areas.
Also, high population pressure and urbanization in developing countries increases the
demand for land encourage deforestation, pollution and degradations.
4. Over grazing: over grazing harms wetlands and environments through soil compaction,
removal of vegetation and stream bank destabilization. Wetlands offer some of the best
forage for livestock as well as a water source and cover. So livestock trends to spend
disproportionately large time in wetlands.
5. Agriculture: wetlands often have fairly flat or areas of rich organic soil that is highly
productive agricultural land if drained. For this reason many wetlands have been drained and
converted to agricultural lands.
6. Climate change: the increases of temperature are causing polar ice to melt and sea levels to
rise. This in turn is leading to shallow wetlands being swamped and some species are
degraded. Yet at the same time, other wetlands, estuaries, flood plains and marshes are being
destroyed through drought.
2.3 Policy Action for Conservation and Use of Wetland and Environments
In Ethiopia the majority of the societies depends on the agriculture for their survival. In Ethiopia
agriculture has dominated about 45% of GDP, 85% of exports and 80% of total employment.
Agriculture also have been the main source of the stagnation and variability in GDP growth. In the
cause of agriculture many resources are threatened or degraded like; wetlands and other natural
resources such as, forest, wildlifes, birds, soils and waters. In Ethiopia deforestation is estimated
15
for expansion of rain fed agriculture vary from 80, 000 to 200,000 hectares per annum. In 1990
the accelerated soil erosion caused a progressive annual loss in grain production estimated to
40,000 tonnes, which unless arrested, will reach about 170,000 tonnes by 2010 (Mathew et al.,
2011).
Livestocks play a number of vital roles in rural economy, but according to one estimate 2 million
hectare of grassland will have been destroyed by soil erosion between 1985 and 1995. Land
degradation estimated to have resulted in a loss of livestock production in 1990 equivalent to 1.1
million tropical livestock units. For the cause of those problems many environmental and wetland
policy action are taken for the wise use of these resources in Ethiopia and at a worldwide (FAO,
2006).
Environment are the source or production function that supports the livelihood of millions who
depend upon environmental resources and the sinks or pollution absorption and cleansing
functions essential for human health and wellbeing. Although, our country is the most important
biodiversity hotspots of the world, but also one of the most degraded. The country faces many
environmental challenges including declines in soil fertility and water quality, loss of biodiversity,
deforestation, soil erosion and wetland degradation. Much of Ethiopians population is dependent
up on the environment as their principle source of income (HoAREC, 2011; USDOS, 2011;
MCkee2007, and EPE, 1997).
The environmental policy in Ethiopia are prepared for a long period of time. In Ethiopia the first
environmental policy laws are Fitha Nagest (the law of king) of the 13 century had rules which
deal with environmental matters. This laws explains the proclamations on hunting of wild animals
to oversight of radiations. The environmental policy and challenges of Ethiopia during the period
of Italian occupation (1936-41) while there were rules that addressed aspects of environment,
formal environmental decrees were rare (Bekele, 2008). The resource laws during Italian
occupation focused on the economic potential of Ethiopia natural resources rather than their
ecological values. During this period Italians issued over twenty forest decrees and implemented
destructive forestry programs to fuel infrastructural development (Bekele, 2008). After the return
of Ethiopian imperial government (1941-1975) policy focused on the development of agricultural
sector for domestic consumptions and export; as a result national forest land was redistributed for
conversion to agricultural land (Bekele, 2008). While the 1955 constitution introduced the
16
principle of conservations, it took years for forestry policies to develop and even longer for any
implementation to take place. The period of 1955-1968 is described by Bekele as ‘‘probably one
of the most distressing phases in forestry management’’ in Ethiopia, where the high land forest
estimated 1,937, at nearly six million hectares was reduced by almost 1.5 to three million hectares
in early 1960 ( Bekele, 2008,p.339).
In 1975, the militaristic Derg regime succeeded the imperial government drastically changing
Ethiopian environmental management. Environmental policies produced during the Derg era
(1975-1991) were ground in socialist ideologies of the regime (Bekele, 2008). The environmental
policies of Derg regime were characterized by top-down management policies which, although
they often incorporated extensive conservation and tree planting initiatives were ‘‘thousand
hectares of lands belonging to communities and individual households came under plantation by
force’’ (Bekele, 2008, p, 339) without regard for local participation or community empowerment.
In 1991 or in the transitional government of Ethiopia most of the conservation and development
activities in the environmental sectors were destroyed in protest against decades of top-down rule
(Bekele, 2008; Keeley and Scoones, 2003).
In 1995, the Ethiopian environmental protection authority (EPA) was established as a response to
Rio Agenda 21which emphasized ‘‘the necessity of integrating environment and development at
policy planning and management levels for improved decision making’’ (Ruffeis et al., 2010, p,
31). In 2002 the establishment of independent environmental agencies at the regional level was
codified in the establishment of environmental protection organs proclamation (McKee, 2007).
The federal EPA has since assisted regional states in developing their own environmental
conservation strategies, through provision of equipment, training and environmental education
(MoFED, 2002). The second stage decentralization introduced by federal government in 2002
established the woreda (a local level of government roughly equivalent to a district) as a center of
socio economic development. The stated goal of policy was bringing the government closer to the
people and increasing responsiveness to local needs (Wemai, 2008; McKee, 2007; MoFED, 2002).
However, there are many environmental protection policy are prepared by federal governments
and environmental protection authority. Environmental policy is intended to introduce the
environmental protection enacted in 2008 both at federal and regional levels. There are many
numbers of environmental protection policy are written in the past and present by governments
17
and other organizations for protection of environments, but the reality on the ground is inverse of
those policy, because many natural resources are degraded in rural areas of Ethiopia especially in
Jarmet and its surroundings. Others, such as rural development, policy appear to lack crucial policy
elements, or have been criticized for promoting development interests over environmental
protection (Bekele, 2008).
For many years, in Ethiopia wetlands have received little or no attention from the general public
and particularly from decision and policy makers. Awareness within the general public as well as
amongst policy makers on wetland issues is still very limited or localized to specific organizations.
Ethiopian wetland research program (EWRP) in 1992-2000 in Illubabor zone undertook the most
comprehensive study on wetlands. The project was under taken by Huddesfield University from
UK in collaboration with Addis Ababa University, with back stopping under taken by International
Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCNS) eastern African regional office.
Although, in Ethiopia national policy on wetland conservation and management, the issue of
wetlands has been indirectly mentioned in various policies and legal frame works including the
national water resource management policy, the federal environmental policy, the biodiversity
management policy, agricultural and natural resource development policy and the land
administration policy frame works are potentially helpful to introduce managements and
conservation of wetlands and environments in the country, the reality on the ground shows that
wetlands are being mismanaged and some of them are in state extinction and degraded (Tadesse
Amsalu, 2012). To assure a sustainable wetlands and environments of surrounding area
development and addresses the multiple interests of stakeholders, it seems rational either to
strengthen and act in accordance with the existing policy frameworks or to initiate a national
wetland conservations such as, the Ramsar convention that facilitate wetland conservation and
sustainable utilization is also very important.
According to Ramsar convention (1987) brundtland commission the wise use of wetlands ֞ wise
use of wetland is the maintenance of their ecological character, achieved through the
implementation of ecosystem approaches within the context of sustainable development’’. Also
wise use of wetlands has been defined under the conventions’’ the maintenance of their ecological
character, achieved through the implementation of ecosystem approaches, within context of
sustainable development’’. Although, the wise use of wetland means sustainable utilization for the
18
benefit of human kind in a way compatible with the maintenance of the natural properties of the
ecosystem and sustainable utilization is understood as human use of wetlands so that it may yield
the greatest continuous benefit for present generations while maintaining its potential to meet the
needs aspirations of future generations.
Although, Ramsar convention secretariat (2007) the convention of wetlands came into force in
1975 and currently there are number of contracting parties, which are obliged to undertake four
main activities including;
- Designating wetlands for inclusion in the ‘list of wetlands of international important’ and
to maintain their ecological character.
- Developing national wetland policies, to include wetland conservation considerations with
in their national land use planning, to develop integrated catchment management plans and
in particular, to adopt and apply the guide lines for implementation of the wise use concept,
which is sustainable utilization of wetlands for the benefit of mankind in a way compatible
with the maintenance of the natural properties of ecosystem.
- Promoting the conservation of wetlands in their territory through establishment of natural
reserves and to promotes training in wetland research, management and wardening.
- Consulting with other contracting parties about transfrointer wetlands, shared water
systems, shared species and development aid for wetland projects.
In this way the Convention plays an important role in helping to prevent detrimental changes to
wetland sites in states that are party to the Convention. Recognizing the value of wetlands in the
livelihood of local communities as well as in sustaining a productive ecosystem and biodiversity,
Ethiopia is in the process of developing a protocol consistent with the Ramsar Convention and also
has drafted a National Wetland Policy awaiting approval of the law makers Wetlands for (Addis
Ababa and Bahir Dar University, 2012). In Ethiopia the environmental protection authority (EPA,
2003) addressed, water resources, wetlands, land use and biodiversity issues and indicates the need
integrate the rehabilitation and protection of wetland with the conservation, development
management of water and biodiversity resources. Specially, article 3.4 of the policy element on
water resource states the following:-
19
- To recognize that natural ecosystems, ‘‘particularly wetlands and upstream forests are
fundamental in regulating water quality and quantity and to integrate their rehabilitation
and protection into the conservation, development and management of water resources’’.
- To promote the protection of inter face between water bodies and natural environments
such as, lands, soils, lakeshores, riverbanks, forests, grasslands and wetlands.
2.4 Classification and types of Ethiopian wetlands

Wetland type can be defined as the combination of attributes (e.g., physical, chemical, and
biological) that make a particular wetland different from other wetlands. Wetlands as defined in
Ramsar convention include all lakes and open water as well as different types of permanently or
seasonally wet ground. If one takes into account all areas covered by this definition. According to
Afwork Hailu (2007) Ethiopia hosts all types of wetlands that have been classified and listed in
different parts of the world, except wetlands that are associated with coastal zones. However, due
to lack of institutional setup and legal frame work with in the country, no systemic classification
and inventory of wetlands has been undertaken. Some researchers and resource managers have
tried to list names and location of limited number of wetlands with in the country and made rough
estimates of the area coverage. The total wetland area coverage of Ethiopia are listed below.
Table 2. Areal extent of Ethiopian wetlands

Region Total land area Wetland % out of total % out of total
(ha) coverage (ha) area of region wetland area of
the country
1. Tigray 5,085,784 8,053 0.16 0.49
2. Afar 9,526,567 131,000 1.38 7.98
3. Amahara 15,764,744 431,695 2.74 26.29
4. Oromia 35,961,996 397,853 1.11 24.23
5. Somali 29,151,569 250,612 0.86 15.26
6. Benishangul Gumuz 5,033,592 22,466 0.45 1.37
7. SNNP 11,064,200 152,900 1.38 9.31
8. Gambella 3,203,280 247,556 7.73 15.08
Total 114,791,759 1,642,135 1.43 100.0
Source: WBISPP (woody biomass inventory and strategic planning project, 2002).
Hunghes and Hughes (1992) have some attempt to group Ethiopian wetlands in to ten categories
based on ecological zones, and also made their descriptions. On the other hand, Leykun Abunie
(2003) has classified Ethiopian wetlands in to four major categories based on ecological zones,
hydrological functions, geomorphologic formations and climatic conditions. He explained that the
20
four categories in which he has classified are linked with the four major biomes, which also
describe climatic conditions in Ethiopia. The four wetland biomes he tried to identify include;
- The afro tropical wetland system
- Somali Masai wetland system
- Sudano-Guinean wetland system
- Sahelian transitional wetland system.
However, such classification is based on location of wetlands and does not take into account the
wetlands environment, wise use, changes and does not provide proper information for their
conservations. There are many systems of analyzing, classifying, identifying the changes of
wetlands and environments followed by various organizations and institutions depending on their
source of water and nutrients (river, lake, ground water or rainfall) according to their hydrological
regime (e.g. permanently or temporarily flooded, permanently waterlogged and many other
classification criteria could be envisaged ( e.g. soil type, vegetation type and structure, livestock
type and other natural and manmade resources as well. Ethiopia has diverse types of wetlands in
various origins and different parts of the country. A wide range of wetland types, which are the
result of the cumulative effect of many environmental variables, exist in Ethiopia.
Table 3. Major types of Ethiopian wetlands
Types of wetlands Area per km squares Percent [%]
Fresh water lakes 5,766.6 31
Saline lakes 1,170 9.5
Marsh lands 2,330 12.5
Seasonally inundated wetlands 8,720 47
Total 18,587 100
Source: Ethiopian environment protection authority (EPA, 2003).
Based on simplified classification versions used by the Ramsar convention, one can also classify
the wetlands in Ethiopia in to three broad classes, including; fresh water, salt water and human
made wetlands.
1. Fresh water wetlands
Most of the Ethiopian wetlands can be classified as fresh water wetlands. This in turns can be
classified further as riverine wetlands (associated with temporarily and permanent fresh water
marshes) and swamps and lacustrine wetland types (lakes and wetlands associated with lake
21
systems). Depend upon the above idea I classify Jarmet wetlands as plaustrine wetland types
because it is temporarily flooded only during the rainy season and it dries up in dry season. It also
a riverine type of Wetland.
2. Salt water wetlands

There are limited salt water wetlands in Ethiopia. Examples, of salt water wetlands are wetlands
of Dallol depressions in Afar region states.
3. Human made wetlands

Human made wetlands include; Koka, Gelge Gibe, Melkawakenna, Fincha, Alwero and other
hydro power and irrigation dams. Further, municipal and small water reservoirs like dams built for
various purposes, acquirers and wells.
In addition, Keddy (2000) classified the four main types of wetlands in a basic system of
classification. Those are:-
Swamp (Carr): A wetland community dominated by trees with a developed leaf canopy, which
have invaded from nearby areas into herbaceous marshes and fens, rooted in hydric soils, but not
peat.
Marsh: A wetland community dominated by herbaceous plants, usually emergent through water
and rooted in hydric soils, but not peat.
Bog (Schwingmoor): A wetland community dominated by sphagnum moss, sedges, ericaceous

shrubs or evergreen trees rooted in deep, sometimes uncompacted peat
Fen: A wetland community usually dominated by sedges and grasses rooted in shallow peat, often
with considerable water movement through the peat.
2.5 Population Growth Drives Wetland and Environmental Changes

The population of Ethiopia has increased from an assumed 16 million around 1950 to about 65
million at a turn of 20th century (Zeleke and Hurni, 2001) and almost 85 or 96 million and greater
than today (CSA,2010 and CIA, 2015). According to Haile (2004) unsustainable population
growth, particularly the western Ethiopian highlands which is the most densely population area
contributed significantly to environmental degradation. Therefore, in the context of Ethiopian
highland most studies pinpoint population pressures one of the major drivers of wetland and
22
environmental change through destruction of Vegetations, water bodies, forests, wildlifes, lakes
and wetlands mainly for agricultural expansion (Amsalu et al., 2007; Bewket, 2002;
Gebresamuel.et al.,2010; Zeleke and Hurni,2001).
The growing population is one of the most critical drivers at Jarmet wetland and environments of
surrounding area changes, because the livelihood of almost the entire rural population of these area
is dependent on mixed farming system (crop production and animal husbandry). Even, the urban
populations especially, Jardaga town are made greater impacts on wetlands and other environments
of surrounding area. Their impacts are; pollution of wetlands by thrown chemical detergents like;
car batteries, burned fuels and garbage inside wetlands. Although, at the same time, the growing
demand for cultivated land and settlements and trees for fuel (charcoal) and construction of house
purposes aggregate the changes. Population growth coupled with lack of wise use of wetland and
other environmental resources are affects the resources of surrounding areas. This leads to further
fragmentations of land and intensification of environmental resources and subsequent reduction of
following practice or abandonment fallow periods, ultimately expansion of cultivated land into
forests, grazing lands and other marginal lands and wetlands. Which is a most common in western
part of Ethiopia especially in the study area kebeles.
Another factors of wetland and environmental changes as a response to population growth at

Jarmet wetlands are overgrazing and high livestock density in the deterioration of wetland and
other natural resources. Those change is facing a critical problem due to several factors such as
increasing population, demolished natural resources, environmental pollution and land use
planning. As the major factors of wetland and environmental change of Jarmet indicators changes
of landscape or topography, change of topsoil composition and changes in land use land covers.
All these indicators are closely related to impact from intensive human activity including
population growth.
2.6 Application of remote sensing and GIS for wetland and environmental analysis
Geospatial technologies as geographical information system (GIS), global positioning system

(GPS) and remote sensing are the effective tools for wetland and environmental conservation,
analysis, monitoring, planning and management through their various spatial, temporal and
spectral characteristics. The applications of those systems encompasses the analysis, monitoring,
mapping ,assessment of the changes and accurate data on different wetlands and environmental
23
patterns, timely changes and their impacts such as; flooding, overgrazing ,pollutions, quality of
water and other natural environments. Those applications are listed below.
2.6.1 Application of remote sensing for wetland and environmental change analysis
Many types of remote sensing have been used to study wetlands and environments worldwide.
Prigent (2001) used satellite observation to find submerged wetlands and Harries et al. (2005) have
applied large scale remote sensing methods to monitor near surface peat lands and hydrological
conditions. Remote sensing as a definition is the science made at a distance from the objects, area
or phenomenon under investigations. Although, remote sensing is not only a science both the
science and art of obtaining information about an object , area, or phenomenon through the
analysis of data acquired by a device that is not in contact with the object, area or phenomenon
under investigation(Lellisand and Kiefer,2004).
Remote sensing (satellite) imagery is available for most of the world since 1972. The multi date
of satellite imagery permits monitoring, analyzing, detecting dynamic change of land scape
environments and provide a means of major wetlands and environmental changes and quantify the
rates of change (Joshi et al., 2004). The use of remote sensing is becoming increasingly frequent
in environmental studies. In the 1970s and 1980s satellite images were mostly used in simple
interpretations or as map back grounds (Merrifield and Lamar, 1975). Remote sensing wetlands
by satellite dates back to Landsat -1 launched in 1972.Work and Gilmer (1976) used Landsat 1-
multi spectral scanner (MSS) imagery to inventory ponds and lakes. The interpretation and
analysis of Landsat TM images since 1986, provided a comprehensive information of areas
especially regarding the various land uses and associated environmental problems.
Classifying analyzing of wetlands and environmental change is the basic step for wetland analysis.
After that the wetland changes can be detected from the classified image. Recently, digital
classification of wetland from satellite image data has been widely used because these methods
are less time consuming and the source data provide high temporal resolution and high accuracy
in georeferencing procedures (Jensen, 1996; Coppin et al., 2004). Many data sets have been
successfully used in wetland and environmental change analysis such as, Landsat data, topographic
maps, rain fall maps, soil and vegetation maps, geological maps, but Landsat based classification
is considered providing the greatest accuracies(Civco,1989; Hewitt,1990; Bolstad and
Lellisand,1992) because of the sensitivity of Landsat bands. Landsat TM and ETM+ have similar
24
seven bands but Landsat MSS have four bands. While ETM+ band 6 has higher resolution of 60m.
Landsat 7 satellite also has newly added panchromatic band 8 with resolution of 15m.
Table 4. Landsat TM, MSS bands and wavelength ranges

Band Region Landsat Wavelength per micro meter of Resolutions(meters) for
(MSS) Landsat (TM) and ETM+ TM and ETM+
1 Blue- green 0.45-0.52µm 30m
2 Green 0.52-0.60µm 30m
3 Red 0.63-0.69µm 30m
4 Near IR 0.5-0.6µm 0.76-0.90µm 30m
5 Mid IR 0.6-0.7µm 1.55-1.75µm 30m
6 Thermal IR 0.7-0.8µm 10.4-12.5µm 120m
7 Mid IR 0.8-1.1µm 2.08-2.35µm 30m
8 Panchromatic ETM+ 0.52-0.90µm 15m
Spatial 80m 30m,120m for band6
resolution TM and ETM+
Radiometric 64bits 256bits
Temporal 18days 16days
First launched 1972 1982
Source: Lellisand and Kiefer (2004).
TM band 1 can detect designed for water body penetration, for coastal water mapping, for
soil/vegetation discrimination, forest type mapping and cultural features identification. TM band
2 can detect designed to measure green reflectance peak of vegetation, for vegetation
discrimination and vigor assessment. Also it is useful for cultural feature identification. TM band
3 is designed for sense chlorophyll absorption region or aiding in plant species differentiation.
Also it is useful for cultural feature identification. TM band 4 is ideal for useful determining
vegetation types, vigor and biomass content, for delineating water bodies and for soil moisture
discriminations. The two mid IR bands on TM are useful for indicative of vegetation moisture
content and soil moisture, useful for differentiation of snow from the clouds, useful for
discrimination of mineral and rock types and sensitive vegetation moisture content. The thermal
infrared band on TM is designed to assist in thermal mapping, for soil moisture and vegetation
studies (Lellisand and Kiefer, 2004).
2.6.2 Application of GIS for wetland and environmental change analysis

Geographic information system (GIS) is a powerful computer based set of tools for collecting,
storing, retrieving at will, transforming and displaying geographical referenced data from the real
world for particular set of purposes. It allows for the integration of spatial and non-spatial data
25
within system. GIS for wetland and environmental change analysis is used to explore the spatial
relationships, patterns and processes of geographic, biological and physical phenomena.
The two primary methods of geospatial or (GIS) analysis include quantitative mapping and
thematic mapping. A quantitative map shows how much of something is in a selected areas. It is
spatial representation of numeric values such as, temperature, population density, elevation,
pollution levels and so forth. Athematic maps demonstrates a specific features or concepts such
as; judicial boundaries, soil types or flood zones. Geographic information system (GIS) is widely
used techniques in wetland and environmental analysis. The application of these system for
environmental and wetland change analysis are endless. Modern GIS gives users the ability to
conduct visual and quantitative analysis involving multiple kinds of digital spatial data, including
remotely sensed imagery. In most studies, Landsat data after classification combined with GIS
data for future wetland analysis. Sader et al. (1995) used both supervised and unsupervised
classification methods to map the Landsat data. Then ancillary data used like; topography,
geology, hydrology and metrology for analysis of the changes. GIS data sources are used to model
forested, riverine, plaustrine wetland and environmental change and their characteristics. With GIS
different component layers can be overlaid to investigate relationship between individual wetland
components. Classified images can be combined with addition shape files such as; permanent
water bodies, farmlands, forests, settlement patterns, grasslands, shrubs, wetlands, plantation area
soil types and population changes (Mahmud et al., 2011). These data provide extra information to
detect the changes of wetlands and potential causes of changes. The national research council has
identified geographic information system methods as a key element in future wetland management
programs in 1993. GIS can be used to perform area calculations on classified images.
According to Abbasi and Abbasisi (2000) some of the capabilities of GIS which are utilized in
environment and wetland change analysis briefly described below;
1. Delineation of land use and land cover
Land use and land cover of wetlands resources like: watershed/river basins can affect the quality
of surface/ground water directly. For instance, if the presence of land cover in the form of forests
dominates in a catchment, it would reduce the possibility of soil erosion. In case agriculture
happens to be the most dominant land use, it would contribute agricultural inputs in the form of
fertilizers and pesticides, soil sediments to the water resources as run off through filtration.
26
2. Overlay analysis; this feature of GIS can be highly useful in preparing new maps showing
spatial distribution as well as interaction of parameters by overlaying selected maps. For example,
a map of soil erosion index can be prepared by overlaying individual maps of digital elevation
model (DEM) or three dimensional elevation which gives information on the slope of terrain, soil
type and land cover( which provide clue to estimating erosion or loss).
3. Buffering; this features can be used for delineating the vulnerable areas or zones of high risk,
or hotspots in the region (study area). It can also help in identifying an emerging new region around
a known feature. For instance, if it is known that the regions which are within 0.5km of the wetland
would be flooded; these regions can be delineated using the buffer tool.
4. View shading; a three dimensional elevation models (DEM) of a landscape of the region of
interest enables viewing the elevation in different perspectives. The DEM can also have a better
visual appeal compared to the tabulated data or conventional graphs.
5. Spatial analysis; the spatial data can be interpolated or extrapolated using several models such
as nearest neighborhood and krigging. The spatial data can also be represented as line contours
(elevation contours as a lines) or as regions (elevation contours as a regions) or as a grid (a map
representing various data values as continuous gradient of colors).
6. Thematic maps; thematic maps represent numerical data in relation to the concerned area. The
variability can been seen as it changes spatially. A side being more informative thematic maps also
have better visual appeal compared to the tabulated data or conventional graphs.
27
CHAPTER THREE
DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA.
The current study was carried out at Jarmet wetland and surrounding environments. Jarmet wetland
is located in western part of Ethiopia and it lies between 9ᴼ52ꞌ 43ꞌꞌ.00N to 9ᴼ42ꞌ11ꞌꞌ.00N latitude
and 36ᴼ57ꞌ31ꞌꞌ.00E to 37ᴼ05ꞌ50 ꞌꞌ.00E longitude with an average elevation of 2,388 meter above
sea level. This wetland is flooded during rainy season and gradually dries up. It is a part of Blue
Nile watershed which encompass the Ethiopian renaissance dam. The total land coverage of the
study area is 8,113 hectare or 81.13 km2. Out of which coverage Jarmet wetland covers an area
291.0 hectares or 2.910 km2. Its watershed length (Jarmet-Imane watershed) are 0.083 Km2
coverage (Fig.1).
Fig.1. Location map of the study area.

These wetland is located in Horo Guduru Wollega Zone at about 45 km from zonal capital Shambu
and 357 km far to west of capital city of Ethiopia Addis Ababa. In the south eastern this Wetland
are fed by Jarmet river and Imane watershed and north western part of the wetland fed by
Warabocho river and in western part of the wetland is fed by Dacce river. The boundary used for
28
this study is delineated arbitrarily considering much larger area inside and outside wetland
coverage which incorporates three kebeles and it share common boundaries with Anfaredarge,
Kobidinsa and Suteketali. This Wetland is covered by grasses and wildlifes include different types
of birds and livestocks. It also used as communal grazing of livestock and as major source of
drinking water for Jardega town and population living its surrounding areas. The surrounding areas
of this wetland are topographically varied and dotted with small hills and human settlements
dominate the entire landscape.
Blue Nile Tributaries

Ethio Rivers
Jarmet river
Lake Chomen
Study Site
Abay Basin
Hanger
Aseti
Abuna
Chogo
Fig.2. Tributaries of Blue Nile watershed.

Jarmet wetland is the largest of all wetlands in Jardega Jarte woreda. It contains large areas of
wetland such as, flood plains, dambos and riverine system. Jarmet wetlands are marsh types of
wetlands, because this wetland is a home of many kinds of plants and animals. As a result it is
used to conserve birds and wildlifes before degradation. In addition, it is dambo type of wetland,
because it acts like sponge, storing large quantities of water during the wet season and gradually
releasing it during the dry season. Furthermore, it is riverine type of wetlands because these
29
wetlands have important river called Jarmet which is part of Blue Nile watershed (Fig.2) above.
Jarmet river flows to Imane river and which in turns flows to Abuna river. Abuna river flows to
Aseti river which flows to Chogo river and Chogo in turns flows to Hanger river which is one of
the biggest tributary of Abay River. According to this idea we understand that Jarmet Wetland
river is a part of Blue Nile watershed and it helps as a one source of Blue Nile watershed and
Ethiopian renaissance dam.
3.1 Climate
The climate of Ethiopia mainly controlled by the seasonal migration of intertropical convergence
zone (ITCZ) which follows the position of the sun relative to the earth and the associated
atmospheric circulation, in conjunction with the complex topography of the country
(NMSA,2001). Climates can be classified according to the average and typical ranges of different
variables, most commonly temperature and rainfall or precipitation. Accordingly, the present
study, assessed temperature and rainfall data to determine the trend and spatio- temporal variability
of climate in the study area. Rainfall and temperature are important factors in determining
geomorphic processes, soil formation, wetland and environmental changes, human livelihood and
biophysical environment in general at a given geographical environment. In addition, this area is
classified within climatic zones of Degas and Woina Degas based on the Ethiopian climatic zoning
system.
3.1.1 Rainfall
The rainfall data used for this study were collected from national meteorological service agency
of Ethiopia. Monthly rainfall records from two stations namely; Alibo and Jarmet. Rainfall data
are used for description of statistical parameters of average maximum and minimum rains of the
study area within 25 years. As mentioned above station records were from early 1990 to present
(2014). Then two rainfall records were analyzed at annual and seasonal time steps. The major rainy
season is from May to August but there is relatively small rainfall during the month of March and
April. The average annual rainfall is 3,457 mm in July and 2,633mm in August. In addition, in
(Fig.3) below almost in this station the maximum peak rain is observed to be in July and August.
The mean maximum monthly rainfall is recorded with the value of 411.9 mm, 406.3 and 393.1mm,
334.6mm in July and August respectively.
30
Mean monthly rainfall in mm Annualy maximum precipitation:3,457
450.0
400.0
350.0
300.0
250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Fig. 3. Alibo mean monthly rainfall data from 1990 to 2014.

Furthermore, the (Fig.4) below revealed that Jarmet wetland get its maximum rain from May to
August with mean monthly rainfall in millimeters (mm) 336.5, 321.0, 416.1 and 414.7
respectively. Hence, from figure 4, it is possible to say that Jarmet and its surrounding area get
higher rain for long period of time starts from May to August. The study area receives in Alibo
and Jarmet station annually maximum, 3,456.6, 2,042.0 mm and minimum 1,099.3, 1,222.8 mm
total mean rainfall respectively. In both stations the analysis of monthly rainfall indicates that the
rainfall pattern in the study area is predominantly bimodal (i.e., rainfall occurs over a continuous
period of times, but dominated by two rain fall peaks). The first rain starts from March to April
and the second from end of May to August. In general the wet season starts from May and end in
August sometimes continuous to September.
Annually maximum precipitation:2,042.0

450.0
Mean monthly rainfall mm
400.0
350.0
300.0
250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
1990
1991
2010
1992
1994
2012
2014
1993
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2003
2013
2000
2001
2002
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Fig .4. Mean monthly rainfall data of Jarmet from 1990 to 2014
31
3.1.2 Temperature
The temperature of the area is related with altitude. When altitude increases temperature decreases,
because of the earth atmosphere heated upward from lowest level. In Alibo station the monthly
mean maximum 27.7 oc in March and minimum temperature 11.9 oc in August of this station shows
as an average temperature of the station recorded. In Jarmet station the mean monthly highest
temperature is recorded from February to April with its average 26.6oc and peak is 33.1 in February
for this station. The mean monthly minimum temperature is recorded in August, December and
January with its average 12 oc in Alibo station. The hottest months of the year is March with a
monthly temperature maximum above 27.7oc and coolest months of the year is August with diurnal
variations between 11.9 oc minimum and 20.5 oc maximum.
(2513 mm)
1990-2014 18.1 0C 1450 mm
500
0C
300
mm
50 100
40 80
30 60
27.7
26.6
20 40
11.9
10 20
0 0
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Fig.5 Average temperature and rainfall in both stations in 1990 to 2014

3.2 Geology of the Study Area
The main geological features of Western Ethiopia which includes the Nekemte map sheet NC37/9
is underlain by Precambrian rocks, Paleozoic, Mesozoic sedimentary rocks, quaternary schist and
quaternary or recent unconsolidated sediments. The Precambrian rocks are divided into three N-S
running zones; the western high grade gneisses, the central low grades volcano sedimentary belt
27.7
and eastern high grade belts (Amenti, 1989). According to this map sheet Jarmet wetland and its
32
surrounding area geology are Paleozoic, Mesozoic sedimentary rock and quaternary rock covers
(Fig.6.).
3.2.1 Paleozoic sand stones

These types of sand stones are occurred in the study area kebeles at Anfaredarge in north western
parts of Jarmet wetland at lower elevation where thick Paleozoic sand stone succession. This sand
stone covers 1.91 km2 (2.35 %) of the study area Kebele.
3.2.2 Mesozoic sand stones

The Mesozoic sand stones are occurred in the study site Kebele at Kobidinsa, Suteketali and
Anfaredarge in southern, eastern and south western part of Jarmet wetlands. It covers 73.97 km2
(91.2%) of the study area Kebele.
3.2.3 Quaternary soils

Quaternary soils occur in eastern and north eastern parts of Jarmet wetland at Suteketali Kebele
and Jarmet wetland itself. This soil units consists of three types of sediments; black cotton soils,
reddish sandy soils and fluvial soils. The major occurrences of fluvial sediments are along the
banks of Jarmet river. It covers an area 5.21km2 (6.42%) of the study area Kebele.
Fig.6. Geological Map of the study Area.
33
3.3 Soil, Vegetation and Wildlifes
3.3.1 Soil
The study area dominantly covered by two major soil types (Fig.7.). These are Haplic and Eutric
lithosols and Haplic Phaeozems. In addition, it’s surrounding small areas of Eutric and Vertic
cambisols are found in the study site (FAO, 2003). Those alluvial soils are found at Jarmet wetland
on plain areas along rivers and streams courses.
Lithosols (Haplic and Eutric): the FAO calls this soil lithosols, but USDA calls them orthents.
These major soils occur on gently undulating lower foot slope ranges of 96.6 to 96.7 % of the study
area. This soils are exceedingly shallow soils. They are often referred to as skeletal soils. It found
in very steep, mountainous regions where erodible material is so rapidly removed by erosion the
permanent covering of deep soil cannot establish itself. It covers 78.46km2 of the study area.
Phaeozems (Haplic Phaeozems): these soil groups are formed on gentle to undulating
topographic setting and are generally, well drained, deep, dark brown over dusky red. This types
of soils are found in the north western part of study area at Anfaredarge Kebele. The area coverage
by this types of soils area 2.63 km2 (3.24 %) of the study area.
Fig.7. Major Soil types of the study area.
34
3.3.2 Vegetation
Vegetation means the assemblages of plant species and all ground cover by plants and the main
elements of biosphere. Previously, the study area was a pristine wetland surrounded by moist afro-
montane forest. There are still mature individual plants of Olea europea subs. cuspidata, Cordia
Africana, Podocarpus falcatus, Ficus sycomorus, Phoenix reclinata, Syzygium guineense, Croton
macrostachyus and Ficus vasta scattered across the study area.
3.3.3 Wildlife
Wildlife is a collective name for animals that have not been domesticated or tamed and are usually
living in natural environment. The wetland and the surrounding forest of the study area were once
a home to a variety of animals. Animals such as reedbuck, leopard and wolf were once common
in the wetland but now absent. Although their number is very much smaller compared to the
disturbance of the wetland and forest, there are still colobus money, aardvark, wild pig, bush buck,
rabbit and python in the remnant pockets of forests. Examples are marabou stork, harmerkop and
white cheeked turaco are a common bird species in the area.
3.4 Elevation Data

Topography is important for wetland and its surrounding environment characterizations. The
wetlands are topographically low lands and hence DEM data offers a fine opportunity to delineate
low lands from up lands. Slope gradient (slope) and orientation (aspect) are primary attributes
derived from digital elevation data. The elevation data of this study was derived from NASA
shuttle radar topographic mission (SRTM), which was flown on board of the space shuttle mission
in February, 2000. It was reprojected from spherical coordinate system (latitude and longitude)
into geocover coordinate system (UTM Zone 37) and was used to derive a number of matrics by
fitting a quadratic surface to digital elevation data for a 3x3 size window and taking the appropriate
derivative using global mapper and Arc GIS software topographic modelling package. These
include, contour, drainage and wetland boundary (Fig.8).
35
Fig. 8. Elevation map of the study area
3.5 Population
The population distribution of the study area is not uniform over years. A relatively dense population
is observed in Suteketali kebeles. The settlement is highly dependent on the availability of waters,
farmlands, fertile soils, and roads and proximate to the wetland area. The study area is dominantly in
habited by Oromo ethnic group. There are also some Amahara people living in Anfare darge Kebele.
Afan Oromo is the working language in the area. The total land area of the study site is 8,113 hectares
and total population is 14,952. Hence, the crude population density of the study area is184.3 persons
per km2. Based on data CSA (2007 & 2010), topographic map of 1982/83 and the Woreda Agricultural
Office (2011), the population of the area has increased between 1982/83, 2007 and 2013 (Fig.9.).
Furthermore, Table 4 given details of the population of the area.
Population density of the study area

SK AD KD
206.6
198.9
173.5
168.7
147.7
140.3
134.6
97.3
95.6
93.3
79.1
8.01
9.7
8.8
1990 2007 2009 2011 2012 2013

Fig.9. Population density of the study area
36
Table 5. Population density, household and housing units between, 1990, 2007 and 2013.
No. Geographical area of Year Population distributions No. of No. of Land area(km2) Population
rural kebeles households housing units density per
both sexes Male Female (km2)
1 Suteketali 1982/3 786 370 413 244 271 30.105 9.7

2 Anfare darge 1982/3 650 300 350 202 224 25.513 8.01
3 Kobidinsa 1982/3 711 310 401 221 245 25.511 8.8
1 Suteketali 2007 2,382 1,241 1,141 439 420 30.105 79.1
2 Anfare darge 2007 3,579 1,708 1,871 742 727 25.513 140.3
3 Kobidinsa 2007 2,381 1,222 1,159 430 418 25.511 93.3
1 Suteketali 2009 2,879 1,512 1,367 1,325 426 30.105 95.6
2 Suteketali 2011 2,929 1,539 1,387 1,318 440 30.105 97.3
3 Anfare darge 2011 3,769 2,279 1,490 1,279 804 25.513 147.7
1 Kobidinsa 2012 3,433 2,234 1,168 1,165 480 25.511 134.6
2 Suteketali 2012 5,987 3,179 2,808 2,712 765 30.105 198.9
1 Anfare darge 2013 4,429 2,429 2,000 1,629 523 25.513 173.5
2 Kobidinsa 2013 4,304 2,170 2,134 1,824 558 25.511 168.7
3 Suteketali 2013 6,219 3,272 2,947 2,170 770 30.105 206.6
Source: CSA (2007, 2010, topographic map, 1990 and Woreda Agricultural Office, 2011)
3.6 Socio Economic Activity
The study area comprises of people from three kebeles with diverse socio economic activities. The diverse agro-ecological setting is a
result of wide range of altitude and homogeneity of crop identities of kebeles makes the area support different livelihood systems. The
economic base of the community in the area is agriculture (crop production and animal husbandry). However, agriculture seemed to
dominate all other livelihood activities.
37
3.6.1 Agriculture
Agriculture is the mainstay of the Ethiopian economy. It generates over 45% of the GDP and 90%
of the total export earnings of the country. It is also estimated that agriculture provides employment
for about 85% of the labor force (MEDaC, 1999). The contribution of agriculture is obvious in
rural kebeles of the study areas where it is one of the major economic activities and their
employment. According to the agricultural bureau report (2011) of the woreda recorded about
4,205.7 ha, 380 ha, 48.3 ha, 1,285.4 ha, 1,396.6 ha, 482.5 ha, 82.75 ha, 11.25 ha of the study area
was cultivable land, potential arable land, land reserved for future crop cultivation, grazing land,
forests, wetland, barren and degraded land and other accounted for the remaining respectively. In
the area during this periods agriculture is dominantly covered 51.8% of the study area. The farm
size per households ranges from maximum 6 hectares and minimum 0.25 hectares. However, in
the study area agriculture is characterized by mixed farming where farmers employ traditional
technologies of farming over centuries.
3.6.1.1 Crop Production
A crop production is any cultivated plants that is harvested for food, clothing, livestock fodder,
biofuel, medicine or for other uses. In the area population produce different type of crop for their
livelihoods. The main crop types produced in the area are teff, wheat, barley, maize, millet and
sorghum from cereals; horse beans, peas and haricot beans from pulse. The additional crop type
produced in the area are coffee and chat from permanent crops. Peppers, Ethiopian cabbage, head
cabbage, tomato and pumpkin from vegetables. Beet root, carrot, onion, garlic, ginger, potato,
sweet potatoes from root crops. The local cash crops in the area are Guizotia, coffee, chat,
rapeseed, and linseed. These oil seeds and cash crops are supplied to central markets in large
quantities. All of those crops are the source of income for the population of the study area kebeles.
The farmers of the study area practice traditional and modern method of maintaining soil fertility;
the traditional are like fallowing, crop rotating and manuring. The modern methods are terracing,
inter cropping and contour ploughing.
3.6.1.2 Animal Husbandry

Animal husbandry is a branch of agriculture concerned with the care and management of
livestock. It deals with the feeding, breeding housing and health care of livestock for getting
maximum benefit. Ethiopia has the largest livestock population in Africa and tenth in the world
(FAO, 2006). In Ethiopia livestock covers 40% of gross agricultural outputs. Livestock are also
38
the main sources of income and are closely linked to the social and cultural lives of Ethiopian
population and the study area community. In the study area the major type of livestocks include,
cattle, sheep, goat, ass, mule, horse and oxen are being reared as domestic and subsistence animals
with traditional techniques and practices. In the study area Oxen are the sole sources of power for
plowing while, donkeys are important animals for transportation of agricultural and non-
agricultural products. Horses are dominantly used for human transport purpose. Livestock and
livestock products play an important role in the socio-economic development of the study site
kebeles. It helps as a source of security and supplementary cash income for rural agricultural
households. It is the major source of livelihood for the population of the area through, dairy product
(milk and yoghurt), land management (i.e. the grazing of livestock is sometimes used as control
weed and under growth) and for fertilizers. In the area society used manure as natural organic
fertilizers by spreading on their fields to increase crop yields. It is also used to make plaster for
walls and floors and can be used as fuel for fires.
39
CHAPTER FOUR
RESEARCH METHODS AND SAMPLING TECHNIQUES
4.1 Research Methods
The land use/land cover change of Jarmet wetland and its surrounding area was analyzed using
GIS and remote sensing techniques. For the purpose of the current study both primary and
secondary data sources were used. Primary data source include semi structured questionnaire, key
informant interview, focus group discussion and satellite images. This was complemented by a
number of qualitative and quantitative techniques. Secondary data sources include population data,
geological map, soil map, meteorological data and topographic map. Several investigations was
conducted in selected three study kebeles in the form of questionnaire survey, GPS survey and
visual observation was also made to verify satellite image information.
All collected and gathered primary and secondary data have been processed manually and using
computer to manipulate the data in accordance with the objectives and guidelines of the research.
The methodological steps employed in this thesis are shown in (Fig.10.) below. The workflow
commences with data elaboration (1), which included, satellite image download, layer stacking,
pre-processing and processing of raw material and creating LULC (land use/ land cover)
classification plan and accuracy assessment. Following step (2) involved LULC mapping and
analyzing, change detection and error matrix analysis and impacts of LULC change analysis.
Finally, conclusion and recommendation of the study are conducted.
For this study many computer aided interpretation of images was conducted using ERDAS
Imagine 2010, DNR Garmin5.1 and ENVI 4.7 softwares were used for satellite image processing
for wetland and environmental change analysis, for change detection analysis, for land use land
cover analysis and for accuracy assessment. Global mapper 11, 3DEM and ARCGIS 9.3, were
used for GIS based DEM processing, MS excel was also used for analysis of meteorological data
and population density.
40
Satellite Images
Landsat MSS Landsat TM Landsat ETM+ Ancillary data
1972(80m) Image 1986(30m) Image 2000, 2005 and 2015(30m) Toposheet
Image Scale1:50,000
P-182/R-053 P-170/R-053 P-170/R-053 Meteorological data
25 years
Downloaded from (USGS) and purchased from (EMA) Geological map
Layer stacking Scale1:250,000
Band combination Soil map
Image pre-processing Scale1:250,000
Image processing Geometric, radiometric and noise removal

processing
Spectral signatures
Image enhancement
TCC and FCC
Principal component analysis
Visual interpretation
Image classification
Supervised Unsupervised Hybrid
Maximum LULC mapping a0nd analyzing 1972, 1986, 2000, 2005 and 2015
Likelihood Change detection analysis
Classification 1972-1986 1986-2000 2000-2005 and 2005-2015
Ground verification Accuracy assessment for 2015 ETM+
Field survey Discussions
GPS reading Conclusion and Recommendations
Fig.10. GIS and Remote Sensing methodology flow charts
4.2 Conceptual Frameworks
The conceptual framework of the study is given in (Fig.11) below. This figure shows the
interactions of three major factors, namely, social factors, natural resource factors (environmental
opportunities and constraints) and their ultimate outcome, local development.
41
Fig.11. Conceptual framework of land use/land cover drivers.
4.3 Reconnaissance survey
Before collecting field data, a short reconnaissance survey was undertaken to understand the
environmental and social settings of the study area. This survey was assist further refinement of
the data collection tools and create a mental impression of the study area. A field reconnaissance
survey taken (1-30 August 2014 and February 12-march 6, 2015) for selecting training sites and
representative of different classes mapping. The 32 classes were interpreted and merged into 6
preliminary land cover classes during the initial field reconnaissance to create the land use/land
cover map. Those land use/land cover classes are; wetland, plantation, farmland, grassland,
Shrubland and forest. Although, field reconnaissance surveys will be conducted within the study
areas to determine the major types of land use/land cover. Such data would be used in two aspects
of the mapping of land use land/land cover. Firstly, it will aid in land use /land cover classification,
42
by associating the ground features of a specific type of land use /land cover with the relevant
imaging and spectral characteristics. Secondly, ground data will be used for accuracy assessment
of the developed land use/land cover maps.
4.4 Sampling Techniques

The sample size of this study included 3 kebeles namely; Suteketali, Anfare darge, and Kobidinsa.
Also, it includes 74 respondents selected by random and non-random sampling techniques. A land
cover classification system was designed in which multisource land cover data were classified into
6 land cover types. Stratified random sampling, where each land cover category may be considered
a stratum, is frequently used in such cases. In addition, descriptive research method and stratified
sampling techniques were used to evaluate and describe the quality of classified images.
4.5 Data Type and Sources

In order to analysis of wetland and environmental change over years the Landsat 5 TM 1986,
Landsat 7 ETM+ 2000, 2005 and 2015 images with 30m resolution and Landsat MSS 1972 with
80m resolution, were downloaded from the earth science data interface (ESDI) website produced
by GLCF or USGS and purchased from EMA. Hand held GPS was also used for collecting and
classifying land categories of the study area and delineating the boundary of wetland. In addition,
for this study both spatial and non-spatial (attribute) data are used. The spatial data include
topographical maps, SRTM data and satellite imageries. The non-spatial data include responses
from questionnaires, field survey, focus group discussions and interviews.
4.5.1 Primary data source

A field work to the study area focuses on collecting socio-economic data and verification (ground
truthing) of the preliminary outputs of the GIS. The following tools are used for collection of socio-
economic data.
4.5.1.1 Semi-structured questionnaire

Semi-structured questions were developed to examine Jarmet wetland and environments of
surrounding area over years. Were administered semi structured questionnaire among sixty (60)
households randomly and non-randomly selected from within 2km to 5km distance from
boundaries of the sampled wetland. This included 30 households selected from the wetland and 30
households from the uplands. The uniformity in the total number of local residents’ questions was
due to sparse settlements and limited access to settled areas in the sampled areas. Within the
43
selected households, the surveys targeted all households especially the head of households, but for
practical reasons in few instances those some were not at home. The most knowledgeable and
agricultural experts of the kebeles participated.
For the conducting of each questionnaire the purpose of the study was explained each respondents
as purely scientific and academic. Since, some respondents accessed wetlands and other natural
resources illegally, some lacked knowledge about wetland and other natural environment use,
some are for expanding agricultural land foster to food security and for increasing their incomes
and others are lack of sufficient fertile land for administering their families. For those causes,
wetlands and environments of the surrounding areas are extremely degraded. Respondents were in
addition assured of anonymity and confidentiality and that participation was purely voluntary. All
questionnaires were carried out in a common local language for each study sites.
4.5.1.2 Key informant interview

A total of 6 key informants (3 from the wetland and 3 from the upland) were selected. A guided
field walk with each key informant was used to collect data on the status of the natural environment
(mainly natural forests, e.g. grasslands, Shrubland, wetland and etc.) and extent of agricultural land
use. GPS points was recorded to show this information on maps.
4.5.1.3 Focus group discussions (FGDs)

Focus group discussion (FGD) is a form of qualitative research in which a group of people were
asked about their perceptions, opinions, beliefs and attitudes and contributes towards; wetlands
and environmental changes of Jarmet and its surrounding areas. Focus groups have a high apparent
validity-since the idea is easy to understand and the results are believable. In this study focus group
discussion was used to collect data from 4 key informant farmers and 4 agricultural expert to
assess, identify and collect data on the LULC changes and factors that drive these changes.
4.5.1.4 Boundary of the wetland

Each every corners of the current wetland were recorded using a Garmin GPS. These data was
used to calculate the area of the existing wetland and detection of changes. The study seeks ground
truthing, before the ground truthing map of the study area was printed and used as guide to locate
and identify features both on ground and on the image data.
44
The geographic locations of the identified features on the ground was not defined. These were needs ground survey for delineating the
boundary of wetland and its surrounding environments.
4.5.1.5 Satellite Images

All satellite images except those of year 1972 and 2005 were bought from the Ethiopian Mapping Agency. In order to compare the
wetland and environment of Jarmet and its surrounding area change analysis many satellite image data of the area are used. Those
satellite images are Landsat TM of 1986, ETM+ of 2000, 2005 and 2015 and MSS of 1972. All those images were georefenced to
universal transverse Mercator projection of WGS84 coordinate system to Adindand zone 37 Clarke1880 spheroid.
Table 6. Characteristics of the spatial data used for land cover change mapping in the study area.
Size Type Format Path/row Spectral Scene size Date of acquired and sourceResolution
No. bands s(m)
1. Topographi Analogue Sheet no.0937 ______ _______ January1982 to october1983 1:50,000
c maps EMA
2.L5 Landsat TM Digital 170/053 1,2,3,4,5,7 185X185km 01-03-1986 USGS 30m
3.L7 Landsat Digital 170/053 1,2,3,4,5,7 185X185km 01-04-2000 USGS 30m
ETM+
4.L7 Landsat Digital 170/053 1,2,3,4,5,7 185X185km 01-31-2005 GLCF 30m
ETM+
5.L7 Landsat Digital 170/053 1,2,3,4,5,7 185X185km 02-11-2015 GLCF 30m
ETM+
6.L1-4 Landsat Digital 182/053 1,2,3,4 185X185km 12-09-1972 USGS 60m
MSS
7. Geological Analogue Sheet no NC-37/9 ---------- ------------ August,2000 (GSE) 1:250,000
maps
45
The scenes with worldwide reference system (WRS2) path 170/row 053 was acquired for Landsat
TM and ETM+ images, whilst the scene WRS1 path 182/row 053 was acquired for Landsat MSS
image with which fully cover of Jarmet wetland and environments of surrounding areas.
For this study, the dry season is the best period to detect the wetland and environments of
surrounding area change, because in Ethiopian calendar satellite images taken from rainy season
especially during June to December are very difficult for analysis. Because during this period
everything is green and identification of wetland from grassland and vegetation cover from
agricultural land and bare land from bush land are very difficult. For those reasons, satellite images
were selected and downloaded during dry season December to march for clearly identify wetland
and environments of surrounding area, to detect the changes and analysis of land use/land covers.
But, for ground truth field survey is taken both in rainy and dry seasons for knowing and recording
GPS point what is actually found on the ground.
4.5.1.5.1 Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM)

The Landsat thematic mapper (TM) sensor, first launched on Landsat 4 in1982, improved spectral,
radiometric, temporal and spatial resolutions over Landsat multispectral scanner (MSS). For this
study Landsat TM imagery used for wetland and its surrounding land cover mappings. The most
important Landsat TM bands for wetland identification is band 5 because of its ability to
discriminate vegetation and soil moisture levels. Landsat TM band 3, 4 and 5 are usually the best
combination of bands for wetland and environmental change detection. In the Landsat TM more
pixels are needed and some scientists believe that as many as 25 pixels are needed to be confident
of certain classification units (FGDC, 1992). For these reason for present study 80 pixels were
used for Landsat TM satellite images classification
4.5.1.5.2 Landsat Enhanced Thematic Mapper plus (ETM+)

Landsat ETM+ was launched in 1999. For this study Landsat ETM+ are used for wetlands and
environmental change analysis band 5, 4 and 3 because it aids to high light and identify wetlands
from other land covers. The combination of ETM+ band 4, 3 and 2 are displayed false colour
composite (Red, green and blue) enhance wetlands depictions. ETM+ band 4 is the peak
reflectance of green vegetation and ETM+ band 3 senses in strong chlorophyll absorption regions
and strong reflectance region for soils and ETM+ band 2 is important for discrimination of
vegetation.
46
4.5.1.5.3 Landsat Multispectral Scanner (MSS)
The oldest available data sets for the study area are Landsat MSS achieved data at EROS data
center. This Landsat was first launched in 1972. The MSS onboard Landsat 1 had swathing pattern
with an IFOV being 56 meters in the across- track direction and 79 meters in the along-track
direction. This Landsat data are useful for this study and it uses for spectral discrimination of large
vegetated wetlands. It also important for resampling and geometrical registering of satellite images
by using false colour composite of satellite images band 3,2 and 1
4.5.2 Secondary Data Sources

Data on population of the study areas was collected from Central Statistical Agency (CSA) of
Ethiopia. Enumeration areas will be targeted to ensure the quality of the data and its use for
understanding changes in the wetland and the surrounding environment. Other secondary data such
as spatial data of the study area was extracted from Ethio GIS. Topographic map of 1:50,000 scale
was used as guide to identify features, which were used as ground control point for image
referencing. In the absence of other historical land use/land cover information these maps proved
to give an important insight about the historical situation in terms of land cover in better details
than the historical imagery.
4.6 Data Analyses

Descriptive statistics as embedded in MS Excel was used to analyses of rainfall and temperature
data. Landsat images was geo-referenced and the relevant bands also further analyzed in Arc GIS
9.3 platform to produce unsupervised and supervised land use changes. For this study, satellite
data from the oldest (1972) to the present (2015) were used for land use change analysis of the
study area. As a result, five sets of changes was compared. These are 1972 – 1986, 1986 – 2000
and 2000 – 2005, 2005-2015 and 1972-2015. ERDAS Imagine 2010, ENVI 4.7, Arc GIS 9.3 and
Global mapper 11 were used for all image analysis and image processing. Landsat bands was used
for wetlands and environmental classification analysis.
47
CHAPTER FIVE
SPATIAL DATA PROCESSING AND ANALYZING
5.1 Satellite Image Processing and Classification
5.1.1 Image Pre-Processing
Every raw remotely sensed image contains a number of artifacts and errors Mather (1999). For
corrections of these errors image pre-processing is very important. Image pre-processing is
sometimes called as image rectification or restoration and it used to correct image data from
distortions or degradations that stems from image acquisitions process (Lellisand and Keifer,
2004). The image pre-processing procedures consist of radiometric, geometric and noise removal.
Depending on satellite image acquisition and atmospheric problem of Landsat TM, ETM+ and
MSS for this study geometric correction, radiometric correction and noise removal were used.
5.1.1.1 Geometric Correction

According to Lellisand (2004) the geometric correction process was normally implemented as
two step procedure. First, the distortions that are systematic or predictable were considered.
Second, those distortions that are essentially random or unpredictable were considered. In those of
two methods for this study the random distortions and residual unknown systematic distortions
were used for correcting and analyzing well distributed ground control points (GCPs) occurring in
an image. In this study Landsat TM, ETM+ and MSS was imported and geocoded using ERDAS
Imagine based on the provided image control points. Geometric registrations between those three
Landsat images is expressed in terms of an acceptable total root mean square errors (RMSE), which
represents a measure of deviation of corrected GCP coordinate values from the original (reference
GCPs) used to develop correction model.
For the RMSE several authors recommended maximum tolerable limit of <0.5 pixels (Jensen,
1996), but others have identified acceptable RMSE values ranging from >0.2 pixel to <0.1 pixels,
depending on the type of change being investigated (Townshend et al., 1992). For this study the
RMSE of 0.002 was achieved. The orthorectification was done in the original Universal Transverse
Mercator (UTM), datum WGS84 projection after which it was reprojected to geographic (datum;
Adindand, zone 37 Clarke 1880 spheroid).
48
5.1.1.2 Radiometric Correction
As with geometric correction, the type of radiometric correction applied to any given digital image
dataset varies widely among sensors (Lellisand and Kiefer, 2004). For this study, haze correction
routines are often applied for Landsat MSS images with image acquired on 09-12-1972, because
this satellite image have a few cloud for the correction of this cloud radiometric corrections were
used in a great attention than other images. Haze represents the scattered path radiance, in the
imagery and reduces image contrast. Haze compensation procedures are used to minimize the
influence of path radiance effects of this satellite image. The effects of atmosphere up on remotely
sensed data are part of the signal received by the sensing device. So, it was important to remove
atmospheric effects. For such correction of this study the true color and gray pixel subtraction
techniques used to remove haze from the top and left of satellite image of 1972. The other images
of 1986 TM, 2000, 2005 and 2015 ETM+ were registered similar corrections according to the 1972
satellite images.
5.1.1.3 Noise Removal

Image noise is any unwanted disturbance in image data that is due to limitation in the sensing,
signal digitization or data recording process (Lellisand, 2004). Noise can either degrade or totally
mask the true radiometric information content of digital image. Hence, noise removal usually
precedes any subsequent enhancement or classification of the image data. As with geometric
restoration procedure, the nature of noise correction required in any given situation depends up on
whether the noise is systematic (periodic, random, or some combination of the two). For this study,
random or nonsystematic noise removal was used for handling the variation of pixel values (bit
error) of satellite images. Also, it is used for restoration of an image to as close an approximation
of the original scene as possible.
5.2 Image Processing

The first methods were subjected to principal component analysis (PCA) then apply clustering to
the first principal component to classify and enhance the wetlands and environments of the
surrounding areas. In the second method original remotely sensed satellite images were classified
using unsupervised ISODATA algorithm and supervised classification method used. And these
methods compared and used to analysis wetlands and environmental changes for estimate wetlands
and environmental loss.
49
5.2.1 Image Enhancement
Image enhancement techniques is improve the quality of an image as perceived by human (Jensen,
1996). These techniques are most useful, because many satellite images where examined on a
colour display give in adequate information for image interpretation. Enhancement operations are
normally applied to image data after the appropriate restoration procedures have been performed.
Noise removal is an important precursor to most enhancements. Without it, the image interpreter
is left with the prospects of analyzing enhanced noise. Three techniques for digital image
enhancement can be categorized as, contrast manipulation, spatial feature manipulation or
multistage manipulation. For this study, multistage manipulation are used for identifying and
analyzing vegetation and reduce the number of bands and apply clustering.
5.2.2 Principal Component Analysis

Principal component analysis is a pre-processing transformation that creates new images from the
uncorrelated values of different images (Jensen, 1996). PC images may be analyzed as separate
black and white images, or any three component images may be colour coded to form a colour
composite. PC enhancement techniques are used in this study; for Jarmet wetland and its
surrounding environment areas where little a priori information concerning on the satellite images.
5.3 Image Classification

The overall objective of the digital image classification procedures automatically classify all pixels
in an image into land classes or themes (Lellisand et al., 2004). It is a powerful technique to drive
thematic classes from multiband image data. It performed for extraction of distinct classes or
themes, land use/ land cover categories from satellite imagery. Image classification method are
divided into three method namely; supervised, unsupervised and hybrid. For this study among the
various classification methods, supervised and unsupervised classification procedures are used for
satellite image classification.
5.3.1 Unsupervised Classification

An unsupervised classification is theoretically better suited to application in a highly
heterogeneous of wetland and its surrounding environment changes (Harvey and Hill, 2001). In
the unsupervised classification, the image data is first classified by aggregating them into natural
spectral grouping or clusters present in the scene. Then the image analyst determines the land cover
from these spectral grouping the classified image to ground reference data (Lellisand and Keifer,
50
2004).There are several clustering method that can be used for unsupervised classification. The
most common used for unsupervised classification method are the iterative self-organizing data
analysis technique (ISODATA).The ISODATA classifier refines clustering by splitting and
merging of clusters. For this study, the1972 MSS and 2015 ETM+ Landsat image was subjected
to unsupervised classification to produce land use/ cover class classification. For this classification
6 land cover classes are produced by merging unknown distribution of pixel values in the image
data. These land use/ land cover classification will be produced by using Arc GIS 9.3 and ERDAS
IMAGINE 2010, before the field work. The true color composite (TCC) and false color composite
(FCC) is used for assessing visualization of the land uses.
Fig.12. Unsupervised classification of Landsat MSS 1972 and 2015ETM+.

5.3.2 Supervised Classification
In the supervised classification system, the image analyst supervises the pixel categorization
processes specifying numerical descriptors (groups of digital number (DN) values) of the various
land cover type present in scene, to the computer algorithm. To do this representative sample site
of known cover types, called training areas are used to compile a numerical interpretation key that
51
describes the spectral attributes for feature type of interest (Lellisand et al., 2004). For the present
study, Landsat MSS 1972, TM 1986, and ETM+ of 2000, 2005 and 2015 were independently
classified using the supervised classification method of maximum likelihood algorithm. This
method is the most common method and widely used for supervised classification in remote
sensing image data analysis (Richards, 1995). In maximum likelihood classification assumes that
for all classes and the input data in each band follows the Gaussian (normal) distribution function.
A pixel has a certain probability of belonging to a particular classes. These probabilities are equally
identifies and locates land cover types that are known a priori through combination of personnel
experience interpretation of satellite images, map analysis and field works (Jensen, 2005).
Accordingly, representative points thought to represent the various land cover classes were mark-
ed using Garmin GPS 72 during the ground truth survey. Over 294-337 ground truth sampling
points 6 land use/ land cover classes are selected. Those classes are namely: wetland, plantation,
shrubs, grasslands, forests and farmland. For each individual class classification 45 and above GPS
points are taken. Then, the supervised classification spectral signatures are collected from specified
locations in the imagery by digitizing various polygons overlaying different land cover types.
These spectral signatures are used to classify all pixels in the scene. The 294-337 ̔ ‘user defined
polygon” were selected from the whole study area by drawing area of interest (aoi). In this
classification process, aoi function reduces the chance of underestimating class variance since it
involved a high degree of user control. After the classification process, all signature sample points
were grouped as class by ̔ ̔recode” function. Following this, supervised classification land use/land
cover classification has been carried out using ERDAS Imagine 2010 and ENVI 4.7 software for
time series satellite image of Jarmet wetland and its surrounding environmental change analysis.
5.4 Post Classification (Smoothing)
Classified data often manifest a salt and pepper appearance due to the inherent spectral variability
encountered by a classifier when applied on a pixel by pixel basis (Lellisand and Keifer, 2004).
For example, in this study many forest and shrubs are severe pixels scattered throughout a farmland
maybe classified as farmland crops or vice versa. In such situation it is often desirable to “smooth”
the classified output to show only the dominant classification one means of classification
smoothing involves the application of statistical filter. In such operation a moving window is
passed through the classified dataset and the majority class within the window is determined. A
52
majority/minority filter is a logical applied on classified image that consists of label rather than
quantized counts and its simplest form involves the use of filter window, usually measuring 3x3
centered on the pixel of interest (Mather,2004). Two filters were used to manage these problems
are; recoding and statistical filtering.
5.4.1 Recoding: the Idrisi recode model was developed to semi-automate the recoding process. In
the model for the current study extract the area of recoded pixels and recodes the pixels and burns
them back into the classified images.
5.4.2 Statistical Filtering: the classification process can produce areas of isolated pixels that differ
from the majority class. These isolated pixels are a result of the complexity of separating land
cover signatures in satellite image, or can reflect the actual heterogeneity of land cover. For
example, in this study plantation area pixels are scattered in wetland area. For this reason, statistical
filtering are used for combine to the majority class by applying 3x3 window pixel.
5.5 Classification Accuracy Assessment

Accuracy assessment is a general term for comparing the classification to geographical data that
are assumed to be true, in order to determine the accuracy of classification process. The accuracy
assessment is essentially a measure of how many ground truth pixels were classified correctly.
According to Edwards et al., (1998) accuracy assessment is a crucial step in classification in order
to check for errors propagated by the way data acquired, analyzed and converted from one form to
the other. In this study accuracy assessment was done for recent satellite image of Landsat
ETM+2015 for which the ground truth data is likely corresponding. Error matrix is one of the most
common methods of expressing classification accuracy (Congalton, 1991). An error matrix is
square array of numbers set out in rows and columns which express the number of sample units
(i.e. pixels, cluster of pixels, or polygons) assigned to a particular category relative to the actual
category as verified on grounds. The column usually represent the reference data while, the rows
indicate the classification generated from the remotely sensed data.
The LULC maps was performed by using satellite image and field data with the help of GPS. For
this study 207 ground truth points are taken for accuracy assessment classification. Overall
accuracy, user’s accuracy, producer’s accuracy and kappa statistics were then derived from the
error matrices. Using the simplest descriptive statistics overall accuracy is computed by dividing
the total correct (i.e. the sum of major diagonal) by the total number of pixels in the accuracy
53
assessment. Producer’s accuracy is computed by the total number of correct pixels in a category
divided by column total. User’s accuracy in the other hand, the sum of correctly classified pixels
divided by row total. The k ("KHAT') statistic is a measure of the difference between the actual
agreement between reference data and an automated classifier and the chance agreement between
the reference data and a random classifier (Jensen, 1996). Conceptually, Ḱ can be defined as
Ḱ = observed accuracy - chance agreement

1 - Chance agreement
In reality, k usually ranges between 0 and 1.
The KHAT statistic is computed as
r r
Ḱ= N Σ xii-Σ (xi+.x+i)
i =1 i=1
r
N -Σ (xi+.x+i)
2
i=1
Where,
r = number of rows in the error matrix
Xii = number of observations in row i and column i (on the major diagonal)
Xi+ = total of observations in row i (shown as marginal total to right of the matrix)
X·+i = total of observations in column i (shown as marginal total at bottom of the matrix)
N = total number of observations included in matrix
Table 7. Error Matrix resulting from classifying training Set pixels for Landsat ETM+2015
Classified data Reference data Row OE% UA%
SHL GL FR PL WL FL total
SHL 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 87.5% 50%
GL 1 15 1 1 0 3 21 25% 71.43%
FR 3 1 22 1 0 0 27 24.1% 81.48%
PL 0 0 0 16 0 0 16 0% 100%
WL 0 0 2 0 15 1 18 11.8% 83.33%
FL 3 4 4 5 2 105 123 3.7% 85.37%
Column total 8 20 29 24 17 109 207
CE% 50% 28.6% 18.5% 0% 16.7% 14.6%
PA% 12.50% 75% 75.86% 66.67% 88.24% 96.33%
Producer accuracy (PA) Users accuracy (UA) Overall accuracy (OA)

(Omission error) (Commission error) 1+15+22+16+15+105/207=84.06%
SHL=1/8=12.50% SHL=1/2=50%
54
GL=15/20=75% GL=15/21=71.43%
FR=22/29=75.86% FR=22/27=81.48%
PL=16/24=66.67% PL=16/16=100%
WL=15/17=88.24% WL=15/18=83.33%
FL=105/109=96.33% FL=105/123=85.37%
Note: SHL= Shrubland, GL= Grassland, FR=Forest, PL= Plantation, WL=Wetland,
FL= Farmland, = correctly classified pixels, CE=commission error and OE= omission error
Khat analysis is;
r
Σ=1+15+22+16+15+105=174
i=1
r
Σ = (xi+.x+i)=(2.8)+(21.20)+(27.29)+(16.24)+(18.17)+(123.109)=15,316
i=1
Ḱ=207(174)-15,316 = 20,702 = 0.7519
(207)2-15,316 27,533
Omission errors correspond to non-diagonal column elements (e.g., 2 pixels that should have been
classified as "wetland" were omitted from that category). Commission errors are represented by
non-diagonal row elements (e.g., 2 "forest" pixels plus 1 "farmland" pixels were improperly
included in the "wetland" category). The current study revealed an overall accuracy of 84.06%
with kappa index of agreement of 0.7519 this was reasonably good overall accuracy and accepted
for subsequent analysis and change detection. Sabins (1997) says that accuracy levels of more than
80% are considered adequate enough for reliable classification of land cover types. User’s
accuracy of individual classes ranged from 50% to 100% and producer’s accuracy for each
individual classes ranged from 12.50% to 96.33%. Higher producer accuracy means more pixels
on the original image were correctly classified for a given class in reference plots. Higher user
accuracy means more pixels on the map were actually classified into a given class. Farmland,
wetland, forest and plantation area had a very high user’s accuracy and producer’s accuracy, but
plantation area are not have very high producer accuracy. Which shows this classification did well
detect farmland, forest and wetland area. The producer’s accuracy of Shrubland, grassland and
plantation were low 12.50%, 75% and, 66.67% respectively. That probably due to the confusion
between Shrubland, grassland and plantation cover types.
55
CHAPTER SIX
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
6.1 Results
6.1.1. Remote Sensing and GIS Analysis of LULC Types and their Areal Extent of Jarmet
wetland and its surrounding area.
Land is a complex and dynamic combination of factors like: geology, topography, hydrology, soil,
micro climates and communities of plants and animals that are continually interacting under the
influence of climate and people activities (Hudson, 1995 in Ermias Aynekulu et al., 2006). From
visual and digital interpretations of the satellite imagery, different land use/land cover categories
were distinguished for this study. So that it will be possible to investigate changes that occurred
since 1972 to 2015 of satellite imagery for Jarmet wetland and its surrounding environment.
Table 8. Land use/land cover classification Scheme

Number Land use/land cover type Descriptions
1. Wetland The area where the water table is near or above the land surface
covered by marshes, swamps, bogs, rivers and streams.
2. Forest These areas are regions covered with big trees of different
species, with little or no human activities.
3. Farmland These are areas use for growing agricultural crops and
appeared cultivated during growing season.
4. Shrubs Areas covered with small shrubs, thickets and grasses with
little or no trees are referred to as shrubs and its height is less
than 5m.
5. Plantation All areas of eucalyptus plantation and temporary clear field
stands a waiting replanting within in eucalyptus plantation.
6. Grassland Lands predominantly covered with grasses, fobs, and grass
areas used for communal grazing.
This study has demonstrated population and environmental changes of Jarmet wetland and its
surrounding environment analysis by using spatial and attribute data. The developed methodology
is general enough that it could readily be extended to LULC mapping in the study area. The LULC
of the study area had changed dramatically during the period of 43 years. Their areal extents of
this LULC classes are given into their classification below. The total classified of the study area
including Jarmet wetland are 8,133 hectare.
56
6.1.1.1 Land use/land cover classification for Landsat 1972
The land use/land cover classification for 1972 is given in Fig.13. Six land use/land cover types
were recognized during this period. These are wetland (2,228.7 ha or 27.5%), Shrubland (1,956.2
ha or 24.1%) and grassland (1,638.5 ha or 20.2%), forest (1,587.600 ha or 19.6%), farmland (523.1
ha or 6.4%) and plantation (179.2 ha or 2.2%). The table 9 revealed that the majority of land cover
during this period is wetland and the small land cover is plantation.
Fig.13. Land use/land cover map of the Study area in 1972

Table 9. Land cover classes of the study area in hectare and percent
S.N LULC Classes Area (ha) Percentage (%)
1 Shrubland 1,956.2 24.1

2 Farmland 523.1 6.4
3 Plantation 179.2 2.2
4 Forest 1,587.6 19.6
5 Grassland 1,638.5 20.2
6 Other wetlands 1923.8 23.7
7 Jarmet wetland 304.9 3.8
8 Total 8,113.3 100.0
57
6.1.1.2 Land use/Land cover classification for Landsat 1986
The land use/land cover classification for 1986 from TM classified satellite image results showed
that Grassland and forest accounting for 2,441.6 ha (29.7%) and 2,279.7 ha (28.1%) respectively.
While, others like; Shrubland, plantation, wetland and farmland are; 693.4 ha (8.5%), 315.0 ha
(3.9%), 991.4 ha (12.3%) and 1,442.2 ha (17.5%) respectively. Table 10 shows us most portion of
the land use/land cover classes was Grassland during that period.

2 Forest 2,279.7 28.1
3 Shrubland 693.4 8.5
4 Farmland 1,422.2 17.5
5 Grassland 2,411.6 29.7
6 Other wetlands 686.5 8.5
8 Total 8,113.3 100
58
The land use/land cover classification for 2000 from Landsat ETM+ classified satellite image for
the study site kebeles including Jarmet wetland showed that Farmland and Forest on accounting
for 2,495.5 ha (30.8%) and 1,932.3 ha (23.8%) respectively. While, Shrubland, grassland, wetland
and plantation are, 1,518.4 ha (18.7%), 382.9 ha (4.7%), 1,435.8 ha (17.7%) and 348.4 ha (4.3%)
respectively. During this period majority of the study area are covered by farmland and forest.
Table 11 shows us land use land cover area extent of the study area.

Table 11. Land cover classes of the study area in hectare and percent.
1 Shrublands 1,518.4 18.7
2 Grassland 382.9 4.7
3 Forest 1,932.3 23.8
5 Other wetlands 1,200.8 14.8
6 Farmland 2,495.5 30.8
7 Total 8,113.3 100.0
59
Furthermore, the land use/land cover classification for 2005 from Landsat ETM+ classified
satellite image for the study area showed that Farmland, Forest and Grassland are accounting for
4,102.2 ha (50.6%), 1,496.6 ha (18.4%), 1,390.4 ha (17.1%) respectively. While, others like;
Shrubland, wetland and plantation are, 263.3 ha (3.2%), 506.8 ha (6.3%) and 354.0 ha (4.4%)
respectively. During this period half of the study area are covered by farmland.

S.N LULU Classes Area (ha) Percentage (%)
1 Forest 1,496.6 18.4
2 Grassland 1,390.4 17.1
4 Shrublands 263.3 3.2
5 Wetland 289.6 3.6
7 Farmland 4,102.2 50.6
8 Total 8,113.3 100.0
60
The land use/land cover classification for 2015 from Landsat ETM+ classified satellite image
showed that Farmland are dominated than any other land cover classes and it accounting for
4,510.8 ha(55.6%) . While others like; Shrubland, grassland, forest, plantation and wetland are,
237.5 ha (2.9%), 976.5 ha (12.1%), 1,291.4 ha (15.9%), 591.3 ha (7.3%) and 505.8 ha (6.2%)
respectively. During this period the most portion of land cover classes are covered by farmland
and forest, but others are slightly decreased. Table 13 shows us the land use/land cover classes and
its areal extent for wetland and other land use types.

S.N LULC classes Area (ha) Percentage (%)
1 Shrublands 237.5 2.9
2 Grassland 976.5 12.1
3 Forest 1,291.4 15.9
5 Wetland 291.0 3.6
6 Farmland 4,510.8 55.6
7 Total 8,113.3 100.0
61
6.1.2 Land Use/Land Cover Change Detection From 1972-2015
Change detection plays a pivotal role at local and regional scale for land use/land cover change analysis of classified satellite image.
Changes in land use/land cover can be categorized in to two types:-those are modification and conversion. Modification is a change of
condition within the same cover type. While, conversion is a change from one cover to another. A common method for classified satellite
image detecting is compare one satellite image to the other. For change detection of land use/land cover analysis for this study Landsat
MSS of 1972, TM of 1986 and ETM+ of 2000, 2005 and 2015 are used. The statistics of land use/land cover were computed and
summarized to detect the nature of major changes of Jarmet wetland and its surrounding environment within 43 years.
Table 14. LULC change statistics of Jarmet wetland and its surrounding environmental area between1972-2015.
Land use/ Land use/land cover change in hectare and percent Total area Area
land cover 1972-1986 1986-2000 2000-2005 2005-2015 Δ in (%)
classes (ha)
Area (%)chang Area (%)chang Area (%)change Area 1972-2015
(ha) e ( ha) e ( ha) ( ha) (%)cha
nge
Farmland +899.1 17.98 +1,073.28 22.58 +1,606.8 30.66 +408.408 31.62 45.31
+3,987.588
Grassland +773.101 15.46 - - 42.68 +1,007.49 19.23 -413.828 -32.0 -661.948 -7.52
2,028.711
Wetland -1,237.398 - 24.74 +444.478 9.35 -929.0 -17.72 -0.949 -0.07 -1,722.869 -19.58
Shrubland -1,262.83 - 25.25 +825.0 17.36 -1,255.1 -23.95 -25.802 -1.99 -1,718.732 -19.53
Plantation +135.801 2.715 +33.389 0.70 +5.611 0.107 +237.332 18.37 +412.133 4.68
Forest +692.09 13.84 -347.4 -7.31 -435.71 -8.31 -205.165 -15.88 -296.185 -3.36
Note: The positive sign (+) means gain and the negative sign (-) indicates loss in areal extent.
62
The land use/land cover change detection equation was calculated by using this equation
Change detection =(X-Y)/P
Where, X=recent area of land use/land cover in hectare
Y=previous area of land use/land cover in hectare
P= the percentage change within those years.
According to the results obtained, grassland, shrubland, wetland and forest are revealed negative
sign of total area change which implies decline in the area. On the other hand, farmland and
plantation have shown positive sign of total area change which implies increase in area coverage.
The statistical table of change detection shows us the various proportions of losses and gains
amongst the various land uses. Farmland and plantation was increased to in 1972:- 523.1 ha, 179.2
ha, to 1,422.2 ha, 315.01 ha in 1986, in 2000 they increased to 2,495.48 ha, 348. 39 ha, in 2005
the increment also continues to 4,102. 28, 354.01 ha and in 2015; 4,510.68 ha, 591.33ha
respectively. This means, the farmland gaining from all land cover types except plantation.
Plantation gain from Shrubland, grassland and wetland. Wetland and shrublands are recorded as
the greatest loss than forest and grassland. The total losses of wetland and shrublands within 43
years are: -17.229km2 (-1,722.9ha) and -17.187km2 (-1,718.7 ha). The grassland and forest losses
are equivalent (totally) in 1972-2015 are: -6.619km2 (-661.9 ha) and -2.962 km2 (-296.2 ha). This
results reflects to us in the area the expansion of farmland and plantation activities are greater than
other land use types in different periods.
5000
4000
3000
2000
AREA IN Ha
1000
0
-1000
-2000
-3000
Farmland Grassland Shrubland Wetland Forest Plantation
1972 523.1 1638.5 1956.21 2228.7 1587.6 179.2
1986 1422.2 2411.601 -693.38 -991.302 2279.69 315.001
2000 2495.48 -382.89 1518.38 1435.78 -1932.29 348.39
2005 4102.28 1390.38 -263.28 506.78 -1496.58 354.001
2015 4510.688 -1291.415 -237.478 505.831 -1291.415 591.333
Total area Δ(ha) 3987.6 -347.1 -1718.732 -1722.869 -296.185 412.133
Fig.18. Land use/land cover change in1972-2015.
63
Change in wetland area: it has been observed that from the Fig. 18 and table 14 the percentage
change of land use/land cover of the wetland. The area of change recorded 24.7%, 9.3%, 17.7%
and 0.07% percentage of change during the periods of, 1972-1986, 1986-2000, 2000-2005 and
2005-2015 respectively. This shows us wetland area decreased during 1972-1986 by -1,237.4 ha
within 14 years, while, during 1986-2000 it shows increments by 444.5 ha within 14 years, in
2000-2005 it decreased by -929.0 ha within 5 years period and -0.95 ha decreased during 2005-
2015 within 10 years. The total decreased area of the wetland for all years was -1,722.9 ha which
-21.23% in the context of total land cover area. This result revealed that the majority of wetland
coverage is changed to farmland and a few coverage of the wetland are changed to plantation area.
Change in forest area: the forest cover change of the study area is constituted 13.8%, -7.3%, -
8.3% and -15.9% percentage of change during the periods 1972-1986, 1986-2000, 2000-2005 and
2005-2015 respectively. With, 692.2 ha, -347.4 ha,-435.7 ha and -205.2 ha as area coverage change
during the same periods respectively. This revealed that the forest cover is directly change to
farmland and it slowly change to Shrubland. The total forest cover change to other land uses within
43 years are: -296.2 ha or (3.36%) in context of total area.
Change in farmland area: farmland land use is another important land use of the study area and
it showed highest change than other land use classes. Farmland area recorded 17.9%, 22.6%,
30.7% and 31.6% percentage of changes during the periods, 1972-1986, 1986-2000, 2000-2005
and 2005-2015 respectively. The area coverage of farmland increased within those periods are;
899.1 ha, 1,073.3 ha, 1,606.8 ha and 408.4 ha in 1972 to 2015 respectively. It was the largest
expansion and had larger share than other land use types. This implies that farming expansion by
converting other land covers like grassland, wetland, Shrubland and forest. The total gains of
farmland from other land cover classes between 1972 and 2015 was 3,987.6 ha (49.3%) in the
context of total land cover.
Change in Shrubland area: the land cover change of this class are not uniform in all years,
because once it shows increasing and once it reveal decreasing. Shrubland area coverage recorded,-
25.2%, 17.4%,-23.9% and -1.1% percentage of change during the periods, 1972-1986, 1986-2000,
2000-2005 and 2005-2015 respectively. The total Shrubland coverage increased and decreased
within those periods are;-1,262.8 ha, 825.0 ha,-1,255.1 ha and -25.8 ha respectively. The total
Shrubland cover change to other land cover during the periods of 1972 to 2015 -1,718.7 ha
64
(21.13%) in the context of total area. The majority of this cover change to farmland and a small
cover of the Shrubland is change to plantation.
Change in plantation area: plantation for this study include eucalyptus trees. An areal extent of
plantation of the study area shows a few increment for all years. The area coverage of this class
are recorded, 2.7%, 0.7%,0.1% and 18.4 percentage of change during the periods of 1972-1986,
1986-2000, 2000-2005 and 2005-2015 respectively. The total area increased of plantation cover
between those years are; 135.8 ha, 33.4 ha, 5.6 ha and 237.3 ha respectively. When we compare
with other land covers it was the smallest land cover in that particular year (period). The total area
coverage change or increased of plantation within all years are 412.1 hectare (5.07%) in context
of total land cover area. This shows us eucalyptus trees were used as a source of income, for house
construction, and for production of house hold materials for the study area societies.
Change in grassland area: within the started years grassland showed increases by 773.1 ha
(15.5%) in 1972-1986 but, it decreased to -2,028.7 ha (-42.7) in 1986-2000, in 2000-2005 it shows
increase by 1,007.5 ha (19.2%) within 5 years and in 2005-2015 it reduce to -413.8 ha (-32.0%).
These results revealed that in the grassland area coverage showed very fast increments and
decrements for all years. The total decline of grassland is 661.95 ha (8.14%) in context of total
land cover area. The majority of grassland land cover is converted to farmland and plantation area.
6.1.3 Trend and Rates of Land Use/Land Cover Change (Dynamics)

The absolute, percentage and annual rates of land use/land cover change within the study area for
the period of 1972-1986, 1986-2000, 2000-2005 and 2005-2015 and 1972-2015 was analyzed in
Table 15.
The percentage change is calculated using the equation
Land use/land cover trend (%) change= observed change X 100
Sum of change
Annual rate of change= OC/(X2-X1) Where;
OC=is observed change X1= starting year and X2=is the ending year.
65
Table 15. Trend and rate of change analysis of LULC in the study area.
Land use/ Land use/ land cover change Annual rate of change
land cover
1972-1986 1986-2000 2000-2005 2005-2015
classes
Area (%) Area (%) Area (%) Area (%) 1972 to 1986 to 2000 to 2005 to 1972 to
(ha) Chang (ha) Chang (ha) Chang (ha) Chan 1986(ha) 2000 (ha) 2005 (ha) 2015 (ha) 2015 (ha)
e e e ge
Farmland 899.1 17.98 1,073.28 22.58 1,606.8 30.66 408.408 31.62 64.22 76.66 321.36 40.84 92.73
Wetland - 24.74 444.478 9.35 -929.0 17.72 -0.949 0.07 -88.38 31.75 -185.8 - 0.095 -15.39
1237.3
98
Grassland 15.46 - 42.68 1,007.49 19.23 -413.828 32.0 55.22 -144.9 201.41 -41.38 -40.07
773.10 2,028.71
1
Shrubland - 25.25 825.0 17.36 -1,255.1 23.95 -25.802 -1.99 -90.20 58.93 -251.02 -2.58 -39.97
1,262.
83
Plantation 135.80 2.715 33.389 0.70 5.611 0.107 237.332 18.37 9.70 2.38 1.12 23.73 9.58
1
Forest 692.09 13.84 -347.4 7.31 -435.71 8.31 -205.165 15.88 49.43 -24.82 -87.14 -20.51 -6.88
The above table indicated that LULC trend and rate of changes of the study area during the period of the study. It reveals a drastic
decrease in the coverage of forest, wetland, grassland and Shrubland which contributed to concomitment increase mainly in farmland
and plantation area. The forest cover annual increasing of the study area from 1972-1986, about 49.4 ha was increased by 13.8% rate
per annum and from 1986-2000 about -24.8 ha was converted by 7.3% rate of change per annum. After 2000 years the forest coverage
shows continuous decrease by -87.1 ha (-8.3%) and -20.5 ha (-15.9%) during the period of 2000-2005 and -6.88 ha during the period of
2005-2015 rate of change per annum respectively. This revealed that the forest decrease is as a result of population growth, unwise use
of resource and the forest resources change to other land units.
66
The wetland cover of annual change is recorded,-88.4 ha (24.7%), -31.7 ha (9.3%), -185.8 ha
(17.7%) and -0.09 ha (0.07%) rate of change per annum during the periods of 1972-1986, 1986-
2000, 2000-2005 and 2005-2015 respectively. This results show that the lack of wetland
conservation policy, overgrazing and lack of wise use resources are observed during field survey
in the study area.
The trend and rate of conversion of grassland indicated that in Table (14) the grassland area
coverage was increased to 55.22 ha (15.5%) in 1972-1986 and it decreased to -144.9 ha (42.7%)
in 1986-2000, also it increased to 201.41 ha (19.2) in 2000-2005 and as well as, it decreased to-
41.38 ha (32. %) in 2005-2015 rate of change per annum. Within 43 years about 8.15% of grassland
was changed to other land covers. This result shows us the scarcity of farmland and illegal
cultivation of grassland related to population growth and lack of land management in the area.
The trend and rate of farmland area expansion was recorded, 64.2 ha (17.9%), 76.6 ha (22.6%),
321.4 ha (30.7%) and 40.8 ha (31.6%) rate of increasing per annum during the periods of 1972-
1986, 1986-2000, 2000-2005 and 2005-2015 respectively. The expansion of farmland is directly
related to population growth, unsustainable agricultural activities, and illegal expansion of
farmland and weak environmental conservation policy.
The trend and rate of change of Shrubland are; -90.2 ha (25.2%) per annum in 1972-1986.
Although, there was, 58.9 ha (17.4%),increasing with annual increasing rate in 1986-2000 as well
as, -251.0 ha (23.9%) decreasing in 2000-2005 per annum and -2.6 ha (1.9%) rate of change per
annum during the periods of 2005-2015 respectively. This results revealed that the change of
Shrubland is a factor of population growth, heavy livestock rate (overgrazing), expansion of
farmland and lack of responsible organization for natural resource keeping in the area.
The trend and rate for expansion of plantation (eucalyptus) area coverage was, 9.7 ha (2.7%), 2.4
ha (0.7%), 1.1 ha (0.1%), and 23.7 ha (18.4%) increased rate per annum during the periods of
1972-1986, 1986-2000, 2000-2005 and 2005-2015 respectively. From 1972-2015 plantation are
gain 4.7% from other land units. The results tell us eucalyptus tree are used as a source of income,
fire wood, house construction and household material production in the area.
67
5000
Area in Hectare 4000

3000
2000
1000
0
1972 1986 2000 2005 2015
Farmland Grassland Wetland Shrubland Plantation Forest
Fig.19. Land use/land cover trend of the study area in 1972-2015

6.1.4 Nature of Land use/Landover Change From 1972 to 2015
The nature of Land use/land cover change refers to the identification of ‘what land use/land cover
is changing and from what to what?’ A post‐classification comparison change detection technique
revealed different trends in land use/land cover changes over the period from 1972‐ 2015. This
information will reveal both the desirable and undesirable changes and classes that are “relatively”
stable overtime. This information will also serve as a vital tool in management decisions. This
process involves a pixel to pixel comparison of the study year images through overlay. The nature
of changes has been examined in terms of areas of land use/land cover remained unchanged, gained
from other classes and lost to other classes. The statistics on nature of changes for the study area
during the periods 1972-2015 and 1986-2015 are presented as below (Table 16, 17 and 18).
6.1.4.1 Land use/Landover Change between 1972 and 2015

Between the years 1972 and 2015, the major land use/land cover changes were dominated by
changes from wetland, Shrubland and grassland to farmland (Table 16).Quantitatively, 11.86 km2,
11.53 km2 and 10.52 km2 of wetland, Shrubland and grassland respectively were converted to
farmland (Table 16). These changes were attributed to population growth which forced the farmers
to till and expand their lands in greater extent than before to cope up with the conditions and to
sustain their life. In terms of land cover remained unchanged over the period of 43 years; 0. 28
km2, 3.12 km2, 5.67 km2, 0.19 km2, 2.61 km2 and 3.71 km2 were recorded for Shrubland, grassland,
forest, plantation, wetland and farmland respectively. Overall, 15.58 km2 (19.43%) of the total
study area remained unchanged over the period of 43 years (1972-2015). The change detection
68
matrix (Table 16) also indicates that there was gain in farmland and plantation area coverage by 1.67 km2 (167 ha) and 1.41 km2 (141
ha) respectively; whereas grassland, Shrubland, wetland and forest showed decrease (loss) by -6.41 km2, -17.01 km2, -17.13 km2 and -
2.94 km2 in the same order.
Table 16. Change Detection Matrics of 1972 to 2015
Initial State 1972
LULC SHL GL FR PL WL FL RT CT
types
Area % Area % Area % Area % Area % Area %
(km2) (km2) (km2) (km2) (km2) (km2)
Final State 2015
SHL 0.28 1.4 0.78 4.8 0.33 2.1 0.01 0.6 0.88 4 0.08 1.5 2.36 2.44
GL 2.08 10.7 3.12 19.2 1.01 6.3 0.08 5 3.21 14.4 0.21 3.9 9.71 9.88
FR 1.43 7.3 1.25 7.7 5.67 35.5 0.16 0.1 2.98 13.4 1.05 19.5 12.53 13.02
PL 3.58 18.4 0.35 2.1 1.16 7.3 0.19 11.9 0.47 2.1 0.24 4.5 5.99 6.00
WL 0.52 2.7 0.19 1.2 1.65 10.3 0.00 0 2.61 11.7 0.07 1.3 5.04 5.11
FL 11.53 59.2 10.52 64.6 5.75 36.3 0 .16 0.1 11.86 53.3 3.71 69 44.54 44.93
CCT 19.46 100 16.29 100 15.96 100 1.60 17.7 22.25 100 5.38 100 80.17 81.11
CC 19.18 98.6 13.17 80.8 10.29 64.5 1.41 88.1 19.64 88.3 1.68 31.2
ID -17.01 -87.4 -6.41 -39.3 -2.94 -18.4 4.39 2.7 -17.13 -77 39.54 734.9
Note: Land cover categories: SHL: Shrubland, GL: Grassland, FR: Forest, PL: Plantation, WL: Wetland and FL: Farmland =
unchanged area of land cover over the years, RT: Row total, CC: Class Change CT: Class total ID: Image difference CCT: Column
Class total
6.1.4.2 Land use/Landover Change from 1986 to 2015

The second comparison made during 1986 to 2015 (table 17) also showed that 4.19 km2 (42.3%) of wetland area was converted to
farmland. During this period the unchanged class total area is 31.54 km2 (38.9%). Similar to the period 1972 to 2015, farmland and
plantation gained 10.25 km2 and 2.92 km2 of land area respectively. Regarding loss, 2.3 km2, 5.45 km2, 2.13 km2 and 4.79 km2 was
69
recorded for wetland, grassland, Shrubland and forest respectively within 29 years. This is because of expansion of agricultural activity.
Agriculture expansion is at the expense of grassland, forestland, and wetland and Shrubland contributing to the reduction of those land
use/land cover types in the area. Some earlier studies in some area indicated that many households were abandoning unproductive
grazing land and the increasing population pressures have an impact on natural resources degradation.
Initial State 1986
types Area % Area % Area % Area % Area % Area %
(km2) (km2) (km2) (km2) (km2) (km2)
Final State 2015
SHL 0.28 2.1 0.80 0.5 0.71 4 0.08 2.2 0.31 3.1 0.23 1.1 2.41 2.43
GL 0.76 5.6 4.34 28.9 1.52 8.4 0.45 12.5 1.40 14.1 1.31 6.3 9.79 9.82
FR 2.27 16.8 0.84 5.6 7.92 43.6 0.21 5.8 0.82 8.3 0.63 3 12.71 12.95
PL 0.66 4.9 0.44 3 1.02 5.6 0.69 19.1 0.47 4.7 2.65 12.8 5.94 5.97
WL 0.63 4.7 0.43 2.9 0.54 3 0.46 12.7 2.67 27 0.23 1.1 4.97 5.07
FL 8.86 65.5 8.09 54 6.33 34.8 1.71 47.4 4.19 42.3 15.64 75.4 44.82 44.96
CCT 13.52 100 15.00 100 18.17 100 3.61 100 9.90 100 20.73 100 80.64 81.11
CC 13.24 98 10.66 71.1 10.25 56.4 2.92 80.9 7.22 73 5.09 24.5
ID -11.09 -82 -5.18 -34.5 -5.22 -28.7 2.35 66 -4.82 -48.7 24.23 116.9
The figure below (Fig.20) summarizes the overall land use/ land cover change and the direction of change over a period of 43 years
(1972-2015).
6.1.4.3 Land use/Landover Change from 2000 to 2015

On the contrary, during 2000 to 2015 LULC class change comparison in table 18 below shows that 0.3 km2, 0.8 km2, 5.1 km2, 0.1 km2,
2.2 km2 and 16.2 km2 were recorded as stable area for Shrubland, grassland, forest, plantation, wetland and farmlands respectively,
within 15 years. Thus, 24.7 km2 (30.4%) of all land cover remains unchanged during the period 2000-2015. Regarding gain, Farmland
70
and Plantation recorded 8.7 km2 (87 ha) and 3.4 km2 (34 ha). In terms of loss, wetlands, grasslands, Shrublands and forests recorded 2.8
km2, 8.9 km2, 2.1 km2 and 0.8 km2 respectively. The majority loss of those land cover are converted to farmland and plantation. Most
of the forested land, Shrubland, wetland and grassland was converted to farmland by 47.4%, 56.3%, 46.1% and 46.1% respectively. On
the other hand, those classes are also converted to plantation by 14.6 %, 3.5%, 7.7% and 5.7% between 2000 and 2015. The main causes
of conversion is based on survey conducted, the community elders and agriculture expert of the area pointed out that at recently there is
a government policy of land giving for landless and jobless population. The majority of land was given for those landless are from
grassland, Shrubland and wetland, because those land classes in the area used as communal land and the values of those land cover
classes at the area are unknown. Therefore, all of those reasons are the factor for expansion of farmland and degradation of other natural
resources.
Initial State 2000
(km2) (km2) (km2) (km2) (km2) (km2)
Final State 2015
SHL 0.3 2 0.2 5.1 0.7 3.6 0.2 5.7 0.6 4.2 0.5 2 2.4 2.5
GL 1.4 9.3 0.8 20.5 2.2 11.5 0.3 8.6 2.6 18.2 2.5 10 9.7 9.8
FR 1.8 11.9 0.5 12.8 5.1 26.6 0.5 14.3 1.8 12.6 2.9 11.6 12.7 13.0
PL 2.2 14.6 0.3 7.7 1.1 5.7 0.1 2.6 0.5 3.5 1.6 6.4 5.9 5.9
WL 0.8 5.3 0.1 2.7 0.8 4.2 0.1 2.6 2.2 15.4 1.0 4 5.0 5.1
FL 8.5 56.3 1.8 46.1 9.1 47.4 2.4 68.6 6.6 46.1 16.2 65.1 44.6 44.6
CCT 15.1 100 3.9 100 19.2 100 3.5 100 14.3 100 24.9 100 80.3 81.11
CC 14.9 98.7 3.0 76.9 14.1 73.4 3.4 97.1 12.1 84.6 8.7 34.9
ID -12.7 -84.1 5.9 151.3 -6.3 -32.8 2.4 68.6 -9.3 -65 19.8 79.5
The slight difference in the row and column total is due to rounding errors
71
2.08km2 1.02km2
Net Shrubland Net Grassland 1.25km2 Net Forest

0.28km2 (1.4%) 0.78km2 3.12km2(19.2%) 5.67km2(35.5%)
+ 2.44km2 +9.88km2 +13.02km2
-19.18km2 -13.17km2 -15.96km2
Class change 17.01km2 Class change 6.41km2 Class change
(87.4%) 3.21km2 (39.3) 2.94km2(18.14%)
11.53km2 10.52km2 5.75km2

1.16km2
Net Wetland 11.86km2 Net Farmland 0.35km2 Net plantation
2.61km2(11.7%) 3.71km2(69%) 0.19km2(11.9%)

+ 5.11km2 +44.93km2 +6.00km2
-19.64km2 -1.68km2 -1.41km2
Class change Class change Class change

17.13km2(77%) 39.54km2(734.9%) 4.39km2(2.7%)
0.47km2
Fig.20.Land use/ land cover change analysis for 1972 to 2015
6.1.5 Drivers of Land Use/Land Cover Change
Land use/land cover change is always caused by multiple interacting factors. The mix of driving
of land use change varies in time and space according to specific human’s environment conditions.
Several studies have examined the social and economic factors that drive land use/ land cover
change. But the main cause for LULC change of this study can be divided into two categories.
Those proximate (direct) and underlying (indirect) cause. The proximate causes of land use/ land
cover for this study is related to modification of land by human at local level, individual farms,
household levels and community. The underlying cause of this study related to economic,
technological and institutional factors. The main driving force for LULC change of this study as
information collected during field survey from the area and satellite image interpretation four main
reasons are taken. These are: population growth (demographical factor), agricultural and forest
prices, institutional factor and economic factor.
72
1. Demographic factors: the average number of people living a household has been increasing
over time in the study site kebeles. Depending on population growth many farmers of the study
area practice unsustainable farming methods as continuous cultivation results in loss of soil fertility
and weed problems, which force them to move and clear forests, shrubs, grasses and wetlands for
farming. Although LULC change processes occur at the interface of humans on environment by
feed backs, synergistic effects and other system processes. Natural environment changes interact
with population growth that cause land cover change. Between 1982 and 2013 the number of
population of the area increased from 2,147 to 14,952. In the 2015 satellite image showed much
of the study area covered by farmland and 3,987.7 ha (49.1%) of other land cover converted to
agriculture when we compare with 1972. Therefore, population growth and expansion of
agriculture is the main driver of land use/ land cover change at the study area.
2. Agricultural and forest product prices: a change in price of agricultural or forest products of
the area can affect land cover change of the area. In the area during the period of 1972 the cost of
one quintal Guizotia is 10-20 birr at present 1700-2000 birr. Although in 1972 the cost of one
quintal charcoal and one stacked fire wood is 1-2 birr at present 100-150 birr in the area. The
increasing of agricultural and forest prices are forced farmers to over cultivation and degradation
natural resources like forest.
3. Economic factor: economic changes are increasing mediated by institutional factors, markets
and policies, such as agricultural subsidies, that are enforced by local factor driving at and toward
intensive agriculture and away from subsistence crop land of the area. For example, after farmers
get better access to credit market ( by road building and other infrastructural change), combined
with improved agricultural technology and seed and secure land tenure can encourage forest,
grassland, wetland and Shrubland conversion to cropland and plantation. Although, in the area
Security of land tenure over land occupied by a household significantly increased the temptation
of expanding unplanned farms towards the neighboring land covers. The land which was not
demarcated and surveyed was normally not respected by the occupier and is likely to be abandoned
and shift to another piece of land in the same neighborhood or anywhere else. This situation might
have been the cause of poor land use practices and expansion of agricultural farms unnecessarily
observed during the field survey in the area.
73
4. Institutional factors: land degradation and other environmental consequences of land use
change in the study site are often the result of ill-defined policies and weak institutional
enforcement and conservation strategies. This undermine local adaptation strategies such as,
subsidies for road construction, agricultural production and forestry. In addition many people
accessed farmland illegally by degradation of forests and other natural environments. Although,
in the area there is no responsible organization for protection communal land as other natural
resources. For this reason in the area many communal lands were changed to private land.
Therefore, depend upon this idea it is possible to say institutional factors are as the other factors
the main driving of land use/ land cover degradation.
6.6 Impacts of LULC Change of Jarmet Wetland and its Surrounding Environments as a
Response to Population Dynamics
Land use changes are important aspect of global change has effect on regional water cycle,
environmental quality, biodiversity and terrestrial ecosystem. Land use changes such as conversion
of forest and wetland to agriculture due population growth are the main factor for changes of
Jarmet wetland and its surrounding environment over years. Population growth and pressure is
the main factor for LULC change, clearing forests, shrublands, grasslands and wetlands for
agriculture and plantation, overgrazing , illegal land encroachment are the main causes for changes
in hydrology (rivers), wildlifes, birdlife and vulnerable for flooding.
 Impacts on hydrology (rivers)
 Impacts on wildlife
 Impacts on birdlife
 Impacts on common trees
 Impacts on land degradation (flooding)
1. Impacts of LULC Change on Hydrology (Rivers)

Hydrology is the scientific study of movement, distribution and quality of water on earth. Land
use/ land cover changes affected the hydrology of various rivers of the study area. Land cover
changes of Jarmet wetland and its surrounding environment over years caused several problems of
hydrology (rivers). This wetland and its surrounding area dramed by 7 major rivers in the past, but
some rivers are dried up at present.
74
1. Jarmet River: is the largest river of the area. It is found in the western parts of the wetland in
Anfaredarge Kebele. This river flows over the wetland to Imane river and it feeds the wetland
ecosystem depended upon it during the periods of 1972-1986. But, after 1986 when the wetland
sedges and forest patches removed the river changed its flowing direction to underground.
2. Badessa (Abayye) River: is found far from the wetland within 200m in the south western part
of the study area. The river stands close to Jardega town and flows to Jarmet wetland. It is a source
of drinking water for this town before and now. But, the power of the rivers before and after forest
degradation slightly different. If this river is not protected it may dried up in about 5 year.
3. River of goda bollo: is found in the southern part of Jarmet wetland at kobidinsa Kebele. This
river used as source of drinking water for the population and livestocks. Before 1986 this river
used to flow all year round, but after land cover of the area changed the river started to dry in the
dry season and flows only in the wet season.
4. Gindwac River: it is located in the south western part of Jarmet wetland all year round before
15 years as G.C., at present this river is changed to seasonal (i.e. it flows only in the wet season)
but, it dried up in the dry season.
5. Borbor River: it’s located in kobidinsa Kebele and used to flow all year round up to 2005 years.
But, now this river changed to seasonal. It used only in wet season as drinking water for cattle.
6. Mujja River: this river is found in Anfaredarge Kebele before 1999 G.C, but after this years it
is totally dried up.
7. Kistana River: is located in suteketali Kebele in eastern part of Jarmet wetland all year round
during 1988 periods. After this year it dried up in summer season and it flows in winter season
only.
Generally, the main factors responsible for changes on surface hydrology unsustainable farming
activity in the area, plantation of eucalyptus trees close to the river and increasing demand for
charcoal and firewood (forest degradation), wetland sedge and forest patch degradation, water
diversion for irrigation and lack of strong natural resource conservation policy implementation.
75
Plate 1. Eucalyptus plantation surrounding wetland rivers
2. Impacts of LULC Change on Wildlifes
There have had been different kinds of wildlife lives in the study area in ancient time to present.
They lived inside wetlands, forests, shrublands and grasslands before the land cover of the area
changed. The type of wildlife that lived inside the wetland during 1972 to 1986 periods were red
buck, bushbuck, pig, gazelle and etc. During this period this wetland are covered by sedges and
forest patches. So, it was comfortable for those wildlifes living inside. But, after the wetland was
burned all wildlifes migrated from the area except gazelle. Although there are another wildlifes
that live in the forests, shrublands and grasslands include: Fox, hyena, leopard, ape, monkey,
colobus monkey, rabbit and aardvark. But, after the land cover of the area changed Leopard and
wildcat totally migrated from the area to other places, but a few others are found in the area.
Generally, the main reasons for wildlife migration and reduction in numbers are, LULC change in
case of expansion of agriculture, hunting wildlifes and used as a source of income (e.g. Leopard
skin), lack of wildlife protection law in the area and population growth. Therefore, this result
revealed that the wildlifes found in the area endangered and great harm or imbalance situation.
3. Impacts of LULC Change on Birdlife
During the field survey several information was collected from elders related to birdlife resources
of the area. The information collected from elders in the area showed there was a huge number of
birdlife resources in Jarmet wetland and its surrounding environs. For example, there are a great
variety of bird species that resides in the area during 1972 to present. The types of birds include,
little grebe(dab chick), great crasted grebe(pediceps cristatus), white breasted cormorant, African
darter, harmerkop, goliath heron, black head heron, pink blacked pelican, marabou stork, African
open bill, wolly-necked stork, black stork, blue winged goose, Egyptian goose, ruddy shelduck,
yellow billed duck, black(northern) crowned crane, wattled crane, great snipe, African
(Ethiopian) snipe, rose-ringed parakeet, and white cheeked turaco. Out of these birds harmerkop
76
is endemic to Africa and it is found in study area in the Jarmet wetland only. But, marabou stork
and white cheeked turaco are migrated in the area before 10 years. Although black headed heron,
little egret, African sacred ibis, black stork, wattled Ibis and blue winged goose (Cyanochen
cyanopterus) are endemic to Ethiopia; Egyptian goose and ruddy shelduck are found only in wet
season and they migrate in dry season after 20 years, presumably because of the merit of favorable
food. But others are found all year round in the area of Jarmet wetland and its surrounding forests.
The main reasons for migration of a few bird and changing their season of coming is degradation
of Jarmet wetland sedge, river and forests. Because, of unsustainable agricultural activity and weak
birdlife protection policy.
Wattled Ibis
Harmerkop
Blue Winged Goose
77
Plate 2. Birdlife of Jarmet wetland
4. Impacts of LULC Change on Common Trees
LULC changes of Jarmet wetland and its surrounding environments has led to common tree loss.
There are many kinds of common trees that enriched the biodiversity of the study area site before
destroyed. Unplanned agricultural activity, lack of nature and natural resource conservation in the
area resulted in loss of many kinds of common trees like, Podocarpus falcatus (Birbirsa),
Pouteria altisssima (homi), Ekebergia capensis (sombo), Albizia schimperiana (Baha), Ficus
vasta (Dembi) and Strereospermum kunthianum (Botoroo) that were available all over the area,
but now they are not observed. This is a great loss to forest biodiversity. Another common trees
and shrubs like, Ficus sur (Harbu), Syzygium guineense (Badessa) and acacia in the area are also
in vulnerable conditions.
5. Impacts of LULC Change on Land Degradation (Flooding)
Land degradation is broadly defined as any form of deterioration of natural potential of land that
affects ecosystem integrity either in terms of reducing its sustainable ecological productivity or in
terms of its native biological richness and maintenance of resilience. Land degradation is a serious
problem in the study area Kebeles after natural resource of the area like, forest, wetland sedges,
Shrublands and grasslands destroyed. Erosion is one of the main factor created related to land
degradation. Soil erosion has several negative impacts on both human and natural resources. It
impacts on food security as degraded land resources and soil resources associated agricultural
productivity. In the study kebeles Darge and Darme are the main flood risk areas. Soil erosion
problem of the area was generally connected with over cultivation, overgrazing and deforestation,
but specifically to farming methods and management. The uncontrolled human activity in the area
were rampant due to population growth, poor policy governing, agriculture and land use, forest
degradation, low level awareness of sustainable land use, agriculture and overgrazing. Although
the main reasons for flooding in the area is deforestation and altering water courses due to improper
land use practices in the area. For this cause the forest cover of surrounding Jarmet wetland was
cleared in the demand for more agricultural land need and for income supplementation by selling
wood and charcoal.
78
Plate 3. Factors of land degradation condition of the study area
Generally, all of those factors are the main cause for biodiversity declining rapidly due to factors
such as land use/ land cover change, over exploitation, unwise use of natural resource, weak
conservation policy of nature and natural resources and population growth. The greatest human
impact on biodiversity is the alteration and destruction of habitats, which occurs mainly through
change of LULC, draining rivers, clearing land for agriculture, wildlife loss, birdlife loss, land
degradation or soil erosion and common tree destruction.
6.2 Discussions
6.2.1 Main findings in this research
This section presents discussion of the results generated land cover maps from classification of
Landsat images. It includes assessment of the recent map accuracy, analysis of the nature, extent
and rate of land cover change maps and statistics, change detection analysis and LULC analysis of
time series satellite image classification. Discussions of the analysis results focus on total wetland
and others land cover loss and conversion between 1972 and 2015. The discussion then turns to
examining the degree, trends, rates and patterns of LULC conversion or loss within the study area.
Changes in wetland and other land cover classes and their gains and losses within 43 year periods
are discussed below. The results of comparison of remotely sensed images in this study proved to
be a good method in determining the changes in wetlands and other land covers over time. The
spatial analysis of change detection and patterns, spatial transition of land use/land cover change
79
analysis using spatial matrics and temporal patterns and configuration of land use/land cover
changes are also presented in this sections.
Significant change has been detected in the Jarmet and its surrounding environs over years with
highest rates. Firstly, the land use /land cover analyses through the use of remote sensing and GIS
techniques shows that in 1972 the total areal extent of forest, wetland, Shrubland, grassland,
plantation and farmland were 1,587.6 ha, 2,228.7ha, 1,956.7 ha,1,638.5 ha, 179.2 ha and 523.1 ha
respectively.
In 1986 the research showed that wetlands and Shrubland decreased to -991.4 ha and -693.4 ha
respectively; while cultivation(farmland), grassland, forest and plantation is increased to1,422.2
ha, 2,411.6 ha, 2,279.7 ha and 315 ha respectively. Thus, between 1972 and 1986 the four land
use/land cover under investigation gain physical area of coverage. The main reasons for increasing
of farmland are a result of extremely intensification of agriculture related to population growth
than other activity, expansion of forest is as a result of degradation of Shrubland than forested land,
increments of plantation especially, eucalyptus tree are a result of nonfood crop and largest source
of income for the study site household, the increments of grassland is a result of the number of
livestocks increasing, overgrazing and cutting shrubs and doing fence for protecting their crops
from livestocks and used Shrubland as grazing land. The main causes for Shrubland and wetland
degradation is population growth, taking Shrublands as invaluable resources, lack of knowledge
in terms of the wetland and Shrubland use and burning of wetland ecosystem.
However, in 2000 farmland, Shrubland, plantation and wetland increased to 2,495.5 ha, 1,518.4
ha, 348.4 ha and 1,435.8 ha respectively; while forest and grassland decreased to -1,932.3 ha and
-382.9 ha respectively. The main reasons behind the changes of grassland and forest are population
growth, illegal expanding of new farmland, farmland scarcity and illegal eucalyptus plantation on
common lands. In another string of agreements the USDA Forest Service (2004) holds that much
of the pressure to convert forests to agricultural uses comes from increasing population growth
and development demands.
Although, in 2005 this study revealed that farmland, plantation and grassland shows increasing in
4,102.2 ha, 354 ha and 1,390.4 ha respectively, while forest, wetland and Shrubland are decreased
to 1,496.6 ha, 506.8 ha and 263.8 ha respectively. This results showed as, the wetlands, forests
and Shrublands in the study area are not controlled by any authority and it is like ‘free area’ for
80
any activity; hence, those inhabitants of the area that can work on farm moved in to produce mostly
teff and Guizotia crops. In addition, the main causes for resource losses in the study area sites are
population growth, illegal cutting of forest for energy especially charcoal and fire wood and weak
environmental laws and policies. This is comparable to the findings made by Olson et al., (2004)
in Uganda.
Plate 4. Forest conversion to farmland and Shrubland conversion to grassland.

Furthermore, at present (2015) this study showed that farmland and plantation are increased to
4,510.8 ha and 591.3 ha respectively, while others like, Shrubland, grassland, wetland and forest
decreased to 237.5 ha, 976.5 ha, 505.8 ha and 1,291.4 ha respectively. The reasons for farmland
and plantation increasing during this period are eucalyptus tree are used as the main source of fire
wood for both rural and urban populations, expansion of rural and urban settlement, increasing
price of eucalyptus tree, increasing number of unemployment, expansion of irrigation, population
growth, weak land management and environmental policy implementation, lack of wise use and
irresponsible for natural resource conservation in the area. The results of this work correspond
(similar) with the findings of a study done in Wetland uses/dynamics for agricultural purposes and
its health implications in lower Ogun river basin, Lagos, Nigeria (2006).
The change detection of land use/land cover of Jarmet wetland and its surrounding environmental
change revealed that during the period of 1972-1986 wetland and Shrubland showed dramatically
decrease to -1,237.4 ha and -1,262.8 ha respectively, while farmland, grassland, plantation and
forest increased by 899.1 ha, 773.1 ha, 135.8 ha and 692.1 ha respectively. This result indicated
that population growth, increasing number of livestocks, burning of wetland sedges and forest
patches, poor farming practices and overgrazing have led to land degradation along with negative
impacts on the study area wetlands and Shrublands. The results of this study are similar to the
studies by Copeland et al. (2010), Kangalawe and Liwenga (2005) and Ramsar (2009).
81
There was also serious land cover loss of grassland and forest during the periods of 1986-2000,by
-2,028.7 ha and -347.4 ha respectively, while farmland, plantation, wetland and Shrublands are
increased to 1,073.3 ha,33.4 ha , 444.4 ha and 825 ha respectively. These findings have revealed
that household size (i.e. as information collected from elders; before 1986 in one Kebele the
number of population lives only 100 households, but after 1986 it increased to 300 households),
weak land use laws, illegal land taking, farmland scarcity, and illegal plantation of eucalyptus tree
in the area are vital drivers of land use/cover of forest and grassland change.
In addition, the change detection statistics of this study revealed that farmland and plantation
shows continuous increase during the period of 2000-2005 and 2005-2015 by 1,606.8 ha, 5.6 ha
and 408.4 ha and 237.3 ha respectively, while forest, Shrubland and wetland decreased except
grassland it shows increasing by 1,007.5 ha between 2000-2005 and decreased to 413.8 ha in
2005-2015. The area coverage losses of forest, Shrubland and wetland during the periods of 2000-
2005 are 435.7 ha, 1,255.1 ha, 929 ha and in 2005-2015 205.1 ha, 25.8 ha and 0.94 ha respectively.
Generally, this result revealed that wetlands, Shrublands, grasslands and forests is the most
affected with more area been taken over by other land use/land cover. As shown in the study, more
and more those land cover classes are being cut down either for plantation purpose or for
cultivation. Although, lack of developing appropriate policies for wetlands and environments and
unevenly distribution of eucalyptus tree, unsustainable agricultural activity and lack of strong
relationship between agricultural assistant and rural population are the main factor for land use/
land cover change in the area. So, for conserving wetlands and other land cover classes must be
covered under multiple sectors with no single sector being in overall charge.
Plate 5. Eucalypts and other plantation inside Jarmet wetland

The trend and rate of change analysis revealed that during the period of under investigation
wetlands and Shrublands continuously experienced loss with all negative annual rates of change
82
(88.4 ha and 90.2 ha for 1972-1986. Grassland, farmland, plantation and forests are gains by 55.2
ha, 64.2 ha, 9.7 ha and 49.4 ha annual rate of change respectively within the same periods. The
main reasons for wetland and Shrubland loss during this period is burning of wetland resources
like sedge, forest patch and overgrazing the wetland resources and cutting shrubs for fence and
expansion of agriculture. Although, political problem between governments of Ethiopia transition
from (Derg and FDRE) for this reason there is a problem for environmental protection policy
implementation, conservation and land management.
However, during the periods of 1986- 2000, 2000-2005 and 2005-2015 farmland and plantation
shows increasing, others like; forest and wetland experienced loss, but Shrubland and grassland
are gain between 1986-2000 and 2000-2005 respectively. The annual rates of gains of farmland
and plantation for all years are; 76.6 ha, 321.4 ha, 92.7 ha and 2.4 ha, 1.1 ha, 23.7 ha respectively.
The annual rates of loss of forest and wetland for the periods of under investigation 24.8 ha, 87.1
ha, 20.5 ha and 31.7 ha, 185.8 ha, 0.09 ha respectively. Regarding to grassland and Shrubland loss
and gain during this periods Shrublands experienced gain between 1986 to 2000 with annual rate
of change been 58.9 ha while after 2000-2005 and 2005-2015 the annual rate of Shrubland loss
was-251.02 ha and -2.6 ha respectively. For grassland annual rate of loss and gain was recorded
during 1986-2000, 2000-2005 and 2005-2015 was 144.9 ha loss, 201.4 ha gain and 41.4 ha loss
respectively.
Generally, these result revealed that significant increase in agricultural activities and plantation in
the study area during the period 1972,1986,2000,2005 and 2015. Therefore, the study findings
have revealed that household size, weak land use laws, illegal land encroachment, farmland
scarcity, and illegal plantation of eucalyptus tree were vital drivers of land use/cover change. On
the contrary, increasing livestock activities and education levels turned out to be non-important
drivers of land use/cover change. This type of results are got in one study done at Kirima Uganda
(2000).
83
CHAPTER SEVEN
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
7.1 Summary
In this paper we have presented the Jarmet wetland and its surrounding environmental change over
43 years due to population growth and natural factor. The long term land use change analysis was
performed to detect, delineate and map the land use land cover dynamics over the study periods.
Wetlands are defined by US fish and wild life service’s( Cowardin et al.,1979) as lands that
transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the
surface or the land is covered by shallow water and that have one or more the following attributes;
a, at least periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytes, b, the substrate
predominantly undrained hydric soils and the substrate is non-soil and saturated with water or
covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year. Each wetland is
composed of a number of physical, biological and chemical components such as soils, water, plants
and animal species, and nutrients. This wetland ecosystem structure (that is, the tangible items)
yields benefits, which are of direct use value to humans. Here people are presently involved in
cultivation of the wetlands for food crops production, some are for eucalyptus tree planting,
drinking the wetland water and feeding their livestocks, and others are used for cultural and
recreational sites. However, this research is interested in the use of these wetlands for agricultural,
grazing of livestock, drinking ground water and plantation purpose. It should be noted that this
use/conversion of wetlands for those purposes are the main factor for change of land use/land cover
which can be study under this thesis.
7.2 Conclusion
This research work demonstrates the ability of GIS and Remote Sensing in capturing spatio-
temporal data for Jarmet wetland and its surrounding environmental change analysis as a response
to human population on land use/land cover change. The analysis of wetland and its surrounding
environmental change over years are by using a time-series analysis technique of comparing
remotely sensed images from Landsat missions.
The link between human development, illegal land taking, weak environmental conservation
policy, unwise use of wetland and other land cover recession can be measured through image
classification, given that data is available and affordable for researches. In addition, image quality
84
is an important factor in classification accuracy, land use/land cover map, change detection
analysis, cloud free imagery has been appropriate for clearly analysis of LULC changes of wetland
and its surrounding environs. Considering wetlands are so valuable for humans, birdlife, livestocks
and wildlifes. Also it was found that they are important for variety of birds species including
endemic birds of Ethiopia and Africa. The change of these valuable resources has a great impact
on biodiversity and wild life habitat through changing forest, grassland, Shrubland and wetland
cover. However, the survival of the wetlands and associated ecological services and socio-
economic importance is under threat by unsustainable farming practice.
The main purpose of this study was to detect the changes in Jarmet wetland and its surrounding
environments over years and its factors. Furthermore, this research has attempted to detect the
change of wetland areal extent of Jarmet and its surrounding environments using remote sensing
approach and found that within forty three years. A comprehensive LULC map was developed for
five distinct years. The LU/LC pattern of change different categories shows variation during the
five year periods, 1972,1986,2000,2005 and 2015. During all of those years, forest, grassland,
Shrubland and wetlands were degraded and almost lost by -296.2 ha, -661.9 ha, -1,718.7 ha and -
1,722.8 ha respectively. Agriculture and plantation was expanded at the expense of forest,
grassland, wetland and Shrubland degradation by 3,987.6 ha and 412.1 ha respectively. Change
detection matrix table indicate that most of wetland was converted into agriculture (53.3%) and
grassland (14.4%). This is because of both human activity, population growth, farmland scarcity,
weak conservation and wise use policy implementation related to wetland and other natural
environment.
In addition, land Use/ Land Cover dynamics is a result of complex interactions between several
biophysical and socio-economic conditions. The effects of human activities are immediate and
often radical, while the natural effects take a relatively longer period of time. The difference in
increase by households and land cover change indicates the pressure on wetland, Shrubland,
grassland and forest cover and related biodiversity. This implies that population pressure,
institutional factor, economic development and increase the forest and agricultural product price
is believed to be one of the major driving forces for the changes in the study area. In order to make
relevant conclusions and recommendations of the area. Hence, in the case of this analysis, the
major driving force to changes in LULC is increased population change.
85
Generally, as the wetland, grassland, Shrubland and forests future, that the outlook is not so good.
Therefore, appropriate policies and education about sustainable land management practices and
wise use of those resources and adopting necessary conservation measures are the best method for
those natural resource save from degradation.
7.3 Recommendations
Wetlands and environmental resources provide means of livelihood for the people and all
ecosystem depend upon it in the study area in particular and our country in general. In order to
reduce the changes of wetlands and its surrounding environment over years and for creating the
way of protection of natural resources from degradation and enable sustainable use of the
resources, the following recommendations are suggested.
 Government organizations and society of those kebeles specifically and country generally
must be give attention to the degradation of natural resources especially, grassland,
wetlands, Shrublands and forests of the area.
 Additionally, depend on land use/land cover change those land class conservation and
wisely use policy arena, the main challenge is still weak implementation of the policies
concerning land use planning, creating capacitated institutions at various levels, land use
conflicts, illegal cutting of trees, benefit sharing mechanisms in participatory forest and
other land cover management, etc.
 Stopping illegal land taking and distribution of eucalyptus tree on common lands, fertile
soils and close to rivers. Because, eucalyptus tree is a fast growing and voracious plant it
absorb high moisture and soil nutrient. Although, these trees have the ability to loss soil
fertility and drying rivers within a few years.
 Encouraging society for keeping wetland and other natural resources and teaching the
values of those natural resource and their uses.
 Create a source of income rather than farming for jobless and landless society lives close
to the wetland and for study area in general.
 Participate every person on nature and natural resource conservation and keeping from
degradation as his own property.
 Create strong relationship between agricultural experts and rural population on wise use
of resource and natural resource conservation.
86
REFERENCES
Abbasi S.A. and Abbasi N., The likely adverse environmental impacts of renewable energy
sources, Applied Energy, 65(1-4), 121-144 (2000).
Abebe, Y.D. (2003). Wetlands of Ethiopia: an introduction. P. 1-12 in proceedings of a

conference on Wetlands of Ethiopia. Abebe, Y.B., and K. Geheb (eds.). International Union
for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Nairobi, Kenya.
Abebe, Y.and Gheb, K. (eds). (2003).Wetlands of Ethiopia: Proceedings of a seminar on the

resources and status of Ethiopian’s wetlands, vi+116pp.IUCN Eastern Africa Regional office,
Nairobi, Kenya.
Afwork Hailu and Wood, A. (2007). Livelihoods and the survival of wetlands in the highlands
of Ethiopia. Paper presented in Wetlands and Poverty Reduction Project Workshop, St. Lucia,
South Africa.
Amsalu, A., Stroosnijder, L. & Graaff, J. d. (2007). Long-term dynamics in land resource use
and the driving forces in the Beressa watershed, highlands of Ethiopia. Journal of
Environmental Management, 83, 448–459.
Amenti Abraham, (1989). Tectonic history of the Pan-African low grade belt of western
Ethiopia. Ethiopian Institute of Geological Surveys. Note No. 305, 14p, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Aynekulu, E., Wubneh, W., Birhane, E. & Begashaw, N. (2006). Monitoring and Evaluating
Land Use/Land Cover Change Using Participatory Geographic Information System (PGIS)
Tools: A Case Study of Begasheka Watershed, Tigray, Ethiopia. The Electronic Journal of
Information Systems in Developing Countries, 25, 1–10.
Barbier, E.B.; Acreman, M. & Knowler, D. (1997). Economic valuation of wetlands. Ramsar
Convention Bureau Gland, Switzerland, 127 pp.
Barbier, E. B. (1996). Valuing Environmental Functions: Tropical Wetlands. Land Economics,

70, 155-173.
87
Bekele, Melaku. “Ethiopia's Environmental Policies, Strategies and Programs”. Digest of
Ethiopia's National Policies, Strategies & Programs. Addis Ababa: Forum for Social Studies
(FSS). (2008): 337-70. Print.
Bendor, Todd, Nicholas Brozovic and Varkki George Pallathucheril. (2008). The Social
Impacts of Wetland Mitigation Policies in the United States. Journal of Planning Literature.
22:341-357.
Bewket, W. (2002). Land cover dynamics since the 1950s in Chemoga watershed, Blue Nile
basin, Ethiopia. Mountain Research and Development, 22, 263–269.
Bolstad P.V. and Lellisand T.M. (1992). Rule-based classification of Landsat digital
classification models: flexible integration of satellite imagery and thematic spatial data.
Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 58: 965–971.
Brown, M.T. and Sullivan, M.F. (1988). The value of wetlands in low relief landscapes. Ch.11
in Hook, P.D. et al. 1988. The ecology and management of wetlands. Vol. 1. Timber press,
Portland, OR.
Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development (2011). Alibo Livelihood woreda Reports.
Land management and population growth. Unpublished report. P1-10.
Carter, V. and Novitzki, (1981): Remote Sensing for Wetland Mapping and Inventory. Water
International. Vol. 6, No. 4.
Central Statistical Authority of Ethiopia, (2010). Agricultural sample survey report on area and
Production of crops, Statistical Bulletin Vol. IV, No. 446, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
CIA world fact books and other sources (2015). htt://www.theodra.com/wfb

current/Ethiopia/Ethiopia-people.htm/ retrieved 02 march 2015.
Civco, D.L., Hurd, J.D., Wilson, E.H., Song, M., & Zhang, Z. (2002) A Comparison of Land
Use and Land Cover Change Detection Methods, ASPRS-ACSM Annual Conference and FIG
XXII Congress, April 22-26, 2002.
88
Congalton, R. (1991). A Review of Assessing the Accuracy of Classifications of Remotely
Sensed Data, Remote Sensing of Environment 37: p 35-46.
Coppin, P., Jonckheere, I., Nackaerts, K., Muys, B., & Lambin, E. (2004). Digital change detection
methods in ecosystem monitoring: a review. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 25(9), 1565–
1596.
Cowardin, L.M., Carter, V., Golet, F.C., & LaRoe, E.T. (1979). Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 103 p.
Cowardin LM, Carter V, Golet FC. (1979). Classification of wetlands and deep water habitats
of the United States. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Pub, Washington, D.C., USA. FWS/ OBS
–79/31.
CSA. (2010). Population and Housing Census of Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Population
Census Commission Central Statistical Agency.
CSA (Central Statistics Authority), “The Population and Housing Census of Ethiopia; Results
at a Country Level,” Office of Population and Housing Census Commission, Central Statistical
Authority, Addis Ababa, 2007.
C. W. Thornthwaite, (1948). "An Approach toward a Rational Classification of Climate".

Geographical Review 38 (1): 55–94. Doi: 10.2307/210739. JSTOR 210739.
Dixon, A. and A. Wood. (2003). Local Institutions for Wetland Management in Ethiopia:
Sustainability and State Intervention. P. 130-146 in Community-based Water Law and Water
Resource Management in Developing Countries. Van Koppen, B., M. Giordano, and J.
Butterworth (eds.). Biddles Ltd, King’s Lynn UK.
Dugan, P.J. (1990). Wetland Conservation: a review of current issues and action. IUNC, Gland,
Switzerland. Ethiopia network on food security (2001) monthly report, 12 February
2001.http://www.fews.net/centers/files/Ethiopia_200101en.pdf
Dugan P. (1993). Wetlands in Danger. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA.
89
Edwards, T.C. G.G. Moisen & D.R. Cutler, (1998). Assessing map accuracy in a remotely
sensed, ecoregion-scale cover map, Remote Sensing of Environment, 63:73-83
EPA, (2003). State of Environment Report for Ethiopia.
EPA (Environmental Protection Authority), (2004).Proceeding of the national workshop on

the Ramsar Convention and Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, unpublished, 130 pp.
Ethiopian Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). (1997). Environmental Policy of

Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Web. 21 Nov. 2011.
FAO, (2006). Livestock’s long shadow; 00153 Rome, Italy.
FAO (2010) Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010 ‐ Country Report Ethiopia. Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO), Rome, Italy (www. fao.org/forestry/ fra/fra2010/en/,
accessed date September 15, 2010).
FGDC, (1992). Application of satellite data for mapping and monitoring wetlands. Technical
Report 1, Wetlands Subcommittee. Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC),
Washington, DC, USA, 32 pp.
Finlayson M. and M. Moser (eds.). (1991). Wetlands. International Waterfowl and Wetlands
Research Bureau. Facts on File Ltd. Oxford, UK 224pp.
Foody, G.M. (2002). Status of land cover classification accuracy assessment. J Remote Sensing
of Environ. 80(1):185-201
Gebresamuel, G., Singh, B. R. & Dick, Ø. (2010). Land-use changes and their impacts on soil
degradation and surface runoff of two catchments of Northern Ethiopia. Acta Agricultural
Scandinavica, Section B – Plant Soil Science, 60, 211–226.
Goldberg, J. (1998). Remote Sensing of Wetlands: Procedures and Considerations. Retrieved

January 24, 2003 from http://www.vims.edu/rmap/cers/tutorial/rsceol.htm,
Guler M., Yomralıoglu T. and Reis S. (2007). Using Landsat Data to Determine Land
Use/Land Cover Changes in Samsun, Turkey, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment,
127, 155-167.
90
Haile, S. (2004). Population, Development, and Environment in Ethiopia. Special report.
Retrieved from http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/ecspr10_specialreport.pdf
Harris A, Bryant RG & Baird AJ. (2005). Detecting near-surface moisture stress in Sphagnum
spp. Remote Sensing of Environment 97, 371-381.
Harte, J. (2007). ‘Human population as a dynamic factor in environmental degradation’,

Population and Environment, Vol. 28, Nos. 4–5, pp.223–236.
Harvey, KR & Hill GJE. (2001). Vegetation mapping of a tropical freshwater swamp in the
Northern Territory, Australia: a comparison of aerial photography, Landsat TM and SPOT
satellite imagery. Int J Remote Sensing 22, 2911-2925.
Hewitt M.J. (1990). Synoptic inventory of riparian ecosystems: The Utility of Landsat
Thematic Mapper Data. Forest Ecology and Management, 33/34:605–20.
HoAREC_1E. (2011). pers. comm. Waterville, ME. November 16, 2011.
Holland MM, Risser PG, and Naiman RJ. (1991). Ecotones: The role of landscape boundaries
in the Management and restoration of changing environment. Chapman & Hall, New York,
NY, USA.
Hughes, R. H. and J. S Hughes. (1992). A Directory of African Wetlands. IUCN, Gland,

Switzerland and Cambridge, UK/UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya/WCMC, Cambridge,UK. 820pp.
Hudson. (1995). Bridging the Gap between Communities and GIS Participatory 3D-Modelling,
India.
Illueca J. and W. Rast. (1996). Freshwater Resources: precious, finite and irreplaceable. Our
Planet 8 (3): 19-21.
Jensen J.R. (1996). Introductory Digital Image Processing: A Remote Sensing Perspective,
2ndEdition, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
91
Joshi, C., Leeuwa, J., and Duren, I.C., Remote Sensing and GIS Applications for mapping and
spatial modelling of Invasive species, Proceedings of XXXV ISPRS
congress,www.isprs.org.comm7/papers/132.pdf. (2004).
J. R. Jensen, “Introductory Digital Image Processing, A Remote Sensing Perspective third

edition,” Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA. (2005).
Keeley James, & Scoones, Ian. “Knowledge, Power and Politics in Ethiopia.” Understanding
Environmental Policy Processes: Cases from Africa. Earth scan. (2003): 72-97.
Lefor, M.W., and Kennard, W.C. (1977). Inland wetland definitions: Storrs, Conn., University
of Connecticut., Institute of Resources, Report 28, 63 p.
Lellisand, M.T., Kiefer, R.W. and Chipman, J.W. (2004). Remote Sensing and Image
Interpretation. (Singapore: John Wiley & Sons, Pvt. Ltd)
Leykun Abunie, (2003). The distribution and status of Ethiopian wetlands: an overview. In:
Yilma Delelegn Abebe and Kim Geheb (eds.), Wetlands of Ethiopia, Proceedings of a Seminar
on the Resources and Status of Ethiopia’s Wetlands, IUCN 2003.
Liu AJ, Cameron GN. (2001). Analysis of landscape patterns in coastal wetlands of Galveston
Bay, Texas (USA). Landscape Ecology, 16: 581–595.
Liu, K, W. Zhao, X. Guo and J. Wang. (2010). Change Analysis of Beidagang Wetland Based
on 3S Technology. In: The 18th International Conference on Geoinformatics: GI Science in
Change, Geoinformatics 2010, Peking University, June, 18-20, Beijing, China, pp. 1-5.
10.1109/GeoInformatics.2010.5568080.
Macleod R.D. and Congalton R.G. (1998). A quantitative comparison of change-detection

algorithms for monitoring eelgrass from remotely sensed data. Photogrammetric Engineering
and Remote Sensing 64: 207–216.
Mahmud M.S., Habiba U., Haider F., and Masrur A. (2011). Remote Sensing & GIS Based
Spatio-Temporal Change Analysis of Wetland in Dhaka City, Bangladesh. Journal of Water
Resource and Protection, 3:781-787.
92
Malthus, T.R. (1798). An Essay on the Principle of Population, 1st ed., Pickering Press, 1986,
London.
Mather P., (1999). Computer processing of remotely sensed images. Wiley, New York (292
pp)
Mather, P. M., (2004) .Computer Processing of Remotely-Sensed Images: an Introduction, 3rd
Edition. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, England.
McCartney MP & Hera A. (2004). Hydrological assessment for wetland conservation at

Wicken Fen. Wetlands Ecology and Management 12, 189-204.
McKee, Jonathan. Ethiopia: Country Environmental Profile. European Commission (EC)

Delegation. Addis Ababa: EC, (2007). Web. 25 Nov. 2011.
Ministry of Economic Development and Co-operation, (1999).Survey of the Ethiopian

Economy: Review of Post-Reform Developments, 1992/93-1997/98, Addis Ababa.
Merified, P.M., and Lamar D.L., Active and inactive faults in southern California viewed from
Skylab, TM X-58168, vol. 1, NASA, 779–797, (1975).
Messele Fisseha (2003) .Water resources policy and river basin development as related to
wetlands in: Yilma D. Abebe and Kim Geheb (Eds) (2003) Wetlands of Ethiopia Proceedings
of a seminar on the resources and status of Ethiopia’s wetlands IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland.
Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (MOFED). Ethiopia: Sustainable

Development and Poverty Reduction Program. Addis Ababa. (2002). Print.
Mitsch WJ, Gosselink JG. (1993). Wetlands, 2nd edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York,
NY, USA.
Mitsch WJ & Gosselink JG., (2000). The value of wetlands: importance of scale and landscape
setting. Ecological Economics 35, 25-33.
Moser, M., Prentice, C., and Frazier, S.: A global overview of wetland loss and degradation,
in: Proceedings of the 6th Meeting of the Conference of Contracting Parties of the Ramsar
Conversion, Brisbane, Australia, 19–27 March 1996, 21–31, 1996.
93
Munyat, C. (2011). Wetland change detection on the Kafue Flats, Zambia, by classification of
a multitemporal remote sensing image dataset. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 21(9),
1787-1806.
NMSA (National Meteorological Services Agency), (2001). Initial national communication of
Ethiopia to the UNFCCC. Addis Ababa.
Powell, R.L., N. Matzke, C. de Souza jr, M. Clark, I. Numata, L.L. Hess & D.A. Roberts,
(2004). Sources of error in accuracy assessment of thematic land-cover maps in the Brazilian
Amazon, Remote Sensing of Environment, 90: 221-234
Prigent C, Matthews E, Aires F & Rossow WB. (2001). Remote sensing of global wetland
dynamics with multiple satellite data sets. Geophysical Research Letters 28, 4631-4634.
Rai, V. (2008). Modeling a wetland system – The case of Keoladeo National Park (KNP),
India. Ecological Modelling, 210(3), 247-252.
Ramsar. (1971). The Convention on Wetlands: An Active Player in the Fight against Poverty.
Ramsar Convention Secretariat. (2007). Managing groundwater: Guidelines for the
management of groundwater to maintain wetland ecological character. Ramsar handbooks for
the wise use of wetlands, 3rd edition, vol. 9. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland,
Switzerland. http://www.ramsar.org/lib/lib_handbooks2006_e09.pdf.
Richards J.A. (1995). Remote Sensing Digital Image Analysis: An Introduction. Guide to GIS
and Image Processing, 2:57-82.
Ruffeis, Dominik, Loiskandl, Willibard, Awulachew, Seleshi Bekele, Boelee, Eline.

“Evaluation of the environmental policy and impact assessment process in Ethiopia”.
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 28.1. (2010): 29-40.
Sabins, F.F. (1997). Remote Sensing: Principals and Interpretation, 494 pp. (New York: W.H.
Freeman and Company).
Sader SA, Ahl D & Wen-Shu L. (1995). Accuracy of Landsat-TM and GIS rule-based methods
for forest wetland classification in Maine. Remote Sensing of the Environment, 53, 133-144.
94
Serageldin, I. (1993). Making development sustainable. Finance and development. December,
1993. Vol 304):pp.6.
Shigute Geleta and Wille, W. (1995). Middle Triassic Polymorphs from Fincha-a River
Valley section, Horo Guduru, western central Ethiopia. Neues Jahr Buch...
Tadesse Yihunie and Melaku Tesfaye, (1998). Geology of the Negelle area. Memoir 11.
Ethiopian Institute of Geological Surveys.
Tadesse Amsalu, (2012). Blue Nile water institute proceedings of 2nd national workshop of
2012 on: Challenges and opportunities of water resource management in Tana basin, upper
Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia. Vol II. Pub., December 2012 to 26-27 march 2012.
Tamirat Worku and Timothy R. Astin. (1992). The Karoo sediments (Late Paleozoic to Early
Jurassic) of the Ogaden Basin, Ethiopia. Sedimentary Geology, 76 (1992) PP.7-21.
Elsevier Science PublishersB.V.Amsterdam.
The DCDC Global Strategic Trends programme, 2007-2036, DCDC, 2007
www.eldis.org/go/home&id=42517&type=Document.
Turner, M.G. & R.H. Gardner (eds., 1991). Quantitative methods in landscape ecology: the
analysis and interpretation of landscape heterogeneity. 536 p. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Turner, M.G. (1997). Spatial Simulation of Landscape changes in Georgia: A comparison of

three transition models. Landscape Ecology Vol. 1 pp. 29-36.
United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), (2009). New Report from UNEP included
population in links between environment and conflict.
United Nations Population Division, (2009). World Population Prospects, 2008 Revision. UN
press, New York City, NY.
United States Geological Survey (USGS), (1992). Multi-resolution land characteristics – state
wide digital data for Mississippi. http://landcover.usgs.gov/nationallandcover.html.
US Department of State (DOS). Background in Ethiopia. Web. 25 Nov. 2011.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2005). Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous
95
United States 1998 to 2004. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, D.C.
Wang TL, Zhou LF, Yang PQ. (2008). Study of Panjin wetlands along Bohai Coast: (I) the
information System of wetlands based on 3S technique. Journal of Ocean University of China
(English Edition), 7(4): 411-415.
WBISPP. (2005). A national strategy plan for the biomass sector. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
WCED (World Commission of Environment and Development), (1987). Our Common Future.
WCED. Oxford University Press. New York, U.S.A. 398pp.
Weller, M.W. (1981). Freshwater Marshes University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis, Minn.
Wemai, Richard G. Reforming health systems: the role of NGOs in Decentralization – lessons
from Kenya and Ethiopia. (2008). Print.
Williams M. (1991). Wetlands: A Threatened Landscape. Oxford, UK.

Wood A., P., & Dixon A., B. (2002). Sustainable wetland management in Illubabor Zone.
Huddesfield, UK: Huddesfield University.
Woody Biomass Inventory and Strategic Planning Project (2002). A Strategic plan for
development, conservation and management of the woody biomass resources in Ethiopian
Regions. Unpublished document, Final Draft, June 2002.
Work E.A. Jr and Gilmer D.S. (1976). Utilization of satellite data for inventorying prairie
ponds and lakes. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 42: 685–694.
Yasouka, Y., Yamagata, Y., Tamura, M., Sugita, M., Pornprasertchai, J., Polngam, S.,
Sripumin, R., Oguma, H., & Li, X. (1995). Monitoring of Wetland Vegetation Distribution and
Change by using Microwave Sensor Data, Proceedings of ACRS, Retrieved November 29,
2003 from http://www.gisdevelopment.net/aars/acrs/1995/ts1/ts1001pf.htm.
Zeleke G, Hurni H. (2001). Implications of land use and land cover dynamics for mountain
resource degradation in the northwestern Ethiopian highlands. Mountain Research and
Development 21(2): 184–191.
96
ANNEXES
ANNEX A. RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE
In rural Ethiopia, natural resources are the basis of the livelihoods of local communities. People
usually use various services of these natural resources and also change their nature through, e.g.,
expansion of agriculture. Wetlands are important ecosystem that support various components of
natural resources. They are, however, prone to changes due to population growth whereby their
size and pristine nature change through time. Generally, the conditions of the natural resources
change over time as a function of population growth.
A. Check list for Key informant questionnaire and interviews
1. Name:______________________________________________________
2. Region_____, Zone________, District,_______Kebele(s)_____________
3. Age:--All key informants must be above 50 years____________________
4. Educational level:
A) None B) Elementary C) high school D) others
Specify: _____________________________________________________
5. Sex:
A, Male B, Female
6. Current marital status of respondents
A, Single B, Married C, Divorced D, Widowed
7. What is your major occupation?
A) Farmer
Since when: _____________________________________________
B) Farmer and other business C) others
Specify: ___________________________________________________
8. Do you Know Jarmet wetland area extent and its land cover?
Yes No
9. Information on boundaries of the wetland at different time.
9.1. Where is the boundary of the wetland in 1972?
9.3. Where is the boundary of the wetland in 2000 to 2015?
10. Information on the land cover of the wetland
10.1: what was the land cover of the wetland in 1972,1986,2000,2005 and present?
A) Covered entirely with sedges?
B) Partly covered with sedges and partly with patches of forests?
If there were a forest patches inside wetland, where is there locations?
___________________________________________________________
97
C. Was the wetland covered with water year round?
If yes, what is its extent?
___________________________________________________________
11. Information on the status of the natural resources of the wetland
11.1. Wildlife resources
A. What type of wildlife were there in 1972?
1972 1986 2000 2005 At present
Note: _______________________________________________________________________
B. What wildlifes were common in 1972, 1986, 2000, 2005 and 2015?
Can you name them?
1972 1986 2000 2005 2015
C. Did all wildlifes in 1972, 1986, 2000, 2005 and 2015 live in Jarmat wetland all year round?
__________
If not all of them, which wildlifes were coming for a short period to Jarmat wetland?
D. Were there wildlife which were common in 1972 but absent in:
1986?
Name them:
2000?
Name them:
Now?
Name them:
12. Did the area of the wetland increase or decrease?

Explain:
___________________________________________________________________________
98
If decreased,
10.1: Where is the boundary of the wetland in 1972?
13. Was the wetland useful for you and the local community? If yes, what are the uses?
_____________________________________________________________________
14. Did the uses of the wetland for the people change over years? If yes,
14.1. What did people get from the wetland in 1972?
14.2. What did people get from the wetland in 1986?
14.3. What did the people get from the wetland in 2000?
14.4. What are people getting from the wetland now?
15. What are the factors for decrease in the size of the wetland?
________________________________________________________________________
16. Information on livestock resources
A. When you compare the livestock populations in terms of years, can you arrange the years from the
highest to smallest number of livestock? [(from 1 (highest) – 4 (smallest)]
Year Rank
1972
1986
2000
Now
If there is decrease in livestock population from 1972 to present what are the main reason for this
observed decrease? _____________________________________
B) Do peoples living close to the wetland have more livestock than who live far from it?
17. Was there an incident of fire in the wetland? If yes:
A) When did the wetland burn? ____________________

B) What was the cause of the fires? ____________________
C) What was the impacts of the fire on the wetland?
Impacts Type Impacts Type
Some wildlife disappear after Some birds
fire disappear after fire
No permanent water below The use of the
vegetation all year round wetland has
(dried up) changed
Additional notes: _______________________________________________________________

17. Information on the forest resources of areas around Jarmat wetland
18.1. Were there forests around the wetland? A) Yes B) No
If yes, what are the boundaries of the forests around the wetland in:
99
i. 1972?
ii. 1986?
iii. 2000?
18.2. Were there forests in the surrounding areas of the wetland? A) Yes B) No
If yes, were are these forests located in:
i. 1972? iii. 2000? V, at present?
ii. 1986? iv. 2005?
18. Information on the extent of erosion
Were there erosion problems in?
i. 1972?
Yes No
If no why? ______________________________________;________________________
If yes, what do you think has caused this erosion? ________________________________
ii. 1986?
Yes No
If no, why? _______________________________________________________________
If yes, what you think has caused this erosion? ____________________________________
iii. 2000?
Yes No
If no, why? _________________________________________________________________
If yes, what do you think caused this erosion? ______________________________________
20. Information on the wildlife resources of the surrounding forest areas of the wetland
20.1. Birdlife resources

What type of birdlife were there in 1972, 1986, 2000, 2005 and 2015?
1972 1986 2000 2005 2015
Notes: ____________________________________________________________________
A) What birds were common in 1972, 1986, 2000, 2005 and 2015?
Can you name them?
1972 1986 2000 2005 2015
100
B) Did all birds in 1972 live in forests all year round in 1972? ________________________
If not all of them, which birds were coming for a short period to forests?
C) Were there birds which were common in 1972 but absent in:
1986?
Name them:
2000?
Name them:
Now?
Name them:
21. Information on rivers/streams draining into the wetland
A) Which rivers/stream were draining into the wetland in 1972?

River/stream
GPS points
All year round
Seasonal
B) Which rivers/stream were draining into the wetland between 1972 and 1986?
River/stream
GPS points
All year round
Seasonal
C) Which rivers/stream were draining into the wetland between 1986 and 2000?
River/stream
GPS points
All year round
Seasonal
101
D) Which rivers/stream were draining into the wetland between 2000 and present?
River/stream
GPS points
All year round
Seasonal
22. Information on common trees in the surrounding areas of the wetland

A) What trees were common in 1972?
B) What trees were common between 1972 and 1986?
If some trees have disappeared between 1972 and 1986, what were the reasons?
_____________________________________________________________________________
C) What trees were common between 1986 and 2000?
If some trees are disappeared between 1986 and 2000, what were the reason? __________________
D) What trees were common between 2000 and present?
If some trees are disappeared between 2000 and present what were the reason?
_____________________________________________________________________
B. Checklist for Focus Group Discussion (FGD) on wetland and its surrounding environmental
change
1. What policy actions are/were taken to conserve wetlands and other natural resources in this woreda?
102
2. When we look the socioeconomic of society; which society are independent in food security and
which is not in relation to their close location to the wetland?
It is assumed that people close to the wetland have more livestock and perhaps use less fertilizer
3 When you compare the changes in the wetland and surrounding forest areas over years, do you
think that the wetland has more changed than the surrounding areas? Specify:
_________________________________________________________________________________
4. Are the wetlands being converted for agricultural purposes within the study area?
5. If yes, at what rate are wetlands being change for agricultural purposes?
6. What problems farmers face in wetland use?
7. What is the uses of the wetland and its resources for the surrounding population and Jardega town?
8. What is the impact of population growth over years in wetland and other natural resources?
9. The farm sizes per households are how many hectares?
10. How many populations per square kilometers/population density per square kilometers?
11. Size of land owned by the household/Communal and its use (ha)
Sr.N Type of use Before Before Before At Reasons for

o 1972 1986 2000 present change between
2013 those years
1. Total land owned
2. Crop land including gardens
3. Grazing area (common)
4. Forests and shrubs
4. Plantation area
6. Land prepared for other
purpose
7. Marsh and wetland area
8 Hills and mountains
14. How do you perceive the trends in annual crop yield on the cultivated wetland at before and
currently?
Increase Decrease Show no change
15. If your answer for question no, 14, is decrease, please reason out why?
16. How can these wetlands and its surrounding resources be conserved?
a. When protected by Government
b. When protected by Community
c. When distributed to the local community
d. If every person participates in natural resources conservation

103
16. What is the major cause that drives the surrounding community to encroach into the wetland
Proper?
Farm land Scarcity illegal land taking
Lack of grazing land if others, specify
Deforestation Lack of wetland awareness
17. Do you think the local community is beneficiary from the Jarmet wetlands? If yes, in what aspects?
- Please explain
18. What are the factors had contributed to the degradation of the Wetland?
Household size: how?
Settlement expansion: how?
Environmental policy constraints: how?
19. If there is change in the major resources of these wetland and its surrounding environments, please
make list of specific change you have perceived on forest, rivers or shrubs, wetlands and grasslands?
20. Do you think that eucalyptus tree farming affect wetland ecosystem? A .Yes B. No
C. Required Secondary Data

1. Population census over years – from CSA on a yearly basis – historical data
a. Population size
b. Livestock size
c. Crop production
2. Present situations – Woreda and recent CSA data
a. Population size
b. Livestock size
c. Crop production
3. Topographic map of the study area or woreda in general from EMA
A. Latitude; 9ᴼ 48ꞌ 27ꞌꞌ.00 and 9ᴼ 48ꞌ 35ꞌꞌ.00 N
B. longitude; 37ᴼ 02ꞌ 16ꞌꞌ.00 and 37ᴼ 1ꞌ 8ꞌꞌ .00 E
To identify roads, hydrology, lakes, rivers, infrastructures, settlements, towns and etc.
4. Metrological data of the study area – 25 years rainfall and temperature data
5. Geological data of the study area
6. Satellite images from Ethiopian Mapping Agency and own downloads from the Internet.
104
D. CHANGE DETECTION MATRICS
Initial State 1972
(km2) (km2) (km2) (km2) (km2) (km2)
Final State 1986
SHL 1.85 9.5 1.52 9.3 3.05 19.1 0.26 16.2 4.79 21.5 1.98 36.8 13.45 13.61
GL 2.14 11 5.65 34.7 0.75 4.7 0.10 6.2 5.58 25.1 0.33 6.1 14.55 14.97
FR 2.96 15.2 1.50 9.2 9.00 56.4 0.14 8.7 2.68 12 1.50 27.9 17.77 18.22
PL 1.94 10 0.29 1.8 0.86 5.4 0.15 9.4 0.28 1.3 0.07 1.3 3.58 3.64
WL 2.53 13 1.42 8.7 1.08 6.8 0.04 2.5 4.48 20.1 0.26 4.8 9.80 9.90
FL 8.00 41.1 5.78 35.5 0.73 4.6 0.91 56.9 4.02 18.1 1.21 22.5 20.66 20.77
CT 19.46 100 16.29 100 15.96 100 1.60 100 22.25 100 5.38 100 79.81 81.11
CC 17.61 90.5 10.64 65.3 6.96 43.6 1.46 91.2 17.77 77.2 4.17 77.5
ID -5.85 30.1 -1.32 -8.1 2.26 14.2 2.04 127.5 -12.35 -55.5 15.39 286.0

Initial State 1986
(km2) (km2) (km2) (km2) (km2) (km2)
Final State 2000
SHL 2.13 15.8 1.74 11.6 2.94 16.2 1.21 33.5 1.62 16.4 5.46 26.3 15.10 15.18
GL 0.37 2.7 0.95 6.3 0.97 5.3 0.15 4.2 0.46 4.6 0.96 4.6 3.86 3.88
FR 3.70 27.4 3.08 20.5 7.04 38.7 0.74 20.5 1.21 1.2 3.16 15.2 18.93 19.22
PL 0.66 4.9 0.53 3.5 0.65 3.6 0.08 2.2 0.23 2.3 1.32 6.4 3.48 3.49
WL 1.90 14 4.19 27.9 2.07 11.4 0.39 10.8 3.54 35.8 2.13 10.3 14.22 14.43
FL 4.64 34.3 4.47 29.5 4.21 23.2 1.01 28 2.65 26.8 7.66 37 24.63 24.91
CT 13.52 100 15.00 100 18.17 98.4 3.61 100 9.90 87.1 20.73 100 80.22 81.11
CC 11.39 84.2 14.05 93.7 11.13 61.2 3.53 97.8 6.35 64.1 13.07 63
ID 1.66 12.3 -11.12 74.1 1.04 5.7 -0.13 -3.6 4.54 45.9 4.18 20.2
105
Initial State 2005
LULC types SHL GL FR PL WL FL RT CT
Area % Area % Area % Area % Area % Area %
(km2) (km2) (km2) (km2) (km2) (km2)
Final State 2015
SHL 0.01 0.4 0.73 5.2 1.10 7.3 0.05 1.4 0.19 3.7 0.35 0.8 2.43 2.43
GL 0.01 0.4 4.73 33.9 1.29 8.6 0.67 18.7 0.51 10 2.59 6.3 9.79 9.82
FR 1.68 63.4 0.66 4.7 6.60 44.1 0.37 10.3 0.22 4.3 3.19 7.8 12.71 12.95
PL 0.12 4.5 0.44 3.2 0.81 5.4 0.63 17.5 0.13 2.6 3.83 9.4 5.96 5.97
WL 0.60 22.6 0.21 1.5 0.26 1.7 0.07 1.9 2.59 50.9 1.28 3.1 5.02 5.07
FL 0.21 7.9 7.14 51.2 4.76 31.8 1.81 50.4 1.42 27.9 29.54 72.2 44.88 44.96
CCT 2.65 99.2 13.93 100 14.97 100 3.59 100 5.09 100 40.90 100 80.79 81.11
CC 2.64 99.6 9.20 66 8.37 55.9 2.96 82.4 2.50 49.1 11.35 27.7
ID -0.21 -7.9 -4.11 -29.5 -2.02 -13.5 2.38 66.3 -0.01 -0.2 4.07 10
E. ANNEX 1. ALIBO MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE
Total
TMPMAX Year Average Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec annually
TMPMAX 1990 23.09167 22.7 24.8 25.4 25.8 24.9 22 20.2 20.9 21.1 21.5 23.5 24.3 277.1
TMPMAX 1991 24.325 33.4 32.1 25.8 24.8 24.2 21.4 19.8 20.4 21.6 22 23.4 23 291.9
TMPMAX 1992 23.31667 23.6 29.5 26.5 25.9 23.6 22.3 21.2 20.8 21.3 21.1 21.6 22.4 279.8
TMPMAX 1993 22.325 23.1 23.6 25.4 23.1 23.2 21.4 19.9 20.2 20.5 21.2 22.4 23.9 267.9
TMPMAX 1994 23.95 24.3 25.9 26.5 26.1 34.5 21.4 20.1 19.2 20.6 22 22.8 24 287.4
TMPMAX 1995 22.18333 18.6 26 26.1 25.8 23.2 22.6 19.8 20.4 20.7 21.1 27 14.9 266.2
TMPMAX 1996 24.125 27.3 43.1 23.8 24.2 22.4 20.4 22 16.7 25.4 25.8 21.6 16.8 289.5
TMPMAX 1997 24.25 23.7 24.6 35.2 37 23.2 22 20.8 20.4 22 22 25.6 14.5 291
TMPMAX 1998 21.19167 11 21.4 24.4 22.4 25 22.5 20.5 20.4 21.3 21.3 21.7 22.4 254.3
TMPMAX 1999 23.525 23.2 25.7 26.6 25.8 23.8 31.2 19 19.7 20.6 19.7 21.7 25.3 282.3
TMPMAX 2000 22.58333 24.4 25.6 26.8 23.1 23.7 21.5 19.8 20 21 20.7 22.6 21.8 271
TMPMAX 2001 22.54167 24 25.4 24.4 25.4 23.8 20.5 19.8 19.8 20.8 21.9 22.3 22.4 270.5
TMPMAX 2002 23.25 24 25.8 25.1 25.8 26 21.5 21.1 20.1 21.1 22.1 23.2 23.2 279
TMPMAX 2003 23.23333 24.5 25.7 33.7 26.2 27.4 14.8 19.3 19.8 20.3 21.7 22.2 23.2 278.8
TMPMAX 2004 22.875 24.7 25.4 25.8 25.3 25 20.8 19.9 19.7 20.4 20.9 23.4 23.2 274.5
106
TMPMAX 2005 25.19167 24.1 25.4 24.2 25.8 24.2 29 16.7 23.8 26.1 26.4 27.4 29.2 302.3
TMPMAX 2006 22.83333 24.8 26.4 25.9 21.3 23.9 21.4 23.3 19 20.8 21.9 31 14.3 274
TMPMAX 2007 24.33333 24.5 32 26.4 25.3 24.1 26.1 28 19.5 18.9 21.1 22.6 23.5 292
TMPMAX 2008 24.08333 24.1 12.8 43.2 32 23.1 22.7 21.5 20.6 22 21.8 22.1 23.1 289
TMPMAX 2009 23.26667 24.1 25.2 25.8 25.3 24.8 23.4 20.1 20.5 22.2 21.4 22.8 23.6 279.2
TMPMAX 2010 23.48333 31.2 25.4 26.4 27.5 24.1 21.4 20 19.1 20.6 21.9 22.1 22.1 281.8
TMPMAX 2011 24.50833 23.3 24.8 41.2 25.4 23.5 32.2 19.7 19.6 16.7 21.8 22.7 23.2 294.1
TMPMAX 2012 24.73333 25.1 26.4 25.9 25.8 24.9 24.6 21.5 19.5 24.1 26.2 22.7 30.1 296.8
TMPMAX 2013 22.86667 23.3 24.5 26 26.3 24.4 20.9 20.2 20.3 21.3 22 22.2 23 274.4
TMPMAX 2014 27.85 24.6 24.8 25.2 25.3 31.5 25.1 31 32.4 28 31.2 26.4 28.7 334.2
Total
monthly 601.6 652.3 691.7 646.7 622.4 573.1 525.2 512.8 539.4 560.7 587 566.1 7079
ANNEX 2. ALIBO MINIMUM TEMPERATURE
Total
MIN.Temp. Year Average Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annually
TMPMIN 1990 11.02 10.3 10.7 11.2 12.3 12.7 10.9 10.7 10.4 10.0 10.7 11.4 11.0 132.3
TMPMIN 1991 10.76 11.6 9.5 12.0 12.0 11.6 11.0 10.3 10.0 10.2 10.4 10.6 10.0 129.2
TMPMIN 1992 11.30 10.6 18.6 11.2 11.0 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.5 10.9 11.0 10.5 10.2 135.7
TMPMIN 1993 10.5 9.7 10.5 11.7 11.3 10.9 11.0 10.2 9.8 9.6 10.3 10.5 10.5 126.0
TMPMIN 1994 15.61 10.3 15.8 16.4 17.8 18.9 15.5 15.4 15.5 15.5 16.2 15.1 15.0 187.4
TMPMIN 1995 16.45 14.4 15.6 16.1 17.0 16.4 17.0 16.9 17.0 17.0 16.7 16.9 16.4 197.4
TMPMIN 1996 15.14 16.5 16.0 16.0 15.4 16.5 13.2 11.0 14.3 13.6 17.8 15.2 16.2 181.7
TMPMIN 1997 13.3 12.0 13.5 12.8 10.0 15.1 9.8 16.5 13.2 17.0 16.2 12.5 11.0 159.6
TMPMIN 1998 12.65 11.6 10.3 14.1 12.6 13.2 14.2 11.9 11.6 14.5 12.3 11.3 14.2 151.8
TMPMIN 1999 14.61 9.3 19.0 18.2 13.9 19.2 18.1 11.4 13.3 14.2 13.8 12.7 12.3 175.4
TMPMIN 2000 14.08 13.5 13.4 13.0 12.2 12.3 12.7 13.8 14.2 15.6 15.9 16.6 15.8 169.0
TMPMIN 2001 11.85 15.5 11.6 12.2 13.3 12.0 11.0 10.8 11.7 11.0 11.3 10.9 10.9 142.2
TMPMIN 2002 12.03 15.5 12.1 12.0 13.1 13.1 11.7 11.1 11.2 10.8 11.3 11.5 11.0 144.4
TMPMIN 2003 11.98 11.2 12.1 15.2 12.7 14.1 11.3 11.1 11.1 11.0 11.4 11.6 11.0 143.8
TMPMIN 2004 11.49 11.5 11.4 12.9 12.9 12.7 11.2 10.5 10.6 10.9 10.7 11.2 11.4 137.9
107
TMPMIN 2005 11.97 11.1 12.8 12.8 13.5 12.8 12.4 12.5 12.5 10.8 11.7 10.3 10.5 143.7
TMPMIN 2006 12.48 12.2 12.7 12.9 16.0 11.9 11.1 14.1 11.0 10.6 11.5 14.2 11.6 149.8
TMPMIN 2007 11.89 10.6 15.2 12.0 12.5 12.0 10.9 16.1 11.0 9.5 10.7 11.3 10.9 142.7
TMPMIN 2008 12.51 10.9 21.1 18.5 11.4 11.3 11.1 10.5 10.6 11.6 11.3 11.0 10.9 150.2
TMPMIN 2009 11.49 11.2 12.0 13.0 12.9 12.9 11.4 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.0 9.9 10.3 137.9
TMPMIN 2010 12.06 17.6 12.8 13.1 8.7 12.9 11.9 10.9 11.4 11.4 11.5 11.6 11.0 144.8
TMPMIN 2011 12.73 11.0 12.4 19.0 13.1 12.6 15.2 11.1 11.0 14.3 11.6 10.7 10.8 152.8
TMPMIN 2012 13.32 11.7 12.8 13.1 13.7 13.0 13.8 11.6 11.2 21.0 10.0 12.8 15.2 159.9
TMPMIN 2013 11.58 11.8 12.6 13.5 13.4 11.5 11.4 10.9 10.8 10.5 11.2 11.0 10.4 139.0
TMPMIN 2014 11.68 10.9 10.5 11.3 11.4 10.0 9.6 13.8 11.7 11.9 13.9 16.3 8.9 140.2
Total
monthly 314.48 302.5 335.0 344.2 324.1 329.9 307.8 304.6 296.7 314.6 310.4 307.6 297.4 3774.8
ANNEX 3. ALIBO PERCIPTATION
Total
PRECIPT. Year Average Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annually
PRECIP 1990 116.95 10.6 2.9 49.5 22.5 68.0 212.2 411.9 298.0 249.8 62.9 15.1 0.0 1403.4
PRECIP 1991 101.40 12.5 8.3 13.3 104.8 225.6 249.0 224.4 176.7 162.3 0.0 39.0 1.0 1216.9
PRECIP 1992 150.72 14.0 27.0 50.6 122.1 202.8 88.3 377.0 393.1 225.0 191.6 53.8 63.4 1808.7
PRECIP 1993 288.05 11.4 10.7 52.2 150.4 201.1 186.0 288.9 318.1 269.2 139.0 20.9 0.0 3456.6
PRECIP 1994 91.95 0.0 3.8 11.5 62.5 198.0 156.5 199.9 258.9 179.6 1.0 22.2 9.6 1103.5
PRECIP 1995 97.94 31.0 1.6 35.4 80.9 179.4 159.2 236.4 249.3 145.8 12.3 1.6 42.4 1175.3
PRECIP 1996 132.77 12.9 2.4 104.0 68.7 243.3 214.0 329.5 280.8 223.9 56.2 18.9 38.7 1593.3
PRECIP 1997 127.44 0.0 0.0 59.8 102.0 214.2 230.8 221.5 307.0 179.9 139.9 43.2 31.0 1529.3
PRECIP 1998 117.38 21.2 11.6 99.4 86.4 122.1 171.3 206.3 312.8 218.6 141.0 17.9 0.0 1408.6
PRECIP 1999 219.4 27.8 0.0 0.3 78.7 80.7 201.0 254.4 221.5 142.6 185.8 15.2 16.2 2632.8
PRECIP 2000 120.27 0.0 0.0 1.9 151.0 130.0 169.6 266.7 255.8 246.8 168.7 37.7 15.1 1443.3
PRECIP 2001 101.49 0.0 2.1 24.7 50.2 194.5 245.8 255.2 206.0 107.8 92.3 13.2 26.1 1217.9
PRECIP 2002 116.43 0.0 24.5 82.7 26.2 63.9 268.4 406.3 186.6 242.4 42.7 11.6 41.9 1397.2
PRECIP 2003 125.70 0.4 68.7 72.0 0.0 10.4 288.5 275.0 253.0 425.7 29.6 37.7 47.5 1508.5
PRECIP 2004 118.09 37.9 3.4 10.8 80.4 115.6 301.4 324.9 216.7 186.9 112.3 26.8 0.0 1417.1
PRECIP 2005 105.79 3.2 0.0 150.1 9.4 88.1 198.4 298.0 245.8 178.0 37.5 45.0 16.0 1269.5
PRECIP 2006 114.87 0.0 1.2 34.9 67.0 173.4 232.5 312.2 251.2 242.0 21.5 23.4 19.2 1378.5
PRECIP 2007 125.5 33.6 13.0 26.0 87.6 234.6 292.0 287.5 270.5 198.4 53.5 9.3 0.0 1506.0
108
PRECIP 2008 144.04 37.0 24.0 47.9 143.0 319.4 122.0 321.9 351.0 284.0 60.8 17.1 0.4 1728.5
PRECIP 2009 106.9 1.1 19.9 55.0 125.5 39.4 208.7 288.8 265.0 148.3 116.6 3.2 11.3 1282.8
PRECIP 2010 95.38 14.1 5.8 24.0 22.6 263.5 149.2 199.1 270.4 178.6 15.2 0.0 2.1 1144.6
PRECIP 2011 105.23 19.1 0.0 27.4 46.3 211.5 302.9 257.7 225.7 124.6 46.7 0.9 0.0 1262.8
PRECIP 2012 91.60 0.0 2.6 31.1 0.6 24.1 204.6 302.8 242.5 189.0 55.3 22.9 23.8 1099.3
PRECIP 2013 123.42 29.7 0.0 34.4 3.2 315.9 217.2 293.8 262.9 164.9 106.4 52.7 0.0 1481.1
PRECIP 2014 134.73 0.0 11.7 52.6 133.5 235.0 264.7 295.3 334.6 190.4 62.0 0.8 36.2 1616.8
ANNEX 4. JARMET PRECIPTATION

PRECIP. Year Average Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec Annual
total
PRECIP 1990 134.38 6.4 4.6 37.3 32.1 119.1 280.3 416.1 409.3 239.7 51.3 16.4 0.0 1612.6
PRECIP 1991 104.97 0.0 19.7 40.6 127.8 33.2 259.8 235.7 313.5 168.6 24.5 8.0 28.3 1259.7
PRECIP 1992 109.50 2.8 25.3 47.9 128.6 167.5 209.6 240.9 296.1 98.8 30.0 35.2 31.4 1314.1
PRECIP 1993 155.13 0.0 21.5 28.2 130.7 320.6 227.5 257.7 367.7 285.6 209.4 11.9 0.8 1861.6
PRECIP 1994 117.60 2.2 0.0 9.2 65.6 238.1 163.4 319.0 383.9 163.6 12.2 36.7 17.4 1411.3
PRECIP 1995 126.86 0.0 10.7 74.9 73.6 216.2 150.3 358.3 332.1 208.2 36.7 9.9 51.5 1522.4
PRECIP 1996 134.8 33.9 2.1 74.7 64.0 234.1 241.8 386.1 291.5 154.1 51.1 46.8 37.4 1617.6
PRECIP 1997 122.35 3.9 3.3 48.6 98.0 227.0 219.5 221.9 276.8 147.3 164.3 57.3 0.4 1468.3
PRECIP 1998 144.14 11.9 0.5 16.5 15.2 221.9 289.3 336.6 369.1 226.0 219.9 22.8 0.0 1729.7
PRECIP 1999 127.57 14.0 0.0 0.1 83.1 136.7 266.2 229.6 253.9 260.9 213.3 29.3 43.8 1530.9
PRECIP 2000 113.02 0.0 0.0 3.5 163.9 107.8 141.5 240.4 252.2 238.0 148.1 51.7 9.2 1356.3
PRECIP 2001 103.01 0.2 5.0 66.9 34.0 157.2 135.0 320.1 256.4 111.3 106.6 12.5 31.0 1236.2
PRECIP 2002 112.45 25.3 1.5 43.5 20.6 56.9 256.8 296.4 276.8 278.0 39.2 8.8 45.6 1349.4
PRECIP 2003 107.34 0.4 102.5 78.9 0.4 1.2 245.3 231.0 414.7 195.9 1.4 14.6 1.8 1288.1
PRECIP 2004 117.62 2.2 28.1 18.1 67.5 111.4 245.1 298.6 326.7 170.9 101.9 30.6 10.4 1411.5
PRECIP 2005 110.93 3.5 0.0 151.2 26.5 105.0 198.3 290.4 217.9 205.2 114.4 18.8 0.0 1331.2
PRECIP 2006 138.47 0.4 3.0 21.7 17.0 221.5 212.9 396.6 395.8 225.3 87.6 42.5 37.4 1661.7
PRECIP 2007 147.7 25.8 39.1 40.9 72.2 264.0 246.3 410.3 248.0 193.1 193.1 16.1 23.5 1772.4
PRECIP 2008 119.65 5.2 48.7 47.0 103.1 37.1 171.4 401.0 325.8 211.3 32.1 35.8 17.3 1435.8
109
PRECIP 2009 101.9 3.2 28.7 47.1 103.1 37.1 161.1 322.5 237.4 135.8 118.2 11.2 17.4 1222.8
PRECIP 2010 118.75 22.3 0.8 1.0 72.1 299.6 107.6 409.6 279.8 183.3 18.7 27.8 2.5 1425.1
PRECIP 2011 151.99 36.0 8.3 68.0 88.3 198.0 213.3 376.5 298.2 156.3 189.4 167.0 24.6 1823.9
PRECIP 2012 113.90 5.3 0.0 92.0 3.2 56.6 221.4 399.0 281.5 197.4 78.9 22.0 9.6 1366.9
PRECIP 2013 130.05 22.1 3.8 27.6 7.6 261.7 231.5 347.1 288.0 201.0 110.3 59.9 0.0 1560.6
PRECIP 2014 170.16 1.9 8.5 83.5 202.3 336.5 321.0 411.0 341.6 178.2 122.3 31.2 4.0 2042.0
ANNEX F. GPS SAMPLE POINTS FOR LULC ANALYSIS
Training area data collections are used for LULC analysis of remotely sensed data acquired in 1972-2015.
S.N Sample points Land cover type in 1972-2015
Present 2008 2000 1986 1972 Easting Northing Elevation
1 001 Farmland Farmland Farmland Grassland Grassland 0286759 1091554 2448
2 002 Shrub land Forest Forest Forest Forest 0286255 1091255 2331
3 006 Grassland Grassland Grassland Grassland Grassland 0285855 1091481 2303
4 008 Farmland Farmland Farmland Farmland Farmland 0286068 1092063 2325
6 012 Farmland Farmland Farmland Shrubland Forest 0287087 1091809 2423
7 015 Wetland Wetland Wetland Wetland Wetland 0287205 1091563 2366
8 017 Farmland Farmland Farmland Farmland Forest 0287209 1091376 2383
11 024 Farmland Farmland Grassland Grassland Grassland 0287545 1090991 2392
12 026 Farmland Farmland Shrubland Shrubland Forest 0287543 1090780 2388
110
23 045 Plantation Plantation Plantation Farmland Grassland 0288448 1089414 2392
24 047 Farmland Farmland Shrub land Shrubland Forest 0288703 1089433 2345
25 048 Plantation Plantation Grassland Grassland Grassland 0288849 1089413 2378

27 053 Shrubland Shrubland Shrubland Forest Forest 0289253 1088062 2324
29 058 Farmland Farmland Shrubland Forest Forest 0289181 1087875 2304
30 061 Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest 0288903 1088099 2322
32 066 Shrubland Shrubland Shrubland Shrubland Shrubland 0288361 1088746 2353
111
34 070 Grassland Grassland Shrubland Shrubland Shrubland 0287751 1088947 2381
36 072 Shrubland Shrubland Shrubland Shrubland Shrubland 0287323 1089054 2336


42 084 Plantation Plantation Plantation Grassland Grassland 0286524 1091054 2433
43 085 Grassland Grassland Grassland Shrubland Shrubland 0286249 1090860 2419

44 086 Farmland Farmland Farmland Forest Forest 0286039 1090908 2407
46 088 Farmland Farmland Farmland Farmland Grassland 0285654 1090892 2348

48 090 Farmland Shrubland Shrubland Shrubland Shrubland 0285409 1090841 2294
49 091 Farmland Wetland Wetland Wetland Wetland 0285302 1090818 2275

53 098 Farmland Farmland Farmland Shrubland Shrubland 0284445 1089229 2405

112

64 115 Plantation Plantation Plantation Grassland Grassland 0286477 1089821 2400

68 120 Farmland Shrubland Shrubland Shrubland Shrubland 0286049 1088598 2360

70 122 Farm land Farmland Shrubland Shrubland Forest 0284056 1083624 2415
71 125 Farmland Farmland Farmland Farmland Wetland 0283971 1084418 2398

72 126 Farmland Farmland Farmland Wetland Wetland 0283898 1084483 2399
73 127 Plantation Plantation Wetland Wetland Wetland 0283847 1084508 2400


113
79 136 Farmland Farmland Farmland Farmland Wetland 0284139 1084734 2395



92 155 Wetland Wetland Wetland wetland Wetland 0285051 1084703 2394

96 162 Farmland Farmland Wetland Wetland Wetland 0285314 1085011 2388

97 163 Plantation Plantation Plantation Wetland Wetland 0285328 1084950 2392

114
107 178 Plantation Wetland Wetland Wetland Wetland 0285199 1085480 2387
115
140 223 Farmland Farmland Shrub land Forest Forest 0283413 1085387 2396
116
149 237 Farmland Forest Forest Forest Forest 0283318 1084899 2395
150 239 Farmland Farmland Forest Forest Forest 0283367 1084779 2401
157 249 Farmland Farmland Farmland Farmland Grassland 0285213 1087991 2408
158 251 Shrubland Shrubland Shrubland Shrubland Grassland 0285439 1087625 2385
159 253 Farmland Farmland Shrubland Forest Forest 0285337 1087476 2383
161 256 Forest Forest Forest Forest Farmland 0285250 1087158 2352
ANNEX G. GPS SAMPLE POINTS FOR ACCURACY ASSESSMENT ANALYSIS
Test areas data collections are used for assessing the accuracy of remotely sensed data acquired in 2015
Serial Sample points Geographic Coordinates Land cover type at present
number
Easting Northing Elevation Category
1 004 0286182 1091358 2332 Farmland
2 005 0285922 1091531 2320 Farmland
3 007 0286021 1091850 2309 Farmland
117
4 010 0286764 1091868 2413 Plantation
5 013 0287119 1091682 2395 Farmland
6 016 0287132 1091527 2375 Farmland
7 018 0287133 1091329 2398 Grassland
8 020 0287323 1091225 2380 Farmland
9 022 0287368 1091068 2363 Grassland
10 023 0287510 1091028 2388 Grassland
11 025 0287584 1090926 2387 Farmland
12 027 0287621 1090719 2382 Farmland
13 030 0287840 1090428 2388 Grassland
14 032 0288109 1090283 2396 Grassland
15 036 0287741 1090052 2373 Shrub land
16 037 0287924 1089817 2358 Farmland
17 038 0287876 1089841 2362 Grassland
18 042 0288514 1089658 2389 Farmland
19 044 0288570 1089480 2371 Plantation
20 046 0288565 1089300 2379 Grassland
21 049 0288994 1089381 2397 Farmland
22 051 0289074 1088897 2397 Forest
23 052 0289149 1088157 2355 Grassland
24 054 0289324 1087933 2297 Farmland
118
25 059 0289133 1087917 2311 Farmland
26 060 0289000 1088120 2342 Farmland
27 065 0288446 1088497 2310 Shrub land
28 068 0288064 1088963 2396 Farmland
29 069 0287857 1088938 2389 Plantation
30 074 0286939 1089364 2413 Farmland
31 075 0286983 1089559 2432 Grassland
32 078 0287317 1090410 2448 Farmland
33 082 0286672 1091268 2444 Farmland
34 083 0286538 1090985 2449 Grassland
35 092 0285215 1090702 2297 Farmland
36 094 0284904 1090556 2282 Wetland
37 097 0284840 1089899 2356 Farmland
38 102 0284680 1088583 2358 Farmland
39 103 0284764 1088895 2392 Plantation
40 105 0284916 1089158 2378 Farmland
41 110 0286743 1090386 2394 Farmland
42 112 0286657 1090122 2388 Forest
43 119 0286105 1088587 2342 Farmland
44 123 0284198 1083846 2428 Farmland
45 124 0284040 1084341 2424 Farmland
119
46 129 0283761 1084549 2398 Wetland
47 130 0283808 1084644 2398 Wetland
48 132 0283958 1084809 2395 Wetland
49 137 0284115 1984877 2389 Wetland
50 138 0284092 1084952 2385 Wetland
51 141 0284375 1084996 2386 Wetland
52 142 0284471 1084877 2384 Wetland
53 149 0284730 1084718 2388 Wetland
54 150 0284773 1084596 2392 Wetland
55 156 0285133 1084751 2391 Wetland
56 157 0285259 1084947 2389 Wetland
57 159 0285149 1085090 2385 Wetland
58 165 0285557 1084904 2385 Wetland
59 168 0285557 1084989 2380 Wetland
60 169 0285513 1085090 2383 Wetland
61 172 0285365 1085235 2381 Wetland
62 176 0285215 1085420 2382 Wetland
63 183 0284885 1085684 2390 Wetland
64 192 0284551 1086028 2395 Wetland
65 194 0284330 1086007 2393 Wetland
66 202 0284030 1085981 2397 Wetland
120
67 205 0283936 1085963 2395 Wetland
68 212 0283752 1085952 2395 Wetland
69 214 0283678 1085812 2392 Wetland
70 216 0283594 1085598 2384 Wetland
71 217 0283651 1085520 2384 Wetland
72 229 0283522 1085181 2389 Wetland
73 230 0283340 1085151 2391 Wetland
74 232 0283124 1085128 2396 Wetland
75 233 0283129 1085037 2381 Forest
76 234 0283223 1084990 2389 Wetland
77 238 0283344 1084831 2399 Farmland
78 242 0283552 1084569 2388 Wetland
79 245 0283447 1084300 2391 Wetland
80 250 0285431 1087874 2406 Farmland
81 252 0285389 1087601 2389 Shrubland
82 255 0285111 1087180 2363 Shrubland
83 259 0285720 1088012 2345 Farmland
84 261 0285704 1088111 2336 Farmland
85 264 0285128 1088201 2352 Forest
86 267 0284504 1088266 2334 Wetland
87 269 0284471 1088464 2332 Wetland
121
88 271 0284282 1088521 2331 Wetland
89 273 0284104 1088601 2329 Wetland
90 275 0283974 1088749 2328 Wetland
91 277 0283946 1088963 2328 Wetland
92 279 0283748 1088935 2326 Wetland
93 281 0283496 1088839 2322 Wetland
94 283 0283443 1088599 2323 Wetland
95 286 0283343 1088213 2324 Wetland
96 288 0283420 1088056 2330 Wetland
97 290 0283629 1088023 2328 Wetland
98 292 0283885 1087861 2330 Wetland
99 294 0284019 1087774 2323 Wetland
100 296 0284188 1087667 2330 Wetland
101 297 0284203 1087664 2330 Forest
102 300 0284238 1087883 2322 Wetland
103 301 0284316 1088091 2326 Wetland
104 304 0283969 1087358 2429 Shrubland
105 306 0283869 1087285 2451 Shrubland
106 307 0283840 1087142 2480 Farmland
107 311 0284259 1086974 2409 Shrubland
108 312 0284266 1087143 2417 Shrubland
122
109 316 0288458 1088053 2279 Farmland
110 317 0288418 1087984 2295 Grassland
111 320 0288470 1087731 2290 Forest
112 326 0288756 1087571 2317 Farmland
113 329 0289209 1087548 2281 Shrub land
114 330 0289354 1087554 2255 Farmland
115 335 0289622 1087261 2268 Shrubland
116 336 0289575 1087150 2280 Grassland
117 338 0289418 1087026 2290 Forest
118 341 0289378 1086805 2284 Shrubland
119 343 0289244 1086470 2264 Shrubland
120 347 0289209 1086079 2262 Forest
121 349 0289191 1085807 2267 Forest
122 353 0288844 1085129 2285 Shrubland
123 357 0288060 1085176 2422 Farmland
124 360 0287080 1085272 2476 Farmland
125 361 0287139 1085399 2486 Grassland
126 362 0287532 1085728 2454 Forest
127 367 0287754 1086251 2470 Shrubland
128 370 0287982 1086658 2492 Plantation
123
129 371 0288144 1086848 2466 Forest
130 374 0288337 1087358 2358 Shrub land
131 378 0287711 1087293 2345 Farmland
132 403 0286707 1085843 2420 Plantation
133 382 0286927 1087348 2395 Farmland
134 384 0286499 1088104 2341 Farmland
135 387 0286859 1088450 2328 Farmland
136 389 0287162 1088477 2330 Plantation
137 390 0287446 1088458 2343 Farmland
138 393 0287523 1087780 2358 Farmland
139 395 0287146 1086813 2396 Farmland
140 396 0287178 1086711 2379 Shrub land
141 400 0286794 1086648 2361 Farmland
142 405 0286581 1085452 2410 Shrub land
143 408 0285793 1085440 2396 Farmland
144 411 0285075 1086393 2420 Farmland
145 412 0285525 1086745 2392 Farmland
146 416 0285983 1087561 2375 Farmland
147 419 0286431 1087058 2360 Farmland
148 423 0283790 1083968 2397 Farmland
124
149 424 0283986 1084066 2405 Farmland
150 426 0285521 1084516 2412 Farmland
151 428 0286137 1084232 2342 Shrubland
152 429 0286271 1084231 2367 Farmland
153 432 0286604 1083976 2398 Farmland
154 434 0287042 1084268 2350 Farmland
155 437 0287542 1084561 2338 Farmland
156 438 0287775 1084577 2360 Farmland
157 441 0288241 1084446 2338 Grassland
158 444 0288768 1084369 2324 Farmland
159 445 0288624 1084197 2347 Farmland
160 448 0288587 1083758 2439 Grassland
161 450 0288518 1083028 2412 Farmland
162 451 0288809 1082889 2439 Farmland
163 454 0289462 1082207 2517 Grassland
164 456 0288917 1082267 2577 Grassland
165 459 0288195 1082301 2551 Plantation
166 461 0287586 1082284 2559 Grassland
167 464 0287176 1082433 2537 Grassland
168 466 0287078 1081969 2461 Farmland
169 469 0286355 1081623 2394 Grassland
125
170 473 0286690 1082587 2394 Farmland
171 476 0286383 1082831 2398 Grassland
172 478 0285870 1082862 2348 Farmland
173 480 0285604 1082700 2382 Farmland
174 482 0285420 1083168 2407 Plantation
175 486 0282985 1083542 2426 Plantation
176 487 0283064 1083336 2416 Plantation
177 490 0283360 1082897 2421 Plantation
178 493 0284078 1082796 2397 Farmland
179 494 0284224 1082799 2358 Plantation
180 496 0284544 1082648 2382 Farmland
181 499 0284880 1082198 2390 Grassland
182 502 0284945 1081630 2408 Farmland
183 505 0285533 1081883 2337 Farmland
184 508 0285866 1081232 2331 Farmland
185 509 0285706 1081117 2349 Farmland
186 512 0284837 1081194 2359 Shrubland
187 513 0284537 1081243 2360 Forest
188 515 0284326 1081616 2384 Grassland
189 518 0284275 1082310 2404 Grassland
190 520 0283807 1082263 2355 Plantation
126
191 523 0283890 1081413 2376 Shrub land
192 526 0283095 1081791 2335 Farmland
193 529 0282551 1081439 2350 Farmland
194 531 0282345 1081767 2395 Grassland
195 532 0282329 1082560 2438 Plantation
196 534 0282658 1082602 2471 Plantation
197 540 0282904 1084857 2485 plantation
198 543 0282942 1085716 2457 Shrub land
199 545 0283060 1085840 2494 Plantation
200 547 0282988 1086132 2499 Plantation
201 548 0283244 1086466 2426 Farmland
202 551 0283726 1086564 2462 Farmland
203 553 0283583 1087246 2438 Plantation
204 557 0282460 1086695 2413 Shrubland
205 556 0282514 1086813 2415 Forest
206 560 0282391 1086159 2377 Shrubland
207 566 0282324 1083845 2447 Plantation
127

Amanuel Kumsa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Amanuel Kumsa

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Amanuel Kumsa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

GIS AND REMOTE SENSING BASED ANALYSIS OF POPULATION AND

GIS AND REMOTE SENSING BASED ANALYSIS OF POPULATIN AND

By: Amanuel Kumsa

Approval by Board of Examiners

External Examiner: Dr. Ephrame G/Mariam Signature_________________

Addis Ababa University

1.2 Statement of the Problem and Justification

1.3 Objectives of the Study

1.3.2 Specific Objectives

 What is the extent of Jarmet wetland change in terms of its size?

1.5 Significance of the Study

1.6 Limitation of the Study

1.7 Approaches used in the Study

1.8 Thesis Organization

1. Hydrological function: wetlands provide a number of important functions in regulating water

Table 1. Causes of wetland loss (after Dugan, 1990).

Human actions Natural causes

- Unsustainable use of wetland resources through overgrazing, over cultivation, over

2.2.1 Major Factors of Wetland Threat

2.4 Classification and types of Ethiopian wetlands

Table 2. Areal extent of Ethiopian wetlands

- The afro tropical wetland system

- Somali Masai wetland system

- Sudano-Guinean wetland system

- Sahelian transitional wetland system.

2. Salt water wetlands

3. Human made wetlands

Bog (Schwingmoor): A wetland community dominated by sphagnum moss, sedges, ericaceous

2.5 Population Growth Drives Wetland and Environmental Changes

Another factors of wetland and environmental changes as a response to population growth at

Geospatial technologies as geographical information system (GIS), global positioning system

Table 4. Landsat TM, MSS bands and wavelength ranges

2.6.2 Application of GIS for wetland and environmental change analysis

1. Delineation of land use and land cover

Fig.1. Location map of the study area.

Blue Nile Tributaries

Fig.2. Tributaries of Blue Nile watershed.

Fig. 3. Alibo mean monthly rainfall data from 1990 to 2014.

Annually maximum precipitation:2,042.0

variations between 11.9 oc minimum and 20.5 oc maximum.

Fig.5 Average temperature and rainfall in both stations in 1990 to 2014

3.2.1 Paleozoic sand stones

stone covers 1.91 km2 (2.35 %) of the study area Kebele.

3.2.2 Mesozoic sand stones

3.2.3 Quaternary soils

Fig.6. Geological Map of the study Area.

Fig.7. Major Soil types of the study area.

3.4 Elevation Data

Furthermore, Table 4 given details of the population of the area.

Population density of the study area

1990 2007 2009 2011 2012 2013

1 Suteketali 1982/3 786 370 413 244 271 30.105 9.7

3.6.1.2 Animal Husbandry

Image processing Geometric, radiometric and noise removal

4.4 Sampling Techniques

4.5 Data Type and Sources

4.5.1 Primary data source

4.5.1.1 Semi-structured questionnaire