Smallholder farmers’ perceived effects of land use and cover change on provisioning ecosystem services in the savannah ecological zone of Ghana

ABSTRACT

Ecosystem services are essential for life sustenance but are presently threatened by land use and cover change (LUCC). Meanwhile, policymakers tend to disregard sustainable pathways that enhance ecosystem integrity due to limited empirical evidence of the impacts of LUCC on provisioning ecosystem services. The existing studies largely rely only on geospatial data or use proxy variables without integration of qualitative information. This study employed a blend of geospatial and qualitative approaches to analyse the spatiotemporal dynamics of LUCC and the perceived impact on provisioning ecosystem services in the savannah zone of Ghana. The findings reveal an expansion of cultivated area from 4.59 km² to 178.63 km² and a decrease in wooded savannah area from 176.022 km² to 29.22 km² between 1990 and 2020 in the Bongo district. Declines in wooded savannah area from 471.685 km² to 258.38 km² and expansion of cultivated area from 5.79 km² to 123.80 km² from 1990 to 2020 were also observed in the KNW district. In synch with the satellite data, farmers observed expansion in agricultural areas at the expense of wooded savannah area over the past decades. Though farmers highly depend on ecosystems for livelihood needs, the capacity of the ecosystems to continually support their livelihood requirements has decreased over the past decade, and this has resulted in substantial declines in vital provisioning ecosystem services such as cereals, fuelwood, fodder/forage, grazing fields, medicinal plants, wild edible fruits and vegetables. To ameliorate decreasing provisioning ecosystem services, environmental governance policies should promote strategies that restore degraded ecosystems.

KEYWORD:

• Farmers
• perceived
• effects
• land use/cover change
• ecosystem-provisioning services
• Ghana

Ethical issues

The protocols for this study were approved by the University of Ghana, College of humanities ethical review board (Ethical approval No: ECH 011/20–21).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).