634
Views
14
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Articles

The utility of earth observation technologies in understanding impacts of land reform in the eastern region of Zimbabwe

, , &
Pages 384-400 | Received 03 Jul 2014, Accepted 07 Dec 2015, Published online: 21 Jan 2016

Figures & data

Figure 1. South-eastern region of Zimbabwe.

Figure 1. South-eastern region of Zimbabwe.

Figure 2. Land cover types (a) earlier (1995), (b) before (2000), (c) after (2005) and (d) long after (2011) the FTLR of 2000 in the south-eastern part of Zimbabwe.

Figure 2. Land cover types (a) earlier (1995), (b) before (2000), (c) after (2005) and (d) long after (2011) the FTLR of 2000 in the south-eastern part of Zimbabwe.

Figure 2. (Continued).

Figure 2. (Continued).

Figure 3. Spatial distribution of different land cover types in farms that were least affected by the change in land tenure. Above (a) represents the least affected farms in 2000 while (b) represents least affected farms after the FTLR in 2011.

Figure 3. Spatial distribution of different land cover types in farms that were least affected by the change in land tenure. Above (a) represents the least affected farms in 2000 while (b) represents least affected farms after the FTLR in 2011.

Figure 4. Spatial distribution of different land cover types in farms that were most affected by the change in land tenure from 1995 to 2011.

Figure 4. Spatial distribution of different land cover types in farms that were most affected by the change in land tenure from 1995 to 2011.

Figure 5. Significant differences (p < 0.05) amongst and within the areas occupied by the six land cover types across the study area before (2000) and long after (2011) the FTLR based on the MacNemar’s test. Error bars denote confidence intervals at 95% (Cumming & Finch, Citation2005; Masocha, Citation2010; Payton et al., Citation2003).

Figure 5. Significant differences (p < 0.05) amongst and within the areas occupied by the six land cover types across the study area before (2000) and long after (2011) the FTLR based on the MacNemar’s test. Error bars denote confidence intervals at 95% (Cumming & Finch, Citation2005; Masocha, Citation2010; Payton et al., Citation2003).

Figure 6. Significant differences (p < 0.05) amongst and within the areas occupied by the six land cover types before (2000) and long after (2011) the FTLR based on the MacNemar’s test. Error bars denote confidence intervals at 95% (Cumming & Finch, Citation2005; Masocha, Citation2010; Payton et al., Citation2003), (a) shows changes in areas that were least affected and (b) those that were most affected by tenure change.

Figure 6. Significant differences (p < 0.05) amongst and within the areas occupied by the six land cover types before (2000) and long after (2011) the FTLR based on the MacNemar’s test. Error bars denote confidence intervals at 95% (Cumming & Finch, Citation2005; Masocha, Citation2010; Payton et al., Citation2003), (a) shows changes in areas that were least affected and (b) those that were most affected by tenure change.

Figure 7. Change in the area occupied by each land cover type in the south-eastern region of Zimbabwe in areas that were (a) least affected as well as most areas before and after the land tenure change, (b) percentage changes per land cover change after the land tenure change between 1995 to 2000, 2000 to 2005 and 2005 to 2011, (c) the differences in between the areal extent induced by natural and anthropogenic activities in between (i) 1995 to 2000, (ii) 2000 to 2005 and (iii) 2005 to 2011.

Figure 7. Change in the area occupied by each land cover type in the south-eastern region of Zimbabwe in areas that were (a) least affected as well as most areas before and after the land tenure change, (b) percentage changes per land cover change after the land tenure change between 1995 to 2000, 2000 to 2005 and 2005 to 2011, (c) the differences in between the areal extent induced by natural and anthropogenic activities in between (i) 1995 to 2000, (ii) 2000 to 2005 and (iii) 2005 to 2011.

Figure 8. Variations in maize production yield and crop area between the period of 1995 to 2011 before (1995). The data was derived from the website of FAOSTA (http://faostat3.fao.org/download/Q/QC/E).

Figure 8. Variations in maize production yield and crop area between the period of 1995 to 2011 before (1995). The data was derived from the website of FAOSTA (http://faostat3.fao.org/download/Q/QC/E).

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.