Analysis and prediction of land use/ land cover changes and its impacts on the corridors of cattle grazing routes in Benue state, Nigeria

Figures & data

Figure 1. Geographic location of the case study in Benue State, Nigeria.

Table 1. Specification of Raster and Vector Datasets.

Data	Year	Format	Resolution	Sources	Bands Utilized
Landsat MSS	1980	Raster	30 m	https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/.	4,3,2
Landsat ETM	2000	Raster	30 m	https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/.	4,3,2,
Landsat OLI/TIRS	2020	Raster	30 m	https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/.	5,4,3
Grazing routes		Vector		Federal Ministry of Agriculture
Nigeria boundary shapefile	2015	Vector		Office of the Surveyor-General of the Federation (OSGOF)

Figure 2. Methodology flowchart.

Table 2. Table showing the LULC types and their descriptions.

LULC Types	Descriptions
Cropland	Majorly subsistence farms with mono or dual cropping system, Irrigated farms on the river banks.
Grassland	Areas covered in grasses/shrubs used for grazing
Built-up	Impervious surfaces including settlements (urban and rural), industrial areas, paved roads, etc.
Forest	Areas of dense and sparse trees, mixed forest
Bareland	Open spaces, areas with no vegetation
Waterbodies	Pond, streams, rivers, lake

Figure 3. a LULC on the western side of the grazing route in 1980. b: LULC on the eastern side of the grazing route in 1980. c LULC on the western side of the grazing route in 2000. d LULC on the eastern side of the grazing route in 2000. e: LULC on the western side of the grazing route in 2020. f LULC on the eastern side of the grazing route in 2020.

Figure 3. (Continued).

Figure 3. (Continued).

Figure 3. (Continued).

Figure 3. (Continued).

Figure 3. (Continued).

Figure 4. Chart showing the Spatio-temporal Change of the various land cover types.

Table 3. LULC coverage along grazing routes of 1980, 2000 and 2020.

Class	Area in km^2 (1980)	% Area cover (1980)	Area in km^2 (2000)	% Area cover (2000)	Area in km^2 (2020)	% Area cover (2020)
cropland	1.21	0.13	364.94	38.38	631.09	66.41
Forest	431.03	45.34	126.36	13.29	29.39	3.09
Grassland	516.04	54.28	442.54	46.54	271.84	28.60
Waterbody	2.32	0.24	3.41	0.35	1.98	0.21
Built-up	0.03	0.00	9.04	0.95	10.02	1.05
Bareland	0.12	0.01	4.45	0.46	6.03	0.63
Total	950.54		950.54		950.54

Table 4. Accuracy assessment and kappa coefficient.

Year	1980		2000		2020
Classes	Producer’s accuracy	User’s accuracy	Producer’s accuracy	User’s accuracy	Producer’s accuracy	User’s accuracy
Cropland	87.3	85.4	85.6	83.2	89.35	88.8
Forest	88.1	86.8	81.4	79.3	87.6	84.2
Grassland	79.4	82.3	88.5	83.1	90.1	88.4
Waterbody	81.8	85.7	79.2	81.6	89.1	86.6
Built-up	89.2	87.1	89.3	87.4	92.2	90.1
Bareland	78.7	80.1	75.4	78.2	81.2	78.1
Overall Accuracy	80.1		82.5		85.2
Kappa	0.79		0.81		0.83

Figure 5. Chart showing the Rate of Change among the various land cover types.

Table 5. Table showing the TPM produced by modeling the period between 2020 and 2050.

	2050
	Class	cropland	Forest	grassland	waterbody	built-up	bareland
2020	cropland	0.9354	0.0008	0.048	0.0065	0	0.0004
	Forest	0.4953	0.1201	0.3486	0.0302	0.0001	0.0035
	Grassland	0.7101	0.0172	0.2356	0.0303	0.0003	0.0017
	Waterbody	0.7142	0.0422	0.2265	0.0394	0.0001	0.0038
	Built-up	0.0251	0.0854	0.0275	0.0061	0.888	0.0110
	Bareland	0.0666	0.0170	0.0854	0.0442	0.0019	0.7837

Figure 6. The potential conversion of various land cover types by 2050.

Figure 7. a Projected LULC of the grazing route on the western side in 2050. b Projected LULC of the grazing route on the eastern side in 2050.

Figure 7. (Continued).

Table 6. Descriptive statistics of LULCs that show the areal extent and Spatio-temporal changes between 2020 and 2050.

	2020		2050		Difference
Class	Area in Sqkm	% area cover	Area in Sqkm	% area cover	Change (km^2)	% Change
cropland	631.09	66.41	788.07	82.91	156.98	16.5
Forest	29.89	3.09	19.25	2.02	−10.14	−1.07
Grassland	271.94	28.60	126.48	13.31	−145.36	−15.29
Waterbody	1.98	0.21	1.89	0.20	−0.09	−0.01
Built-up	10.02	1.05	14.37	1.51	4.35	0.46
Bareland	6.03	0.63	0.49	0.05	−5.54	−0.58
Total	950.54		950.54

Figure 8. a. Perceived drivers of LU/LC change. b. Perceived impacts of LU/LC change.

Figure 8. (Continued).