Antwi, E. K. et al.
Paper:
Land Use and Landscape Structural Changes in
the Ecoregions of Ghana
Effah Kwabena Antwi∗1, John Boakye-Danquah∗2, Stephen Boahen Asabere∗3,
Gerald A. B. Yiran∗4, Seyram Kofi Loh∗4, Kwabena Gyekye Awere∗4, Felix K. Abagale∗5,
Kwabena Owusu Asubonteng∗6, Emmanuel Morgan Attua∗7, and Alex Barimah Owusu∗7
∗1Integrated Research System for Sustainability Science (IR3S), the University of Tokyo
7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8654, Japan
E-mail: antwi@unu.edu
∗2Department of Geography and Resource, University of Ghana, Ghana
∗3Department of Geosceinces, Technische Universitaet Dresden, Germany
∗4Department of Geography and Resource Development, University of Ghana, Ghana
∗5Faculty of Agriculture, University for Development Studies, Tamale, Ghana
∗6United Nations University – Institute for Natural Resources in Africa
∗7Department of Geography and Resource Development, University of Ghana
[Received February 18, 2014; accepted July 23, 2014]
In recent years, land use (LU) and landscape structure
in ecoregions around the world have been faced with
enormous pressures, from rapid population growth to
urban sprawl. A preliminary account of changes in
land cover (LC) and landscape structure in the ecore-
gions of Ghana is missing from the academic and re-
search literature. The study therefore provides a pre-
liminary assessment of the changing LU and landscape
structure in the ecoregions of Ghana, identifying the
causes and assessing their impact on land-based re-
sources, and on urban and agricultural development.
LU/LC maps produced from 30 m resolution Landsat
TM5 in 1990 and ETM+ in 2000 were classified into
dominant land cover types (LCTs) and used to sur-
vey the changing landscape of Ghana. LC-change map
preparation was done with change detection extension
“Vera¨nderung” (v3) in an ArcGIS 10.1 environment.
At the class level, Patch Analyst version 5.1 was used to
calculate land use (LU) statistics and to provide land-
scape metrics for LU maps extracted from the satel-
lite imagery. The results showed that commonly ob-
served LCCs in the ecoregions of Ghana include con-
version of natural forest land to various forms of cul-
tivated lands, settlements, and open land, particularly
in closed and open forest and savannah woodland. The
dominant LU types in the ecoregions of Ghana are
arable lands, which increased by 6168.98 km2 . For-
est and plantation LCTs decreased in area and were
replaced by agricultural land, forest garden, and open
land. Afforestation rarely occurred except in the rain-
forests. The mean patch size (MPS), a measure of frag-
mentation, was generally reduced consistently from
1990 to 2000 in all the ecoregions. Similar results that
indicated increased fragmentation were an increased
number of patches (NumP) and the Shannon diver-
sity index (SDI). Habitat shape complexity inferred
from mean shape index (MSI) decreased in all ecore-
gions except for rainforest and wet evergreen. The SDI
and Shannon evenness index (SEI) showed that habi-
tat diversity was highest in the coastal savannah and
the deciduous forest ecoregions. The main drivers of
changes in the LUs and landscape structure are de-
mand for land and land-based natural resources to
support competing livelihoods and developmental ac-
tivities in the different ecoregions.
Keywords: landscape metrics, land change, landscape
planning, urban sprawl, fragmentation
1. Introduction
Ecological regions, also known as ecoregions across
the globe, vary in composition and structure. As a land
resource base, each ecoregion is gradually transformed
through human use and management, and environmen-
tal processes. In the twentieth century, variations in cli-
mate and increased land use (LU) intensity have acceler-
ated changes in landscape composition and configuration
in the world’s ecoregions. For example, the conversion of
13 million ha of forest land to other land use types (LUTs)
globally and the loss of associated ecosystem services are
major concerns [1]. More than 26% of such changes have
occurred in Africa. The high rate of forest cover loss in
Africa can be attributed to overdependence on land-based
resources, as about 70% of the population in Africa uses
the forest as the principal source of income or food (World
Bank, 2006). In Ghana, the deforestation rate stands at
65,000 km2 annually, and it has been projected that all
forests will be depleted in 25 years if the current rate of
deforestation continues [2].
Ghana is divided into seven major ecoregions (Fig. 1),
based mainly on the differences in climate (rainfall) and
soils [3, 4]. Ecoregions and their characteristic climate
and soil types affect human well-being and environmental
452 Journal of Disaster ResearchVol.9 No.4, 2014
Land Use and Landscape Structural Changes
in the Ecoregions of Ghana
processes through the distribution of natural resources for
diverse socioeconomic needs. These regions have highly
significant spatial and temporal implications for the sus-
tainable management of landscape structure and compo-
sition.
In terms of the land cover types (LCTs) in the ecore-
gions of Ghana, human and environmental activities have
led to the development of patches on the land surface.
These patches are in locations that serve as ecosystems
having socio-economic, social, and ecological signifi-
cance for the welfare of the surrounding communities.
Patch dynamics depict the changes in the spatial pat-
terns of the landscapes. The ecological and environmen-
tal processes that produce these patterns, as well as the
internal dynamics of changes in these patches over time,
are essential concepts in landscape ecology. The spatial
and temporal properties of patch dynamics help offer the
dimensions of space and time to managing both natural
and semi-natural landscapes, their resource composition,
and conservation of other complex systems [6].
Patches are created when portions of the vegetation
cover are removed and/or changed to other covers, even-
tually resulting in a permanent land cover change (LCC).
“Land cover is an observed physical cover, including nat-
ural or planted vegetation and human structures (trans-
portation networks, buildings etc.) that covers the earth’s
surface” [5]. LCC can occur naturally; however, it is
mostly driven by human-environment interactions, such
as LU systems and climate change [6]. Therefore LC
changes differ significantly from region to region and
from community to community because of differences in
interactions among the natural, social, economic, and po-
litical factors in a particular area [7]. In Ghana differ-
ences in LU, deforestation/devegetation, and urbanization
are some of the human-induced observable changes tak-
ing place countrywide, along with an increase in the con-
struction of dams/dugouts in the interior savannah [8]. All
of these contribute to landscape fragmentation.
The Ghanaian landscape structure is heterogeneous
with a characteristic combination of natural environment
and human activities [9]. As in other agro-ecological
zones, the breaking up of the landscape into smaller
patches owing to human and natural forces [10] is the
main transformative agent. Anthropogenic activities, such
as agriculture and urban development, are considered the
origin of habitat fragmentation and heterogeneity [11].
For example, the rainforest in Ghana is believed to have
decreased by 17.9% from 1975 to 2000; yet, most studies
on landscape structure and land use change (LUC) have
focused largely on sub-regional levels, making it difficult
to apply the outcomes of such assessments to national-
level decision making [11].
Recent developments in technology, especially such
spatial technologies as GIS and remote sensing, offer
essential tools for studying the ecology of large land-
scapes [12, 13] more quickly and at frequent intervals.
These tools have facilitated the capturing of the spatial
and temporal characteristics of patches in a landscape.
Though spatial and temporal assessment of LUCs and
 
Fig. 1. regional map of Ghana showing the seven ecoregions
of Ghana.
quantification of landscape structures are not new in land-
scape ecology, a primary account of these changes in the
ecoregions of Ghana is missing in the academic and re-
search literature.
This paper provides an analysis of changes in LU and
landscape structure from 1990 to 2000 in the ecoregions
of Ghana. Specifically, it seeks to identify causes for the
changes and their impact on water resources and on for-
est, urban, and agricultural development. The research is
guided by the following questions: (a) What are the ma-
jor LUTs in the ecoregions of Ghana? (b) What are the
impacts of LU and landscape structural changes such as
forest loss, agricultural expansion, and urban sprawl?
2. Methodologies
2.1. Study Area
Ghana is located between latitudes 4◦44′N and 11◦11′N
and longitudes 3◦11′W and 1◦11′E (Fig. 1) with a total
landmass of about 239,150 km2. Fig. 1 shows the seven
ecoregions of Ghana on a regional map. The population
of Ghana has been increasing steadily at an average in-
tercensal growth rate of 2.5% and now stands at about
25 million [23]. Agriculture is a dominant part of Ghana’s
economy, accounting for 35% of the country’s GDP.
Journal of Disaster ResearchVol.9 No.4, 2014 453
Antwi, E. K. et al.
Ghana’s climate varies from the tropical unimodal
monsoon type in the north to the bimodal equatorial type
in the south [3]. In general, rainfall increases from south
to north and is a main moisture source for the agricul-
tural enterprises in the country [3]. Mean annual rain-
fall varies across the seven ecoregions, with wet ever-
green forest recording the highest mean annual rainfall of
above 2200 mm followed by rainforest (2200 mm), de-
ciduous forest (1500 mm), transitional zone (1300 mm),
Guinea savannah (1100 mm) Sudan savannah (1000 mm)
and coastal savannah (800 mm) [3].
The main natural hazards in Ghana are drought,
flood, and landslides. The dry dusty northeastern har-
mattan winds blow across the country from January to
March [13, 14].
The main soil texture classifications in Ghana are sandy
loam and loam, though coarse sandy and clay loams can
be found at the lower latitudes. The main soil types are
Alfisols, Plinth Luvisols, and their integrates [15]. Soils
in the south (forest zones) of Ghana are grouped under
Oxisols, Ochrosols, Acid Gleysols and Lateritic. The
soils in the south are porous, well drained, and gener-
ally loamy compared to the soils of the north (savannah
zones), which are poor in nutrients and heavily depen-
dent on humus and fertilizer [16]. Approximately 47% of
the soils in the northern savannah zones are unsuitable for
crop production, with 25% being marginal and only 28%
suitable.
The three savannah regions in the northern part are
covered by savannah grassland with bands of drought-
resistant trees, such as baobab (Adansonia digitata),
dawadawa (Parkia biglobosa), Shea (Vitellaria para-
doxa), neem (Azadiracta indica) and acacia (Acacia
Nilotica) at varying densities. The southern part of the
country has dominantly evergreen and semi-deciduous
forests, consisting mainly of such tropical hardwood trees
as mahogany, odum, ebony, silk cotton and kolas.
2.2. Data Sources and Spatial Data Processing
The satellite images used for the study came from
Landsat TM5 data acquired in 1990 and ETM+ in 2000.
The entire country is covered by 16 scenes with path/row
ranging from 192-056 in the southeast to 195-052 in the
Northwest. It must be mentioned that the available Land-
sat scenes after the year 2000 have many failed scan lines
(black lines) with no data, which rendered them unsuit-
able for classification; therefore, they could not be used
for the analyses.
The spatial resolution of the Landsat data was
30m*30m spatial resolution. The images used were cho-
sen in the vegetation period–thus, between the months of
May and September. The search criteria were set for im-
ages with less than 10% cloud cover. Some images un-
avoidably had some clouds, though these areas were cor-
rected through the use of historical data to replace the
cloud-covered parts. Satellite data was processed with
ERDAS Imagine 2013. The 16 scene images were first
mosaicked to form a single image of the entire country
before the classification was done.
Table 1. Producer accuracy and user accuracy of classifica-
tion output for all land user types in the ecoregions.
Land cover types
1990 2000
Producer
accuracy
User
accuracy
Producer
accuracy
User
accuracy
Agricultural land 93 92 88 92
Built-up areas 87 81 94 92
Closed forest 89 95 80 91
Forest garden 92 90 97 95
Grassland with trees 88 86 87 93
Open forest 91 94 89 91
Open land 91 91 80 86
Plantation 91 96 85 96
Savannah woodland 90 91 94 93
Shrubland and thicket 92 92 88 93
Water body 90 96 96 90
Wetland 92 95 94 91
2.3. Image Classification, Change Detection, and
Classification Accuracy Issues
The mosaicked images of the ecoregions for the re-
spective years were classified into 12 LCTs (Table 1),
using supervised classification with the maximum like-
lihood classification algorithm in ERDAS Imagine soft-
ware. During the classification, clouds were classified as a
separate LCT and later merged with the appropriate class
of the main LCTs. Landsat TM5 and ETM+ imagery for
the entire Ghana landscape was collected and merged for
the years 1990 and 2000 to analyze the changing land-
scape.
Overall, 2,750 sample points were collected for 1990
and 2,610 sample points were used for 2000 by employ-
ment of a simple random sampling technique. These sam-
pled points were divided into two parts: the first was used
to generate spectral signatures for the classification and
the second as ground truth for an accuracy assessment.
An overall accuracy of 92% and 92.5%was ensured in the
final classification output for the 1990 and 2000 images,
respectively [17]. Overall Kappa statistics in the classi-
fication output for 1990 and 2000 images are 91.00 and
82.7% respectively. The producer and user accuracies of
classifications in all land user types in the ecoregions of
Ghana are shown in Table 1.
In each ecoregion, the dominant vegetation types or
LC features were used to represent the LU classes [18].
In all, 12 classes were identified for the whole country.
Table 3 shows the major land use types or classes in
the ecoregions of Ghana. The classification of land use
types in each ecoregion was followed by a detection of
changes in the LUs between the two years. The extension
“Vera¨nderung” (v3) aided quantification of changes from
LCT in 1990 to other LCTs in 2000 [18]. The LUC maps
that were produced showed three classes: reduction in LC
classes (negative change), no change, and increases in LC
classes (positive change) between the two periods.
454 Journal of Disaster ResearchVol.9 No.4, 2014
Land Use and Landscape Structural Changes
in the Ecoregions of Ghana
Table 2. Landscape metrics descriptions and their indicator ranges use in the study of ecological features.
Ecological feature Metrics indicators Description Range
Habitat richness
/No. of patches
fragmentation
Number of Patches
(NumP)
It is a measure of the extent of subdivision or fragmentation of the
habitat type. NumP = 1 when the landscape or class consists of a
single patch
NumP ≥ 1
without limit
Edge density (ED) It measures habitat length in a landscape. ED = 0 when the entire
landscape and landscape border, if present, consists of the corre-
sponding patch type.
ED ≥ 0
without limit
Patch/habitat size Mean patch size (MPS) The range in MPS is limited by the grain and extent of the image and
the minimum patch size in the same manner as patch area.
MPS > 0
Mean shape index (MSI) It measures the average patch shape or perimeter-to-area ratio, for a
patch type or patches in the landscape.
MSI = 1 when all patches of the corresponding patch type are cir-
cular (vector). It increases without limit as the patch shapes become
more irregular
MSI ≥ 1
without limit
Evenness habitat
heterogeneity
Shannon evenness index
(SEI)
It measures distribution of area among patch types
SEI = 0 when the landscape contains only 1 patch (i.e., no diver-
sity) and approaches 0 as the distribution of area among the different
patch types becomes increasingly uneven. SEI =1 when distribu-
tion of area among patch types is perfectly even (i.e., proportional
abundances are the same).
0 ≤ SEI ≤ 1
Habitat diversity Shannon diversity index
(SDI)
It is a measure of diversity in community ecology
SDI= 0 when the landscape contains only 1 patch (i.e., no diversity).
SDI increases as the number of different patch types (patch richness,
PR) increases.
SDI ≥ 0
without limit
2.4. Landscape Structure Analyses
The thematic LC maps from 1990 and 2000 were sub-
jected to landscape statistics estimations using Patch An-
alyst version 5.1. Patch Analyst offers a comprehensive
choice of landscape metrics at the landscape level [18].
Representative metrics were selected for land habitat
shape complexity (mean shape index, edge density, land-
scape shape index) fragmentation (core area metric e.g.
number of patches, mean patch size), landscape compo-
sition and diversity (Shannon diversity index, Shannon
evenness index). The metrics were selected based on
their comparability, robustness and sensitivities to spatio-
temporal landscapes [1, 10, 19]. Table 2 gives descrip-
tions of metrics used. Most metrics at this level describe
similar characteristics in the landscape structure; there-
fore, further selection of landscape metrics was done [19]
to exclude highly correlated metrics using correlation
analysis with acceptable multicollinearlity threshold (r =
0.8). Garbarino et al. (2013) explained how to exclude
highly correlated metrics and landscape metrics selection.
3. Results
3.1. Land Cover Distribution in the Various Ecore-
gions of Ghana
First, the study presents the major LCTs in Ghana. In
both study periods, 12 LCTs were dominant in the seven
ecoregions. A description of these LCTs is provided in
Table 3.
3.1.1. Distribution of Agricultural Land and Forest
Garden
The dominant land-use types in the ecoregions of
Ghana are agricultural land and forest garden. These two
constitute the arable land and are found in all the ecore-
gions of Ghana. Agricultural land generally decreased in
all the ecoregions of Ghana between 1990 and 2000 ex-
cept in the Guinea savannah, coastal savannah and de-
ciduous forests in 2000 (Table 4). Comparing differ-
ent ecoregions, the highest decrease in agricultural land
occurred in the transition zone. Conversely, two ecore-
gions recorded a positive change in agricultural lands. Of
the two ecoregions that recorded increases in agricultural
lands, the coastal savannah recorded the highest.
There was a substantial net increase in the forest gar-
den during the study period. Except for Sudan savannah,
deciduous forest, and coastal savannah, all other ecore-
gions had an increase in forest garden. The highest in-
crease was found in the transition zone, with Guinea sa-
vannah and rainforest recording largely similar hectarage
increases. The decrease in forest garden in the decidu-
ous forest was the highest in all ecoregions, followed by
coastal savannah and Sudan savannah.
The increase in forest gardenwas largely taken from sa-
vannah woodlands in the Guinea savannah, Sudan savan-
nah, and transition zones. Others were taken from open
forest, closed forest, and plantation in the wet evergreen,
deciduous forest, and rainforest zones; and from grassland
with trees in the transition ecoregion. Forest garden also
increased in the coastal savannah (Fig. 2). The decreased
area in agricultural land was replaced mainly with savan-
Journal of Disaster ResearchVol.9 No.4, 2014 455
Antwi, E. K. et al.
T
ab
le
3.
C
om
po
ne
nt
of
m
aj
or
L
U
/L
C
ty
pe
s
in
th
e
ec
or
eg
io
ns
of
G
ha
na
.
L
U
/L
C
Ty
pe
D
es
cr
ip
tio
n
of
L
U
/L
C
Ty
pe
s
A
gr
ic
ul
tu
ra
l
la
nd
A
re
as
w
he
re
ov
er
50
%
is
un
de
r
ag
ri
cu
ltu
re
,e
xc
lu
di
ng
tr
ee
cr
op
s.
In
cl
ud
es
gr
az
in
g
la
nd
s.
Fo
re
st
ga
rd
en
Fo
re
st
ga
rd
en
in
G
ha
na
of
te
n
ha
s
a
m
ix
tu
re
of
fa
rm
la
nd
s
in
na
tu
ra
lly
or
se
m
i-
na
tu
ra
lg
ro
w
n
fo
re
st
.
T
hi
s
ca
te
go
ry
is
us
ed
fo
r
ar
ea
s
w
he
re
it
is
di
ffi
cu
lt
to
se
pa
ra
te
fo
re
st
an
d
ag
ri
cu
ltu
ra
ll
an
d.
Pl
an
ta
tio
n
M
ai
nl
y
tr
ee
cr
op
pl
an
ta
tio
ns
of
co
co
a
an
d
oi
lp
al
m
;m
ay
in
cl
ud
e
fo
re
st
pl
an
ta
tio
ns
.
C
lo
se
d
fo
re
st
H
as
a
hi
gh
de
ns
ity
of
fo
re
st
tr
ee
s,
m
os
tly
pr
ot
ec
te
d,
w
ith
a
ca
no
py
co
ve
r
of
>
60
%
.
It
in
cl
ud
es
tr
ad
iti
on
al
gr
ov
es
,c
lo
se
d
fo
re
st
pl
an
ta
tio
ns
,f
or
es
t,
an
d
w
ild
lif
e
pr
ot
ec
te
d
ar
ea
s.
O
pe
n
fo
re
st
H
ig
h
de
ns
ity
of
fo
re
st
tr
ee
s;
m
ay
be
un
de
r
pr
ot
ec
tio
n
bu
t
m
os
tly
is
no
t,
w
ith
a
ca
no
py
co
ve
r
of
<
60
%
.
N
or
m
al
ly
is
de
gr
ad
ed
cl
os
ed
fo
re
st
m
ad
e
of
fo
re
st
pl
an
ta
tio
ns
an
d
in
cl
ud
in
g
a
fe
w
pa
tc
he
s
of
fa
rm
la
nd
s.
G
ra
ss
la
nd
w
ith
/w
ith
ou
tt
re
es
Sa
va
nn
ah
la
nd
ch
ar
ac
te
ri
ze
d
by
gr
as
se
s
w
ith
sp
ar
se
di
st
ri
bu
tio
n
of
tr
ee
s/
ha
;m
os
tly
in
co
as
ta
la
nd
in
la
nd
sa
va
nn
ah
.
Sh
ru
b
la
nd
an
d
th
ic
ke
t
A
re
as
do
m
in
at
ed
by
de
ns
e
sh
ru
bs
an
d
th
ic
ke
ts
as
so
ci
at
ed
w
ith
gr
as
sl
an
d.
W
at
er
bo
dy
R
iv
er
s,
po
nd
s,
da
m
s,
du
go
ut
s,
la
ke
s,
an
d
la
go
on
s
–
an
yt
hi
ng
w
ith
w
at
er
su
rf
ac
e.
W
et
la
nd
M
ar
sh
la
nd
s
an
d
sw
am
ps
.
V
eg
et
at
io
n
is
m
os
tly
m
an
gr
ov
es
an
d
se
dg
es
.
O
pe
n
la
nd
L
an
d
su
rf
ac
es
la
ck
in
g
an
y
fo
rm
of
ve
ge
ta
tio
n
co
ve
r,
ei
th
er
na
tu
ra
lo
r
m
an
m
ad
e.
B
ui
lt-
up
ar
ea
s
Su
rf
ac
es
m
od
ifi
ed
by
hu
m
an
co
ns
tr
uc
tio
n:
e.
g.
,c
om
m
un
iti
es
,r
oa
ds
,a
ir
fie
ld
s,
et
c.
Sa
va
nn
ah
w
oo
dl
an
d
A
re
as
in
th
e
sa
va
nn
ah
re
gi
on
w
ith
a
hi
gh
de
ns
ity
of
tr
ee
s
(>
15
0
tr
ee
s/
ha
).
It
al
so
in
cl
ud
es
pr
ot
ec
te
d
ar
ea
s,
su
ch
as
M
ol
e
N
at
io
na
lP
ar
k.
T
ab
le
4.
L
an
d
us
e
ca
te
go
ri
es
an
d
la
nd
co
ve
r
di
st
ri
bu
tio
ns
in
th
e
ec
or
eg
io
ns
of
G
ha
na
.
Su
da
n
sa
va
nn
ah
G
ui
ne
a
sa
va
nn
ah
T
ra
ns
iti
on
zo
ne
D
ec
id
uo
us
fo
re
st
R
ai
n
fo
re
st
W
et
ev
er
gr
ee
n
C
oa
st
al
sa
va
nn
ah
20
00
19
90
20
00
19
90
20
00
19
90
20
00
19
90
20
00
19
90
20
00
19
90
20
00
19
90
A
gr
ic
ul
tu
ra
l
A
gr
ic
ul
tu
ra
l
la
nd
14
35
.7
8
24
11
.7
8
25
42
2.
26
21
24
6.
11
49
37
.1
0
89
26
.1
1
83
46
.2
7
68
73
.7
1
25
3.
28
32
9.
37
10
6.
90
18
0.
70
47
02
.5
1
32
79
.4
3
Fo
re
st
ga
rd
en
29
5.
80
83
2.
65
32
21
1.
31
32
18
0.
90
14
02
8.
67
80
30
.1
8
29
44
5.
91
32
32
3.
12
65
04
.5
1
47
98
.3
1
37
39
.7
5
34
90
.9
8
34
40
.1
0
43
90
.2
7
Fo
re
st
pl
an
ta
tio
n
C
lo
se
d
fo
re
st
0.
00
0.
00
0.
00
0.
00
66
.4
2
66
.4
2
81
76
.4
5
81
76
.4
5
35
83
.9
2
35
83
.9
2
23
26
.8
6
23
26
.8
6
0.
00
0.
00
O
pe
n
fo
re
st
0.
00
0.
00
0.
00
0.
00
14
99
.6
2
26
21
.5
5
79
61
.5
7
68
59
.0
9
13
59
.5
7
14
28
.8
5
71
7.
47
12
53
.0
7
7.
19
86
.2
2
Pl
an
ta
tio
n
0.
00
0.
00
0.
00
0.
00
0.
00
0.
00
22
75
.5
7
29
23
.2
3
48
1.
30
11
30
.3
8
35
4.
23
80
3.
08
9.
78
79
7.
27
W
oo
dl
an
d
an
d
gr
as
s
G
ra
ss
la
nd
w
ith
tr
ee
s
77
0.
00
7.
27
50
65
.8
7
96
35
.6
6
19
61
.4
2
32
27
.6
7
31
96
.4
4
26
58
.9
2
0.
00
0.
00
0.
00
0.
00
21
42
.5
7
88
1.
45
Sa
va
nn
ah
w
oo
dl
an
d
32
.0
5
28
.2
5
20
46
.1
9
14
09
.1
3
56
1.
02
51
3.
21
20
6.
58
22
2.
31
0.
00
0.
00
0.
00
0.
00
7.
72
46
.5
4
Se
ttl
em
en
ta
nd
ba
re
la
nd
B
ui
lt
–
up
ar
ea
s
33
.6
3
22
.5
9
12
84
.4
6
90
1.
99
26
8.
06
71
.1
0
29
90
.8
5
35
26
.6
1
20
.0
0
20
.5
4
11
0.
40
12
8.
90
28
05
.2
9
33
64
.0
7
O
pe
nl
an
d
0.
00
0.
00
0.
00
0.
00
0.
00
0.
00
12
6.
05
41
85
.4
8
0.
00
0.
00
0.
00
0.
00
52
4.
12
22
.4
6
W
at
er
W
at
er
bo
dy
0.
99
0.
34
56
.4
6
38
.2
4
54
.6
2
37
.9
6
54
.8
8
37
.6
8
0.
70
0.
17
0.
33
0.
45
56
.3
2
3.
41
W
et
la
nd
0.
00
0.
00
52
3.
14
40
8.
40
69
.3
0
12
8.
44
19
9.
28
94
.9
2
0.
00
0.
00
46
6.
53
48
.1
7
81
0.
16
12
9.
89
O
th
er
Sh
ru
bl
an
d
an
d
T
hi
ck
et
0.
00
0.
00
0.
00
0.
00
12
64
7.
55
69
67
.7
2
27
58
0.
64
27
17
7.
61
0.
00
0.
00
0.
00
0.
00
88
04
.9
5
10
06
7.
24
456 Journal of Disaster ResearchVol.9 No.4, 2014
Land Use and Landscape Structural Changes
in the Ecoregions of Ghana
Fig. 2. Land cover distribution and changes from 1990 to
2000 in the Guinea savannah zone.
nah woodlands in the Guinea savannah zone (Fig. 2) and
with shrubland and thicket in the transition zone (Fig. 7).
Though agricultural land area had a net decrease, the
colossal increase in forest garden means that arable lands
in all the ecoregions had a net increase.
3.1.2. Distribution of Forest and Plantation Land
Cover
The forest and plantation comprise open forest, closed
forest, and plantation LCTs. Considering their composi-
tion in all the ecoregions of Ghana, there was a net de-
crease in closed forest, open forest and plantation. Open
forest was not found in either the Sudan or Guinea savan-
nah ecoregions. Deciduous forest ecoregions was domi-
nated by open forest cover from 1990 to 2000; followed
by the rainforest, wet evergreen, and transition zones.
Interestingly, a portion of open forest was found in the
coastal savannah ecoregion, though this was the least open
forest area recorded. In all the ecoregions of Ghana where
open forest was found, deforestation occurred in the open
forest LCT with the highest open-forest loss taking place
in the deciduous forest followed by the transition, wet ev-
ergreen, and coastal savannah zones.
The observed decrease in open forest was because it
was replaced mainly by forest garden cover in the decid-
uous forest (Fig. 3), rainforest (Fig. 4), and wet evergreen
ecoregions (Fig. 5), and by agricultural land in the decid-
uous forest region (Fig. 3).
Plantation was largely not found in the Sudan savannah,
Guinea savannah and transition zone ecoregions. In both
study years, plantation LUT in rainforest was found to be
larger than the evergreen forest and coastal savannah. In
Ghana, about half of the forest plantation areas are found
in the deciduous forest. Similar to open forest, there was
a substantial decrease (deforestation) in plantation LCT
in all the constituent ecoregions. However, the highest
Fig. 3. Land cover distribution and changes in the deciduous
forest zone for 1990 to 2000.
plantation cover loss took place in the coastal savannah,
followed by rainforest and wet evergreen. The deciduous
forest had the least plantation cover.
The decreased plantation cover was replaced by forest
garden in the rainforest (Fig. 4) and by closed and open
forest in the deciduous forest (Fig. 3).
Closed forest was found to be missing in the entire three
savannah ecoregions: namely, the Sudan, Guinea and
coastal savannahs. Apart from these ecoregions in which
closed forest was not found, in the remaining ecoregions,
there was loss of closed forest LUT. Closed forest in both
study periods was most dominant in the deciduous forest,
followed by the rainforest. The lowest closed forest area
in both study periods was observed in the transition zone.
There was reduction (deforestation) in the closed forest in
all the ecoregions except in the transition zone, where the
closed forest area was maintained at 66.42 km2 (Table 4).
All three forest types were most dominant in the decidu-
ous forest followed by rainforest and wet evergreen.
The decline in closed forest was replaced by agricul-
tural land and forest garden in the deciduous forest ecore-
gion (Fig. 3); open land and forest garden in the rainfor-
est ecoregion (Fig. 4); and forest garden, open forest, and
plantation in the wet evergreen ecoregion (Fig. 5).
3.1.3. Distribution of Settlement and Bare Land
The settlement and bare land categories include built-
up areas and open land. Built-up areas were found in all
ecoregions. However, the true amount of built-up area is
not accounted for in all the ecoregions. This is because
of the 30 m image resolution used for the classification,
which made it difficult to see most settlements under tree
canopy, particularly in the rainforest where most of the
settlements are buried under closed canopy cover. Urban
sprawl occurred in the period studied and was highly as-
sociated with decreases in deciduous forest and coastal
Journal of Disaster ResearchVol.9 No.4, 2014 457
Antwi, E. K. et al.
Fig. 4. Land cover distribution and changes in the rainforest
zone of ghana from 1990 to 2000.
Fig. 5. Land cover distribution and changes in the wet ever-
green zone of ghana from 1990 to 2000.
savannah. In these zones, urbanization rates are high, and
they host the most densely populated towns, including the
first and second largest cities of Ghana. The deciduous
forest ecoregion and the coastal savannah had increased
in built-up areas. The Guinea savannah ecoregion also
experienced notable urban sprawl. The only LCT that
increased in all the ecoregions during the study was the
built-up. Even the built-up area that increased the least
in any of the ecoregions amounted to more than twice the
area occupied in 1990.
Open land was found only in the deciduous and coastal
savannah. The largest area (524.12 km2) occupied by
open land was in the coastal savannah in 2000 followed
by 22.46 km2 (Table 4) in 1990. In the coastal savannah,
open land increased remarkably though the deciduous for-
est experienced a reduction in open land area.
The increase in built-up areas was taken from the dif-
ferent LCTs across the nation. Figs. 6a and 6c show a
notable increase in built-up areas in the coastal savannah
where Accra, the capital city, is located.
Fig. 6. The coastal savannah zone of Ghana for the year
1990 and 2000. (a) Grassland with trees increased within
the coastal savannah zone of Ghana. (b) Forest garden in-
creased within the coastal savannah zone. (c) Built-up and
open areas increased for the coastal savannah zone. (d) Wet-
lands and water bodies increased for the coastal savannah
zone.
3.1.4. Distribution of Woodland and Grasses
The woodland and grasses categories include grassland
with trees and savannah woodland. Grassland with trees
was not found in the rainforest and wet evergreen forest
ecoregions. In both study periods, grassland with trees
was highest in the Guinea savannah, particularly in 1990.
Grassland with trees decreased in the Guinea savannah
and transition zones, the highest decrease occurred in the
Guinea savannah. On the other hand, the Sudan savan-
nah, coastal savannah, and deciduous forest experienced
an increase in grassland with trees. The highest increase
occurred in the Sudan savannah.
The grassland with trees, which had decreased by the
end of the study in 2000, was replaced with savannah
woodlands and agricultural land in the Guinea savannah
(Fig. 2) and with agricultural land and forest garden in
the transition zone (Fig. 7).
There was no savannah woodland in the rainforest and
wet evergreen. Similar to the grassland with trees, sa-
vannah woodland was the most dominant in the Guinea
savannah ecoregion in both periods studied; however, the
year 2000 had the highest increase. The savannah wood-
land cover decreased in all the component ecoregions ex-
cept for Guinea savannah. The highest decrease occurred
in the transition zone, with coastal savannah and transition
zone undergoing similar reductions in area. The colossal
increase in savannah woodland in the Guinea savannah
ecoregion was large enough to cause an increase in the
savannah woodland. The increase in savannah woodland
was taken from grassland with trees and agricultural land
in the Guinea savannah (Fig. 2) and from wetland in the
Sudan savannah (Fig. 8).
Shrubland and thicket was found only in the transition
zone, deciduous forest, and coastal savannah. The highest
increase in shrubland and thicket occurred in the transi-
458 Journal of Disaster ResearchVol.9 No.4, 2014
Land Use and Landscape Structural Changes
in the Ecoregions of Ghana
Fig. 7. Land cover changes and distributions in the transi-
tion zone for 1990 to 2000.
Fig. 8. Land cover distribution and changes in the sudan
savannah region for 1990 to 2000.
tion zone, followed by the deciduous forest. Shrubland
and thicket was very dominant in the deciduous forest,
particularly in 2000.
3.1.5. Distribution of Water Bodies and Wetlands
The water bodies and wetlands categories have mainly
areas occupied by water and wetlands. One of three LCTs
found in all seven ecoregions is water bodies. Though
slightly larger area was occupied by water bodies in the
Guinea savannah, the distribution of water bodies in the
transition zone, deciduous forest, and coastal savannah
(in 2000 only) was very similar (Table 4). Though there
was a decrease in water bodies in four of the ecoregions
(wet evergreen, deciduous forest, transition zones, Guinea
savannah), there was a general increase in area of water
bodies. The increase in water bodies in the coastal savan-
nah was the highest during the study, though a marginal
increase was observed in the rainforest and Sudan savan-
nah. Wetland was also found in all the ecoregions except
in the Sudan savannah and rainforest ecoregions. The area
occupied by wetlands was notably dominant in the 1990s
in the Guinea savannah, coastal savannah, and transition
zone. We should note that wetland is one of the three
LCTs that decreased in all the ecoregions that have it. A
large decrease occurred in the Guinea savannah and the
transition zone.
The observed increase in water bodies is found mostly
in the coastal savannah ecoregion and along the Volta
River (Fig. 6). The wetlands that decreased in the Su-
dan savannah were often replaced by savannah woodland
(Fig. 8). Though water bodies increased in the coastal sa-
vannah. Figs. 6a and 6d show a notable increase in wet-
land.
3.2. Landscape Structure Analysis of Different
Ecoregions of Ghana
The landscape metrics calculated revealed a more frag-
mented landscape over the study years in all the ecore-
gions of the country. The mean patch size (MPS), an in-
dicator of the grain of the landscape [21], decreased by
half within the 10 years of the study. MPS, which is one
of the measurements of fragmentation, was generally re-
duced consistently from 1990 to 2000 in all the ecore-
gions. The highest MPS value, which was recorded in
1990 (66.9 km2), was nearly halved (39.6 km2) by 2000
(Table 5).
The rainforest ecoregion recorded the most prominent
reduction in MPS (46726.7 km2). On the other hand, the
coastal savannah had the least reduction (8706.9 km2) in
MPS. Another measure of fragmentation that also corrob-
orates with the MPS is the NumP. However, in NumP, in-
crements indicate a rise in fragmentation and vice versa.
Similar trends of increased fragmentation were expected
in this metric, and such was confirmed. For example,
coastal savannah increased in NumP from 375 in 1990
to 532 in 2000 and rainforest from 107 to 248 (Table 5).
Fragmentation in this context means the breaking up of
habitat, ecosystems, or LCTs into smaller parcels [20].
Because larger patches tend to be more complex than
smaller patches, fragmentation has the effect of determin-
ing patch complexity independent of its size.
Generally, all the patches that were calculated in the
ecoregions for both years can be said to be complex in
the sense that an MSI value of 1 indicates a square (in the
case of grids) or a circle (in the case of polygons); any
value lower or higher than 1 is an indication of simplicity
or complexity, respectively [21]. The MSI estimated for
ecoregions in both periods of study ranges from 1.6 in the
year 2000 in the Sudan savannah to 2.5 in the year 1990
in the transition zones (Table 5). Thus, habitat types in
the Sudan savannah in 2000 were the simplest, whereas
those in the transition zone in 1990 were the most com-
plex. Generally, MSI decreased in all ecoregions except
for rainforest and wet evergreen. The highest decrease
in MSI occurred in the transition zone, followed by the
deciduous forest, with the rest having the same level of
Journal of Disaster ResearchVol.9 No.4, 2014 459
Antwi, E. K. et al.
T
ab
le
5.
C
om
po
si
te
m
et
ri
cs
sh
ow
in
g
la
nd
sc
ap
e
st
ru
ct
ur
e
ch
ar
ac
te
ri
st
ic
s
in
th
e
ec
or
eg
io
ns
of
G
ha
na
.
L
an
ds
ca
pe
m
et
ri
cs
C
oa
st
al
sa
va
nn
ah
D
ec
id
uo
us
fo
re
st
G
ui
ne
a
sa
va
nn
ah
R
ai
nf
or
es
t
Su
da
n
sa
va
nn
ah
T
ra
ns
iti
on
W
et
ev
er
gr
ee
n
19
90
20
00
19
90
20
00
19
90
20
00
19
90
20
00
19
90
20
00
19
90
20
00
19
90
20
00
SD
I
1.
8
1.
7
1.
7
1.
8
1.
5
1.
4
1.
4
1.
3
1.
1
1.
2
1.
6
1.
5
1.
5
1.
3
SE
I
0.
7
0.
7
0.
7
0.
7
0.
7
0.
7
0.
7
0.
6
0.
6
0.
7
0.
7
0.
6
0.
7
0.
6
M
SI
2.
1
1.
8
2.
2
1.
7
2.
1
1.
8
1.
8
2.
1
1.
9
1.
6
2.
5
1.
8
2
2.
2
M
PA
R
35
.5
33
.9
12
45
.6
14
.1
33
.4
8.
7
53
.7
7.
4
49
.2
15
.3
24
.2
34
.5
18
.4
E
D
3.
6
3.
6
2.
8
2.
6
2.
2
2.
6
2
2.
8
2.
6
2.
9
2.
6
2.
3
3.
1
3.
9
M
PS
29
66
1.
8
20
95
4.
9
65
67
7.
8
35
36
3.
8
77
32
0.
2
48
47
8.
4
82
26
4.
6
35
53
7.
9
57
40
9.
1
17
33
5.
9
84
23
3
61
88
2.
7
40
50
1.
2
29
29
8.
3
N
um
P
37
5
53
2
11
46
21
28
15
35
24
48
10
7
24
8
50
16
5
37
7
51
3
20
6
28
5
T
ab
le
6.
T
ra
ns
iti
on
m
at
ri
x
of
al
ll
an
d
co
ve
r
ch
an
ge
s
in
G
ha
na
fr
om
19
90
to
20
00
.
A
ct
ua
la
re
a
is
sh
ow
n
in
sq
ua
re
ki
lo
m
et
er
s
an
d
pe
rc
en
ta
ge
in
re
la
tio
n
to
th
e
to
ta
la
re
a
of
th
e
cl
as
s
in
19
90
.
L
an
d
co
ve
r
in
20
00
Landcoverin1990
A
gr
ic
ul
tu
-
ra
ll
an
d
Fo
re
st
ga
rd
en
Pl
an
ta
tio
n
C
lo
se
d
fo
re
st
O
pe
n
fo
re
st
G
ra
ss
la
nd
w
ith
tr
ee
s
Sh
ru
b
la
nd
an
d
th
ic
ke
t
W
at
er
bo
dy
W
et
la
nd
O
pe
n
la
nd
B
ui
lt-
up
ar
ea
s
Sa
va
nn
ah
w
oo
dl
an
d
To
ta
l
A
gr
ic
ul
tu
ra
l
la
nd
14
70
9.
21
(3
4%
)
15
06
0.
85
(3
4.
8%
)
46
6.
99
(1
.1
%
)
72
.6
1
(0
.2
%
)
66
.4
5
(0
.2
%
)
40
21
.6
6
(9
.3
%
)
48
4.
85
(1
.1
%
)
20
7.
29
(0
.5
%
)
44
.6
6
(0
.1
%
)
37
.7
4
(0
.1
%
)
56
3.
77
(1
.3
%
)
75
11
.1
3
(1
7.
4%
)
43
24
7.
21
(1
8.
1)
Fo
re
st
ga
rd
en
18
47
5.
57
(2
1.
5%
)
42
46
9.
28
(4
9.
4%
)
71
22
.5
2
(8
.3
%
)
81
7.
03
(0
.9
%
)
63
5.
02
(0
.7
%
)
46
63
.4
1
(5
.4
%
)
79
1.
7
(0
.9
%
)
18
5.
79
(0
.2
%
)
90
.9
6
(0
.1
%
)
42
.4
8
(0
.0
%
)
66
1.
9
(0
.8
%
)
10
09
0.
77
(1
1.
7%
)
86
04
6.
41
(3
6.
0)
Pl
an
ta
tio
n
71
5.
34
(4
.5
%
)
87
90
.6
4
(5
5.
1%
)
54
61
.3
3
(3
4.
2%
)
38
0.
96
(2
.4
%
)
28
9.
55
(1
.8
%
)
16
0.
23
(1
.0
%
)
1.
9
0.
0%
)
51
.9
9
(0
.3
%
)
24
.9
5
(0
.2
%
)
17
.5
5
(0
.1
%
)
55
.7
(0
.3
%
)
7.
2
(0
.0
%
)
15
95
7.
34
(6
.7
)
C
lo
se
d
fo
re
st
30
.0
9
(0
.2
%
)
96
9.
45
(7
.9
%
)
39
1.
47
(3
.2
%
)
95
28
.2
6
(7
7.
8%
)
12
35
.4
8
(1
0.
1%
)
14
.2
2
(0
.1
%
)
9.
82
(0
.1
%
)
8.
1
(0
.1
%
)
3.
19
(0
.0
%
)
2.
47
(0
.0
%
)
56
.2
5
(0
.5
%
)
12
24
8.
79
(5
.1
)
O
pe
n
fo
re
st
44
6.
04
(7
.9
%
)
25
89
.0
9
(4
5.
8%
)
59
8.
15
(1
0.
6%
)
68
0.
89
(1
2%
)
57
2.
8
(1
0.
1%
)
49
.7
9
(0
.9
%
)
29
3.
38
(5
.2
%
)
14
.1
6
(0
.3
%
)
8.
87
(0
.2
%
)
0.
76
(0
.0
%
)
7.
79
(0
.1
%
)
39
2.
25
(6
.9
%
)
56
53
.9
6
(2
.4
)
G
ra
ss
la
nd
w
ith
tr
ee
s
31
22
.6
(1
9.
0%
)
46
87
.2
(2
8.
6%
)
3.
13
(0
.0
%
)
29
.9
3
(0
.2
%
)
33
.6
3
(0
.2
%
)
13
71
.4
9
(8
.4
%
)
25
0.
32
(1
.5
%
)
74
.9
7
(0
.5
%
)
52
.4
2
(0
.3
%
)
0
(0
.0
%
)
75
.1
7
(0
.5
%
)
67
10
.1
1
(4
0.
9%
)
16
41
0.
97
(6
.9
)
Sh
ru
b
la
nd
an
d
th
ic
ke
t
38
2.
9
(1
7.
3%
)
42
5.
88
(1
9.
2%
)
18
.6
3
(0
.8
%
)
14
4.
07
(6
.5
%
)
33
0.
97
(1
4.
9%
)
83
5.
25
(3
7.
6%
)
4.
55
(0
.2
%
)
0.
74
(0
.0
%
)
21
.1
5
(1
.0
%
)
55
.2
9
(2
.5
%
)
22
19
.4
3
(0
.9
)
W
at
er
bo
dy
37
3.
96
(4
.7
%
)
44
6.
25
(5
.6
%
)
4.
16
(0
.1
%
)
0.
67
(0
.0
%
)
0.
2
(0
.0
%
)
21
6.
29
(2
.7
%
)
3.
98
(0
.0
%
)
66
60
.7
5
(8
2.
9%
)
67
.6
9
(0
.8
%
)
66
.4
8
(0
.8
%
)
16
.5
(0
.2
%
)
17
8.
84
(2
.2
%
)
80
35
.7
9
(3
.4
)
W
et
la
nd
74
0.
3
(1
7.
6%
)
13
83
.7
8
(3
2.
9%
)
44
.3
(1
.1
%
)
6.
12
(0
.1
%
)
6.
63
(0
.2
%
)
36
9.
98
(8
.8
%
)
41
.9
3
(1
.0
%
)
14
1.
77
(3
.4
%
)
28
2.
97
(6
.7
%
)
8.
05
(0
.2
%
)
15
.0
1
(0
.4
%
)
11
67
.0
8
(2
7.
7%
)
42
07
.9
3
(1
.8
)
O
pe
n
la
nd
1.
94
(1
.6
%
)
42 (3
5.
5%
)
27
.2
3
(2
3%
)
5.
98
(5
.1
%
)
0.
4
(0
.3
%
)
0.
02
(0
.0
%
)
13
.0
8
(1
1.
1%
)
4.
69
(4
.0
%
)
22
.9
3
(1
9.
4%
)
11
8.
26
(0
.0
)
B
ui
lt-
up
ar
ea
s
72
.2
1
(8
.9
%
)
60
.3
3
(7
.4
%
)
31
.2
7
(3
.9
%
)
0.
9
(0
.1
%
)
3.
05
(0
.4
%
)
10
.6
8
(1
.3
%
)
12
.7
4
(1
.6
%
)
6.
09
(0
.8
%
)
7.
2
(0
.9
%
)
33
.1
2
(4
.1
%
)
56
4.
93
(6
9.
8%
)
7.
31
(0
.9
%
)
80
9.
82
(0
.3
)
Sa
va
nn
ah
w
oo
dl
an
d
61
33
.9
4
(1
3.
9%
)
12
74
1.
33
(2
8.
8%
)
3.
1
(0
.0
%
)
3.
37
(0
.0
%
)
13
4.
01
(0
.3
%
)
19
27
.5
8
(4
.4
%
)
12
7.
66
(0
.3
%
)
15
6.
81
(0
.4
%
)
69
.6
9
(0
.2
%
)
1.
86
(0
.0
%
)
79
.3
3
(0
.2
%
)
22
83
3.
81
(5
1.
6%
)
44
21
2.
48
(1
8.
5)
To
ta
l
45
20
4.
1
(1
8.
9)
89
66
6.
1
(3
7.
5)
14
15
3.
65
(5
.9
)
11
54
5.
4
(4
.8
)
31
20
.8
9
(1
.3
)
13
13
6.
3
(5
.5
)
28
53
.5
3
(1
.2
)
75
12
.6
7
(3
.1
)
65
0.
17
(0
.3
)
22
4.
31
(0
.1
)
20
68
.4
1
(0
.9
)
49
03
2.
97
(2
0.
5)
23
91
68
.4
(1
00
)
460 Journal of Disaster ResearchVol.9 No.4, 2014
Land Use and Landscape Structural Changes
in the Ecoregions of Ghana
decrease in habitat shape complexity. Two ecoregions in-
creased in complexity – rainforest and wet evergreen –
which had MSI values of up to 2.1 and 2.2 by the year
2000 respectively (Table 5). With the exception of wet
evergreen and rainforest, habitat complexity was higher
in ecoregions that had larger mean patch sizes.
Another important feature for any landscape is its ex-
tent of heterogeneity, which can be quantified by the
Shannon Diversity Index (SDI) and the Shannon Even-
ness Index (SEI). The value of SDI and SEI is 0 when
there is only one patch in a landscape, which is an indi-
cation of evenness in the case of SDI and of dominance
in the case of SEI. The coastal savannah and the decid-
uous forest ecoregion of the country showed the highest
values of SDI, with values between 1.7 and 1.8 (Table 5)
between 1990 and 2000. All other ecoregions exhibited
a milder form of diversity, with SDI values ranging from
1.6 in the transition ecoregion for the year 1990 to 1.1
for Sudan savannah for the same year (Table 5). SEI val-
ues, which also complement the SDI values, remained at
0.7 for coastal savannah, deciduous forest, and Guinea sa-
vannah in both 1990 and 2000 (Table 5). Table 6 shows
transition in all LCCs across Ghana from 1990 to 2000.
4. Discussion
4.1. Land Use Distribution and Land Cover
Changes in the Ecoregions of Ghana
The observed LC transformations in the form of defor-
estation, urban sprawl, agricultural expansion, and water
resources losses in the ecoregions of Ghana have impor-
tant implications for sustainable land use management.
Specifically, reductions in forest (closed and open), and
savannah woodland (closed and open) with accompany-
ing increments in settlement/built-up areas (throughout
the ecoregions) and grassland/unharnessed farmlands in
the Sudan savannah ecoregion have been observed else-
where [13].
4.1.1. Land Cover Changes and Deforestation in the
Ecoregions of Ghana
Plantation, closed forest and open forest decreased con-
siderably in the evergreen, deciduous forest and rainfor-
est ecological zones. Though most of the forest area was
maintained, substantial portions of the closed and open
forest have been converted to non-forest land (Figs. 3-
5) such as built-ups, farmlands, and open fields at the
fringes [22]. Particularly, farming at the fringes of for-
est while increasing poor people’s access to natural re-
sources, has generally been observed as a common prac-
tice that influences LUC in most forest ecoregions in de-
veloping countries [22-25].
Ghana’s 1948 Forest Policy designated all areas outside
permanent forests as areas available for maximum utiliza-
tion or authorized conversion to other LCTs [26]. This
policy led to the expansion of farms, especially the cocoa-
annuals-forest mosaic, plantations and forest gardens in
the forest ecoregions. The implementation of the Struc-
tural Adjustment Program from 1983 to the early 1990’s
which encouraged the expansion of the timber industry
and contributed to further loss of forest cover [27, 28], see
Figs. 3-5. However, the promulgation of the 1994 Ghana
Forestry and Wildlife Policy restricted LU conversions to
land outside protected areas [29]. This limited subsequent
land conversions outside the protected reserves in the rain-
forest and wet evergreen forest. Currently, restriction on
the conversion of forest in protected areas has been rein-
forced by the amended forest and wildlife policy [28].
4.1.2. Land Cover Changes and Urban Sprawl in the
Ecoregions of Ghana
Urban sprawl is a multidimensional concept that often
involves outward spreading of cities and their suburbs.
This is often attributed to natural increase and rural-urban
migration [30].
The ecological significance of LC change in urban ar-
eas cannot be examined separately from forest land en-
vironments because the two are directly and indirectly
related with synergistic effects on the environment. LU
type in an area is determined by the natural and socio-
economic factors as well as the temporal and spatial use
which people assign to the land [31]. The observed LCCs
between the study periods highlight the importance of ur-
ban sprawl and associated population growth with regard
to urban and forest lands. Urban sprawl is an issue of con-
cern in many developing nations; it often has a damaging
effect on natural resources and infrastructure [32]. The
LCC changes between 1990 and 2000 in all the ecore-
gions show expansion in the built-up areas. This was of-
ten associated with the conversion of forest into arable,
built-up land or direct conversion to open land. According
to [22], vegetation cover has been decreasing in Ghana,
giving way to other LUs, such as open and built-up lands,
for the past three decades. Ghana is becoming more ur-
banized at a fast rate; about one-third of Ghanaians are
now living in towns and cities [33]. The three most pop-
ulous cities, Accra, Kumasi and Takoradi, located in the
in the coastal savannah zone, moist deciduous forest and
in the wet evergreen zone respectively, are the biggest
culprits in turning vegetated areas into built-up and open
areas. Though significant, actual observed increases in
built-up areas could not be accounted for in our study due
to the resolution of the images used (30 m) which could
not account for settlements covered by tree canopy. For
instance, the classification output could not show built-
up areas in the rainforest zone because of the tree canopy
cover.
4.1.3. Land Cover Changes and Agricultural Expan-
sion in the Ecoregions of Ghana
While there was a net decrease in agricultural land in
most of the ecoregions, the colossal expansion of agricul-
tural land particularly forest gardens in the Guinea savan-
nah and deciduous forest zone, both of which account for
over 60% of the LCTs in Ghana, led to an expansion in
Journal of Disaster ResearchVol.9 No.4, 2014 461
Antwi, E. K. et al.
agricultural land. Agriculture is arguably the most domi-
nant LU in Ghana, given that about 41.2% of the econom-
ically active population of the nation is engaged in it [34].
In most ecoregions of Ghana, increases in yield are at-
tributed to agricultural land use expansion. For instance,
land accounts for 65% of the total agriculture value added
in Northern Ghana [35] (located within the Guinea Savan-
nah ecoregion), which indicates a higher land-to-labor ra-
tio than the rest of the country. This continuing process of
swift anthropogenic LUC could affect numerous wildlife
species, especially species that require large areas for sur-
vival. Such open lands as roads, gaps, and ploughed lands
act as barriers to movement for many animal species [36-
38].
4.1.4. Impacts of Land Use Change on Water Re-
sources in the Ecoregions of Ghana
Generally, the monitored landscape transformation
recorded a decrease in water bodies in the wet evergreen,
deciduous forest, transition zones and Guinea savannah.
Also, all the ecoregions that had wetlands particularly in
the guinea savannah zone decreased. Decreases or losses
in wetlands and water bodies could have serious impli-
cations for well-being. This is because water bodies and
wetlands play very important role in landscape function-
ing particularly for humans and other life forms. For
instance, wetlands are critical for controlling floods, re-
moval of pollutants from water, groundwater recharge,
as well as providing habitat for wildlife, and serve im-
portant recreational and cultural functions. The growth
of cities particularly in new developing nations has of-
ten led to encroachment on watercourses as new build-
ings are constructed, either legally or illegally. The en-
croachment of developments on wetlands and waterways
has been a major challenge for most of Ghana’s major ur-
ban settlements. This is often associated with increased
impervious surfaces within urban catchments, changing
the hydrology and geomorphology of streams [39]. The
yearly occurrence of floods in Accra, Ghana’s capital city
can partly be blamed on the conversion and destruction of
wetlands and poor drainage management.
Aside from reduction in wetlands and water bodies, wa-
ter quality is most vulnerable in the urban and industrial-
ized areas mostly in the southern part of Ghana [40]. Log-
ging (lumbering) and mining are the principal causes of
the changing landscape and water resources in the south-
ern part of the country [41]. Particularly, the widespread
activities of small scale illegal miners who employ meth-
ods that result in vegetation removal, erosion, and siltation
and sedimentation of river bodies [42] have been a ma-
jor culprit. In addition, both large- and small-scale min-
ers, as well as illegal chain-saw operators, are threaten-
ing several forest reserves with mineral resources under-
neath [41]. The role of mining in the land use changes
is particularly damaging in nature and regardless of the
method used and resources available, it affects land cover
at the site of extraction, leaving behind multiple damages
that stretch over a wide range of land. Higher amounts
of mercury, arsenic, and other poisonous substances than
are acceptable byWHO standards are found in most water
bodies around the mining areas in Ghana [43, 44].
4.2. Landscape Configuration and Composition in
the Ecoregions of Ghana
Demand for land and land-based natural resources to
support competing livelihoods and developmental activi-
ties in the different ecoregions have changed the structure
of the Ghanaian landscape [45]. These changes occur on
different scales and include modifications in size, shape,
and composition and spatial configurations of landscape
features which affect habitat fragmentation, habitat rich-
ness, habitat complexity and diversity in the ecoregions of
Ghana.
Habitat fragmentations are often accompanied by habi-
tat loss, resulting in a major impact on the regional
survival of plant species. With habitat sizes becoming
smaller across the ecoregions, plant species that prefer in-
terior habitat conditions could become more susceptible
to extinction though some level of fragmentation is actu-
ally preferred by more generalist species. If the area of
individual habitats is reduced, such species become vul-
nerable to external influences, hence affecting the survival
potential of populations in these patches [46].
The decreasedMPS, coupled with an increased number
of patches, could sometimes lead to possible decreases in
population sizes and reduction in habitat diversity [47].
This is particularly evident in the decrease in diversity
(according to the SDI) in all ecoregions except decidu-
ous forest and Sudan savannah. On the other hand, MPSs
generally reveal that habitat sizes in the closed forest and
open forest have significantly decreased, indicating the
fragmentation of the forest LC. Smaller fragments formed
may not contain interior habitat, but they support smaller
species’ populations, which tend to be vulnerable to ex-
tinction. Observed habitat shape in the Sudan savan-
nah in 2000 became the simplest in all the periods and
ecoregions studied. The formation of such simple patches
could create variability in habitat opportunity since small
patches or simple patches often do not provide the same
habitat opportunity as larger patches, particularly for or-
ganisms that prefer interior habitat conditions.
In all ecoregions, except wet evergreen and rainforest,
patches in landscape that have larger mean patch sizes
also have high shape complexity. This change in habitat
irregularity stems from the fact that large habitats some-
times show irregular shapes [48] and confirms the ob-
servation that when patches join to become larger, they
do not necessarily become simple [49]. The creation of
straight patch edges particularly at the fringes of the for-
est could be attributed to the restriction in forest depletion
to outside protected areas and sacred community groves
as required by the 1994 Ghana Forestry and Wildlife Pol-
icy [29].
The SDI and SEI are measures of diversity in a commu-
nity. The reductions in diversity for natural landscapes,
such as moist evergreen forest, wet evergreen forest, tran-
462 Journal of Disaster ResearchVol.9 No.4, 2014
Land Use and Landscape Structural Changes
in the Ecoregions of Ghana
sition zones, and coastal and Guinea savannah zones, sug-
gest a less varied landscape. The deciduous forest and
Sudan savannah recorded high diversity and could suggest
more diversity. It is not surprising that the moist evergreen
forest, wet evergreen forest, transition zone, and coastal
and Guinea savannah zones were less diverse because
these are highly fragmented regions in Ghana as they host
high number of socio-economic developments involving
urban development and mining activities. Increased frag-
mentation in the ecoregions of Ghana was associated with
loss of habitat diversity and population [47, 50, 51]. The
general increase in built-up areas and agricultural land
use expansion in almost all the ecoregions between 1990
and 2000 could be one of the main causes of fragmen-
tation. Growing urban areas and intensive agricultural
LU may narrow and separate the remaining wildlife habi-
tats [20, 38].
Long absence of disturbance or severe disturbance has
a depressing effect on diversity, though an intermediate
level of disturbance in a landscape has been reported to
enhance diversity [52]. In the Ghanaian landscape, distur-
bance from rigorous deforestation, the turning of vegeta-
tion into open lands, and increases in built-up areas over
the 10 years of the study have had a depressing effect on
landscape diversity in all ecoregions except for the decid-
uous forest and Sudan savannah. Disturbances in the de-
ciduous forest and Sudan savannah are indicated at an in-
termediate level. The intermediate disturbance hypothesis
noted above predicts that such intermediate disturbances
will result in increased diversity [53].
5. Conclusions
LU type in any area is determined by the natural and
socio-economic factors as well as the temporal and spa-
tial uses assigned to the land [31]. In the ecoregions of
Ghana, the LCCs reflect deep structural issues, involving
LU policies that exact more resources than normal from
natural landscapes. This LCCs assessment indicate that
changes in LU and landscape structure are in the form of
forest degradation, urban sprawl, agricultural expansion,
and destruction of water resources in the ecoregions of
Ghana. Although other similar studies have been carried
out, this research introduces the first attempt to make use
of tools available in GIS and remote sensing as well as
landscape ecology to expand the pattern-process relation-
ship occurring in Ghana to a country scale.
Substantial areas of closed and open forest have been
converted to non-forest land (semi-natural areas) on the
fringes. An increase in built-up areas, farmlands, open
fields, and grassland and an accompanying loss of forests
was observed across the ecoregions of Ghana [54, 55, 13].
Instances of afforestation were very rare, occurring only
in pockets in the rainforest. Demand for land and land-
based resources to support competing livelihoods and de-
velopmental activities in the different ecoregions owing to
rising urban population have brought severe losses to for-
est and agricultural lands, shrubs, barren land, and water
bodies.
In the southern and western regions of Ghana, large
and small-scale mining activities and logging (lumbering)
have been the principal causes of the changing landscape
and water resources. Though logging remains one of the
leading causes of forest degradation [56], forest loss in
Ghana varies across ecoregions. Forest in Northern Ghana
(Guinea and Sudan savannah) is lost to wild fires, charcoal
production, wood fuel harvesting, and farming.
In all ecoregions except wet evergreen and rainforest,
patches in landscape that have larger mean patch sizes
also have high shape complexity. The reduced habitat
shape complexity in most ecoregions clearly indicates in-
creased anthropogenic influences on the landscape since
human-made edges tend to be more regular in shape. In
most ecoregions except for wet evergreen and rainforest,
the availability of unaffected core patch areas may how-
ever not been reduced.
Acknowledgements
This research is carried out with the support of the CECAR Africa
project funded by JSTS/JICA.
References:
[1] Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), “Global forest resources
assessment 2010,” Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, Rome, 2010.
[2] J. Boafo, “The Impact of Deforestation on Forest Liveli-
hoods in Ghana,” Africa Portal online Library, 2013, accessed
at: http://www.africaportal.org/sites/default/files/Africa%20Portal
%20Backgrounder%20No.%2049.pdf [accessed December, 2013]
[3] A. Dinar, R. Hassan, R. Mendelsohn, and J. Benhin, “Climate
Change and Agriculture in Africa: Impact Assessment and Adapta-
tion Strategies,” London, EarthScan, 2008.
[4] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Fertil-
izer use by crop in Ghana, “Land and Plant Nutrition Management
Service Land and Water Development Division,” 2005, accessed
at ftp://ftp.fao.org/agl/agll/docs/fertuseghana.pdf [accessed March,
2008]
[5] G. Hilson, “Contextual Review of the Ghanaian Small-Scale Min-
ing Industry,” A Report Commissioned by Mining, Mineral and
Sustainable Development (MMSD), International Institute for Envi-
ronment and Development (IIED) and World Business Council for
Sustainable Development (WBSD), 2001.
[6] A. K. Braimoh and P. L. G. Vlek, “Land-Cover Change Trajectories
in Northern Ghana,” Environmental Management, Vol.36, No.3, pp.
356-373, DOI: 10.1007/s00267-004-0283-7, 2005.
[7] J. K. Teye, “Deforestation in Ghana,” Human Landscape Ecology,
Vol.9, No.21, 2005.
[8] F. D. Vescovi, S. Duadze, and G. Menz, “Use of remote sensing for
land use and natural resources investigations in the Volta Basin,”
2002.
[9] S. K. Hong, “Factors affecting landscape changes in central Korea:
cultural disturbance on the forested landscape systems,” Landscape
Ecology Applied in Land Evaluation, Development and Conserva-
tion, pp. 131-147, 2001.
[10] J. J. Wu, “Landscape Ecology,” in “Ecological Systems,” Springer,
New York, pp. 179-200, 2013.
[11] A. Botequilha Leita˜o and J. Ahern, “Applying landscape ecological
concepts and metrics in sustainable landscape planning,” Landscape
and Urban Planning, Vol.59, No.2, pp. 65-93, 2002.
[12] J. Vogt Bahati, J. Unruh, G. Green, A. Banana, W. Gombya-
Ssembajjwe, and S. N. Sweeney, “Integrating Remote Sensing Data
and Rapid Appraisals for Land-Cover Change Analysis in Uganda,”
Land Degradation & Development, Vol.17, pp. 31-43. 2006.
[13] G. A. B. Yiran, J. M. Kusimi, and S. K. Kufogbe, “A synthesis of
remote sensing and local knowledge approaches in land degrada-
tion assessment in the Bawku East District, Ghana,” International
Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, Vol.14,
No.1, pp. 204-213, 2012.
Journal of Disaster ResearchVol.9 No.4, 2014 463
Antwi, E. K. et al.
[14] E. M. Attua and E. Laing, “Land-cover mapping of the Densu
Basin: Interpretations from multi-spectral imagery,” Bulletin of
Ghana Geography Association, Vol.33, pp. 1-8, 2001.
[15] F. A. Armah, J. O. Odoi, G. T. Yengoh, S. Obiri, D. O. Yawson, and
E. K. Afrifa, “Food security and climate change in drought-sensitive
savanna zones of Ghana,” Mitigation and adaptation strategies for
global change, Vol.16, No.3, pp. 291-306. 2011.
[16] Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA), “National soil fertil-
ity management action plan,” Directorate of Crop Services, Accra,
Ghana, 1998.
[17] S. A. Ravan, P. S. Roy, and C. M. Sharma, “Accuracy Evaluation of
Digital Classification of Landsat TM Data. An Approach to Include
Phenological Stages of Tropical Dry Deciduous Forest,” Interna-
tional Journal of Ecology and Environmental Science, Vol.22, pp.
33-43. 1998.
[18] E. K. Antwi, R. Krawczynski, and G. Wiegleb, “Detecting the Ef-
fect of Disturbance on Habitat Diversity and Land Cover Change
in a Post-Mining Area Using GIS,” Landscape and Urban Planning,
Vol.87, pp. 22-32. DOI 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.03.009, 2008.
[19] M. C. Neel, K. McGarigal, and S. A. Cushman, “Behavior of class-
level landscape metrics across gradients of class aggregation and
area,” Landscape Ecology, Vol.19, No.4, pp. 435-455, 2004.
[20] R. T. Forman, “Some general principles of landscape and regional
ecology,” Landscape Ecology, Vol.10, No.3, pp. 133-142, 1995.
[21] K. McGarigal and B. J. Marks, “Spatial pattern analysis program for
quantifying landscape structure,” Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-351,
US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Research Station, 1995.
[22] J. M. Kusimi, “Assessing Land Use and Land Cover change in the
Wassa West District of Ghana using Remote sensing,” GeoJournal,
Vol.71, No.4, pp. 249-259. 2008.
[23] M. L. Parry, C. Rosenzweig, A. Iglesias, M. Livermore, and G. Fis-
cher, “Effects of Climate Change on global food production under
SRES emissions and socio-economic scenarios,” Global Environ-
mental Change, Vol.14, No.1, pp. 53-67, 2004.
[24] M. Blay, L. Appiah, Damnyag, F. K. Dwomoh, O. Luukkanen, and
A. Pappinen, “Involving local farmers in rehabilitation of degraded
tropical forests: some lessons from Ghana,” Environment, Develop-
ment and Sustainability, Vol.10, No.4, pp. 503-518, 2008.
[25] A. S. Mather and C. L Needle, “The relationships of population and
forest trends,” The Geographical Journal, Vol.166, No.1, pp. 2-13.
2000.
[26] The Forestry Commission of Ghana, “Forest and Wild life Policy,”
1994, accessed at http://www.fcghana.org/library info.php?doc=43
&publication:Forest%20&%20Wildlife%20Policy&id=15 [ac-
cessed August, 2013]
[27] K. O. Kufuor, “Forest Management in Ghana: Towards a Sustain-
able Approach,” Journal of African Law, Vol.44, No.1, pp. 52-64,
2000.
[28] Ministry of Land and Natural Resources, “Ghana Forest and
Wildlife Policy,” Accra, 2012.
[29] Ministry of Lands and Forestry, “Ghana Forest and Wildlife Policy,”
Accra, 1994.
[30] J. S. Nabila, “Urbanization in Ghana, Legon,” University of Ghana,
1988.
[31] B. Rimal, “Application of Remote Sensing and GIS, Land use/Land
cover Change in Kathmandu Metropolitan City, Nepal,” Journal
of Theoretical & Applied Information Technology, Vol.23, No.2,
2011.
[32] A. D. M. Thuo, “Community and social responses to land use trans-
formations in the Nairobi rural-urban fringe, Kenya,” Field Actions
Science Reports, Journal of Field Actions, Special Issue 1, 2010.
[33] R. Grant, “Globalizing City: The Urban and Economic Transfor-
mation of Accra, Ghana,” New York: Syracuse University Press,
2009.
[34] Ghana Statistical Service, “2010 population and housing census.
Summary Report of Final Results,” Accra, Ghana, May, 2012.
[35] IFPRI, “Agriculture for Development in Ghana: New Opportunities
and Challenges,” IFPRI Discussion Paper 00784, August 2008.
[36] I. A. N. Spellerberg, “Ecological effects of roads and traffic: a liter-
ature review,” Global Ecology and Biogeography, Vol.7, No.5, pp.
317-333, 1998.
[37] S. C. Trombulak and C. A. Frissell, “Review of ecological effects
of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities,” Conservation bi-
ology, Vol.14, No.1, pp. 18-30, 2000.
[38] R. B. Hammer, S. I. Stewart, R. L. Winkler, V. C. Radeloff, and P.
R. Voss, “Characterizing dynamic spatial and temporal residential
density patterns from 1940-1990 across the North Central United
States,” Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol.69, No.2, pp. 183-199,
2004.
[39] M. J. Paul and J. L. Meyer, “STREAMS IN THE URBAN LAND-
SCAPE,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, Vol.32,
No.1, pp. 333-365, 2001.
[40] L. Hens and E. K. Boon, “Institutional, legal, and economic instru-
ments in Ghana’s environmental policy,” Environmental manage-
ment, Vol.24, No.3, pp. 337-351. 1999.
[41] G. Hilson and F. Nyame, “Gold mining in Ghana’s forest reserves:
a report on the current debate,” Area, Vol.38, No.2, pp. 175-185.
2006.
[42] G. Hilson, “An overview of land use conflicts in mining communi-
ties,” Land use policy, Vol.19, No.1, pp. 65-73. 2002.
[43] Y. Serfor-Armah, B. J. B. Nyarko, S. B. Dampare, and D. Ado-
mako, “Levels of arsenic and antimony in water and sediment from
Prestea, a gold mining town in Ghana and its environs,” Water, Air,
and Soil Pollution, Vol.175, Nos.1-4, pp. 181-192, 2006.
[44] G. Hilson, C. J. Hilson, and S. Pardie, “Improving awareness of
mercury pollution in small-scale gold mining communities: chal-
lenges and ways forward in rural Ghana,” Environmental Research,
Vol.103, No.2, pp. 275-287. 2007.
[45] K. A. Braimoh and L. G. P. Vlek, “Land-Cover Dynamics in an
Urban Area of Ghana,” Earth Interactions, Vol.8, No.1, 2003.
[46] D. A. Saunders, R. J. Hobbs, and C. R. Margules, “Biological con-
sequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review,” Conservation bi-
ology, Vol.5, No.1, pp. 18-32, 1991.
[47] P. A. Zuidema, J. A. Sayer, and W. Dijkman, “Forest fragmentation
and biodiversity: the case for intermediate-sized conservation ar-
eas,” Environmental conservation, Vol.23, No.4, pp. 290-297, 1996.
[48] D. Moser, H. G. Zechmeister, C. Plutzar, N. Sauberer, T. Wrbka,
and G. Grabherr, “Landscape patch shape complexity as an effective
measure for plant species richness in rural landscapes,” Landscape
Ecology, Vol.17, No.7, pp. 657-669, 2002.
[49] W. E. Dramstad, W. J. Fjellstad, and G. L. A. Fry, “Landscape in-
dices – useful tools or misleading numbers?” in: J. W. Dover, R. G.
H. Bunce (Eds.), “Key concepts in landscape ecology,” Proc. of the
1998 European Congress of IALE, IALE (UK), September 3, 1998,
pp. 63-68. 1998.
[50] R. M. Hulshoff, “Landscape indices describing a Dutch landscape,”
Landscape Ecology, Vol.10, No.2, pp. 101-111. 1995.
[51] P. M. Vitousek, H. A. Mooney, J. Lubchenco, and J. M. Melillo,
“Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems,” Science, Vol.277,
No.5325, pp. 494-499, 1997.
[52] T. A. Pickett and P. S. White, “Patch dynamics: a synthesis,” 1985.
[53] K. Johst and A. Huth, “Testing the intermediate disturbance hypoth-
esis: when will there be two peaks of diversity?,” Diversity and Dis-
tributions, Vol.11, No.1, pp. 111-120, 2005.
[54] B. McCusker and E. R Carr, “The co-production of livelihoods and
land use change: Case studies from South Africa and Ghana,” Geo-
forum, Vol.37, pp. 790-804, 2006.
[55] R. Grant, “Globalizing City: The Urban and Economic Transfor-
mation of Accra, Ghana,” New York: Syracuse University Press,
2009.
[56] V. Bellassen and V. Gitz, “Reducing emissions from deforestation
and degradation in Cameroon – assessing costs and benefits,” Eco-
logical Economics, Vol.68, No.1, pp. 336-344, 2008.
[57] M. Garbarino, E. Sibona, and E. Lingua, “Decline of traditional
landscape in a protected area of the southwestern Alps: the fate
of enclosed pasture patches in the land mosaic shift,” Journal of
Mountain Science, Vol.11, No.2, 2014.
[58] S. Abudulai, “Perceptions of land rights, rural-urban land use dy-
namics and policy development,” in “Managing Land Tenure and
Resource Access in West Africa,” Proceedings of a Regional Work-
shop in Gore´e, Senegal, International Institute for Environment and
Development, London, November, 1996.
[59] K. Kasanga. “Land Resource Management for Agricultural Devel-
opment in Ghana,” London, RICS Foundation, 2001.
[60] J. A. Jaeger, R. Bertiller, C. Schwick, K. Mu¨ller, C. Steinmeier,
K. C. Ewald, and J. Ghazoul, “Implementing landscape fragmenta-
tion as an indicator in the Swiss Monitoring System of Sustainable
Development (MONET),” Journal of Environmental Management,
Vol.88, No.4, pp. 737-751, 2008.
464 Journal of Disaster ResearchVol.9 No.4, 2014
Land Use and Landscape Structural Changes
in the Ecoregions of Ghana
Name:
Effah Kwabena Antwi
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Integrated Research System
for Sustainability Science (IR3S), The Univer-
sity of Tokyo
Visiting Fellow, United Nations University – In-
stitute for Advanced Study of Sustainability
Address:
7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8654, Japan
Brief Career:
2001-2005 Researcher and MSc. Student, Department of General Ecology,
Brandenburg University of Technology, Germany
2006-2009 Doctoral Candidate and Assistant Lecturer, Department of
General Ecology, Brandenburg University of Technology, Germany
2008-2011 Teaching Assistant, Department of Geography, University of
Ghana, Legon
2009-2011 JSPS Postdoctoral Fellow United Nations University-Institute
for Advanced Study of Sustainability, Integrated Research System for
Sustainability Science (IR3S), The University of Tokyo
2011 MSc. Degree, Institute of Sustainability and Peace, United Nations
University
2011-2014 Project Assistant Professor, IR3S, University of Tokyo
Visiting Fellow, United Nations University-Institute for Advanced Study
of Sustainability
Selected Publications:
• “Assessing Landcover Changes from Coastal Tourism Development in
Ghana: Evidence from the Kokrobite – Bortianor Coastline, Accra,” Civil
and Environmental Research, Vol.6, No.6, 2014 (co-authored).
• E. K. Antwi, R. Krawczynski, and G. Wiegleb, “Detecting the Effect of
Disturbance on Habitat Diversity and Land Cover Change in a Post-Mining
Area Using GIS,” Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol.87, pp. 22-32, 2008.
•R. Krawczynski and E. K. Antwi, “Reversed Succession in Post-Mining
Landscape and Possible Causes,” Biological Studies, Vol.39, pp. 48-58,
Luckau, Germany, 2010.
Academic Societies & Scientific Organizations:
• Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS)
• Member, Evaluation and Selection Committee, the MIDORI Prize for
Biodiversity
Name:
John Boakye-Danquah
Affiliation:
Teaching Assistant, Department of Geography
and Resource Development, University of Ghana
Address:
P.O.Box LG 59, Legon-Accra, Ghana
Brief Career:
2007- B.A. Degree (Hons), University of Ghana
2008-2011 Teaching Assistant, Department of Geography, University of
Ghana, Legon
2011- M.Sc. Degree, Institute of Sustainability and Peace, United Nations
University
Selected Publications:
• J. Boakye-Danquah, “The Impact of Agriculture Land Use Change and
Farm Management Practices on Soil Organic Carbon Sequestration
Potential: The Case of Savannah Regions of Northern Ghana,” M.Sc.
Dissertation, The United Nations University – Institute of Sustainability
and Peace (UNU-ISP), July, 2013.
Academic Societies & Scientific Organizations:
• African Studies Association of Australasia and the Pacific (AFSAAP)
Name:
Stephen Boahen Asabere
Affiliation:
Ph.D. Student, Department of Geosceinces,
Technische Universitaet Dresden
Address:
01062 Dresden, Germany
Brief Career:
2007-2008 Intern, Resource Management Support Center
2008-2009 Forestry Commission Ghana
Academic Societies & Scientific Organizations:
• International Association of Landscape Ecology, Germany (IALE)
• African Association of Remote Sensing of the Environment (AARSE)
• International Association of Bamboo and Rattan (IABR)
Name:
Gerald A. B. Yiran
Affiliation:
Assitant Lecturer, Department of Geography and
Resource Development, University of Ghana
Address:
P.O.BOX LG 59, Legon-Accra, Ghana
Brief Career:
2001-2009 Senior Cartographer, Department of Geography and Resource
Development, University of Ghana
2009-present Assistant Lecturer, Department of Geography and Resource
Development, University of Ghana
2011-present Ph.D. Student, Department of Geography and Resource
Development, University of Ghana
Selected Publications:
• E. A. Gyasi, G. Kranjac-Berisavljevic, M. Fosu, A. M. Mensah, G.
Yiran, and I. Fuseini, “Managing Threats and Opportunities of
Urbanisation for Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture in Tamale, Ghana,” In:
“The Security of Water, Food, Energy and Liveability of Cities:
Challenges and Opportunities for Peri-Urban Futures,” B. Maheshwari, R.
Purohit, H. Malano, V. P. Singh, and P. Amerasinghe (Eds.), Springer,
Vol.71, pp. 87-97, 2014.
• G. A. B. Yiran, J. M. Kusimi, and S. K. Kufogbe, “A synthesis of remote
sensing and local knowledge approaches in land degradation assessment in
the Bawku East District, Ghana,” International Journal of Applied Earth
Observation and Geoinformation, Vol.14, pp. 204-213, 2012.
• S. M. Yidana, G. A. B. Yiran, P. A. Sakyi, P. M. Nude, and B.
Banoeng-Yakubo, “Groundwater Evolution in the Voltaian Basin, Ghana –
An application of multivariate statistical analyses to hydrochemical data,”
Natural Science Journal, Vol.3, No.10, pp. 837-854 , 2011.
Academic Societies & Scientific Organizations:
• Next Generation of Researchers, Africa (NGR)
• Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy (CCCEP), University
of Leeds, UK
Journal of Disaster ResearchVol.9 No.4, 2014 465
Antwi, E. K. et al.
Name:
Seyram Kofi Loh
Affiliation:
University of Ghana Office, Climate and Ecosys-
tem Change Adaptation and Resilience Research
(CECAR-AFRICA)
Address:
P.O.Box LG 59, Legon-Accra, Ghana
Brief Career:
2009- Teaching/Research Assistant, College of Agriculture and Natural
Resource Management, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and
Technology (KNUST)
2012- Remote Sensing Data Analyst, Centre for Remote Sensing and
Geographic Information Services (CERSGIS), University of Ghana-Legon
(www.cersgis.org)
2013- GIS Research Assistant, Climate and Ecosystem Change Adaptation
and Resilience Research (CECAR-AFRICA), University of Ghana, Legon,
Accra
Academic Societies & Scientific Organizations:
• Centre for Geospatial Analysis and Mapping (CEGAM)
Name:
Kwabena Gyekye Awere
Affiliation:
Lecturer, University of Ghana
Address:
P.O.BOX LG 57 Legon, Ghana
Brief Career:
Worked at EPA Ghana for six years as Programme Officer
Completed Ph.D. in 2005 from St. Petersburg State University
Joined University of Ghana in 2006 as Lecturer
Selected Publications:
• A. K. Gyekye, “An Assessment of Toxic in Urban Soils Using Garden
Cress, (Lepidium sativum) in Vasileostrovsky Ostrov and Elagin Ostrov,
Saint Petersburg, Russia,” Journal of Geography and Geology, Vol.5, No.4,
Canadian Center of Science and Education, pp. 75-100, 2013.
• A. K. Gyekye, “Environmental Change and Flooding in Accra, Ghana.
Sacha Journal of Environmental Studies,” Vol.3, No.1, London, United
Kingdom, pp. 65-80, 2013.
• A. K. Gyekye, “Chemical characteristics of urban soils of
Vasileostrovsky Ostrov and Elagin Ostrov, St Petersburg, Russia,” West
Africa Applied Ecology, Vol.21, No.2, pp. 121-133, 2013.
• A. K. Gyekye, J. M. Kusimi, and A. B. Yiran Gerald,
“Geomorphological Processes and Landforms of the Coastal
Environment,” In G. Owusu, S. Agyei-Mensah, P. W. K. Yankson, and E.
M. Attua (Eds.), Selected Readings in Geography Reader, Accra Woeli
Publishing Services, pp. 248-264, 2013.
Academic Societies & Scientific Organizations:
• Geographical Society of Ghana (GSG)
Name:
Felix K. Abagale
Affiliation:
Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Agriculture, Univer-
sity for Development Studies
Address:
P.O.Box 1350, Tamale, Ghana
Brief Career:
Lecturing in the Faculty of Agriculture, with special interest in
Agrometeorology and Environmental Management, with about 7 years of
experience. He has several scientific reseacrh articles in the area of
environment, waste, soil and water to his credit.
Selected Publications:
• F. K. Abagale, N. Kyei-Baffour, and E. Ofori, “Degradation of the Nasia
River Basin in Northern Ghana,” Ghana Journal of Development Studies
(GJDS), Vol.6, No.1, 2009.
• K. Unami, T. Kawachi, G. Kranjac-Berisavljevic, F. K. Abagale, S.
Maeda, and J. Takeuchi, “Case study: Hydraulic Modeling Of Runoff
Processes In Ghanaian Inland Valleys,” Journal of Hydraulic Engineering,
America Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Vol.135, No.7, pp. 539-553,
2009.
Academic Societies & Scientific Organizations:
• Ghana Science Association (GSA)
Name:
Kwabena Owusu Asubonteng
Affiliation:
Institute for Natural Resources in Africa (UNU-
INRA), United Nations University
Address:
Annie Jiagge Road, University of Ghana Campus, Legon-Accra, Ghana
Brief Career:
2007- Sustainable Land Management Project, Ghana
2009- APERL GIS Training and Research Centre, KNUST Sunyani
Campus, Ghana
2011- Geo-Information Analyst, UNU-INRA, Ghana
Selected Publications:
• A. T. Koomson and K. O. Asubonteng, “Collaborative governance in
extractive industries in Africa,” United Nations University Institute for
Natural Resources in Africa, Accra, 2013.
• D. Tutu-Benefoh, S. Oppong, K. O. Asubonteng, L. Addae-Wireko, and
E. Acheampong, “Rapid assessment of non-market values of carbon
sequestration services from rural community-actors in Ghana,” American
Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research, 2010.
Academic Societies & Scientific Organizations:
• Ghana Institute of Professional Foresters (GIPF)
466 Journal of Disaster ResearchVol.9 No.4, 2014
Land Use and Landscape Structural Changes
in the Ecoregions of Ghana
Name:
Emmanuel Morgan Attua
Affiliation:
Senior Lecturer, Department of Geography and
Resource Development, University of Ghana
Address:
P. O. Box LG 59, Legon, Accra, Ghana
Brief Career:
1996-2000 Research Assistant/Teacher Demonstrator, Department of
Botany, University of Ghana, Legon
2000-2006 Lecturer, Department of Geography and Resource
Development, University of Ghana, Legon
2007-present Senior Lecturer, Department of Geography and Resource
Development, University of Ghana, Legon
2008 Commonwealth Visiting Scholar, University of Oxford, United
Kingdom
Selected Publications:
• “Relating Land Use and Land Cover to Surface Water Quality in the
Densu River basin, Ghana,” International Journal of River basin
Management, Vol.12, No.1, pp. 57-68, March, 2014.
• “Historical and future land cover change in a municipality of Ghana,”
Earth Interactions, Vol.15, No.9, pp. 1-26, 2011.
• “Rehabilitation of forest-savannas in Ghana: The impacts of land use,
shade, and invasive species on tree recruitment,” Applied Geography,
Vol.31, No.1, pp. 181-190, 2011.
• “Sustainable land-use evaluation on steep landscapes and flood plains in
the New Juaben district of Ghana: A GIS Approach,” Ghana Journal of
Geography, Vol.1, pp. 115-134, 2009.
Academic Societies & Scientific Organizations:
• Ghana Geographical Association (GGA)
• Ghana Science Association (GSA)
• University Teachers Association, Ghana (UTAG)
Name:
Alex Barimah Owusu
Affiliation:
Lecturer, Department of Geography and Re-
source Development, University of Ghana
Address:
LG 59, Legon, Ghana
Brief Career:
2006-2009 Research Assistant, Department of Geography and
Geoinformation Science; George Mason University, Fairfax VA, USA
2007-2008 Adjunct Professor, Department of Humanities and Social
Sciences; Northern Virginia Community College, Alexandria VA, USA
2010-present Lecturer, Department of Geography and Resource
Development; University of Ghana, Legon
Selected Publications:
• A. B. Owusu, “Measuring Desertification in continuum: Normalized
Difference Vegetation Index-based Study in the Upper East Region,
Ghana,” Journal of Civil and Environmental Research, Vol.3, No.12, pp.
157-170, 2013.
• A. B. Owusu, S. Frimpong, and S. Abrokwah, “Analysis of the Spatial
and Temporal Dynamics of Street Hawking: A Case Study of the Accra
Metropolitan Area,” Journal of Geography and Geology, Vol.4, No.4, pp.
1-12, 2013.
• A. B. Owusu, “Detecting and Quantifying Desertification in the Upper
East Region, Ghana using Multi spatial and multi temporal Normalized
Difference Vegetation Index,” Journal of Environment and Earth Science,
Vol.3, No.10, pp. 62-78, 2013.
• A. B. Owusu, C. Guido, and S. L. Beach, “Analysis of Desertification in
the Upper East Region (UER), Ghana using remote sensing, field study
and local knowledge,” Cartographica, pp. 1-24, 2013.
Academic Societies & Scientific Organizations:
• Association of American Geographers (AAG)
• Ghana Geographical Association (GGA)
• Borlaug Norman LEAP Fellowship
Journal of Disaster ResearchVol.9 No.4, 2014 467