<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">JGIS</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Journal of Geographic Information System</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2151-1950</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/jgis.2022.146037</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">JGIS-122248</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Earth&amp;Environmental Sciences</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Identifying the Rates and Drivers of Spatiotemporal Patterns of Land Use and Land Cover Changes in the Hurungwe District, Zimbabwe: A GIS and Remote Sensing Approach
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Spencer</surname><given-names>Sibanda</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Satoshi</surname><given-names>Tsuyuki</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Department of Global Agricultural Sciences, Graduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan</addr-line></aff><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>09</day><month>12</month><year>2022</year></pub-date><volume>14</volume><issue>06</issue><fpage>652</fpage><lpage>679</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>6,</day>	<month>November</month>	<year>2022</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>27,</day>	<month>December</month>	<year>2022</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>30,</day>	<month>December</month>	<year>2022</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  Identifying spatiotemporal patterns of land use and land cover changes (LULCC) and their impacts on the natural environment is essential in policy decisions for effective, sustainable natural resource management solutions. This study employed supervised image classification in Google Earth Engine (GEE) cloud-based platform to assess the land cover land use changes for the past 30 years (1989-2020), as well as predict the land cover states and the risk of future forest loss in the next ten years, using TerrSet 20 software in Hurungwe district, Zimbabwe. The study findings revealed a net forest area and shrub loss of 32% and 10%, while croplands, water bodies, and bare lands have increased by about 171%, 7%, and 119% between 1989 and 2020, respectively. Croplands are the major contributor to the net change in forests, particularly tobacco farming. The predictive model estimated that by 2030 the district would lose approximately 7% of the current forest cover area, most likely converted into croplands, shrubs, and settlements. The results reinforce the importance of bridging the gap between socioeconomic activities and institutional policies to ensure proper natural resource management. Integrating institutional policy and socioeconomic goals is indispensable to ensure sustainable development.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Land Use and Land Cover Change</kwd><kwd> Cellular Automata-Markov</kwd><kwd> Tobacco Farming</kwd><kwd> Drivers of Deforestation</kwd><kwd> Geographic Information System</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>Extreme environmental concerns, such as global warming and pressures of rapid population growth, have overseen a growing interest in land use and land cover changes (LULCC) studies in different parts of the globe, with a particular interest in developing countries [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref1">1</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref2">2</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref3">3</xref>]. Given the greater demands for natural resources in the present and the near future, a better understanding of LULCC is fundamental in designing sustainable and robust land management strategies and policy decisions [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref4">4</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref5">5</xref>]. The continuous monitoring and assessment of LULCC provide essential information on the patterns of change in natural resources. It also lays the foundation for effective management and mitigation measures for sustainable natural resource planning.</p><p>Unfortunately, most developing countries have insufficient documentation of land use and land cover changes (LULCC) driven by human activities. These anthropogenic activities include agriculture, urban development, deforestation, and other socioeconomic activities such as mining and brickmaking. Land use land cover change is also one of the primary causes of biodiversity loss and rising CO<sub>2</sub> emissions. It can accelerate global climate change and land degradation, reducing ecosystem services and functions [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref6">6</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref7">7</xref>]. In the context of global warming, deforestation is notably the most significant contributor to anthropogenic carbon emissions. It accounts for 10% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref8">8</xref>], and the IPCC predicts an upsurge in the concentration of CO<sub>2</sub> in the coming years due to increased anthropogenic activities [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref9">9</xref>]. Consequently, deforestation is a genuine concern and threat in many parts of the world, particularly developing countries [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref10">10</xref>]. In light of this, quantifying LULCC and identifying the rates and causes of deforestation is fundamental in designing practical land management policy instruments and incentives for programs such as Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref4">4</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref5">5</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref11">11</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref12">12</xref>].</p><p>Rapid LULCC directly impacts humanity and the environment [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref13">13</xref>]. Deforestation, due to LULCC, is a severe environmental and socioeconomic problem occurring at all scales (global, regional, and local). Several studies have applied GIS and remote sensing data to quantify LULCC from remotely sensed data in Zimbabwe. It is also used to predict the extent and rates of deforestation, especially over large areas [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref1">1</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref14">14</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref15">15</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref16">16</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref17">17</xref>]. Remote sensing is an effective tool for managing the earth’s surface and monitoring LULCC by providing spatiotemporal information on land use land cover (forest, grassland, settlement, water, and cropland) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref18">18</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref19">19</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref20">20</xref>].</p><p>Located in the northwestern part of Zimbabwe, Hurungwe district, over the past few decades (1989-2020), has been experiencing rapid modification and alterations in the LULC through increased anthropogenic activities such as agriculture, fuel wood extraction, mining, and other socioeconomic activities [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref1">1</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref15">15</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref21">21</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref22">22</xref>]. Deforestation due to expanding agricultural activities to meet a fast-growing agro-based population is also prevalent [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref23">23</xref>]. Agricultural activities, particularly tobacco farming, have been identified as the primary drivers responsible for LULC transformation, given the area’s favorable farming conditions, good soil quality, specialization in crop farming, and intensive livestock rearing [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref15">15</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref24">24</xref>]. Furthermore, following the agrarian and land reform programs initiated in 1999/2000, there has been a considerable increase in farmlands and settlement development [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref25">25</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref26">26</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref27">27</xref>]. However, the croplands’ continued expansion and the forest degradation for fuel wood to cure tobacco and other socioeconomic activities are not in line with the country’s ever-growing population [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref23">23</xref>]. There is also a lack of awareness among key stakeholders (policymakers and civil society) to account for the multiple and often interacting drivers and impacts of LULCC in fostering sustainable land and environmental management.</p><p>Despite the growing environmental concerns about tobacco farming and LULCC on sustainable development and local environmental changes [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref24">24</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref28">28</xref>] - [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref36">36</xref>], studies on LULCC in the Hurungwe district are nonexistent. Most studies on LULCC in Zimbabwe are spatially concentrated in major cities, focusing on the urban sprawl dynamics [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref16">16</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref37">37</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref38">38</xref>]. However, natural resource availability, dynamics, and management differ temporarily and spatially. Likewise, factors driving LULCC depend on humans’ exact conditions and environments [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref16">16</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref39">39</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref40">40</xref>]. The magnitude and dynamics of these changes have not been extensively studied in the study area. Little is known about the spatiotemporal dimensions of the LULC changes that have modified and shaped the Hurungwe district. There is little research work quantifying and predicting LULC changes and forest cover loss over time in the region. More evidence is required to understand the human or climate-induced changes of a subtropical landscape, the present status of the landscape, the extent and rate of change, and the impact of the reported changes.</p><p>To address this scarcity in literature, the integration of remote sensing (RS) and geographical information system (GIS) data will provide great potential for monitoring and predicting LULCC and future forest cover loss [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref41">41</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref42">42</xref>]. Therefore, it is of utmost importance to investigate LULCC so that the impact can be detected and corrective measures for sustainable land use planning can be devised [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref16">16</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref37">37</xref>]. The present study will attempt to identify and predict the spatiotemporal pattern of LULCC for Hurungwe district using geospatial data to enable decision-makers to understand the dynamics of the changing environment and ensure sustainable development. Therefore, based on remote sensing data, this research aims to quantify land-cover change processes and generate land-cover change projections using the Markov-based model to predict the risk of future forest loss in Hurungwe district and its drivers for successive Landsat imageries of the study period (1989 - 2020).</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Materials and Methods</title><sec id="s2_1"><title>2.1. Description of the Study Area</title><p>The study was conducted in the Hurungwe district, situated in the north-western part of Zimbabwe and is one of six districts that make up Mashonaland West. It is the largest district in the area, with a total area of 19,678.34 km<sup>2</sup>, and lies between 16˚S and 17˚S and 29˚E and 30˚E (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>). Zimbabwe is divided into five agroecological regions based on biophysical, climatic conditions and different agricultural productivity potentials. The quality and fertility of the soil and precipitation regimes decline from region I to V, respectively [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref43">43</xref>]. Our study area is located within [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref41">41</xref>] zone II, with an average annual precipitation of 750 mm-1000 mm [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref42">42</xref>]; the site is predominantly under smallholder farming. The main crops grown in the area include flue-cured tobacco, maize, cotton, wheat, soybeans, sorghum, and groundnuts [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref42">42</xref>] Hurungwe district was selected because it has one of the highest forest loss rates in Zimbabwe. According to Global Forest Watch (GFW), from 2001 to 2021, Hurungwe lost 3.52 kha tree cover, corresponding to a 100% decrease since 2000 and 12% of the global total [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref44">44</xref>]. Additionally, the Hurungwe district was chosen because this is where large-scale farming is most viable, given the favorable biophysical and climatic conditions relative to most places of the country.</p></sec><sec id="s2_2"><title>2.2. Methods</title><p>Google Earth Engine (GEE) was used to map out temporal and spatial changes</p><p>in the study area during 1989 - 2020. Google Earth Engine is an open-access cloud-based geospatial processing platform that enables researchers and practitioners to detect changes, map trends, and quantify differences using remote sensing (RS) data [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref45">45</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref46">46</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref47">47</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref48">48</xref>] Specifically, in this study, GEE was used to perform image collection, supervised classification, and accuracy assessment using machine learning algorithms (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>).</p><p>The CA-Markov chain model in IDRISI GIS in TerrSet 2020 was then used to simulate and predict the future land cover states of different land cover classes. Land use and land cover (LULC) maps of 2002 and 2010, digital elevation model</p><p>(DEM), distance from roads, forest disturbance map 2010, and rivers were among the spatial driver variables used to run the simulation and prediction processes. LULC maps of 2002 and 2010 were used to generate a transitional matrix using the Markov change modeler, while slope, road, and elevation maps were used to create potential transitional maps. Both datasets were combined to predict future forest loss using the CA-Markov chain model (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="s2_3"><title>2.3. Image Collection</title><p>This study used Landsat 5 Thematic Mapper (TM), Landsat 7 Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus (ETM+), and Landsat 8 Operational Land Imager (OLI) image collections with 30 m spatial resolution (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>) to generate LULC maps. All images consist of tier 1 Landsat collections scenes with the highest available data quality. Classifications were performed annually, with individual scripts and datasets for each year (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="s2_4"><title>2.4. Image Pre-Processing</title><p>The satellite images for 1989, 2002, 2010, and 2020 were used in this study (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>). The assessment was based on a 10-year interval trend analysis. The time interval was based on image availability, institutional and policy changes in Zimbabwe, and the assumption that the specified trend analysis would provide quantifiable and noticeable differences. Therefore, limiting the time frame of the image collections to post-rainy, thus between April to July (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>); given that during this period, there is less cloud cover interference, and the vegetation density is the highest; therefore, images of these months could enhance the spectral separability between complicated land cover classes such as shrubland, cropland, and bareland. Finally, the images were orthorectified to a Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) projection using the World Geodetic System (WGS) 84 datum. The study area is spread over 4 Landsat images with the Path/Row 171/71-2 (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>). The pre-processed images were mosaicked and clipped to remain within the area of interest for image classification.</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Image collection details</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Year</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Sensor</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Path/Row</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Resolution (m)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Period of collection</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1989</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Landsat 5 Thematic Mapper (TM)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >171/71-72</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10/05/89-10/06/89</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2002</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Landsat 7 Enhanced Thematic Mapper (ETM+)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >171/71-72</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16/05/02-30/07/02</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2010</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Landsat 5 Thematic Mapper Plus (TM)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >171/71-72</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10/04/10-05/05/10</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2020</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Landsat 8 Operational Land Imager (OLI)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >171/71-72</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20/04/20-30/04/20</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></sec><sec id="s2_5"><title>2.5. Image Classification, Classification Features, Accuracy Assessment, and Change Detection</title><p>It is important to include the most optimal features in the classification to obtain highly accurate LULC maps [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref46">46</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref49">49</xref>]. Based on our pilot classification analysis, we could identify classification input features that significantly improved the accuracy levels of the classified maps for the study area. The features listed in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref> (23 features in total) have the highest potential to discriminate various land cover classes and, thus, were used in this study. Spectral bands and indices, terrain variables and Gray-Level Co-occurrence Matrix texture features of the images were used in the training random forest classifier in GEE (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>). For instance, the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) is the most noteworthy feature for identifying vegetation, an essential characteristic of forest and non-forest discrimination [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref50">50</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref51">51</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref52">52</xref>].</p><p>Classifications were performed annually, with individual scripts and datasets for each year. Furthermore, the pilot classification revealed spectral confusion challenges within selected classes (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>). The problem of within-class variability in the classification was addressed by subdividing classes according to similar spectral characteristics, and the subclasses were later merged. For example, shrubs were wrongly classified as cropland, while bare land areas were misclassified</p><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Image collection details Features applied to the classifications in this study</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Satellite</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Feature</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Name of Feature</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >Thematic Mapper (TM)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Spectral bands</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >B1 (Blue), B2 (Green), B3 (Red), B4(NIR), B5 (SWIR1), B7 (SWIR2)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Spectral indices</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >NDVI, NDWI, SAVI, SR, NDBI, EVI, and BSI.</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Terrain features</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope and Digital Elevation Model</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >GLCM texture features</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Angular Second Moment, Entropy, Dissimilarity, Contrast, Correlation, Variance, Cluster Shade, and Inverse Difference Moment</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus (ETM+)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Spectral bands</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >B1 (Blue), B2 (Green), B3 (Red), B4(NIR), B5 (SWIR1), B7 (SWIR2)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Spectral indices</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >NDVI, NDWI, SAVI, SR, NDBI, EVI, and BSI.</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Terrain features</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope and Digital Elevation Model</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >GLCM texture features</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Angular Second Moment, Entropy, Dissimilarity, Contrast, Correlation, Variance, Cluster Shade, and Inverse Difference Moment</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="4"  >Operational Land Imager (OLI)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Spectral bands</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Band 2 (Blue), Band 3 (Green), Band 4 (Red), Band 5 (NIR), Band 6 (SWIR1), Band 7 (SWIR2)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Spectral indices</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >NDVI, NDWI, SAVI, SR, NDBI, EVI and BSI.</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Terrain features</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Slope and Digital Elevation Model</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >GLCM texture features</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Angular Second Moment, Entropy, Dissimilarity, Contrast, Correlation, Variance, Cluster Shade, and Inverse Difference Moment</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>B: Band, NIR: Near Infrared, SWIR: Shortwave Infrared; NDWI: Normalized Difference Water Index; NDVI: Normalized Difference Vegetation Index; SAVI: Soil Adjusted Vegetation Index; NDSI: Normalized Difference Soil Index; SR: Simple Ratio; EVI: Enhanced Vegetation Index; BSI: Bare Soil Index; GLCM: Gray-Level Co-occurrence Matrix.</p><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Definitions of the land cover classes mapped in this research</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Land cover class</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Description</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Forest</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >All wooded areas with 5% - 20% tree canopy cover. This class includes riverine vegetation with sparse grass cover, mainly perennial species.</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cropland</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >This class includes areas currently under crop, orchards, and fallow, and in addition land under irrigation, cultivated land or land being prepared for raising crops. Physical boundaries are broadly defined to encompass the main areas of agricultural activity.</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Water</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Streams, rivers, ponds, dams, and reservoirs.</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Shrubs</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sparse woodland or scattered trees about 100 m apart, giving a canopy cover of about 2% - 10% with a tree height greater than 5 m. This class also includes a varying density of small shrubs and bushes about 2 m in height. The grass cover is well developed and continuous due to the low canopy cover. Grazing land is also included in this class.</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bareland</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Non-vegetated areas such as artificial structures or areas with minimal vegetation cover. bare natural soil, sand, rocky areas, temporary bare land, and settlements.</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>as dry cropland or vice versa.</p></sec><sec id="s2_6"><title>2.6. Classification</title><p>To map LULC temporal and spatial changes, supervised classification was applied using the random forest classifier based on an extensive literature review and used in Google Earth Engine [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref46">46</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref47">47</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref53">53</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref54">54</xref>]. Random forest was used due to its high classification accuracy and stability [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref45">45</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref55">55</xref>]. The five thematic classes adopted in the classification were 1) forest; 2) cropland; 3) water; 4) shrubs mixed with bush and grassland; 5) bareland, including bare natural soil, sand, rocky areas, temporary non vegetated areas, and settlements were identified from the images. The classification scheme (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>) is based on the Zimbabwe Forestry Commission’s vegetation and non-vegetation guidelines, high-resolution data from Google Earth Pro, Forest Cover Change (GFCC) Hansen (2000, 2005, 2010 and 2020), aerial photos and field observation of the study area. Considering that the primary objective of this study was to quantify forest loss over the years; therefore, the adopted classes were broad. The decision to use a broad classification scheme is supported by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref56">56</xref>], who argued for using more general categories when trying to meet predetermined accuracy standards (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>). An overall accuracy higher than 85% was accepted as adequate for this study, following Anderson, Hardy, Roach, and Witmer (1976) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref57">57</xref>].</p></sec><sec id="s2_7"><title>2.7. Change Detection</title><p>Change detection assessment was conducted for all the classified maps to quantify the changes in LULC in the Hurungwe district over 30 years. Differences were detected based on statistics from 1989 to 2002, 2002 to 2010, 2010 to 2020, and 1989-2020 in QGIS 3.26.1. (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>). The change analysis was carried out to determine the multi-temporary differences in land cover classes and how the transformations in each land cover class drove forest cover loss in the study area.</p></sec><sec id="s2_8"><title>2.8. Expert and Smallholder Farmers Interviews</title><p>Questionnaire surveys were designed to assess critical informants’ perceptions of the causes of deforestation and LULCC. A literature review and policy document analysis were done to identify the key stakeholders in Zimbabwe’s tobacco farming sector. Based on this list, key experts from different stakeholders were contacted for interviews. Based on consent and availability, fifty-three experts from tobacco purchasing companies, civil society, government officials, academic experts, consulting firms, and NGOs were interviewed (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>). To undertake the household survey, we contacted the Department of Agricultural Technical and Extension Services (Agritex) and the Tobacco Industry Marketing Board (TIMB) to collect information related to tobacco production rates and the number of farmers in the district. After collecting the farmers’ lists, we selected the sample size according to Cochran’s formula [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref58">58</xref>]. Hurungwe district had a total of 33,451 registered tobacco farmers in 2021. Per the formula, the sample size determined for this study is presented;</p><p>n = z 2 p q e 2 = 2.6 2 ( 0.5 ) ( 0.5 ) 0.10 2 = 169</p><p>where n is the sample size, z represents the critical value 2.6% at a 99% confidence interval, and p is the proportion of the smallholder farmers participating in tobacco farming. According to Cochran (1977) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref58">58</xref>], if this proportion is not known with certainty, it must be assumed to be half of the population. Therefore p = 0.5 while q = 1 − 0.5 = 0.5, which is the proportion of smallholder farmers not participating in tobacco farming. e is the allowable error equal to &#177;10%.</p><p>The final respondents comprised two hundred seventy-three smallholder tobacco and non-tobacco farmers. The respondents were chosen because we believed they have information and knowledge that others do not possess (e.g., forest policies, institutional changes, tobacco farming, and its environmental impacts, causes of forest loss, and deforestation. Subsequently, their perceptions were compared with the land-cover changes observed from the remote sensing imagery (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref> and <xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref>).</p><table-wrap id="table4" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref></label><caption><title> Expert informants’ details</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Key informant group</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Harare (Head office)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Hurungwe district</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Tobacco purchasing companies</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Civil society</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Government officials</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Academic experts</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Consulting firms and NGOs</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total (n)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table5" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref></label><caption><title> Characteristics of expert interview respondent</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Organization</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Department</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Position</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >Government</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Tobacco Industry Marketing Board (Main)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Research, Monitoring and Evaluation</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Principal Research Officer Senior Research Officer</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Environmental Management Agency</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Environmental Management Services Department—EMS</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Chief Programme Officer</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Forestry Commission Zimbabwe</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Research and training</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >REDD+ Knowledge Management/ Stakeholder Consultation Specialist</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ministry of Lands, Agriculture, Water, Climate and Rural Resettlement</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >AGRITEX</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Extension officers</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Zimbabwe Farmers Union (ZFU)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Field and Operations</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Director</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Department of The Surveyors General</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >GIS and Mapping</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Director</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Rural District Councils</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >District Attorney’s Office</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Deputy District Attorney</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >Technical companies/licensed buying companies</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Zimbabwe Leaf Tobacco Company (ZLTC)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Extension and Contract farming</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Technical Trainer</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Northern Tobacco (NT)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Contract farming</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Project leader</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Premium</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Operations Department</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Project Manger</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Tian Ze</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Contract farming</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Buyer</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Shasha</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Extension</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Buyer</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >Research institutions</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >The University of Zimbabwe</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Department of Agricultural</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Research Scientist</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Tobacco Research Board</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Research and Extension Services</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Agricultural Economist</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >CSOs/NGOs</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Environmental Buddies, Zimbabwe</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Field Operations</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Field staff</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Rift Valley</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Operations Department</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Project Manger</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></sec><sec id="s2_9"><title>2.9. Land Use and Land Cover Change Simulation and Prediction</title><p>This study used Cellular Automata-Markov Chain Model (CA-Markov model) to predict future LULC changes. The CA-Markov model was chosen based on a systematic literature review [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref1">1</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref15">15</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref59">59</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref60">60</xref>]. The primary objective of the prediction was to assess the magnitude of forest loss in 2030 relative to other LULC classes evaluated in the study area. The CA-Markov model is a robust approach for predicting land use change, given that the hybrid model can simultaneously estimate spatial and temporal components, thus a powerful model best suited to deal with complex processes and changes in land use planning and management.</p><p>The 2002 and 2010 classified maps were used as input datasets to generate a transition probability matrix using the CA-Markov model, and then transition potential maps were produced. The 2002 and 2010 classified maps were the initial and final state land cover inputs in building the model. Additional spatial driver variables used to predict the future LULC maps consisted of the following data: (1) slope, (2) main roads, (3) 2010 forest disturbance, (4) digital elevation model, and (5) rivers (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref>).</p><p>The transition probability matrix was used to forecast the area change of LULC. A conditional transition matrix showed the potential of each land use category to change into another class for the predicted time. All the driver variables were used to simulate the 2020 LULC map and predict the 2030 LULC map. Given that the focus was to predict the risk of forest cover loss over the next decade (2020 to 2030), only transitions from forest to other classes were included in the sub-model to be predicted (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref>). The Multi-Layer Perception (MLP) neural network technique was employed to generate the transition potential of the chosen sub-model. As a result of this process, four suitability maps were generated, indicating the transition probabilities of pixels changing between classes for each transition selected in the sub-model. After that, a cellular automata simulation of the 2020 land cover ensued and was followed by model validation using the observed 2020 LULC map. The validated model was then used to predict the land cover for 2030 (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">Figure 3</xref>)</p><table-wrap id="table6" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref></label><caption><title> Transition sub-models used for simulation of land use and land cover</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >From</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >To</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Sub-model name</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Forest</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cropland</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Forest loss</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Forest</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Water</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Forest loss</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Forest</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Shrubs</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Forest loss</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Forest</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bareland</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Forest loss</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></sec></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results</title><sec id="s3_1"><title>3.1. LULCC Mapping and Classification Accuracy Assessment</title><p>The land cover land use maps from the image classification are shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4</xref>. The maps reveal the major land cover classes in the Hurungwe district for three decades, i.e., 1989, 2002, 2010, and 2020. Five predominant land cover classes were identified. The overall accuracy levels of the four classified maps are</p><p>93.3%, 87.1%, 92.1%, and 89.6%, respectively, with Kappa values of 0.881, 0.835, 0.890, and 0.864, showing almost perfect agreement (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table7">Table 7</xref>).</p><p>At the beginning of the study period, the forest (woodland) was the dominant land-cover class in the study area, covering 55.8% of the area, followed by shrubs at 30.9%, cropland (11.1%), water, and bareland both (0.6%), respectively (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table8">Table 8</xref>). The total forest areas that changed for 1989-2002, 2002-2010, and 2010-2020 were 11,060.60 km<sup>2</sup>, 10,255.73 km<sup>2</sup>, 8989.48 km<sup>2</sup>, and 7564.42 km<sup>2</sup>, respectively (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table8">Table 8</xref>). These changes denoted net area time-series changes of −7.3%, −12.3%, −15.9%, and an overall 30-year forest area loss of −31.6%, respectively. On the contrary, cropland increased by 171.2% during the study period (1989-2020) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table9">Table 9</xref>), expanding from 11.1% to 30.2% of the total land area of the Hurungwe district. Cropland continuously gained area throughout the study period, with 1560.57 km<sup>2</sup> between 2010 and 2020 than any other class; this was also the highest gain over the 30 years. During the study period, shrubs fluctuate up and down; the analysis reveals a total area loss of 640.35 km<sup>2</sup>, which is a 10.4% decrease in the area comparing the initial and final states of the class. There are minimal changes in both water and bareland classes (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table8">Table 8</xref>). Over the study period, cropland gained more area, and forest lost more area, followed</p><table-wrap id="table7" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table7">Table 7</xref></label><caption><title> Accuracy assessment (PA: Producer’s Accuracy; UA: User’s Accuracy; K: Kappa)</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Land-Cover Class</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >1989</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >2002</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >2010</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >2020</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >PA</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >UA</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >PA</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >UA</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >PA</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >UA</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >PA</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >UA</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Forest</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >98.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >97.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >90.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >88.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >93.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >88.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >91.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >94.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cropland</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >94.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >79.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >91.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >84.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >96.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >94.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >92.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >89.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Water</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >99.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >98.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >97.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >96.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Shrubs</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >99.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >99.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >86.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >77.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >83.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >84.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >80.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >79.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bareland</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >88.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >71.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >90.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >79.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >96.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >81.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >88.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Overall</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >93.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >87.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >92.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >89.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Kappa</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.881</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.835</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.890</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.864</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table8" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table8">Table 8</xref></label><caption><title> Area per land-cover class in 1989, 2002, 2010, and 2020</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Class</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >1989</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >2002</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >2010</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >2020</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Area (Km<sup>2</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >(%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Area (Km<sup>2</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >(%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Area (Km<sup>2</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >(%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Area (Km<sup>2</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >(%)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Forest</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11,060.60</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >55.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10,255.73</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >51.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8989.48</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >45.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7564.42</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cropland</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2205.48</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3582.07</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4421.28</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5981.86</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Water</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >127.25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >106.89</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >177.78</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >136.52</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Shrubs</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6128.43</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5291.20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5758.05</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5488.07</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bareland</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >294.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >580.10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >401.47</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >645.13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19,815.83</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19,815.99</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19,748.06</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19,815.99</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100.0</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table9" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table9">Table 9</xref></label><caption><title> Net change of the LULC by class area extent (km<sup>2</sup>) and percentage (%)</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Class</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >1989-2002</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >2002-2010</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >2010-2020</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >1989-2020</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Area (Km<sup>2</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >(%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Area (Km<sup>2</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >(%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Area (Km<sup>2</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >(%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Area (Km<sup>2</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >(%)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Forest</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−804.87</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−7.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1266.25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−12.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1425.06</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−15.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−3496.19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−31.6</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cropland</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1376.59</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >62.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >839.21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1560.57</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3776.38</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >171.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Water</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−20.36</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−16.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >70.89</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >66.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−41.26</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−23.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Shrubs</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−837.22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−13.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >466.85</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−269.98</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−4.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−640.35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−10.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bareland</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >286.02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >97.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−178.63</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−30.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >243.66</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >60.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >351.05</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >119.4</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>*Negative values mean a decrease in the size of the land cover class over 30 years, and positive values indicate an increase in the size over the study period.</p><p>by shrubs, while there are slight gains in bareland and almost no changes in water bodies (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table9">Table 9</xref>). Image analysis results (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table9">Table 9</xref>) reveal that within each land cover type, there were losses and gains over the study period.</p></sec><sec id="s3_2"><title>3.2. Patterns of Land Cover Change during the Study Period 1989 - 2020</title><p>Forests were the most dominant land-cover class category in 1989, covering 11,060.60 km<sup>2</sup> (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>0). However, only 7564.41 km<sup>2 </sup>(55.8%) of the area remained in 2020, while 3496.19 km<sup>2</sup> (38.2%) of the area converts to other land-cover types. Of this, the most significant proportion of the forest class converted to cropland (2454.92 km<sup>2</sup>) and shrubs (2170.71 km<sup>2</sup>) during the study period (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>0). A closer look at the time-series change dynamics reveals that the forest class changes to cropland or shrubs. For example, during 2002-2010, forests lost 1166.13 km<sup>2</sup> to cropland and 1634.05 km<sup>2</sup> to shrubs amounting to 11.4% and 16.0%, respectively. From 2010-2020, a similar trend occurred, with the forest class losing 1004.61 km<sup>2 </sup>and 1654.30 km<sup>2</sup> to cropland and shrubs, respectively, 11.2% and 18.4% of the forest area. Throughout the time-series analysis, cropland had the highest gain of 62.4% between 1989 and 2002 and 35.3% in 2010-2020. Cropland expanded by 3776.37 km<sup>2</sup> (171.2%) from 1989-2020. However, the forest area also recorded a net gain of 1079.75 km<sup>2 </sup>from shrubs, while the shrubs experienced a net loss of 640.35 km<sup>2</sup> during the study period. Over the study period, the water and bareland classes had minimal changes, and the forest class had the highest loss, as highlighted by the image differencing results in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>0.</p></sec><sec id="s3_3"><title>3.3. LULCC and Drivers of Deforestation in Hurungwe District</title><sec id="s3_3_1"><title>3.3.1. Land Use and Land Cover Changes</title><p>Land cover refers to the biophysical characteristics of the earth’s surface, including the distribution of vegetation, water, soil, and other physical features of the land. Land use refers to how the land has been used by humans and their habitat, usually emphasizing the functional role of land for economic activities.</p><table-wrap id="table10" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>0</label><caption><title> Landscape change matrices for 1989 - 2002, 2002 - 2010, 2010 - 2020, and the overall 1989 - 2020. All values are area (in km<sup>2</sup>). The matrix shows the dynamics of LULC changes. For each of the three periods and summarized time series of the study area, the column totals represent the areal extent in the final state, while row totals are values in the initial state. The coinciding values between each class in the initial state and class in the final state are the land cover type into which the former changed into the latter. The diagonal values (in bold) of each matrix or the intersection of the same class from the initial and final states denote unchanged land</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  ></th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="6"  >Final State (2002)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Forest</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cropland</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Water</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Shrubs</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bareland</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="8"  >Initial Stage (1989)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Forest</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8053.90</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1040.20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1829.48</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >123.89</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11,060.60</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cropland</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >432.25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1633.90</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >97.87</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37.35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2205.48</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Water</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19.10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.46</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >82.61</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.39</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.69</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >127.25</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Shrubs</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1702.71</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >899.92</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.93</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3192.49</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >331.38</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6128.42</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bareland</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >47.75</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.59</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >166.98</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >68.75</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >294.08</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Class Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10255.72</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3582.07</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >106.77</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5291.20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >580.07</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19815.83</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Class Changes</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3006.70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >571.58</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >44.64</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2935.93</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >225.32</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Image Difference</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−804.88</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1376.59</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−20.48</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−837.22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >286.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  ></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="6"  >Final State (2010)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Forest</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cropland</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Water</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Shrubs</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bareland</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="8"  >Initial Stage (2002)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Forest</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7378.30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1166.13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25.60</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1634.05</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.33</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10,217.40</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cropland</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >301.04</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2964.78</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >306.10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3582.06</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Water</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.56</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.56</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >104.46</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >106.58</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Shrubs</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1265.15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >243.76</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3463.06</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >281.39</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5262.58</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bareland</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43.43</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >46.06</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36.39</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >354.84</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >98.72</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >579.43</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Class Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8989.48</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4421.28</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >177.78</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5758.05</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >401.47</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19,748.06</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Class Changes</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2839.10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >617.28</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1799.52</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >480.72</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Image Difference</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1227.92</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >839.22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >71.20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >495.47</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−177.96</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="6"  >Final State (2020)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Forest</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cropland</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Water</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Shrubs</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bareland</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="8"  >Initial Stage (2010)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Forest</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6305.89</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1004.61</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.31</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1654.30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.37</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8989.48</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cropland</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >267.20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3778.51</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.56</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >329.21</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >45.81</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4421.28</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Water</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.57</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.87</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >127.50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.92</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.92</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >177.78</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Shrubs</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >930.07</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1162.04</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.61</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3454.14</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >211.20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5758.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bareland</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29.79</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.93</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37.25</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >329.35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >401.47</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Class Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7517.87</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5980.81</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >134.91</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5479.82</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >634.66</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19,748.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Class Changes</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2683.59</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >642.77</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50.28</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2303.91</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >72.12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Image Difference</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−1471.61</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1559.53</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−42.87</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−278.24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >233.19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="6"  >Final State (2020)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Forest</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cropland</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Water</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Shrubs</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bareland</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="8"  >Initial Stage (1989)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Forest</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6342.96</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2454.92</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.44</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2170.71</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >73.57</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11,060.60</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cropland</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >108.24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1926.67</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.28</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >143.07</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23.22</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2205.48</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Water</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.01</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >95.45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >127.25</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Shrubs</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1079.75</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1583.84</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.87</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3112.57</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >349.41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6128.43</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bareland</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.75</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >57.72</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >186.85</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >294.07</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Class Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7564.41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5981.85</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >136.38</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5488.07</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >645.12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19,815.83</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Class Changes</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4717.64</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >278.81</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31.80</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3015.86</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >107.23</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Image Difference</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−3496.19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3776.37</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.13</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−640.35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >351.04</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>LULCC is the conversion of different land use types and is the result of complex interactions between humans and the physical environment.</p></sec><sec id="s3_3_2"><title>3.3.2. Expert Interviews</title><p>The experts interviewed included academics, researchers, government officials, smallholder farmers (non-tobacco and tobacco), tobacco companies, business institutions, and non-governmental organizations. All the respondents have either lived through the study period or had relevant, expert knowledge of the study area, tobacco farming, forestry, and settlement planning. Like other districts in Zimbabwe, Hurungwe district is experiencing significant LULCC. A cross-reference with expert and household interviews indicated several changes and identified the dominant land-cover types and their drivers of change in the Hurungwe district in the last 30 years. The drivers of change are categorized into socio-economic and environmental, as highlighted on <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>1.</p><p>Several drivers have influenced LULCC in the study area. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">Figure 5</xref> depicts the drivers linked to farmland expansion, government land policy, population pressure, investments, deforestation, and climatic changes to be the major causes behind the LULCC.</p><p>The district also falls within region II, which specializes in agriculture and livestock rearing, and receives a high amount of rainfall, thus attracting many people and driving the changes perceived. Despite 91% of the respondents describing tobacco as a lucrative high, generating income cash crop, the interviewed farmers cited, tobacco farming-related deforestation as the primary driver of LULCC. Of the 273 respondents, 88 % correctly mentioned forest as the dominant land cover at the beginning of the study period, 76% of the interviewees correctly ranked shrubs as second, and 70% perceived cropland as the third most dominant class type in the Hurungwe district. This suggests that respondents correctly perceive historic land-cover patterns dominated by forests, grasslands, and croplands. During the study period, all respondents correctly perceived a significant increase in the cropland area and a decrease in the forest</p><table-wrap id="table11" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>1</label><caption><title> Drivers of LULC Changes as cited by expert and household interviews</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Environmental changes (natural)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Socio-economic changes (human-induced)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >&#183; Droughts increased &#183; Drying up of dams &#183; Hectares of land reduced due to droughts</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&#183; Increased tobacco farming &#183; Deforestation for development and tobacco production &#183; Overpopulation increasing pressure on available resources &#183; Increased veld fires &#183; High Migration &#183; No grazing lands for animals &#183; Paddocks encroachment &#183; Land size reduced because of over population &#183; People have adapted to other forms of agriculture such as Pfumvudza</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>area. The respondents’ perceptions of water and bareland land cover classes varied between a decrease and no change, which is consistent with the slight changes observed in both classes in the remote sensing analysis.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3_4"><title>3.4. Drivers of LULCC and Deforestation in Hurungwe District</title><p>Survey analysis shows that the proximate drivers of LULCC and deforestation result from increased agricultural activities, particularly tobacco farming (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig6">Figure 6</xref>). 41% of the respondents cite the cutting down of indigenous by tobacco farmers to cure tobacco harvests (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig7">Figure 7</xref>). 19% identify domestic use and brick making as the second leading causes of landscape changes and deforestation in the Hurungwe district (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig7">Figure 7</xref>).</p><p>Document analysis and interviews reveal that the incentivized agrarian and development policy changes have increased small-scale tobacco farmers from 975 in the 1989/90 season to 166,959 registered tobacco growers for the 2019/20 season. The growth in tobacco growers is also increasing the demand for farmland hence increasing deforestation as more and more people are clearing forests in search of new farms and settlements. Moreover, during one of the most severe droughts, this policy change hit Zimbabwe (from 2000 to 2001). Hence, the informants added that changing rain patterns and veld fires as other catalysts</p><p>exacerbating the clearing of forests during this period, as the affected farmers began to come up with other sources of income generation, like brickmaking, and fuel wood extraction, to buy food and overcome its impacts.</p><p>Additionally, since food crops such as cereals have low final returns, tobacco became the core cash crop in Hurungwe District. Most people use tobacco farming because it is more profitable than other crops and is a high foreign currency (US$) earner. Some informants also cited that Hurungwe produces good quality tobacco recommended on the market floors, and this sector has thus gained a lot of support and funding. Hurungwe district presently has about 24 companies that provide extension services by funding farmers (MTC, Shasha, Voedsell, Premium Tobacco) with inputs such as seeds, fertilizers, chemicals, and expertise in agronomy services. Farmers also receive money to cover the harvesting expenses, making it easier for them to continue engaging in tobacco cultivation as they are provided with almost everything they need right at their doorstep.</p><p>However, some respondents highlighted that people do not have other survival means and only end up going for tobacco production, giving them higher returns over a short period. Consequently, deforestation levels have increased, as identified by the survey results and remote sensing image analysis in areas such as Chundu, Kazangarare, Chikuti, and Magunje, the hotspots.</p></sec><sec id="s3_5"><title>3.5. Land Use and Land Cover Prediction</title><p>The predicted scenarios for 2030 using a CA-Markov model (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig8">Figure 8</xref>) showed some relevant results. The predicted maps had the MLP model accuracy of 99.96%, whereas the prediction accuracy of each class was as follows: forest 80.9%, cropland 94.1%, water 69.8%, shrubs 65.4%, and bareland 67.5%. The overall individual class accuracies indicate a good agreement between observed and predicted results. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig8">Figure 8</xref> shows 2020 simulated and 2030 predicted maps for the study area. The simulations suggest that the forest area will continue a downward trend, decreasing by 7.9%. The cropland and shrub area are predicted to increase by 3.4%, with minimal to no change for water and bareland in 2030 (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>2).</p></sec></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Discussion</title><sec id="s4_1"><title>4.1. Classification Accuracies</title><p>The accuracy results of the classified maps of 1989, 2002, 2010, and 2020 consisted of high overall accuracies; however, users’ and producers’ accuracies of shrubs and bareland had low accuracies in 1989, 2002, and 2020 respectively (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table7">Table 7</xref>). The low accuracy levels can be attributed to spectral signature confusion between cropland/shrubs and harvested cropland/bareland, which were similar. Initially, the accuracies were extremely low. However, the results improved by subdividing each class while collecting training and validation samples. The sub-divisions were done due to differences in signatures within a class</p><table-wrap id="table12" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>2</label><caption><title> Predicted results of area extent and accuracy for 2030</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Land-cover class</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >2020 Reference Data</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >2030 Predicted Data</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Percentage Change %</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Prediction Accuracy %</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Area (km<sup>2</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Area (km<sup>2</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Forest</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6120.37</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4744.92</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24.0%</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >−7.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >80.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cropland</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5626.70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >28.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6297.71</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >94.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Water</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >177.78</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >177.78</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >69.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Shrubs</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7387.66</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8010.07</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >65.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bareland</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >435.55</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >517.58</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >67.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="7"  >Multi-Layer Perception (MLP) accuracy 99.96%</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>across the study area and were later merged.</p><p>Furthermore, the inclusion of Gray-Level Co-occurrence Matrix (GLCM) textural features improved the accuracy levels, as shown in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table7">Table 7</xref>. The overall accuracy results meet the United States Geological Survey (USGS) benchmark of 85%, as cited in [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref21">21</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref57">57</xref>]. The results for the individual land-cover class accuracy levels are provided in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table7">Table 7</xref>. These values indicate that the maps were sufficiently accurate for further analysis.</p></sec><sec id="s4_2"><title>4.2. Land Use Land Cover Change Patterns and Forest Cover Loss</title><p>The time-series assessment of Landsat satellite images reveals a changing mosaic of five LULC classes between 1989 and 2020 in the study area (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">Figure 4</xref>). Although there are several case studies in Zimbabwe quantifying LULC changes and the driving forces behind the changes, mainly the deforestation of indigenous miombo woodlands [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref15">15</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref17">17</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref37">37</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref61">61</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref62">62</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref63">63</xref>], fewer studies have applied Google Earth Engine time-series method to quantify the dynamics of LULCC [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref64">64</xref>]. Existing literature is constrained to comparing two periods rather than a time-series analysis explored in this study. The longitudinal analysis adopted in this study shows complex changes in land cover types within the study area over the three time periods examined (1989 - 2002, 2002 - 2010, and 2010 - 2020). For example, changes in the shrub areas (losses and gains) were inconsistent and asymmetrical from one period to the next. This results from adding intermediate periods to LULC analysis, which often results in contrasting scenarios but provides more precise information on change dynamics in the study area [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref65">65</xref>].</p><p>In detail, this study shows a decrease in the forest cover area in the Hurungwe district due to increased anthropogenic socio-economic activities. Previous studies in different parts of Zimbabwe show similar findings [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref15">15</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref16">16</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref66">66</xref>]. The analysis indicates that the highest forest loss occurred between 2010-2020 and 2002-2010, respectively. The extensive forest cover loss between the two decades (2002-2020) is a result of policy changes and various socio-economic drivers, such as increased agricultural activities [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref66">66</xref>], settlement development, wood harvesting, and veld fires [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref15">15</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref16">16</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref17">17</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref33">33</xref>]. The growth of tobacco farming is tied to the increased levels of deforestation in the district. Between 2000 and 2019, smallholder tobacco farmers in Hurungwe increased from 600 to 98,447. Most of the new smallholder farmers use indigenous woodland to cure tobacco. Areas previously covered with forest were cleared for cropping, and vast areas of forest were cleared for tobacco curing and building of houses for resettled smallholder farmers. According to the Forestry Commission, every year, Zimbabwe loses more than 300,000 hectares of forests to deforestation, and 15 percent of the forest cover loss is attributable to tobacco farming [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref32">32</xref>]. A combination of expert interviews, focus group discussions and household surveys affirm that forest areas are being cut down for agricultural activities and wood cleared for tobacco curing since tobacco production increased in the district from 2000 onwards. Geist, (1999) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref24">24</xref>], quantifying the forest cover loss rates linked to tobacco farming in Zimbabwe, found identical findings.</p><p>Forest cover loss in the Hurungwe district during the 2000 - 2020 period follows a global phenomenon occurring in many different parts of the world. According to the Global Forest Watch (GFW) reports, from 2001 to 2021, Hurungwe lost 3.52 kha, a decrease equivalent to a 4.7% loss in forest cover [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref44">44</xref>].</p><p>Between 1989 - 2002 and 2010 - 2020, the cropland area expanded significantly at the expense of the forest area. Throughout the study period, the cropland area continued an upward trajectory, with a 171% increase in size over 30 years. The forest and shrubs classes were being converted to cropland. The bareland and water areas experienced minimal changes, while the shrubs fluctuated throughout the study. The fluctuations in shrub areas can be explained by the forest cover losses occurring in the study area. The findings of this assessment are consistent with previous studies on deforestation rates and drivers in Upper Manyame Sub-Catchment, where extensive deforestation was between 2000 - 2020 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref15">15</xref>]. During the same period, the forest area was lost at the expense of croplands and settlements. The conversion was driven by policy changes, specifically the Fast Track Land Reform Program (FTLRP) between 2000 and 2008 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref26">26</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref27">27</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref66">66</xref>]. The FTLRP transferred land ownership from a small number of large-scale commercial farmers to millions of black, indigenous smallholder farmers. The drastic policy change resulted in increased smallholder farmer participation leading to massive conversion of forest area to agricultural purposes at a national, particularly in areas such as Hurungwe district. Case studies assessing the impact of the land reform program on land cover indicate that forest areas were cleared for cropland and settlement upon implementing the FTLRP [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref67">67</xref>].</p><p>High population growth is another factor cited as a primary driver for forest cover loss in the Hurungwe district. Population growth leads to high land demand for infrastructure development and pasture, leading to increased LULCC and deforestation. Given the high land demands for settlement and farming, fuel wood and other socio-economic activities such as mining and brickmaking are associated with a growing human population. Throughout the study period, the Hurungwe district population grew at an annual rate of +2.6%, thus, a decrease in forest area is accompanied by population growth [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.122248-ref23">23</xref>]. Also included among the drivers of forest loss are adverse climatic conditions combined with difficult economic circumstances resulting in veld fires and persistent energy cuts in the country, respectively. More and more people depend on wood as the primary energy source, thus exacerbating extensive forest harvesting due to the frequent load shedding experienced in Zimbabwe.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s5"><title>5. Conclusions</title><p>Hurungwe is experiencing significant forest cover loss due to LULC changes occurring in the district. The major drivers of forest cover loss are primarily socioeconomic, specifically tobacco farming, cropland expansion, and settlement development. Natural factors such as veld fires and changing climatic conditions are also driving forest cover loss in the Hurungwe district. Policy intervention such as the Fast-Track Land Reform and Resettlement Programme (FTLRP) implemented during the 2000/1 season is one of the primary drivers of forest cover loss and LULCC in most local contexts in Zimbabwe. The implementation of FTLRP changed the landscape dynamics of Zimbabwe. This land ownership transfer, accompanied by the redistribution act, accelerated the clearing of large areas of forests for different farm-related activities amongst tobacco curing, brick making, domestic use, and settlement. Forests have been lost persistently throughout the study period. This is negative feedback since the country is working towards reducing carbon emissions. Forest management through REDD+ programs is one way Zimbabwe can reduce atmospheric carbon through carbon sequestration by vegetation. Hurungwe district forests risk clearance if the current socioeconomic development activities contradict the country’s climate change mitigation policies, particularly policies to reduce carbon emissions and forest conservation. Without robust environmental control legislation and substantial financial support for its enforcement, the goal of reducing tobacco-related deforestation will remain elusive.</p><p>Therefore, this study argues that the success of socioeconomic and ecological regulations in the study area and country-level context fundamentally depends on governments’ capacities to coordinate and integrate socioeconomic and ecological policy regulations. Enforcement of forest conservation and recovery projects in Zimbabwe, including growing eucalyptus plantations for tobacco curing, promotion of clean energy alternatives, new barn technology, and production of alternative crops with similar financial returns to tobacco farming, could be an essential catalyst between tobacco farming and forest sustainability reform objectives and reform results. The study illustrates the critical importance of country-level efforts to ensure policy coherence amongst its different government sectors consistent with global environmental and tobacco control measures.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>Avoid the stilted expression, “One of us (R. B. G.) thanks...” Instead, try “R. B. G.</p></sec><sec id="s7"><title>Conflicts of Interest</title><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.</p></sec><sec id="s8"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Sibanda, S. and Tsuyuki, S. (2022) Identifying the Rates and Drivers of Spatiotemporal Patterns of Land Use and Land Cover Changes in the Hurungwe District, Zimbabwe: A GIS and Re- mote Sensing Approach. Journal of Geographic Information System, 14, 652-679. https://doi.org/10.4236/jgis.2022.146037<sup> </sup></p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.122248-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kamusoko, C., Aniya, M., Adi, B. and Manjoro, M. (2009) Rural Sustainability Under Threat in Zimbabwe—Simulation of Future Land Use/Cover Changes in the Bindura District Based on the Markov-Cellular Automata Model. Applied Geography, 29, 435-447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2008.10.002</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Wang, S.W., Gebru, B.M., Lamchin, M., Kayastha, R.B. and Lee, W.K. (2020) Land Use and Land Cover Change Detection and Prediction in the Kathmandu District of Nepal Using Remote Sensing and GIS. Sustainability, 12, 3925.  
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093925</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mahamba, J.A., Mulondi, G.K., Kapiri, M.M. and Sahani, W.M. (2022) Land Use and Land Cover Dynamics in the Urban Watershed of Kimemi River (Butembo/D.R.C). Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection, 10, 204-219.  
https://doi.org/10.4236/gep.2022.106013</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Negassa, M.D., Mallie, D.T. and Gemeda, D.O. (2020) Forest Cover Change Detection Using Geographic Information Systems and Remote Sensing Techniques: A Spatio-Temporal Study on Komto Protected Forest Priority Area, East Wollega Zone, Ethiopia. Environmental Systems Research, 9, Article No. 1.  
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40068-020-0163-z</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Armenteras, D., Murcia, U., González, T.M., Barón, O.J. and Arias, J.E. (2019) Scenarios of Land Use and Land Cover Change for NW Amazonia: Impact on Forest Intactness. Global Ecology and Conservation, 17, e00567.  
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00567</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Vitousek, P.M., Mooney, H.A., Lubchenco, J. and Melillo, J.M. (1997) Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems. Science (1979), 277, 494-499.  
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.277.5325.494</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Sarathi Roy, P., et al. (2022) Anthropogenic Land Use and Land Cover Changes—A Review on Its Environmental Consequences and Climate Change. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 50, 1615-1640.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Vijay, V., Pimm, S.L., Jenkins, C.N. and Smith, S.J. (2016) The Impacts of Oil Palm on Recent Deforestation and Biodiversity Loss. PLOS ONE, 11, e0159668.  
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159668</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Portner, H.-O., Roberts, D., Skea, J., Shukla, P.R., Pirani, A., Moufouma-Okia, W., Péan, C., Pidcock, R., Connors, S., Matthews, J.B.R., Chen, Y., Zhou, X., Gomis, M.I., Lonnoy, E., Maycock, T., Tignor, M. and Waterfield, T. (eds.) (2018) Global Warming of 1.5&amp;#176;C. IPCC.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Itoje-Akpokiniovo and Lilian</surname><given-names> O. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2022</year>)<article-title>Knowledge and Perception of Climate Change in Ethiopia East Local Government Area of Delta State</article-title><source> Contemporary Journal of Social Science and Humanities</source><volume> 3</volume>,<fpage> 24</fpage>-<lpage>30</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Chávez Michaelsen, A., et al. (2017) Effects of Drought on Deforestation Estimates from Different Classification Methodologies: Implications for REDD+ and Other Payments for Environmental Services Programs. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment, 5, 36-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsase.2017.01.003</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Tarazona, Y. and Miyasiro-López, M. (2020) Monitoring Tropical Forest Degradation Using Remote Sensing. Challenges and Opportunities in the Madre de Dios Region, Peru. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment, 19, Article ID: 100337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsase.2020.100337</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Naschen, K., Diekkrüger, B., Evers, M., Hollermann, B., Steinbach, S. and Thonfeld, F. (2019) The Impact of Land Use/Land Cover Change (LULCC) on Water Resources in a Tropical Catchment in Tanzania under Different Climate Change Scenarios. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11, 7083. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11247083</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ngwenya, K. and Marambanyika, T. (2021) Trends in Use of Remotely Sensed Data in Wetlands Assessment and Monitoring in Zimbabwe. African Journal of Ecology, 59, 676-686. https://doi.org/10.1111/aje.12858</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Zvobgo, L. and Tsoka, J. (2021) Deforestation Rate and Causes in Upper Manyame Sub-Catchment, Zimbabwe: Implications on Achieving National Climate Change Mitigation Targets. Trees, Forests and People, 5, Article ID: 100090.  
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2021.100090</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Marondedze, A.K. and Schütt, B. (2019) Dynamics of Land Use and Land Cover Changes in Harare, Zimbabwe: A Case Study on the Linkage between Drivers and the Axis of Urban Expansion. Land, 8, 155. https://doi.org/10.3390/land8100155</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ndlovu, I., Nunu, W.N., Mudonhi, N., Dube, O. and Maviza, A. (2019) Land Use-Land Cover Changes and Mopani Worm Harvest in Mangwe District in Plumtree, Zimbabwe. Environmental Systems Research, 8, 1-9.  
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40068-019-0141-5</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Olorunfemi, I.E., et al. (2020) GIS and Remote Sensing-Based Analysis of the Impacts of Land Use/Land Cover Change (LULCC) on the Environmental Sustainability of Ekiti State, Southwestern Nigeria. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22, 661-692. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-0214-z</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Dimobe, K., Gessner, U., Ouédraogo, K. and Thiombiano, A. (2022) Trends and Drivers of Land Use/Cover Change in W National Park in Burkina Faso. Environmental Development, 44, Article ID: 100768.  
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2022.100768</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Zoungrana, B.J.B., Conrad, C., Amekudzi, L.K., Thiel, M. and Dapola Da, E. (2015) Land Use/Cover Response to Rainfall Variability: A Comparing Analysis between NDVI and EVI in the Southwest of Burkina Faso. Climate, 3, 63-77.  
https://doi.org/10.3390/cli3010063</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kamusoko, C. and Aniya, M. (2007) Land Use/Cover Change and Landscape Fragmentation Analysis in the Bindura District, Zimbabwe. Land Degradation &amp; Development, 18, 221-233. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.761</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Fakarayi, T., Mashapa, C., Gandiwa, E. and Kativu, S. (2015) Pattern of Land-Use and Land Cover Changes in Driefontein Grassland Important Bird Area, Zimbabwe. Tropical Conservation Science, 8, 274-283.  
https://doi.org/10.1177/194008291500800120</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">2022 Population &amp; Housing Census—Preliminary—Zimbabwe Data Portal.  
https://zimbabwe.opendataforafrica.org/anjlptc/2022-population-housing-census-preliminary</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Geist, H.J. (1999) Global Assessment of Deforestation Related to Tobacco Farming. Tobacco Control, 8, 18-28. https://doi.org/10.1136/tc.8.1.18</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Zikhali, P. (2008) Environment for Development Discussion Paper Series Fast Track Land Reform and Agricultural Productivity in Zimbabwe Precious Zikhali.  
https://www.efdinitiative.org</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Moyo, S. (2011) Three Decades of Agrarian Reform in Zimbabwe. Journal of Peasant Studies, 38, 493-531. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2011.583642</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Fast Track Land Reform in Zimbabwe.  
https://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/zimbabwe/ZimLand0302-02.htm</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Tobacco and the Environment.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Waluye, J. (1994) Environmental Impact of Tobacco Growing in Tabora/Urambo, Tanzania. Tobacco Control, 3, 252-254. https://doi.org/10.1136/tc.3.3.252</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Phillips</surname><given-names> A. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>1995</year>)<article-title>Bellagio Statement on Tobacco and Sustainable Development</article-title><source> Canadian Medical Association Journal</source><volume> 153</volume>,<fpage> 1109</fpage>-<lpage>1110</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Muller, M. (1978) Tobacco and the Third World—Tomorrow’s Epidemic? A War on Want Investigation into the Production, Promotion, and Use of Tobacco in the Developing Countries. War on Want, London.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ruckert, A., et al. (2022) The Political Economy of Tobacco Production and Control in Zimbabwe.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lawrence, M., Andrew Tapiwa, K., Lovemore, M. and Michael, M. (2020) Smallholder Tobacco Farmers and Forest Conservation in Mutasa District, Zimbabwe. Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, 5, 6. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.eeb.20200501.12</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Jew, E.K.K., Dougill, A.J. and Sallu, S.M. (2017) Tobacco Cultivation as a Driver of Land Use Change and Degradation in the Miombo Woodlands of South-West Tanzania. Land Degradation &amp; Development, 28, 2636-2645.  
https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2827</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kamuti, T. (2018) The Critical Nexus and Implications of Smallholder Tobacco Production as a Livelihood Strategy to Forest Landscapes in Zimbabwe.  
https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints201804.0114.v1</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Magige Mwita James, B. (2018) Impacts of Tobacco Farming on Forest Cover in Bukira West/Bukira East Location, Migori County, Kenya. A Project Report Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Award for the Bachelor’s Degree in Environmental Planning and Management Department of Environmental Planning and Management Kenyatta University.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Kamusoko, C. and Chikati, E. (2017) Harare Metropolitan Area. In: Murayama, Y., et al., Eds., Urban Development in Asia and Africa: Geospatial Analysis of Metropolises, Springer, Berlin, 347-370. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3241-7_17</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Matsa, M., Mupepi, O. and Musasa, T. (2021) Spatio-Temporal Analysis of Urban Area Expansion in Zimbabwe between 1990 and 2020: The Case of Gweru City. Environmental Challenges, 4, Article ID: 100141.  
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2021.100141</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Liu, C., Li, W., Zhu, G., et al. (2020) Land Use/Land Cover Changes and Their Driving Factors in the Northeastern Tibetan Plateau Based on Geographical Detectors and Google Earth Engine: A Case Study in Gannan Prefecture. Remote Sensing (Basel), 12, 3139. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12193139</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Allan, A., Soltani, A., Abdi, M.H. and Zarei, M. (2022) Driving Forces behind Land Use and Land Cover Change: A Systematic and Bibliometric Review. Land (Basel), 11, 1222. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11081222</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Manatsa, D., Darlington Mushore, T. and Wuta, M. (2020) Report on Revised Agroecological Zones of Zimbabwe (In Press). IMPALA View Project Geospatial Capabilities for Revision of Zimbabwe’s Agroecological Zones View Project.  
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347966377</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Fertilizer Use by Crop in Zimbabwe (2022).  
https://www.fao.org/3/a0395e/a0395e06.htm</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Dube, L. (2016) Factors Influencing Smallholder Crop Diversification: A Case Study of Manicaland and Masvingo Provinces in Zimbabwe. International Journal of Regional Development, 3, 1-25. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijrd.v3i2.9194</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">https://www.globalforestwatch.org/dashboards/country/ZWE/6/2/?category=summary&amp;location=WyJjb3VudHJ5IiwiWldFIiwiNiIsIjIiXQ%3D%3D&amp;map=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%3D&amp;showMap=true.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Teluguntla, P., et al. (2018) A 30-m Landsat-Derived Cropland Extent Product of Australia and China Using Random Forest Machine Learning Algorithm on Google Earth Engine Cloud Computing Platform. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 144, 325-340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2018.07.017</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Amani, M., et al. (2019) A Generalized Supervised Classification Scheme to Produce Provincial Wetland Inventory Maps: An Application of Google Earth Engine for Big Geo Data Processing. Big Earth Data, 3, 378-394.  
https://doi.org/10.1080/20964471.2019.1690404</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Yang, L., Driscol, J., Sarigai, S., et al. (2022) Google Earth Engine and Artificial Intelligence (AI): A Comprehensive Review. Remote Sensing, 14, 3253.  
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14143253</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Google Earth Engine. https://earthengine.google.com</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Haralick, R.M. and Shanmugam, K. (1973) Textural Features for Image Classification. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-3, 610-621.  
https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.1973.4309314</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Gandhi, G.M., Parthiban, S., Thummalu, N. and Christy, A. (2015) Ndvi: Vegetation Change Detection Using Remote Sensing and Gis—A Case Study of Vellore District. Procedia Computer Science, 57, 1199-1210.  
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.07.415</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Pettorelli, N. (2013) The Normalized Difference Vegetation Index. Oxford University Press, Oxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199693160.001.0001</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Khan, M.S.A. and Rahman, Md.I. (2021) Forest Land Analysis Using Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI): A Case Study of Bangladesh. International Journal of Computer Applications, 183, 15-19.  
https://doi.org/10.5120/ijca2021921855</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Luigi Crisigiovanni, E., Figueiredo Filho, A., Alex Pesck, V. and Aparecido de Lima, V. (2020) Potential of Machine Learning and WorldView-2 Images for Recognizing Endangered and Invasive Species in the Atlantic Rainforest. Annals of Forest Science, 78, Article No. 54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-021-01070-3</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Alencar, A., et al. (2020) Mapping Three Decades of Changes in the Brazilian Savanna Native Vegetation Using Landsat Data Processed in the Google Earth Engine Platform. Remote Sensing (Basel), 12, 924. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12060924</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Breiman, L. (2001) Random Forests.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Congalton, R.G. (1991) A Review of Assessing the Accuracy of Classifications of Remotely Sensed Data. Remote Sensing of Environment, 37, 35-46.  
https://doi.org/10.1016/0034-4257(91)90048-B</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Anderson, J.R., Hardy, E.E., Roach, J.T. and Witmer, R.E. (1976) A Land Use and Land Cover Classification System for Use with Remote Sensor Data.  
https://doi.org/10.3133/pp964</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kotr, J.W. and Higgins, C.C. (2001) Information Technology, Learning, and Performance.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hamad, R., Balzter, H. and Kolo, K. (2018) Predicting Land Use/Land Cover Changes Using a CA-Markov Model under Two Different Scenarios. Sustainability, 10, 3421. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103421</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Floreano, I.X. and de Moraes, L.A.F. (2021) Land Use/Land Cover (LULC) Analysis (2009-2019) with Google Earth Engine and 2030 Prediction Using Markov-CA in the Rondonia State, Brazil. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 193, 239.  
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-021-09016-y</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Sibanda, M., et al. (2022) Correction: Sibanda et al. Application of Drone Technologies in Surface Water Resources Monitoring and Assessment: A Systematic Review of Progress, Challenges, and Opportunities in the Global South (Drones 2021, 5, 84). Drones, 6, 131. https://doi.org/10.3390/drones6050131</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Sibanda, M., Dube, T., Mubango, T. and Shoko, C. (2016) The Utility of Earth Observation Technologies in Understanding Impacts of Land Reform in the Eastern Region of Zimbabwe. Journal of Land Use Science, 11, 384-400.  
https://doi.org/10.1080/1747423X.2015.1130756</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Soropa, G., et al. (2021) Spatial Variability and Mapping of Soil Fertility Status in a High-Potential Smallholder Farming Area under Sub-Humid Conditions in Zimbabwe. SN Applied Sciences, 3, Article No. 396.  
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-021-04367-0</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Useya, J., Chen, S. and Murefu, M. (2019) Cropland Mapping and Change Detection: Toward Zimbabwean Cropland Inventory. IEEE Access, 7, 53603-53620.  
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2912807</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref65"><label>65</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Flamenco-Sandoval, A., Martínez Ramos, M. and Masera, O.R. (2007) Assessing Implications of Land-Use and Land-Cover Change Dynamics for Conservation of a Highly Diverse Tropical Rain Forest. Biological Conservation, 138, 131-145.  
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.04.022</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref66"><label>66</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Chipika, J.T. and Kowero, G. (2000) Deforestation of Woodlands in Communal Areas of Zimbabwe: Is It Due to Agricultural Policies? Agriculture, Ecosystems &amp; Environment, 79, 175-185. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(99)00156-5</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.122248-ref67"><label>67</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Jombo, S., Adam, E. and Odindi, J. (2017) Quantification of Landscape Transformation Due to the Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP) in Zimbabwe Using Remotely Sensed Data. Land Use Policy, 68, 287-294.  
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.07.023</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>