Presented by Bernard N. Baatuuwie at Colands Stakeholders Workshop in Ghana, 12-13 April 2022

1. Assessing Land Uses in the Sanyiga Kasena Gavara Kara
(SKGK) CREMA
Bernard N. Baatuuwie,
Balma Y. Issaka
Damian Tom-Dery
William J. Asante
Collaborating to Operationalise Landscape Approaches for Nature,
Development and Sustainability
Stakeholder’s Consultative Workshop, 12-13th April, 2022, Bolgatanga
COLANDS CIFOR

2. Presentation Outline
• Introduction
• Methodology
• Preliminary Results
• Lessons Learned
• Way Forward
• References
2

3. Introduction
• Where are our resources? Present
• Where were they? Past
• Where will they be in 10 years time? Future and the sustainability
question
• How do we answer these questions?
3
Mapping and classification of land cover/uses is vital in understanding
the earth's biophysical systems

4. Introduction
• Data on the area and distribution of wildlife habitat, for example, are
useful in managing and mitigating development impacts on protected
and endangered species (LaGro 2005).
• Thus, land use/cover classification enables resource managers to
maximize the productivity and conserve the land for posterity (LaGro
2005).
• The best use of each parcel of land requires a scientific and
methodologically appreciable classification of the present land use.
4

5. Introduction Cont.
• COLANDS contributes knowledge to improving
landscape approach implementation to the
sustainable supply of forest-related goods and
services and protection of biodiversity
• Key activities in achieving the above is to
develop a field-tested land use and land cover
change maps for Six CREMAs within the
Western Wildlife Corridor (WWC) in Ghana
• CREMAs are very important ecosystems
especially in this era of climate change
1. Chikali Sungmaaluu =159,289
2. Moagduri Wuntaluri Kuwomsasi (MWK)
=103,997 ha
3. Builsa Yenning = 42, 986 ha
4. Bulkawe = 28,349 ha
5. Sissala Kasena Fraah (SKF)= 92,527 ha
6. Sanyiga Kasena Gavara Kara (SKGK)= 67, 407
ha
5

6. Introduction Cont.
• This presentation concentrates on the Sanyiga
Kasena Gavara Kara (SKGK) CREMA.
• It covers a land area of 67,407 ha
• The aim is to share preliminary field results,
the lessons learned and the way forward
6

7. Methodology
• Shapefiles of the boundaries of CREMAs were acquired from a GIS
mapping consultant
• Boundaries jointly established by CREMA communities with government
representatives and interested NGOs (Asare et. al. 2013; Wildlife
Division 2000).
• Sentinel 2A images for the period of November 2021 were obtained from
USGS Earth Explorer (https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/)
• Shapefiles were used to subset satellite images for LULC analysis.
7

8. Methodology
8
Sentinel 2A images
Shapefile of CREMA Ground Truths/GPS : Guided walk
Classification
Validation and Statistics

9. Methodology cont.
• Ground truth data collected using GPS
• A guided walk with the community
member(s) conducted and the various land
use/cover types were identified, described
and mapped using the GPS.
• In all 511 validation points were collected for
the different land cover/use types.
• Image classification was accomplished
using the Random Forest Classifier
9

10. Results: Visible Land Uses
S/N Category Description
1 Settlement Farm villages with a mixture of buildings constructed using, thatch, mud and zinc
roofing sheets. Also compound farming in-between houses is visible
2 Waterbody Water systems including streams and dams/dugouts
3 Cropland These include cultivated areas for annual crops like cereals and legumes. These
farms have remanent trees in them. Thus, traditional agroforestry system is
practiced.
4 Opened
woodland
Uncultivated lands with reasonably spaced trees where tree canopies hardly inter-
logged. Substantial amount of grass layer underneath
5 Closed
woodland
Uncultivated lands with closed spaced trees where tree canopies inter-logged.
These includes grooves and highly protected areas. Few grasses and herbaceous
plants underneath
6 Grassland Uncultivated lands dominated by grasses shrubs, herbaceous vegetation, and/or
few scattered trees
7 Mining
Site/Bare soil
Mining areas with temporary human settlements, open pits, massive rock outcrops,
and bare grounds.
10

11. Preliminary Results
Class Area [Ha] Percentage
Settlements 187.92 0.3
Waterbody 2603.27 3.8
Cropland 2170.59 3.2
Mining site/Bare soil 1569.11 2.3
Grassland 16220.64 24.1
Closed woodland 13203.3 19.6
Open woodland 31471.97 46.7
Total 67426.8 100
• Classification was 68 % accurate
• Opened woodland had the highest land area of
31471.97 ha,
• Settlement had the least land area of 187.92 ha.
• Croplands were dominants at the periphery of the core
zones of the CREMA
11

12. Lessons Learned
• Variegated land uses and difficulty to separate
• Illegal activities e.g mineral mining and logging spotted
• Some CREMA representatives are getting disappointed/disinterested in
the protection action due to government’s slow nature in flashing out
illegal miners from the area
12

13. Way Forward
• Though Sentinel 2A images prove to give better results compared to
Landsat free data
• There is still the need to improve the classification results using other
higher resolution images/drones and computer visioning
• More collaborative participatory mapping approach
• Temporal and spatial expansion is required (Historical image analysis)
• Cost and time for project may increase
13

14. References
1. Asare, R. A., Kyei, A and Mason, J. J. 2013. “The Community
Resource Management Area Mechanism: A Strategy to Manage
African Forest Resources for REDD+.” Philosophical Transactions of
the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 368(1625)
2. LaGro, J. A. 2005. “Land-use Classification.” Pp. 321–28 in
Encyclopedia of Soils in the Environment.
3. Wildlife Division 2000. Wildlife Division Policy for Collaborative
Community Based Wildlife Management. Accra, Ghana: Forestry
Commission.
14

15. Thank You for Your Attention
15