Climate Mobility - Geospatial Data Project

The assessment of the land degradation in the camp is based on the calculated parameters that include land covers, soil carbon and productivity. The baseline year (t0) was set to be 2010 and is computed as the average of the period leading up to t0 (2010–2022). The parameters are then remeasured in regular time intervals leading to 2030, and change is used to monitor the progress.

The first Land degradation parameter is on Land Cover change. To assess the Land Cover degradation, the transitions between 2010–2015 and 2015–2020 were analyzed for the baseline and the first monitoring period, respectively. To determine whether changes from one Land Cover class to another are interpreted as degradation, a change matrix can help visualize the transitions on the analysis section below. Furthermore, the transitions from grasslands to croplands were not considered as Land Degradation to avoid tradeoff between ecosystems and food security as well as between nomadic and sedentary living.

Land Productivity is described as “the biological productive capacity of the land”. NDVI (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index) is a widely used vegetation index that quantifies the amount and health of vegetation in a specific area.

Soil organic carbon parameter is based on the maximum equilibrium soil organic carbon content at a location that is controlled by environmental factors such as rainfall, evaporation, solar radiation, and temperature. The content can change based on three distinct change factors: First, the land-use factor represents Soil organic carbon stock changes based on the type of land use. Second, the management factor reflects the management practice of the land use (e.g., grazing intensity on grasslands). Third, the input factor represents the different amounts of carbon input into the soil.

The population analysis within the context of this Climate Mobility Project involves a comprehensive examination of the demographic distribution within the designated project area. This is visually depicted on the geographical map, where the project area is subdivided into distinct wards. These wards serve as spatial units that facilitate the understanding of population distribution across the region.

The baseline survey shows that entire camp population is comprised of women appr. 59% and 41% men at the camp site. (As of December 2022).

2022 census data shows that Kasulu District has a a total population of 537,767

In order to effectively represent the population distribution, a graduated color scheme is employed on the map. Specifically, wards with lower population densities are depicted using a deep, somber shade of blue, contributing to a clear visual distinction. Conversely, wards characterized by higher population densities are rendered in a lighter hue of blue. This cartographic representation aids in conveying the varying degrees of population density across different geographical segments of the project area.

Food Security Projections: Based on the data analysis, it was seen that areas with higher population density in the camp experienced more deterioration and loss of land productivity compared to less crowded areas. This may suggest that the clustering of migrants in specific regions exerts pressure on the environment and available resources, resulting in increased susceptibility to food insecurity and lack of other crucial ecosystem services.

Social Services: From the analyzed data, the population is more dense in areas that have more social services compared to other parts of the camp site. This may suggest that the availability of social services plays a crucial role in attracting and retaining refugees in certain areas of the camp. Equitable distribution of social services from sustainable planning is crucial in managing planned mobility and eco friendly land use.

Economic Activities and Opportunities: The data indicates that camp locations in close proximity to the main city of the Kigoma region, Kasulu and other economically potential areas have a much higher population density compared to other regions. This suggests that the presence of economic possibilities and resources in these regions entices a greater influx of migrants. This presents a possible opportunity for policymakers and local government to undertake climate adaptation strategies that utilize the capabilities and skillsets of migrants in order to achieve sustainable migration, while leveraging on economic opportunities.

Hence, the area that is more populated is subjected to higher degradation, and vice versa. The graph shows the relationship between these two variables i.e. population and degradation

Visualizing this relationship is facilitated by a comprehensive graph that elegantly captures the dynamics between these two key variables: population density and land degradation. The graph's visual representation conveys the trends and patterns inherent in this relationship, providing a quantitative basis for the observed correlation.

The population analysis extends beyond just population distribution, encompassing a crucial comparison between population distribution and land degradation. This intricate relationship is unveiled through the preparation of two distinct maps, each focusing on one aspect. By employing an intuitive swapping mechanism, users are empowered to seamlessly transition between the two maps, enabling a direct and insightful comparison between the spatial patterns of population distribution and land degradation. A helpful hint, guiding users to scroll horizontally, enhances the usability of this feature, facilitating a dynamic exploration of the data.

HINT: Scroll from left-to-right or right -to-left.

HINT 2: Click on any map to see more attribute information.

Remarkably, this study also underscores the reciprocal relationship between population density and land degradation. Invariably, areas with denser populations, and consequently more intensive human activities, are prone to higher degrees of land degradation. This correlation can be attributed to the heightened strain on natural resources and ecosystems in densely populated regions. Conversely, regions with lower population densities tend to exhibit reduced levels of land degradation.

Dashboard showing analysis done on degradation levels per population. This two sided dashboard allows you to navigate from one ward to the other by just clicking on the any ward of interest, furthermore, population by wards graphs have the capability of being filtered out by scrolling the top bar , and upon clicking the graph, it automatically filters the spatial boundary on the map.

The interactivity on the dashboard and its elements play a crucial role in using the data for decision making and proper utilization of resources.

HINT: Upon selection of a population graph, it spatially filters out the ward on the map and displays attribute information in that respective ward

The analysis conducted within the Climate Mobility - Geospatial Project offers a profound insight into the complex relationship between land degradation and its key contributing factors. The methodology's incorporation of parameters such as land cover, soil carbon content, and productivity, coupled with the establishment of a baseline year (t0) in 2010, provides a solid foundation for tracking land quality changes over time. Through regular measurements up to 2030, the study reveals notable variations that shed light on the state of land degradation within the project area.

The outcomes are compelling, depicting distinct patterns of land conditions. Approximately 11.38% of the land area exhibits significant improvement, suggesting that proactive efforts and sustainable management practices have yielded positive results. This is an encouraging indication that targeted interventions can indeed contribute to reversing the degradation process.

The largest proportion, approximately 45.14%, reflects a stable condition. This can be attributed to effective land management strategies that maintain or enhance land quality without causing further degradation. The sustained stability underscores the importance of these practices in preserving the ecological and socio-economic functions of the land.

Conversely, approximately 43.42% of the land area shows varying degrees of degradation. This highlights a critical challenge that requires focused attention. Degraded land is not only ecologically compromised but can also lead to negative socio-economic impacts. Immediate action is needed to address the drivers of degradation and implement restorative measures.

HINT: Click on the map to see more attribute information.

1. Targeted Land Restoration Programs: Given the substantial proportion of degraded land (43.42%) in light of migration patterns, it is imperative to initiate targeted land restoration programs. These programs can focus on rehabilitating degraded land in areas that are most affected by climate change-induced relocation. By restoring the land, policymakers can create opportunities for sustainable agriculture and livelihoods, reducing the vulnerability of communities to food insecurity and displacement. Collaboration with local communities is vital for the success of these initiatives.

2. Learning from Success: Case studies can be derived from areas that have demonstrated a notable improvement of 11.38%. Examining of the precise actions that resulted in this improvement from field data is crucial for duplication of similar techniques in other deteriorated regions that experience or can be subjected to migration.

3. Degradation Mitigation: The locations experiencing degradation necessitate urgent deep dives. It is crucial to conduct thorough assessments in order to determine the causes of degradation, particularly in relation to migration and other contributing variables. To effectively counteract deterioration trends and improve migration management, it is imperative to adopt customized approaches such as reforestation, soil erosion control, and land-use planning.

4. Regular Monitoring and Data Repositories: It is crucial to consistently measure land parameters in relation to migration trends till 2030 in order to monitor progress and make necessary adjustments to interventions. Real-time monitoring can facilitate the detection of emerging issues and enable prompt actions to address future disruptions in connection to the movement.

5. Community Engagement: Engaging local communities in sustainable land management practices and adaptation practice especially on new phenomena like climate mobility is important. As well as promoting awareness about the importance of land conservation and involve communities in decision-making processes related to land use and migration.

6. Policy Support: Advocating for policies that promote sustainable land management, inclusive migration policies and innovation at the regional and national levels. This could include incentives for responsible land use, incentivizing adaptation efforts, advocating for regulations against deforestation, and supporting sustainable migration efforts.

7. Capacity Building: It is significant to invest in capacity building for people on the move, host communities, including training in sustainable farming techniques, soil conservation, and natural resource management.

8. Public Awareness Campaigns: Launch public awareness campaigns to educate the wider population especially host communities and the youth about the importance of land conservation and the role they can play in mitigating land degradation.