4.1. Patterns and Spatial Expansion of Built-Up Areas (1993 to 2020)
The spatial expansion and patterns of built-up areas in Bahir Dar city and its periphery were computed from Landsat and high-resolution imageries using the integration of spectral and object-based image classification techniques (
Figure 5). The analysis was computed for the last three decades (1993–2020) following the basic changes in urban and rural land use intervention frameworks—the 1993 first urban land lease system is a basic turning point in peri-urban land intervention processes in Ethiopia. As presented in
Table 3, built-up areas were expanded by 260.7 ha, 640 ha, and 234.2 ha of land from 1993 to 2001, 2001 to 2011, and 2011 to 2020, respectively. A total of 3564.26 ha of land were converted to built-up areas from 1993 to 2020 with 6.73% annual average rates of expansions. From 1993 to 2011, most of the spatial expansions of built-ups existed within the current inner-city boundary (
Figure 5A–C). After 2011 onwards, however, built-ups are extremely expanding towards the peri-urban areas (see
Figure 5D). These expansions are happening in three main development corridors/peri-urban areas—towards west, east, and south development corridors (see the development corridors in
Figure 5). Of the three developmental corridors, most of the spatial expansions of built-ups (marked in red colors in the maps) are observed in the west and east developmental corridors which account for 632.2 and 751.1 ha of land from 2011 to 2020, respectively. Meanwhile, highly irregular patterns of built-up expansions were observed towards the south development corridors, and following the main roads in the west and east development corridors, especially irregularity increases away from the main roads due to the presence of illegal settlers by hiding themselves in non-visible areas. The results here depict that processes of built-up expansion do not only determine the horizontal urban expansion but also they determine the nature of people-to-land relationships, which involves both formal and informal processes of built-up expansion. The variation in the patterns and spatial expansions of built-ups is connected with the existence of main roads and favorable topography of the area. The expansion of built-ups following the river is somehow insignificant due to the restrictions for green areas. This is particularly the case outside of the inner city. From this, it is also possible to argue that the expansions of built-ups outside of the inner city boundary (especially when there are open spaces within the inner city) are directly connected with the inefficiencies of the land use management and land intervention processes. This creates haphazard, disputed, and unregulated land use systems in peri-urban areas of Bahir Dar. Furthermore, spatial results effectively demonstrate the spatial trends of built-ups. With the current annual average rates of expansions, the results in
Figure 5 predict that a total of 3960.2 ha of land will be converted to built-up areas by 2050.
The result of this study supports other related studies conducted in major regional cities in Ethiopia and other African countries. For instance, Fenta et al. [
15] and Gashu and Gebre-Egziabher [
16] indicated the presence of a high rate of urban expansion with 8% and 6% in Mekelle and Hawassa cities, respectively. This high rate of urban expansion is highly connected to the existence of informal and irregular patterns of built-ups following, and some times away from the main roads [
77]. Another study conducted by Manikandan [
17] also indicated that Adama city has expanded from 8.80 sq.km in 1984 to 51.3 sq.km in 2017. In addition, other studies conducted in different African countries, for instance, in Cameroon by Gwan and Kimengsi [
62], Malawi by Mawenda et al. [
90], Ghana by Karg et al. [
60] and Akubia et al. [
65] and Ethiopia by Haregeweyn et al. [
36] also indicated the presence of a high rate of urban expansion in major regional cities. However, the average rate of expansion of built-up areas in the study area was found much higher than the national average expansion rate, i.e., nearly 5% as it is reported by the EMoUDHC [
13], United Nations [
9] and CSA [
14,
19]. This implies that the spatial expansions of built-ups in major regional cities are higher in Ethiopia, and this creates considerable land use management challenges, especially in peri-urban areas of the major regional cities in the country. As it is also generally argued by Banzhaf et al. [
50], the spatial expansions of built-ups could create consistent pressure on land use dynamics.
4.2. The Spatial Dynamics of Peri-Urban Land
The spatial dynamics of Bahir Dar city and its peri-urban areas have been analyzed from 1993 to 2020 (see
Figure 6). The analysis was computed for the last three decades (1993–2020). As clearly shown in
Figure 6, six land use/land cover classes, namely, built-ups, farmlands, vegetation, open and green areas, wetlands, and water bodies are identified for the years 1993, 2001, 2011 and 2020. Substantial LULC changes have been observed in the last three decades. Built-up areas have drastically increased from 1993 to 2020 (see the red marked colors in
Figure 6). As clearly presented in
Table 4, 453.2 ha of land was converted to built-up areas from 1993 to 2001; whereas farmland, vegetation, open area, and water bodies were decreased by 247.9, 112.2, 95.8 and 8.1 ha of land in the same year, respectively. From 2001 to 2011, built-up areas were increased by 1228.4 ha of land while farmlands, vegetation, open and green areas, and wetlands were drastically decreased by 495.3, 392.4, 311.1, and 19.2 ha of land, respectively. Similarly, built-ups areas were increased by 1882.5 ha of land while farmlands, vegetation, open and green areas, wetlands, and water bodies were decreased by 848.7, 544.4, 319.2, 93.4, and 76.8 ha from 2011 to 2020, respectively.
For the last three decades, 3564.2 ha of land was converted to built-up areas with both regular and irregular patterns; highly regular patterns of built-up expansions were observed towards the south development corridors, and following the main roads in west and east development corridors (see the discussion in
Section 4.1). This implies that the current land intervention processes contributed to the horizontal expansion of built-ups at the expense of other land uses. Such trends of the spatial expansions of built-ups create consistent pressure on land use dynamics and deterioration of the ecosystem. The results of land use dynamics here portray that the contribution of the informal land use intervention is high for the dynamic and high rate of conversion of peri-urban land uses. This context supports contemporary studies conducted in Ethiopia and other developing countries. For instance, a study conducted by Wubneh [
20] indicated that rural land uses in Ethiopia are rapidly overtaken by the existing urbanization processes. Other studies conducted in Nigeria [
51], Ghana by Karg et al. [
60] and Akubia et al. [
65], Cameroon by Gwan and Kimengsi [
62], Malawi by Mawenda et al. [
90] and Chain by Robinson and Song [
53], Tian and Wang [
56] and Tian [
91] indicate the existence of massive land use dynamics that highly affect the livelihoods of local communities and the sustainability of ecosystem services. The discussion so far, both in
Section 4.1 and
Section 4.2, indicates a high rate of horizontal expansion of built-ups and attributed land use dynamics, and this creates problems on the local communities, governments and the ecology of local environments. These contexts are also evidenced from the socio-economic data analysis as the social analysis supports understanding of the processes of land use interventions, which can be considered as driving factors for the observed land use dynamics in the study area. Here, it can be noted that the social and spatial dimensions of the peri-urban land have a cause and effect relationship where the social dimension triggers interventions to effect the spatial dimension and it is well observed in the form of land use dynamics (
Section 4.3 below).
4.3. Land Intervention Process and Its Effectiveness for Governing Land Use Dynamics
Empirical data on processes of land use interventions were obtained from the sample household respondent using a questionnaire survey to assess whether there is contextual and clear land use policy (LUP)/legal framework enacted for land use intervention/allocation or not. Out of the total of 384 sample household respondents, 348 sample respondents correctly completed and returned the questionnaire. Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for interrelated items was 0.843, which is accepted as high reliability [
89]. Of the total respondents, 27% of the sample household respondents indicated the availability of contextual and clear land use policy/legal framework enacted for peri-urban land use intervention process. Of the respondents who indicated the availability of clear land use policy, 36% of the respondents reported that the policy is well integrated and implemented among the different levels of land administration institutions. More than half (57%) of the sampled household respondents, however, reported that the policy lacks clear integration and proper implementation among different levels of land administration institutions. The remaining 7% of the respondents were not in a position to argue on the integration level of land use policy among the different land administration institutions. Regarding the transparency of LUP/legal frameworks, only 21% of the sample household respondents highlighted that the existing land intervention framework is transparent and available.
Similarly, FGD participants and key informants were forwarded different views regarding the availability of contextual land use policy enacted for regulating and monitoring land intervention processes. Among the discussants, four operational staff FGD discussants outlined the presence of land intervention policies by referring to the 2011 urban land lease policy [
69] and the 2005 rural land administration and use framework [
71] as an example. Three discussants claimed the existence of fragmented policies and frameworks, but they outlined the lack of comprehensive policy that is enacted for peri-urban land interventions. Some of the other three discussants disclosed the lack/absence of comprehensive and appropriate policy regarding land, land use, and land use interventions. Likewise, one of the key informants replied that “the country does not have a clear and visible land use policy and land use intervention framework prepared by the government instead there are fragmented laws and frameworks in rural and urban sectors”. In addition, other key informants mentioned that “the land administration institution uses local regulations, directives or frameworks, and these frameworks are highly subjective to changes in different time and space”. Another respondent replied that “peri-urban in Ethiopia is one of the gray areas in policy as well as in practices and it is a highly missed up and continuously exploited area by different actors’ without a robust conflict redress mechanism”. Out of 10 key-informants, seven respondents have reported very similar ideas to the above-mentioned views and arguments. This implies that the legal frameworks enacted for peri-urban interventions in Ethiopia are fragmented, inconsistent, and subjected to changes from time to time.
Both the empirical data analysis and responses from FGD and key informants indicated that the existing peri-urban land intervention policy/legal frameworks are fragmented and lack transparency. The policies are fragmented in a way that both urban and rural land administration institutions have their own land use policies. This can be elaborated by considering the existing urban and rural land use policies. The urban land use policy promotes a lease system with fixed time [
69,
70], whereas rural land administration and use proclamation guaranteed free holding right on the land [
71,
72]. In addition, landholders in urban areas have a right to transfer land through sale, mortgage, and exchange [
69], but it is outlawed to rural landholders [
73]. In both of the legal frameworks, however, nothing is said (left vacuum) about peri-urban areas and it is still vague to manage the land properly [
21]. This indicated that the working legal frameworks for peri-urban land interventions are fragmented, overlapping, and lack transparency since the land intervention process considers both urban and rural land use policies. From this, it is possible to argue that the existing peri-urban land intervention frameworks of Ethiopia are not congruent and appropriate enough to sustainably manage the rapidly expanding informal built-ups and unwanted land use dynamics. These contexts were also evidenced in the spatial data analysis (see
Figure 5,
Section 4.1 and
Figure 6,
Section 4.2).
Concerning the effectiveness of peri-urban land intervention, the empirical data analysis result, which is 57% of the sample household responses, indicated that the existing land intervention process remains behind to be effective and contribute towards governing the rate and extent of unwanted land use dynamics in the peri-urban areas of the city (see
Table 5). Only 4% of the sample household respondents perceived that the existing land intervention framework is effective in governing unwanted land use dynamics. Nearly one-third (29%) and 1% of the respondents rated the effectiveness of the framework as moderately effective and extremely effective, respectively. The remaining 9% of the respondents were undecided to rate the effectiveness of the existing land use intervention framework. Similarly, 59% of the respondents perceived that the existing framework is ineffective in reducing peri-urban land use conflict. Very few (5%) of the respondents reported that the existing land use framework is effective in governing the rate and extents of peri-urban land use conflicts. In this regard, one of the key informants reported that “the land administration institution uses local regulations and directives for peri-urban land intervention processes, which are highly subjective to changes across time and space and thus, the effectiveness of the framework is highly depending on the effectiveness of the local management/administrative units”. Other key informants outlined that “the peri-urban space is poorly represented both in a legal framework and institutional arrangements; there might be a frequent change of directives to secure some group’s interest”. The remaining key informants also reported very similarly to this argument. This implies that the existing land intervention processes lack effectiveness in governing unwanted land use dynamics (see also the rate of land use dynamics in
Figure 6).
The respondents further reported that the existing land intervention practices lack effectiveness for respecting and maintaining the desirable land intervention indicators (see
Figure 7). In this regard, the majority of the sample household respondents perceived that the existing land intervention processes are far from being effective. Very few (less than 10%) of the sample household respondents perceived that the existing land intervention practice is effective for addressing contemporary land intervention indicators. This means that the existing land intervention processes lack effectiveness in considering the socio-cultural, economic, environmental, and political dimensions of the land (see
Figure 7).
The extent and levels of peri-urban land use conflict are also high in the study area. As presented in
Figure 8, 39%, 32%, and 15% of the respondents perceived that the extent and levels of peri-urban land use conflicts are extremely high, high, and medium, respectively. Only 10% of the respondents argued that the extent and level of the existing peri-urban land use conflicts are insignificant/low. The remaining 4% of the sample household respondents are not in a position to argue on the extent and levels of the existing peri-urban land use conflicts.
As presented in
Table 6 below, sample households were also asked to evaluate the impacts of the existing peri-urban land use intervention processes on the livelihoods of peri-urban local communities. The response ranges from 5 to 1—strongly agree to strongly disagree, respectively. The maximum and minimum responses are 5 and 1. The mean response is 4.32 and the Std. deviation is 0.810. The descriptive analysis here indicated that the existing peri-urban land intervention process has a negative impact on the livelihood of local communities. As the std. deviation value indicates there is less dispersion/deviation of response from the mean response. Similarly, the majority of sample household respondents agreed that the existing peri-urban land use intervention process is affecting the sustainability of peri-urban ecosystem services. Statistically, the mean response is 4.06 and the std. deviation is 0.932. In addition, the descriptive analysis indicated that the existing land intervention process and peri-urban land use conflict is affecting the development of infrastructure in the area. The mean response for this is 4.05 and the std. deviation is 0.930. The std. deviation value here shows less dispersion/deviation of response from the mean response.
In the same way, the existing peri-urban land use conflict and land intervention process are affecting the socio-cultural values of local communities. Statistically, the mean response is 4.04 and the std. deviation is 0.915. The std. deviation value here shows less dispersion/deviation of response from the mean response. Likewise, the majority of the respondents claimed that the existing land use intervention and attributed land use conflicts are leading to the displacement of local communities. In this regard, the mean response is 4.24 and the std. deviation is 0.891. The std. deviation value here shows less dispersion of response from the mean response. Additionally, the majority of the respondents agreed that the existing peri-urban land use conflict and land intervention process are creating political instabilities. The statistical mean response is 4.23 and the std. deviation is 0.878. Similarly, most of the respondents agreed that the existing land use intervention processes brought social crises, with a statistical mean response of 4.30 and std. deviation of 0.883. The std. deviation value here shows less dispersion of response from the mean response. The survey analysis result also shows that the existing peri-urban land use intervention process is trigger corruption and tenure insecurity (see the statistical analysis value in
Table 6). All this implies that the existing peri-urban land use challenges, in general, are highly connected with the limitations of the existing land intervention processes. These limitations have numerous impacts on the economic, socio-cultural, environmental, and political dimensions of the land.
Concerning the land intervention processes, the findings of the study support the arguments of Mohammed et al. [
92]. In this regard, Mohammed et al. [
92] argued that the processes of land intervention in Ethiopia are “neither participatory nor supportive to local communities”. This means that local communities rarely participate in the land intervention processes, and in many cases, the government expropriates landholders with insufficient compensation [
20]. Another study conducted by Deininger et al. [
93], Engida [
24] and Adam [
25] also argued that the Ethiopian land intervention process followed mainly a top-down approach, often with little connection to reality. A crucial result of this leads to expansions of informal built-ups, land use dynamics and conflicts over land. In addition, Lombard [
66] and Adam [
70] argued that the land use transformation from rural to urban settings is always connected with problems like differences in tenure and administrative systems and these lead to disputes, contestation and, in some cases, violence. Both from spatial and socio-economic data analysis and discussions so far, it is possible to conclude that the existing peri-urban land intervention framework of Ethiopia is not congruent and appropriate enough to monitor and control the spatial expansions of built-ups and unwanted land use dynamics. This inevitably creates problems on the local communities, governments and the ecology of local environments, and this context calls for effective land use management policies.
From the discussion so far, it is possible to note that the socio-spatial methodology applied in this research is an emerging approach in a general sense, and its application in other domains remains theoretical. This research advances the methodology to make it more empirical, i.e., the spatial results well demonstrate the impact of horizontal expansion of built-up areas and land use dynamics with different extent and magnitudes in the peri-urban lands, whereas the social analysis supports understanding of the processes of land use interventions, which can be considered as driving factors for the observed land use dynamics in the study area. The approach could be applied in other areas with similar or related context studies regardless of geographic settings to suggest a holistic land use management policy complemented with integrated follow-up alternatives. However, the economic domain/dimension of land is still loosely treated/quantified with this approach. Therefore, further studies with the integration of other economic models are essential to fully understand the economic implications of spatial patterns of informality and to suggest alternative spatial management of the peri-urban areas in line with the development agenda.