3.2. Spatial and Temporal LULUC Changes
The changes in areas under each class are summarized in
Table 5 and depicted in
Figure 3. The observed changes across the three time periods show that the area of artificial areas continued to increase, from 157.86 in 2000 to 293.12 in 2010 and further to 452.23 km
2 in 2020. This increment suggests ongoing urbanization and development. Furthermore, the area of agricultural land also showed a steady increase, from 325.56 in 2000 to 481.80 in 2010 and further to 560.58 km
2 in 2020. This expansion indicates sustained agricultural activities and the potential expansion of farmland. Additionally, the changes in these classes signified an increase in population, increasing the demand for more food and shelter.
The forest and semi-natural areas decreased significantly from 718.18 in 2000 to 427.374 in 2010 and further to 193.23 in 2020. This decrease implies the substantial loss of natural and semi-natural habitats over these two decades. The area of wetlands decreased gradually from 4.73 in 2000 to 3.852 in 2010 and further to 0.261 in 2020; this trend highlights a continuing decline in wetland ecosystems. The decline in wetland ecosystems goes in tandem with a slight fluctuation in water. However, due to perennial rivers, the water area remained relatively stable over these years, with slight fluctuations from 0.49 in 2000 to 0.558 km2 in 2010 and eventually to 0.522 km2 in 2020.
Water showed a minimal change in its area between 2000 and 2020. However, there was a reduction in water between 2010 and 2020. In 2000, water and wetlands covered an area of about 0.4 km
2; a reduction of about 0.004% in water was observed in 2010, and an overall increment of about 0.005% was recorded between 2000 and 2020 for water and wetlands, respectively. This indicates no significant changes in water bodies during this decade. It is worth mentioning that a portion of water may be absorbed or obscured by the surrounding forest, shrub land or grassland. Conventionally, land that was initially occupied by forest and semi-natural covers may have been converted to agricultural areas and artificial surfaces. This trend is depicted in
Figure 4.
There was a significant increase in artificial areas between 2000 and 2010, with a percentage change of 11.28% and an almost similar increment rate of 13.18% in the total area of the catchment between 2010 and 2020. This increase indicates rapid urbanization and infrastructure development during this period, albeit at a slightly increased rate compared to the previous decade. Furthermore, agricultural areas experienced a sharp increase, with a percentage change of 12.92% between 2000 and 2010 and expansion at a decreased rate of 6.53% between 2010 and 2020. These changes indicate expansion in agricultural activities and possibly an increased focus on food production during this period, probably exhausting most fertile areas in the previous decade.
Forest and semi-natural areas significantly declined between 2000 and 2010, with a percentage change of 25%. However, a similar decline with a comparatively reduced rate of 19.4% in forest and semi-natural areas was observed between 2010 and 2020. This indicated a substantial loss of forested and natural lands, possibly due to deforestation, urbanization, or land conversion for agricultural purposes. In line with this decline in forest and semi-natural areas, wetlands experienced a slight decrease, with a percentage change of 0.319% between 2000 and 2010. Furthermore, a flimsy increase of 0.298% was observed between 2010 and 2020; this indicates a minor loss of wetland habitats during this decade, indicating a strengthening of conservation strategies or encroachment of most wetlands.
Generally, between 2000 and 2020, there was a significant increase in artificial areas from 2000 to 2020 with a percentage change of 24.46%, which was relative to the total area. This indicates that urbanization and infrastructure development have expanded over the years. Agricultural areas have also experienced growth, with a percentage change of 19.45%, which is relative to the total area. This expansion suggests an expansion in agricultural activities and possibly increased food production. Furthermore, forest and semi-natural areas have shown a declining trend, with a percentage change of 44.4% relative to the total area. This indicates a significant reduction in forested and natural lands, possibly due to deforestation, urbanization, or the conversion of land for agricultural production. Additionally, wetlands have experienced a slight decrease, with a percentage change of 0.357%, which is relative to the total area. This suggests a minor loss of wetland habitats, which could impact the biodiversity and ecosystem services associated with wetland areas. In line with this, the area covered by water has remained relatively stable, with a small percentage change of 0.005% relative to the total area, indicating that there have been no significant changes in water bodies over the years.
Generally, the trends between 2000 and 2010 indicated rapid urbanization, moderate growth in agricultural areas, the significant loss of forest and semi-natural areas, a slight decrease in wetlands, and minor changes in water bodies. Between 2010 and 2020, these trends showed continued urban expansion at a slower rate, continued growth in agricultural areas but at a reduced pace, and a further decline in forest and semi-natural areas, including the significant loss of wetlands and relatively stable water bodies. These trends highlight the ongoing challenges of urbanization, deforestation, and land use changes, emphasizing the need for sustainable land management practices, conservation efforts, and the careful consideration of the environmental impact of human activities.
The land use/cover changes observed in the study area could have significant environmental, economic, and social implications, such as habitat loss, changes in ecosystem services, agricultural productivity, and urban development. Monitoring and managing these trends is important to ensure sustainable land use practices and minimize negative environmental and ecosystem impacts.
Previous studies in other Arusha City catchments have reported a similar agricultural land increment. Agricultural land was expected to increase by about 21.1% and 29.2% between 1985 and 2000 and from 1985 to 2015, respectively. This increase would likely continue for about 38.2% and 42.7%, from 1985 to 2030 and 1985 to 2050, respectively [
16]. Similarly, the agricultural land on the slopes of Mount Meru were reported to increase from 46.85% to 50.42% between 1986 and 1996 and 42.8% between 1996 and 2006 [
10]. The report further shows a general increase in the built-up area by 96.8 km
2 and 53.9 km
2 between 2006 and 2016, respectively. A large proportion of this increase was reported to align with a decrease in bushlands (from 31.5% to 24.19%), some of which could be found along the riparian buffer zone.
The reports show that urban growth in Arusha was approximately 287% from 1995 to 2015; the future projection shows an increment of 180% in the urban footprint by 2050 [
17]. Kitalika et al. [
10] reported that significant land use transitions from bushland and agricultural land into human settlements resulted from upgrading the conversion of Arusha town into a city status. A similar decrease in the forest was also reported in the northern [
18,
19,
20], southern highlands [
21], central regions, and coastal regions of Tanzania [
22]. This indicates an increased pressure on water resources, predominantly urban rivers, which is likely to affect sustainability.
3.3. Socio-Economic Development along the Riparian Buffer Zones
Changes in land use/cover in the buffer zone are summarized in
Table 6 and depicted in
Figure 5. Between 2000 and 2020, the land cover in the buffer zone continuously showed persistent change as the driving factors exceeded the carrying capacity of the buffer zone. Within the buffer zone, there was an increase in artificial areas from 2.538 km
2 in 2000 to 8.361 km
2 in 2010 and, finally, 16.47 km
2 in 2020. This change was equivalent to 18.07% from 2000 to 2010, 25.06% from 2010 to 2020, and a total change of about 43.13% from 2000 to 2020. This change mirrored environmental destruction along the buffer zone, suggesting water quality and quantity change.
On the other hand, there was an increase in agricultural areas by 7.533 km2 from 2000 to 2010 and a slight decrease of 2.759 km2 from 2010 to 2020. This change mirrored an equivalent increase of about 23.31% from 2000 to 2010, 6.92% from 2010 to 2020, and an overall increase of about 30.23% from 2000 to 2020.
There was a significant decrease in forest and semi-natural areas of 39.63% from 2000 to 2010 and a further shrinking in forest and semi-natural areas by 31.73%. This decrease was equivalent to a total decrease in forest and semi-natural areas by 71.36% from 2000 to 2020. Wetlands, on the other hand, showed a slight decrease of 1.7% from 2000 to 2010, a slight increase of about 0.24% from 2010 to 2020, and an overall shrinking of about 1.94% from 2000 to 2020.
The intermittent change that took place between the years 2000 and 2010 in LULC has been contemplated to be the result of a population increase, which intensified anthropic activities, thus, posing stress in areas once considered buffer zone. As the need for economic growth, food, and settlements increase, some classes tend to triumph over others in keeping up with the current demands. Land use classes that were part of the buffer zone ecosystem were converted into agriculture and artificial areas to suffice the community’s needs and, thus, buffer zone encroachment.
These results are similar to those reported by [
6] in the Bagmati River in the Kathmandu Valley. The general land cover in the Bagmati River showed that between 2006 and 2014, the vegetation and grassland class had a tremendous fall of 35.53% and 29.20%, respectively. Artificial areas, represented by built-up areas, increased by 14.82%, and road expansions increased by 0.37%, while open spaces and water bod stayed relatively constant. The hinted results are similar to the ones obtained in this study regardless of the difference in the description of land use classes. This phenomenon implies that the driving factors of encroachment in the buffer zones are almost the same, with the leading factor of encroachment being urbanization. The encroachment of smallholder farmers and the expansion of tea plantations were also reported in the Sigi sub-catchment [
23].
3.4. Community Perception of the Factors Influencing River Buffer Zone Encroachment
The factors influencing river buffer zone encroachment include population growth, urbanization, poverty, water scarcity, and a shortage of fertile land and poverty. These are factors that other researchers in their studies have reprimanded; some of these factors exist in the respective study areas of Themi, Nduruma, Maji ya Chai, and Tengeru.
The existing encroachment factors at the site area are urbanization and poor urban planning, which contributes about 42%, water scarcity, which contributes 8.33%, and poverty, which contributes 16.67% (
Figure 6). The urban growth rate before the enactment of EMA 2004 appeared to be low by 20% when compared to the current rate of 38.33%.
The socio-economic activities in the selected case studies included agricultural activities such as maize plantations, floriculture, and olericulture. During the site survey, flower gardens were sported at Sekei near the river Themi and salad gardens on the river Nduruma’s banks. About 46.67% of the respondents conducted agriculture-related activities, while 53.33% were involved in non-agricultural activities, including shopkeeping, lumbering, and garages along the buffer zone (
Figure 7). Considering the nature of socio-economic activities performed in this area, it is evident that the increasing population led to economic water stress and thus forced peasants and other business owners to invade the restricted area for easy accessibility to water.
Studies indicate that urbanization is the major factor leading to the encroachment of the buffer zone in urban rivers [
24]. Land use for the sake of residence and commercial purposes has become extremely lucrative such that it has infringed or constrained other important land use developments. Shrestha [
6] reported that rapid urbanization has led to land scarcity with very high prices, which triggers people to encroach on the buffer zones. However, it is worth stating that the absence of the demarcation of the buffer zone of the river has not produced significant changes in the encroachment of the riparian buffer zones. These results have shown that the growth of urban areas has resulted in the shrinkage of forest and semi-natural areas and influenced the growth of built-up areas. This phenomenon can only imply that urbanization has subjected cities to land scarcity, thus invading buffer zones.
Level of Awareness and Compliance with Environmental Legislation
The results indicate that about 53.33% of the interviewed community members were aware of the regulations restricting the conduction of anthropic activities along the buffer zones. Furthermore, 46.67% of the community was unaware of the buffer zone regulations (
Figure 8). Awareness is not adherence, and the level of adherence of the community to regulations governing the buffer zone was 70% adhered to, while those who did not adhere to these regulations comprised 30%.
In establishing the link between awareness and adherence, 76.9% of the community who responded to the survey and were aware of the buffer zone regulations did not adhere to the environmental legislation (
Table 7). Furthermore, 76.7% of the community members were unaware of the environmental regulations and did not comply with the buffer zone regulations. This means that the level of awareness did not contribute to the adherence to environmental regulations in the study area.
The results showed that a small proportion of community members established their residents within the river buffer zone before enacting the environmental management act, no 20 of 2004 [
7]. However, a large proportion of the population established settlements along the river buffer zone, even after enacting the Environmental Management Act of 2004 (EMA, 2004). The results showed that 15%, 13.6%, and 37.5% of people aged 15–29, 30–44, and above 45 years had settled or dwelled in the area before enacting EMA, 2004. However, 75% of people aged 15–29 years, 86.4% aged 30–44 years, and 62.5% of those above 45 years started dwelling in the buffer zone after enacting EMA, 2004 (
Table 8).
The link between education level and environmental legislation awareness showed a linear increase in awareness as the level of education increased. About 70% and 48.1% of those with no formal education and those with primary education were aware of the regulations. In contrast, the level of awareness increased to 70% for those with a university/college education (
Table 9). This observation suggests that increasing awareness campaigns may reduce the rate of encroachment in riparian buffer zones.
The results indicate that most people aged 15–29 and 30–44 years were more aware of environmental legislation by 60% and 54.5%, respectively (
Table 10). However, a significant proportion (40% and 45.5%) of this active group were still unaware of the environmental regulation governing the buffer zones of rivers. This trend implies the need for intensive sensitization for sustainable buffer zone management in the future. However, for the elderly under the category above 45 years, only 37.5% of people were aware, and 62.5% were unaware (
Table 10). This triggers the need to extend sensitization training to the elderly group, which can be used to educate young ones in the villages.
3.5. Community Perception of the Challenges Hindering the Enforcement of the Regulation Governing River Buffer Zones
Political intervention is where the politician protects the interests of those who elected them without considering the potential impacts that may be imposed on the environment. This challenge means there is a need to separate political interests from enforcing environmental legislation. Furthermore, the absence of demarcation along the buffer zones of rivers, especially urban rivers, resulted in some anthropic activities along the buffer zone. The installation of signs and symbols near river areas was not effectively implemented until recently when permanent river changes were observed to have signposts along the main roads.
An unawareness of environmental legislation is another challenge afflicting the buffer zones; most people are unaware of the environmental laws regarding the conservation of water resources and the need to leave a buffer zone, as presented in
Table 10. Furthermore, land scarcity is one of the driving forces that has influenced society to encroach on buffer zones. Arusha city is under the pressure of development and is a center of tourist attractions that are prone to rapid growth and requires an increase in land. Therefore, buffer zones are the only sustainable fertile land for most low-income communities to conduct small-scale farming for income generation. Thus, river buffer zones and other open spaces succumbed to encroachment.
Climate change has greatly affected water availability for most domestic, agricultural, and industrial uses. Eventually, the community near rivers sought the most affordable and easily accessible water sources like river streams. Farmers and horticultural practitioners of the Nduruma River are famously known for the deviation of River streams for irrigation purposes into their farms, and the same case applies to the Tengeru River in Manyatta village. Furthermore, the recent rapid increase in population in the city has also led to an increased demand for development and other human needs. This increase in demand requires a large amount of land; thus, more interest is taken in open space areas like buffer zones.
Initiatives taken by the authorities include evacuation, especially in new developments apart from the existing ones. Another initiative was to charge fines for anthropic activities like sand mining or quarrying along the buffer zones. However, the plan was to install beacons for demarcating the buffer zones and inform the surrounding community that the law protected the buffer zone area. However, socio-economic activities that existed before the environmental legislation was allowed to occupy the buffer zones only if they were keen enough to protect the buffer zones against any environmental destruction. Since it has proved impossible to fully evacuate people from buffer zones since some of these areas have been leased to these people since colonial times; thus, these organizations have chosen to address this problem from different aspects.