Fig 1.
Map of the study areas (ArcGIS version 10.7.1 software, Esri, California, USA).
The illustration shows (A) location of Amhara National Regional State, (B) North Worth Wollo by districts, and (C) Study areas (Woldia city administrative and Guba Lafto district).
Table 1.
Description of satellite images used for the study.
Table 2.
LULC classes and their thematic description in the study area.
Table 3.
Summary of land use/land cover (LULC) types and their equivalent biomes with the corresponding value coefficients (US$ ha−1 year−1) based on the modified conservative value coefficients adopted from Kindu et al. [2,9].
Table 4.
Ecosystem service values of functions of each LULC type based on the Economic Ecosystem and Biodiversity valuation database [29].
Table 5.
Accuracy assessment of LULC for 1984, 1991, 2001, and 2021.
Fig 2.
Land use/land cover change for stipulated periods (1984–2021) in the study landscape.
Fig 3.
The proportion of LULC types and the area changed in hectares between 1984 and 2021.
The positive changes suggest an increase/gain and the negative values indicate a decrease/loss in the status of land use types.
Fig 4.
LULC changes indicating area change in percent shares between 1984 and 2021.
Note: CL, Cultivated Land; BL, Barren Land; BA, Built–up Area; FL, Forest Land; GL, Grass Land; WB, Water Bodies. The positive changes suggest an increase/gain and the negative values a decrease/loss in the status of land use types.
Table 6.
LULC transition matrix between 1984 and 2021 periods (ha).
Fig 5.
The NDVI class of the study landscape (Software: ArcGIS version 10.7.1 software, Esri, California, USA).
Fig 6.
The vegetation density of the study area.
Note: NV, Non–vegetation or water bodies; VLV, Very Low Vegetation; LV, Low Vegetation; MV, Moderately Vegetation; VDV, Very Dense Vegetation.
Fig 7.
The spatial distribution of ESV across the study area.
Table 7.
Ecosystem service values estimated for each land use and land cover type based on modified conservative value coefficients adopted from Kindu et al. [29].
Table 8.
The estimated value of ecosystem functions (ESVf in US$/ha/yr) within each service category across the study periods (1984–2021), overall changes, and their ESVf proportion of changes.
Table 9.
Percentage change in estimated total ESV and coefficient of sensitivity (CS) index resulting from an adjustment of modified conservative service value coefficients (VC).