Analysing patterns of forest cover change and related land uses in the Tano-Offin forest reserve in Ghana: Implications for forest policy and land management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forest cover change is a major contributing factor to global environmental change. Whereas several studies have focused on the general land use and land cover dynamics, we focus on analysing forest cover change patterns in a protected landscape taking into consideration how other land categories are increasing at the expense of the forest. In this study, we analyse forest cover change patterns and associated proximate land use factors between 1987 and 2017 using Landsat images from the Tano-Offin Forest Reserve (TOFR) in Ghana. Using the Random Forest machine learning algorithm, we classified the images into forest, developed land, and agricultural land. The study finds that forest cover losses are 1.9 and 1.4 times the amount of forest cover gains in 1987–2002 and 2002–2017, respectively. We find that even though the forest cover is more likely to recover from the agricultural land, land developers mostly targeted the agricultural land. The focus of Ghana's Forest and Wildlife Policy and the underlying process of forest cover change in the TOFR suggest that a country's forest policy should focus on a combination of diverse and spatially explicit proximate factors that are likely to threaten the integrity of forests.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".