Agricultural Land Transition in the “Groundnut Basin” of Senegal: 2009 to 2018

Bonoua Faye; Guoming Du

doi:10.3390/land10100996

Agricultural Land Transition in the “Groundnut Basin” of Senegal: 2009 to 2018

Faye, Bonoua;Du, Guoming 2021-09-22 00:00:00 land Article Agricultural Land Transition in the “Groundnut Basin” of Senegal: 2009 to 2018 1 2 , Bonoua Faye and Guoming Du * School of Economics and Management, Northeast Agricultural University, Harbin 150030, China; bonoua.faye2021@neau.edu.cn School of Public Administration and Law, Northeast Agricultural University, Harbin 150030, China * Correspondence: duguoming@neau.edu.cn; Tel.: +86-13384657203 Abstract: The study aims to reveal the transition features of agricultural land use in the Groundnut Basin of Senegal from 2009 to 2018, especially the impact of urbanization on agricultural land and the viewpoint of farmland spatiotemporal evolution. Integrated data of time series MCD12Q1 land-use images of 2009, 2012, 2015, and 2018 were used to provide a land transition in agricultural and urban areas through the synergistic methodology. Socio-economic data was also used to serve as a basis for the argument. The results highlight that: (1) Agricultural land increased by 14.53%, with a dynamic index of 1.45 from 2009–2018. (2) Over the same period, urbanization increased by 2.80%, with a dynamic index of 0.28. (3) In different regions, the transition of agricultural land in Kaffrine is most intense (expansion rate: 22.80%). The same situation of urbanization happened in Thiès Region with a value of 7.94%. Except for Thiès, agricultural land in other regions has not yet been subject to major pressure due to urbanization. Overall, the farming system in Groundnut Basin is an extensive model, the recommendations from the point of view of land-use planning and land law are necessary to ensure efﬁcient agricultural land management in the area. Citation: Faye, B.; Du, G. Keywords: agricultural land transition; urbanization; land management; groundnut basin; Senegal Agricultural Land Transition in the “Groundnut Basin” of Senegal: 2009 to 2018. Land 2021, 10, 996. https:// doi.org/10.3390/land10100996 1. Introduction Academic Editors: Uchendu Land-use changes are consistently the principal driver of habitat change on approxi- Eugene Chigbu, Ruishan Chen and mately half of the earth’s terrestrial surface [1]. From 2000 to 2015, the global land cover Chao Ye trend indicated a net loss of natural/semi-natural lands. These losses of land resulted from many processes. Among the processes, we can identify deforestation, unsustainable Received: 15 August 2021 agricultural practices, urbanization, land tenure, and poverty [2]. This situation is more Accepted: 16 September 2021 visible in industrialized countries, in Europe or Asia. Therefore, the land-use study is of Published: 22 September 2021 fundamental signiﬁcance, as the land resources play a strategic role in the determining man’s economic, social and cultural progress [3]. Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral Indeed, the global land system faces unprecedented pressures from growing human with regard to jurisdictional claims in populations and climatic change [4]. Urban sprawl on agricultural land has become a published maps and institutional afﬁl- global phenomenon plaguing all countries of the world, rich or poor [5]. This phenomenon iations. has attracted the attention of social researchers since the mid-20th century [6]. Thus, many researchers are interested in the causes and consequences of urbanization. Some authors such as G. Duranton and D. Puga highlight that economic growth drives urban expansion in constructing businesses, dwellings, roads, leisure centers, transportation, etc. [7]. Therefore, Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. the metropolitan regions face the growing problems of urban sprawl, including a decline in Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. natural vegetation, wildlife habitats, and agricultural land [3]. More than 8.8% of European This article is an open access article Union (EU) land is used for residential, commercial, and industrial purposes [8]. Other distributed under the terms and very important factors are the quality of the environmental conditions of agricultural conditions of the Creative Commons production, population density, and net migration [9], which also affect agricultural land. Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// Therefore, it is important to note that the life of more than 7.7 billion human beings creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ today [10], 9.73 billion by 2050, and 11.2 by 2100 will depend on the soil availability for 4.0/). Land 2021, 10, 996. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10100996 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land Land 2021, 10, 996 2 of 17 food production [11]. As long as urban populations continue to grow, the challenge of maintaining food security is increasing [12]. In Eastern and Central European countries, namely in Hungary, Slovak Republic, Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia, agricultural land prices were gradually increasing in these countries during the past decade [13], and this price depends on the market forces of the supply and the demand [14]. In Romania, the political and socio-economic changes began in the early 1990s had a strong impact on land, especially on the quantity and quality of agricultural terrains [15]. Furthermore, we found that in Bulgaria arable land abandoned without cultivation, represents a very large area because of a shortage of ﬁnancial resources [16]. In addition, land privatization and farm restructuring are inseparable issues for agriculture and the rural sector in the transformation to a market economy [17]. The case of Slovakia illustrates this. Indeed, the pressure from investors has increased in creating new residential, commercial services and shopping centers, logistic and industrial parks, which is consequently reﬂected in land-use changes [18]. In summary, in Europe the areas with the most visible impacts of urban sprawl are in countries or regions with high population density and economic activity like Belgium, northern Italy, the Paris and Madrid regions, and Germany [19]. The south Asian region as a whole is experiencing expansion and intensiﬁcation of cropland and urbanization, shrinking of forests and grassland [20]. On the other hand, in China, for example, the problems in urban-rural spatial structure and food security have been the hot spots of land use research [21]. It is because China has urbanized rapidly over the past three decades, underpinned by rapid economic growth. It has many rapidly growing cities and some that have had declining populations [22]. As such, the per capita area of farmland fell from 0.106 ha in 1996 to 0.092 ha in 2008, raising concerns about food security [23]. Therefore, migration, rural economic development, and urbanization are the primary forces driving the conversion from farmland to non-agricultural uses in China [24]. Other researchers attest that immigration plays an important role in land-use transitions because it leads to urban expansion and farmland occupation [25]. The review of the literature also conduced us to examine land tenure. Indeed, land tenure security refers to the right of individuals and groups of people to effective protection by their government against forcible evictions [26]. Therefore, in the agricultural sector, securing land tenure has regularly been prioritized by policy-makers to ensure and develop more productive agriculture [27]. In that sense, secure tenure is widely recognized as an essential foundation for achieving a range of rural economic development goals [28]. However, land tenure security is central to agricultural production and sustainable use of natural resources [29], and the links between tenure security and agricultural produc- tivity are of primary interest [30]. This may imply that land tenure systems can affect agricultural productivity by inﬂuencing the efﬁcient use of inputs and the adoption of modern technology [31]. On another note, secure access to productive land reduces the vulnerability to hunger and poverty to the millions of poor people living in rural areas and depending on agriculture. It inﬂuences their capacity to invest in their productive activities and the sustainable management of their resources [32]. From then on, land tenure security is important not only for agricultural production, but it also allows people to diversify their livelihoods by using their land as collateral, renting it out, or selling it [33]. Finally, strengthening land tenure security is key to achieving efﬁcient land allocation among farmers in both in land abundant and land-constrained areas as it facilitates land markets [34]. In the above background, it is important to analyze the evolution of the population to in order to understand rapid urbanization. Globally, more people live in urban areas than in rural areas [35]. We found that 54 percent of the world’s population live in urban areas. In view of this, we noted that the urban population of the world has grown rapidly since 1950, from 746 million to 3.9 billion in 2014 [10]. Along with this, the medium-variant projection indicates that the global population could grow to around 8.5 billion in 2030 [36]. Hence, prior work has highlighted that urbanization is a problem because urban expansion inevitably covers some agricultural land. Land 2021, 10, 996 3 of 17 In contrast, changes in land values and land markets around cities often result in va- cant land as the owners anticipate their gains from selling it or using it for non-agricultural uses [22]. Therefore, the changes in land use arise from competing for economic, politi- cal, social, and environmental goals [37], and urban sprawl dynamics will also play an important role in the future land-use change in some countries like India [38], and Africa countries. In summary, land-use change is characterized by a high diversity of change trajectories depending on the local conditions, regional context, and external inﬂuences [39]. Therefore, it is important to understand the underlying technological, institutional, and economic drivers of land-use change and how they play out in different environmental, socio-economic, and cultural contexts [40]. According to the literature review, the drivers of the agricultural land transition are mainly non-agricultural activities—for instance, residential construction. The more human activities intensify, the more agricultural land is threatened. Therefore, as Senegal is a developing country, this study is important from the point of view of understanding the mechanisms and the main factors inﬂuencing the transition of agricultural land. Given this worrying situation, the objective of this work is to (i) understand the degree and trend of transition and evolution of agricultural land space and time. Then, our interest is to (ii) identify the keys drivers of this transition and evolution of agricultural land in the Groundnut Basin. In this study, we will focus on these important issues. 2. Study Area Senegal is located in the West African continent, with a land area of 196,722 km . 0 0 0 It is located between the latitudes 12 20 and 16 20 N and the longitudes 11 20 and 17 30 W [41]. Ecologically and agriculturally, the country is subdivided into six geograph- ical eco-zones [42]. Our research concerned the Groundnut Basin. It covers the administra- tive regions of Diourbel, Thiès, Kaolack, Fatick, Kaffrine, part of the Tambacounda region (departments of Koumpentoum and part of the department of Tambacounda) and the department of Kébémer [43]. Therefore, our study focuses only on the ﬁve administrative regions (Figure 1). They are considered most important in this area because they occupy almost all the arable land in the Groundnut Basin, and constitute an area of very high agricultural production in Senegal [44]. It has a population of 6,436,912 people according to the population censuses in 2013 [45], and covers a total area of 34,964.36 km , with a density of 184.10 people per km . The distribution of arable land by agro-ecological zone shows that the Groundnut Basin represents 70% of arable land [46]. Throughout the Groundnut Basin, the cropping systems are mainly cereal-leguminous rotations [47], and it is dominated by subsistence production of millet, maize, groundnuts, cowpeas, and bissap (hibiscus) [48]. Groundnut Basin is characterized by degraded and patchy open forests dominated by Bombax costatum, Lannea acida, Pterocmpuserinaceus, Sterculia setigera, Khaya senegalensis, Daniellia oliveri, Detarium senegalensis [49]. With a poverty rate of 47% in 2011 [50], agriculture in Senegal has always been seen as the foundation of the country’s socio-economic development [51]. In terms of economic activities, this sector is dominated by agriculture and occupies 74% of the population in the area [52]. Its average in terms of gross domestic product (GDP) ranged from 21.24% (1960–1989) to 15.26% (1990–2011) [53], and further to 16.1% in 2017 [54]. According to data from the National Agency for Statistics and Demography (NASD) site, in 2020, the areas planted (in hectares) in peanuts represent, respectively, 55.16% (2017) and 63.15% (2018) of the national areas (in hectares) planted. In 2013, the population censuses showed that 70% of farms were small family farms with an area of fewer than ﬁve hectares [45]. In the study area, the median value of annual rain-fed crop sales per household in 2018 is around $246.61. According to the NASD site, the percentage of farm household members with agricultural education vary from 5.34% in 2017 to 0.67% in 2018. Land 2021, 10, 996 4 of 17 Land 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 18 Figure 1. Geographic information: (A) represents the blue color represents the localization of the Figure 1. Geographic information: (A) represents the blue color represents the localization of the study study a ar re ea a w within ithin S Senegal; enegal; ( (B B) ) r repr epresents esents the the G Grro oundnut undnut B Basin asin w with ith f ﬁve ive re regions. gions. In fact, in Africa, particularly in the Sahel, after the rainy periods of the 1960s, many 3. Materials and Methods researchers noted anomalies of rain in the early 1970s [55]. The consequences of this rainfall 3.1. Data Sources deterioration are reﬂected in Senegal by the degradation of the natural environment, with The data presented in this study are derived from different databases (please see Ta- drought leading to the degradation of the plant cover, the soils being subjected to erosion ble 1). The analysis model aims at analyzing the agricultural land evolution and transition and runoff, and the accentuation acidiﬁcation and salinization [56]. In addition, the factors in terms of area and soil occupation change over ten years chronological series between of low annual rainfall, frequent dry spells, and the rainy season shortening affect the 2009 to 2018. vegetative cycle of crops [57]. Severe droughts, especially in northern regions, appear as the biggest risk in estimated aggregate losses to crop and livestock [58]. In Senegal, Table 1. Data sources information. agriculture is mainly rain-fed and depends heavily on seasonal rainfall amounts, and distribution [59]. Therefore, the combined effect of rainfall, land surface temperature, Types Information and solar radiation explain approximately 40% of the variation in cropland productivity The spatial data used for this study are obtained from over West Africa at the 95% signiﬁcance level [60]. This situation underlines the fact that USGS (United States Geological Survey) and NASA (Na- the evolution of agricultural land, and climate are closely linked. Drought is a recurring Spatial data Source tional Aeronautics and Space Administration), Modis land phenomenon in the coastal zone of Senegal and its hazards affect the economies of the cover-Modis MCD12Q1V6 (acquisition data: 26 March predominantly agricultural population [61]. 2021) https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/, The main factors affecting land-use in Senegal are manifold. Firstly, lots of land areas cropland; grassland; urban and built-up; permanent wet- were changed by the urban setting and associated rapid growth and transformation of Types land (four images in 2009; 2012; 2015, and 2018 between human societies in Senegal [42]. In 2015, Senegal’s population was estimated at 14,356,575 June and October) people with an average annual growth rate of 2.7% [45]. The growth of the rural population National Agency for Statistics and Demography (NASD) has brought greater pressure on land and natural resources and contributed to land frag- Socio- mentation, particularly Source in densely populated (acquisitioand n dahigh-potential ta: 30 March 20 ar 21) eas htt with ps://s easy atisf access ac- to economic data markets [62]. As a result, in Sangalkam, around Dakar (capital of Senegal), some 7.64 km tion.ansd.sn/ of agricultural land use was ofﬁcially developed in the area between 2003 and 2009 [63]. Evolution of the population; characteristics of farm house- The law n 64–46 of 17 June 1964, governs land management in Senegal, which stipulates, Types hold members; farm household members with agricultural land does not belong to the State, territorial communities, or users, but the “Nation” [63]. education. Local governments are responsible for the allocation/dedication of land in the national World Bank (W.B) and Food and Agriculture Organization domain for rural activities [64]. Secondly, the chronological summary of agricultural policy Agricultural (FAO) (acquisition data: 30 March 2021) in Senegal has gone through several phases. The literature shows the Agricultural Program Sources data http://www.fao.org/faostat/fr/#data (1960–1980), the New Agricultural Policy (1985–1994) and the Agricultural Development https://donnees.banquemondiale.org/indicator Policy Programs, letters and Declaration (1995–2003). Since the 2000s, we have seen a reconﬁguration of the situation regarding agriculture. For example, we have the Law of Land 2021, 10, 996 5 of 17 Agro-Sylvo-Pastoral (LOASP) in 2004. Since 2013, Senegal has deﬁned a new agricultural policy called the Program to Accelerate the Cadency of Senegalese Agriculture (PRACAS). Despite all these agricultural policies, Senegalese agriculture still faces difﬁculties [65]. Third, soils in Africa affected by water erosion ranging from medium to high effect cover an area of more than 12 million hectares, or 18.5% of the total national territory [66]. The Groundnut Basin is today confronted with chemical and physical-biological degradation which has become more intense. Thus, the soils are impoverished, restructured, chemically exhausted by wind and water erosion, recurrent droughts [67]. 3. Materials and Methods 3.1. Data Sources The data presented in this study are derived from different databases (please see Table 1). The analysis model aims at analyzing the agricultural land evolution and transi- tion in terms of area and soil occupation change over ten years chronological series between 2009 to 2018. Table 1. Data sources information. Types Information The spatial data used for this study are obtained from USGS (United States Geological Survey) and NASA (National Spatial data Source Aeronautics and Space Administration), Modis land cover-Modis MCD12Q1V6 (acquisition data: 26 March 2021) https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/ cropland; grassland; urban and built-up; permanent Types wetland (four images in 2009; 2012; 2015, and 2018 between June and October) National Agency for Statistics and Demography (NASD) Socio-economic Source (acquisition data: 30 March 2021) data https://satisfaction.ansd.sn/ Evolution of the population; characteristics of farm Types household members; farm household members with agricultural education. World Bank (W.B) and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (acquisition data: 30 March 2021) Agricultural data Sources http://www.fao.org/faostat/fr/#data https://donnees.banquemondiale.org/indicator Fertilizer consumption; permanent cropland (% of land Types area); agriculture value added (% of gross domestic product) Data Portal: Center for Hydrometeorology and Remote Sources sensing—available online: https://chrsdata.eng.uci.edu/ Climatic data Types (acquisition data: 28 August 2021) Rainfall data (between June and October) 3.2. Methodology The spatial data used in this study are obtained from NASA LPDAAC Collections- Modis Land Cover—MCD12Q1V6 (Earth Explorer USGS). However, due to their character- istics, pre-processing is necessary to have more clarity. Therefore, several steps have been taken. First, to optimize the quality of the images, the layers were re-projected according to the reference projection system of the study area, which is World Geodetic System (WGS)_1984_Complex_UTM_Zone_28N (EPSG:31028). In addition, the strips were cut ac- cording to the size of the study area. To make the classiﬁed land cover images comparable, we resampled the images to 50 m, which is the common resolution for all images [68]. This resampling allows us to obtain common results between the processed images. Second, after this geometric correction, we used supervised classiﬁcation to categorize the land Land 2021, 10, 996 6 of 17 cover components used in our study. The land-use types are mainly classiﬁed into four cate- gories: cropland, grassland, urban and built-up, and permanent wetland. Then, concerning the spatial analysis, four temporal remotely sensed images were selected for evolution and transition land use detection, namely, Modis Land Cover of USGS in 2009, 2012, 2015, and 2018. All four images, respectively, were used to examine the area’s evolution and transition land-use dynamics. The area information was used as a basis for analyzing the quantitative change in land use. After the conversion of raster data to vector data, we had to use ArcGIS 10.6 platform to analyze the change pattern of cropland, grassland, urban and built-Up, and permanent wetland. 3.2.1. Analysis of Land Use Dynamics Dynamics of land use are expressed as an increase or decrease in area. Therefore, this method positively affects the analysis of the evolutionary pattern of land use in the study area. In addition, it gives an idea of the future dynamics of transition and evolution of land use over time. Ub U a 1 KT = (1) U a T where KT is the dynamic attitude of the pattern using during the study period, Ua is the area of the pattern at the beginning of the study period, Ub is the area of the pattern at the end of the study period T is the time interval of the study years [69]. 3.2.2. Calculation of the Land Evolution The degree of evolution in each tenure category will be assessed by calculating the rate of evolution E (i, k) in the area of land use as follows [70]. Sk Si E (i, k) = 100 (2) Si (Si) the area of a land-use category of the year i and (Sk) the area of a land-use category of year k, with k > i. E (i, k) will be equal to: If E (i, k) = 0, it is concluded that this land use category is stable, if E (i, k) < 0, it is concluded that there is a regression of this category, and if E (i, k) > 0, there is an extension or evolution of this category. 3.2.3. Analysis of Agricultural Land Transition To visualize the land cover transition, we merged the layers using the intersection tool in the ArcGIS platform. Then, we used the equation below to show the different transitions between the spatial data and used the pivot table function in Excel to produce statistics according to a couple of classes. Initially, the results of the four components studied showed fourteen different land-use change classes. Since not all land-use change classes have the same degree of importance, those representing the main changes were kept and the others were uniﬁed. For example, when we considered the relationship between grassland and permanent wetland, we obtained two different couple of classes change: grassland to permanent wetland and permanent wetland to grassland. Accordingly, the difference in change between these two couple of classes is maintained. In addition, we opted for this methodology to highlight the most important or the dominate transition between couple classes. This operation allowed us to keep the four most representatives, land-use change classes. T = Layer A + () + layer B (3) Layer A = corresponds to the year of beginning, Layer B = corresponds to the year of arrival, T = result of the transformation. (This method is used by GIS and RS solutions). 3.2.4. Analysis of Climatic Data: Rainfall To better understand the factors of evolution and transition of agricultural land in the Groundnut Basin, we have analyzed the inter-annual evolution of rainfall over the Land 2021, 10, 996 7 of 17 period from 2009 to 2018. Indeed, Senegal has two main seasons that mark the climatic regime: a dry season from November to April–May, and a rainy season from May–June to October, depending on the geographical location [41]. Accordingly, the rainfall values used in this analysis only concern the period from June to October, which coincides with the rainy season in our study area [71]. The methodology adopted is based on a statistical approach, using the averages of the ﬁve months of rainfall for each year in the series. 4. Results 4.1. Analysis of the Land-Use Evolution 4.1.1. Cropland and Grassland Evolution Agricultural land is becoming increasingly scarce and threatened by several factors. This situation can be fast/slow and differs from one country to another. Therefore, the tran- sition of agricultural land is relatively fast in developed countries due to industrialization but is slow in underdeveloped countries. Tables 2 and 3 shed light on the rate of evolution in agricultural land area, and urbanization has been increased in the last few decades. On the other hand, grassland has decreased. Table 2. The statistics of the land-use area in years 2009, 2012, 2015 and 2018 (km ). Land Use Pattern Years/Values 2009 2012 2015 2018 Cropland 14,569.53 15,541.06 15,913.48 16,687.16 Grassland 18,656.27 17,704.38 17,295.78 16,566.23 Permanent wetland 758.80 778.41 779.76 768.63 Urban and built up 172.49 174.85 175.41 177.32 Other 807.27 765.66 799.93 765.02 The total surface of the study area 34,964.36 34,964.36 34,964.36 34,964.36 Table 3. Dynamic land-use evolution in the period of 2009–2012, 2012–2015 and 2015–2018 (%). Land Use Pattern Permanent Urban and Number Periods Cropland Grassland Wetland Built Up P1 2009–2012 +6.67 5.10 +2.58 +1.37 P2 2012–2015 +2.40 2.31 +0.17 +0.32 P3 2015–2018 +4.86 4.22 1.43 +1.09 The study period 2009–2018 +14.53 11.20 +1.30 +2.80 () Decrease in area; (+) increase in area. The research revealed that an increase in cropland (Figure 2), at the beginning of the study period, which coincides with the year 2009, the cropland represented around 14,569.53 km . On the other hand, at the end of the study in 2018, the cropland is around 2 2 16,687.16 km . Therefore, a difference of 2117.63 km was noted, including an increase of 14.53%. The dynamic attitude of cropland amounts to 1.45. This dynamic seems to be important. This means a potential doubling of the cultivated areas around 2028. On the other hand, our analysis shows a decrease in grassland. The grassland repre- 2 2 sented respectively 18,656.27 km in 2009 and 16,566.23 km in 2018, showing a decrease of about 2090.04 km (11.20%). Therefore, the cropland increases as the grasslands decrease. Land 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 18 first period to the last period, the results reflect that the cropland has not increased signif- icantly. In summary, the cropland has slightly increased by 1.81% between the first and last periods (Table 3). This situation remains the same for the grassland. Respectively, the results are decreasing by −5.10%, −2.31%, and −4.22% and the difference noted between the first and third periods is about 0.88%. In summary, the study highlights important knowledge that an expansion of cropland during the study period (Figure 2). These results are confirmed by the data of the World Bank site (2020). Indeed, they show that the per- Land 2021, 10, 996 8 of 17 manent cropland represented 0.30% in 2009 and 0.35% in 2016, increasing 0.05% in Sene- gal. Figure 2. (a–d) show land use evolution patterns in years of 2009, 2012, 2015, and 2018 in the study Figure 2. (a–d) show land use evolution patterns in years of 2009, 2012, 2015, and 2018 in the area. study area. Table 2. As for The s the tati results stics ofbetween the land-periods, use area ithe n yecr aropland s 2009, 20 also 12, shows 2015 anﬂuctuations. d 2018 (km ). Thus, Table 3 reﬂects an evolution of 6.67% over the period 2009–2012. This result has decreased to 2.40% Land Use Pattern Years/Values between 2012 to 2015 with a deviation of 4.27%. Compared to the second period, we have 2009 2012 2015 2018 observed in the third period an increase of 4.86%. Therefore, if we compare the ﬁrst period Cropland 14 569.53 15541.06 15913.48 16687.16 to the last period, the results reﬂect that the cropland has not increased signiﬁcantly. In Grassland 18656.27 17704.38 17295.78 16566.23 summary, the cropland has slightly increased by 1.81% between the ﬁrst and last periods Permanent wetland 758.80 778.41 779.76 768.63 (Table 3). This situation remains the same for the grassland. Respectively, the results are decreasing Urban by an d5.10%, built up2.31%, and 172.4.22% 49 and the 174 dif .85 f erence noted 175.41 between the 177 ﬁrst .32 and third periods is about 0.88%. In summary, the study highlights important knowledge that Other 807.27 765.66 799.93 765.02 an expansion of cropland during the study period (Figure 2). These results are conﬁrmed The total surface of the study 34964.36 34964.36 34964.36 34964.36 by the data of the World Bank site (2020). Indeed, they show that the permanent cropland area represented 0.30% in 2009 and 0.35% in 2016, increasing 0.05% in Senegal. 4.1.2. Urban and Built Up and Permanent Wetland Evolution 4.1.2. Urban and Built Up and Permanent Wetland Evolution Urbanization is one of the factors that affect agricultural land. Therefore, it appears Urbanization is one of the factors that affect agricultural land. Therefore, it appears differently depending on the context and evolution of the population. In our study area, differently depending on the context and evolution of the population. In our study area, urbanization seems to be slow and occupies the space little by little. The dynamic attitude urbanization seems to be slow and occupies the space little by little. The dynamic attitude of urban and built-up turns around 0.28. Between 2009 and 2018, urban and built-up rep- of urban and built-up turns around 0.28. Between 2009 and 2018, urban and built-up resent 2.80% and permanent wetland 1.30%. represent 2.80% and permanent wetland 1.30%. Urban and built-up and permanent wetland are not signiﬁcantly represented. Indeed, at the beginning of our study in 2009, urban and built-up represents an area of 172.49 km out of 34,964.36 km , which corresponds to the total area of the study area. This area has evolved to reach 177.32 km at the end of the study in 2018, including an increase of 2.80%. However, the inter-period results show an increase of 1.37% between 2009 and 2012. This value has changed slightly from 2012 to 2015 with an area of 0.32 km , a decrease of about 1.05% less. For the last period, our research reﬂects an increase of 1.09%. In addition, between the ﬁrst and the last period, urban and built-up grew by 0.28%. Land 2021, 10, 996 9 of 17 In summary, urbanization has intensiﬁed in the second and last periods. The perma- nent wetland reﬂects an increase of 2.58% in the ﬁrst period, 0.17% in the second period, that is to say, a difference 2.41%. This result continues to decrease, reaching 1.43% in the third period. Finally, between the ﬁrst and the last period, this variable has decreased by about 1.15%. 4.2. The Regional Difference of the Study Area in Land-Use Transition Analysis of regional differences is important to understand the dynamics of agri- cultural land use in each region. We have ﬁrstly analyzed the cropland and grassland. Concerning cropland, from 2009 to 2018, an increase is noted in all the ﬁve regions. The region of Kaffrine has the highest value with 1337.95 km (22.80%). It is followed by the regions of Diourbel (19.50%) and Fatick (9.71%). The regions of Kaolack and Thiès show 3.83% and 2.53% over the ten years, respectively. This increase hides inter-annual disparities. Between 2009 and 2012, the area of cropland in the Diourbel region decreased by 5.81%. However, over the same period, the area increased in Fatick (4.27%), Kaffrine (13.31%), Kaolack (7.01%), and Thies (1.70%). This approach shows that cropland evolution is not exponential but in a sawtooth pattern. This pattern is similar to grassland. In general, it has decreased. The Kaffrine region occupied ﬁrst place with 24.81%, followed by the Diourbel (18.74%) and Kaolack (7.26%). In contrast, the Thiès region shows an increase of 0.11%. For urban and built-up and permanent wetland, the situation is the same. Concerning urban and built-up, the region of Thies comes in ﬁrst place with an evolution of 4.02 km (7.94%) between 2009 and 2018 (Figure 3). This evolution trend remains the same for the Diourbel region with 0.93%. The evolution of urban and built-up is average in the Factick region with 0.77%. In contrast, the regions of Kaolack (0.17%) and Kaffrine (0.61%) show a decrease in urban and built-up areas in the same period. Permanent wetland concern largely the Fatick and Thiès regions. In the Thiès region, the evolution is stable. However, in the region of Fatick, it has been recorded an increase of 9.80 km (1.31%). However, this result hides disparities. In the same region shows an increase of 2.60% from 2009–2012, to reach a decline of 1.43% from 2015–2018. Finally, the analysis of regional Land 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 18 differences in land use shows several aspects. The ﬁrst aspect shows that in the regions of Kaffrine and Diourbel, cropland has evolved rapidly, but urban and built-up remains low in Kaffrine (Figure 3). In contrast, urban and built-up expansion is relatively rapid in the Thiès region, and moderate in the Diourbel region. However, in the Thies region, the Thies region, the evolution of cropland and grassland has evolved weaknesses compared evolution of cropland and grassland has evolved weaknesses compared with other regions. with other regions. Figure Figure 3. 3. Regional Regionaldif difer ffer ences encesin inland landuse useevolution evolutionfr fr om om2009 2009 t too2018 2018(%). (%). 4.3. Analysis of Land Use Transitions 4.3.1. Inter-Period Transition To understand agricultural land transition dynamics, the series is divided into three equal periods. The first period from 2009–2012 shows a decrease in grassland in favor of 2 2 other variables. 944.58 km of grassland was transformed into cropland. Then, 12.23 km of grassland transformed into a permanent wetland, and 2.12 km became urban and built up. This first approach shows a significant decrease of grassland at the expense of urban- ism and permanent wetland indeed. Urbanism and permanent wetland have occupied 2 2 about 14.35 km of grassland. Urban and built-up alone, records 2.27 km on the grassland. Transition in the second period (2012–2015) appears to be less intensive than in the first period. The transformation of cropland decreased. The area transformed from grass- 2 2 2 land to cropland went from 944.58 km to 363 km , a decreasing 580.8 km . Dynamic con- tinues with the changes from grassland to permanent wetland with 2 km . Similarly, 1.15 km of grassland has been converted to urban up and built. This situation shows a rela- tively slow evolution of urbanization. Therefore, compared to the first period, the results reflect a difference of 1.03 km of grassland converted to urban up. Concerning the last period, it witnesses transition compared to the second period. Indeed, we still note an extension of agricultural land compared to the grassland, representing 772.12 km . In this last part, our analysis points to a reversal of the permanent wetland and grass- land. About 10.96 km of permanent wetland have been transformed into grassland. Ur- banization as for it evolved. We observed a 2.21 km of grassland are again transformed into urban and built up. The inter-period analysis of land transition shows significant fluc- tuations. A few areas of cropland were transformed into urban and built up, in other cases, the grassland was transformed into cropland or urban and built up. 4.3.2. Changes That Occurred during the Study Period Analysis done during the period of the study period highlights some changes be- tween the variables. Among the most significant changes, the results underline an exten- sion of other components on the grassland. 2083.29 km of grassland was transformed into agricultural areas (Table 4). Similarly, 5.42 km of grassland was transformed into urban and built up. In addition, 3.63 km of grassland was transformed into a permanent wet- land. We have noticed a significant change in grassland, in the study area which has con- tinued to increase. This change is especially noticeable in the Kaffrine region (Figure 4). Land 2021, 10, 996 10 of 17 4.3. Analysis of Land Use Transitions 4.3.1. Inter-Period Transition To understand agricultural land transition dynamics, the series is divided into three equal periods. The ﬁrst period from 2009–2012 shows a decrease in grassland in favor of 2 2 other variables. 944.58 km of grassland was transformed into cropland. Then, 12.23 km of grassland transformed into a permanent wetland, and 2.12 km became urban and built up. This ﬁrst approach shows a signiﬁcant decrease of grassland at the expense of urbanism and permanent wetland indeed. Urbanism and permanent wetland have occupied about 2 2 14.35 km of grassland. Urban and built-up alone, records 2.27 km on the grassland. Transition in the second period (2012–2015) appears to be less intensive than in the ﬁrst period. The transformation of cropland decreased. The area transformed from grassland to 2 2 2 cropland went from 944.58 km to 363 km , a decreasing 580.8 km . Dynamic continues 2 2 with the changes from grassland to permanent wetland with 2 km . Similarly, 1.15 km of grassland has been converted to urban up and built. This situation shows a relatively slow evolution of urbanization. Therefore, compared to the ﬁrst period, the results reﬂect a difference of 1.03 km of grassland converted to urban up. Concerning the last period, it witnesses transition compared to the second period. Indeed, we still note an extension of agricultural land compared to the grassland, representing 772.12 km . In this last part, our analysis points to a reversal of the permanent wetland and grassland. About 10.96 km of permanent wetland have been transformed into grassland. Urbanization as for it evolved. We observed a 2.21 km of grassland are again transformed into urban and built up. The inter-period analysis of land transition shows signiﬁcant ﬂuctuations. A few areas of cropland were transformed into urban and built up, in other cases, the grassland was transformed into cropland or urban and built up. 4.3.2. Changes That Occurred during the Study Period Analysis done during the period of the study period highlights some changes between the variables. Among the most signiﬁcant changes, the results underline an extension of other components on the grassland. 2083.29 km of grassland was transformed into agricultural areas (Table 4). Similarly, 5.42 km of grassland was transformed into urban and built up. In addition, 3.63 km of grassland was transformed into a permanent wetland. We have noticed a signiﬁcant change in grassland, in the study area which has continued to increase. This change is especially noticeable in the Kaffrine region (Figure 4). The balance of land-use changes observed over the study period shows that the most important relationships are between grassland and the other land use pattern, namely cropland and urban up and built. Table 4. Land use transition over the study period (2009–2018) in km . Permanent Urban and Cropland Grassland Wetland Built Up Cropland 13,288.12 x x x Grassland 2083.29 15,202.92 3.63 5.42 Permanent Wetland x x 747.53 x Urban and built up x x x 166.35 Land 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 18 The balance of land-use changes observed over the study period shows that the most im- portant relationships are between grassland and the other land use pattern, namely cropland and urban up and built. Table 4. Land use transition over the study period (2009–2018) in km . Permanent Urban and Built Cropland Grassland Wetland Up Cropland 13288.12 x x x Grassland 2083.29 15202.92 3.63 5.42 Land 2021, 10, 996 11 of 17 Permanent Wetland x x 747.53 x Urban and built up x x x 166.35 Figure 4. Land use transition throughout the study period (2009–2018). Figure 4. Land use transition throughout the study period (2009–2018). 5. Discussion 5. Discussions 5.1. Impacts of Urbanization and Population on Agricultural Land Transition 5.1. Impacts of Urbanization and Population on Agricultural Land Transition The National Agency of Statistics and Demography (NASD) site projections of popu- The National Agency of Statistics and Demography (NASD) site projections of pop- lation trends in the study area show a rapid evolution. The population projections data ula show tion tthat rendther s ine th wer e st eu5.059,331 dy area sh million ow a ra people pid evol inu 2009 tion.and The6.436,913 population million projec in tions 2018, da with ta show an incr thaease t there of w 27.23% ere 5.0 in 59ten ,331 years. millioA n rapid people incr in ease 2009 in anpopu d 6.43 lation 6,913 may millio be n an in 2 explanatory 018, with an increase of 27.23% in ten years. A rapid increase in population may be an explanatory factor that is at the origin of agricultural land transition because evolution in population fac induces tor thatdemand is at the for orig housing in of agand riculoccupation tural land tof ran new sition b spaces. ecau On se e the volother ution hand, in pop the ula rtesults ion ind highlight uces dem that andurbanization for housing a is nd expanding occupation of rapidly new in sthe pace Thi s. O ès n ar the ea o (Figur ther he a3 nd ). ,Accor the reding sultsto NASD site data, the Thiès region is the most urbanized and populated region after Dakar. highlight that urbanization is expanding rapidly in the Thiès area (Figure 3). According This region, whose land area represents less than 2% of Senegal’s land area (196,722 km ), to NASD site data, the Thiès region is the most urbanized and populated region after Da- concentrates more than 25% of the national population [45]. As a result, the overcrowding kar. This region, whose land area represents less than 2% of Senegal’s land area (196,722 of the capital (Dakar), partly explains the rapid development of urbanization in the Thies km ), concentrates more than 25% of the national population [45]. As a result, the over- region. This region (70 km from Dakar) now serves as a secondary city to correct the crowding of the capital (Dakar), partly explains the rapid development of urbanization in territorial imbalance; it has been the area to major state projects such as the new Blaise the Thies region. This region (70 km from Dakar) now serves as a secondary city to correct Diagne International Airport. From this perspective, agricultural land fragmentation and the territorial imbalance; it has been the area to major state projects such as the new Blaise scarcity are still mentioned as of considerable constraints on agricultural modernization. Diagne International Airport. From this perspective, agricultural land fragmentation and It could be exacerbated in the affected area due to a huge agricultural land acquired to scarcity are still mentioned as of considerable constraints on agricultural modernization. support urbanization and industrialization [72]. Therefore, it is undeniable that the loss of It could be exacerbated in the affected area due to a huge agricultural land acquired to agricultural land to urbanization is a serious threat to food security and poverty alleviation, support urbanization and industrialization [72]. Therefore, it is undeniable that the loss of especially in regions where many people are already poor. Consequently, agricultural development in Senegal has to face many challenges related to good land administra- tion and planning for successful socio-economic development, particular rural economic transformation. 5.2. Climatic Factors That Inﬂuence the Evolution of Agricultural Land The links between the land and the global climate have long been known [73]. Thus, the scientiﬁc literature provides positive examples of that problem. It points out that land degradation is a complex process involving the natural ecosystem and the socioeconomic system. Climate and land-use changes are the two predominant driving factors [74]. However, it is clear that climatic factors, including temperature or rainfall, can impact land-use. In this study, the pivotal factors that can inﬂuence agricultural land’s transition focus on the rainfall. Land 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 18 agricultural land to urbanization is a serious threat to food security and poverty allevia- tion, especially in regions where many people are already poor. Consequently, agricul- tural development in Senegal has to face many challenges related to good land admin- istration and planning for successful socio-economic development, particular rural eco- nomic transformation. 5.2. Climatic Factors That Influence the Evolution of Agricultural Land The links between the land and the global climate have long been known [73]. Thus, the scientific literature provides positive examples of that problem. It points out that land degradation is a complex process involving the natural ecosystem and the socioeconomic system. Climate and land-use changes are the two predominant driving factors [74]. How- Land 2021, 10, 996 12 of 17 ever, it is clear that climatic factors, including temperature or rainfall, can impact land- use. In this study, the pivotal factors that can influence agricultural land’s transition focus on the rainfall. Generally, the projected changes in climate include recurring climate extremes like Generally, the projected changes in climate include recurring climate extremes like droughts, flooding, and outbreaks of pests and diseases exposing the region to the vul- droughts, ﬂooding, and outbreaks of pests and diseases exposing the region to the vulnera- nerabilities of the changing environment [75]. The agricultural sector is one of the first bilities of the changing environment [75]. The agricultural sector is one of the ﬁrst affected affected by this change [64] because rainfall is the main factor affecting agricultural pro- by this change [64] because rainfall is the main factor affecting agricultural production [76]. duction [76]. Therefore, the erratic spatio-temporal distribution of rainfall can often be the Therefore, the erratic spatio-temporal distribution of rainfall can often be the origin of an origin of an increase or a decrease in the cropland. Past studies emphasized two normal increase or a decrease in the cropland. Past studies emphasized two normal years with a dryness years wtr ith end a dry in 2012 nessand tren 2013 d in in 2012 West anAfrican, d 2013 iparticularly n West Afric Senegal an, par[t77 icul ].a This rly Se dry ne ness gal [7 can 7]. have This d a r negative yness cainﬂuence n have a n on egthe ativ ar e i ea nfplanted. luence on t Forhinstance, e area pla our ntestudy d. For i shows nstance a decr , our ease stud iny cropland during the periods of 2012–2015 and 2015–2018. Indeed, the inter-annual evolu- shows a decrease in cropland during the periods of 2012–2015 and 2015–2018. Indeed, the tion inter of -annu rainfall al ev during olution the of r period ainfal1985–2014 l during the in p the erirod egion 198of 5–20 Kaolack 14 in the shows regithirteen on of Ka years olack out shoof wsthirty thirtee that n yea are rsdeﬁcient out of thcompar irty thaed t arto e def theic average ient com of pa the red series to the which averais ge604.0 of the mm seriof es rain. The most deﬁcient year was 2014 with 423 mm [78]. The above background conﬁrms which is 604.0 mm of rain. The most deficient year was 2014 with 423 mm [78]. The above the rainfall results analyzed for the whole study area. Indeed, the analysis made on the background confirms the rainfall results analyzed for the whole study area. Indeed, the evolution of the rainfall shows that the rainfall varies from one year to another. Indeed, analysis made on the evolution of the rainfall shows that the rainfall varies from one year Figure 5 shows three periods. The results of the second period show that the rainfall is to another. Indeed, Figure 5 shows three periods. The results of the second period show decreasing and 2014 is the most deﬁcient year of the whole period. Similarly, after an that the rainfall is decreasing and 2014 is the most deficient year of the whole period. Sim- increase in rain in 2015, the rainfall decreased over the third period. Accordingly, the ilarly, after an increase in rain in 2015, the rainfall decreased over the third period. Ac- decrease/ﬂuctuation in rainfall during this period may explain the reduction or increase in cordingly, the decrease/fluctuation in rainfall during this period may explain the reduc- cropland in the Groundnut Basin. tion or increase in cropland in the Groundnut Basin. Figure 5. Annual evolution of rainfall: 2009 to 2018. Source CRHS 2021. Figure 5. Annual evolution of rainfall: 2009 to 2018. Source CRHS 2021. On the other hand, our analysis reﬂects the decline of urban and built-up in the regions On the other hand, our analysis reflects the decline of urban built-up in the re- of gions Kaolack of Kaand olack Kaf and frine. KafFormerly frine. Form inhabited erly inha ar beas itedar ar eeabandoned, as are abandleaving oned, lethe aving place theto plfal- ace low. These two regions are predominantly agricultural (Figure 2). Therefore, this situation to fallow. These two regions are predominantly agricultural (Figure 2). Therefore, this sit- has been proven in some studies in the past. Indeed, the decline of groundnut cultiva- uation has been proven in some studies in the past. Indeed, the decline of groundnut cul- tion, coupled with the disappearance of certain industrial facilities for processing this raw tivation, coupled with the disappearance of certain industrial facilities for processing this material, has aggravated the situation, leading to a massive displacement of populations raw material, has aggravated the situation, leading to a massive displacement of popula- from the former urban centers of the Groundnut Basin to the metropolis of Dakar [65]. tions from the former urban centers of the Groundnut Basin to the metropolis of Dakar Therefore, many socio-economic and climatic factors can inﬂuence agricultural land, and some studies demonstrate about 74% of farmers perceived that erratic rainfall seasonality contributes signiﬁcantly to the land-use change and agricultural land abandonment [79]. 5.3. The Means of Financial Has Effect on Agricultural Land Evolution in Senegal This link between agricultural land transition and ﬁnancial means has been high- lighted in the literature. For instance, cropland increases in the United States, and pasture- land decreases when government payments go up [80]. The same observation is noted in China, where economic restructuring also inﬂuences the overall evolution of farmland areas [25]. Despite a shortfall in rainfall in recent years, Senegal has signiﬁcantly improved its results due to the selection of seeds and strong mechanization, which have positively impacted agricultural yields. Yields have witnessed a dramatic increase [81]. To under- stand this phenomenon, we have analyzed the evolution of agricultural investments. This analysis shows an identical correlation between the variables. According to data from the World Bank site, investments in the agricultural sector in Senegal have evolved consider- Land 2021, 10, 996 13 of 17 ably during the study period. They represented 16,323 million CFA ($30,471.27) in 2009 and 51,585.6 million CFA ($96,297.26) in 2018, including an increase of 35,262.6 million CFA ($65,826). Accordingly, we found that the agricultural investments for the Groundnut Basin represent 17.3% [82]. Meanwhile, fertilizer use has doubled. The use of fertilizer has evolved from 18,489,000 kg in 2008 to 37,000,000 kg in 2018, including an increase of 18,511,000 kg. These huge investments in the sector can justify the evolution of agricultural land in the area. The evolution of agricultural land in the Groundnut Basin depends more on ﬁnancial means. 6. Conclusions and Recommendations The ﬁndings of this study reveal that the agricultural land has not yet been subjected to real human pressure. From 2009–2018, urban and built-up occupies only 177.5 km of the total area (34,964.36 km ) and increases at 2.80%, with a dynamic attitude of 0.28. This situation is because the fact that it is an under-populated area with little urbanization. The density represented 184.10 people per km . Therefore, basic needs such as housing, infrastructure, and services are poorly developed in the area. Analysis of the regional difference shows that the Thiès region alone occupies 54.61 km . Today, this region is considered an integral part of the Dakar region (25% of the country’s population), which is the most urbanized in the country [83]. The most visible case in the study is the extension 2 2 of cropland on the grassland. It represents 14,569.53 km in 2009 and 16,687.16 km in 2018, including an increase of 2117.63 km (14.53%). The region of Kaffrine alone recorded an increase of 1337.95 km (22.80%) and followed by Diourbel (19.50%). The justifying factors can be related to agricultural investments and climatic performances such as rainfall or fertilizer. The use of fertilizer is increase reaching about 18,511,000 kg over the period. For the transition of areas is relatively intense, and the results reﬂected that 2083.29 km of the grassland was transformed into cropland; 5.36 km of the grassland was transformed into urban and built up. In general, the agricultural land in the study area has not yet undergone a major transition. According to these ﬁndings, recommendations are necessary to ensure efﬁcient and balanced management of agricultural land in the future. First, agricultural land use planning is essential. Given the increasing urbanization and large-scale agriculture, the establishment of an agricultural nature protection zone is necessary, to develop and seek consensus on rules guiding the sustainable utilization of agricultural resources. Second, the agricultural land is disappearing faster than population growth. It is therefore imperative to move towards zero lands “artiﬁcialization”. That is to say that we must resort to the restoration of degraded land to compensate for the land newly occupied by urban and built up. Third, land tenure management. Secure land and property rights are critical for reducing poverty and for enhancing economic development, gender equality, social stabil- ity, and sustainable resource use. We propose a restructuring of the basics of law No. 64–46 of 17 June 1964 to facilitate access to and proper management of agricultural land. Thus, the restructuring of this law will strive to put in the place a legal system that will facilitate access to and management of land in general and agricultural land in particular. However, it is relevant to integrate all stakeholders in the reform process, strengthen the existing land access procedure, and to further include land issues in the decentralization and agricultural development policy laws. In addition, access and control over land are problematic in Senegal, especially under customary rule [84]. Therefore, a more equitable redistribution of access to land, especially to those who can invest in agricultural development, might be an important point in restructuring this law. Furthermore, land issues are becoming increasingly complex due to economic devel- opment and population growth. Thus, the lack of coordination between socio-economic development laws can be seen as a blocking factor in the reform. Similarly, customary laws on land rights are increasingly challenged in the context of globalization. However, the lack of a clear delineation between the state and private domain may be a limiting factor in the reconstruction of this law. Therefore, it is necessary to formulate rural (such Land 2021, 10, 996 14 of 17 urban) spatial planning promotes; promote the implementation of comprehensive land consolidation projects throughout the region; and optimizes agricultural, ecological, and construction space [85]. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, B.F. and G.D.; methodology, B.F.; validation, G.D., and B.F.; formal analysis, G.D; resources, B.F.; data curation, B.F.; writing—original draft preparation, B.F.; writing—review and editing, G.D.; visualization, B.F.; supervision, G.D.; project administration, G.D.; acquisition of funding, G.D. Both authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Grant Number 41571167. Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available online. Kindly check the Table 1. Acknowledgments: We would like to express our gratitude to the professionals of the Northeast Agricultural University who encouraged us to make this project a success. Conﬂicts of Interest: The authors declare no conﬂict of interest. References 1. Vanbergen, A.J.; Aizen, M.A.; Cordeau, S.; Garibaldi, L.A.; Garratt, M.P.; Kovács-Hostyánszki, A.; Lecuyer, L.; Ngo, H.T.; Potts, S.G.; Settele, J.; et al. Transformation of agricultural landscapes in the Anthropocene: Nature’s contributions to people, agriculture and food security. Adv. Ecol. Res. 2020, 63, 193–253. [CrossRef] 2. Sachs, J.; Schmidt-Traub, G. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2020; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2020. 3. Bolca, M.; Turkyilmaz, B.; Kurucu, Y.; Altinbas, U.; Esetlili, T.; Gulgun, B. Determination of Impact of Urbanization on Agricultural Land and Wetland Land Use in Balçovas’ Delta by Remote Sensing and GIS Technique. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2007, 131, 409–419. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 4. Holman, I.; Brown, C.; Janes, V.; Sandars, D. Can we be certain about future land use change in Europe? A multi-scenario, integrated-assessment analysis. Agric. Syst. 2017, 151, 126–135. [CrossRef] 5. Al Tarawneh, W.M. Urban Sprawl on Agricultural Land (Literature Survey of Causes, Effects, Relationship with Land Use Planning and Environment) A Case Study from Jordan (Shihan Municipality Areas). J. Environ. Earth Sci. 2014, 4, 97–124. 6. Rubiera-Morollón, F.; Garrido-Yserte, R. Recent Literature about Urban Sprawl: A Renewed Relevance of the Phenomenon from the Perspective of Environmental Sustainability. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6551. [CrossRef] 7. Duranton, G.; Puga, D. The Growth of Cities. 2013. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/economy/growth/Growth_of_ cities_Duranton.pdf (accessed on 29 August 2021). 8. Eurostat Regional Yearbook. Land Cover and Land Use. 2011. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/ 3217494/5728541/KS-HA-11-001-12-EN.PDF.pdf/88b77a74-2628-4ed7-bb9f-24244d6c78a1?t=1414775978000 (accessed on 10 August 2021). 9. Sroka, W.; Mikolajczyk, J.; Wojewodzic, T.; Kwoczynska, B. Agricultural Land vs. Urbanisation in Chosen Polish Metropolitan Areas: A Spatial Analysis Based on Regression Trees. Sustainability 2018, 10, 837. [CrossRef] 10. United Nations. Department of Economic and Social Affairs—Population Division. World Urbanization Prospects. The 2014 Revision; ST/ESA/SER.A/366; UN: New York, NY, USA, 2015. Available online: https://population.un.org/wup/Publications/Files/ WUP2014-Report.pdf (accessed on 27 July 2021). 11. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The Future of Food and Agriculture Trends and Challenges; Food and Agriculture Organization: Rome, Italy, 2017. 12. Ambros, P.; Granvik, M. Trends in Agricultural Land in EU Countries of the Baltic Sea Region from the Perspective of Resilience and Food Security. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5851. [CrossRef] 13. György, K.T.; Sadowski, A.; Bandlerova, A. Land Use and Land Reform in former Central and East European Countries. 2007. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23508765_Land_use_and_land_reform_in_former_Central_and_ East_European_countries (accessed on 27 July 2021). 14. Cook, E. Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery Statistics 2018 Edition; European Commission: Luxembourg, 2018; pp. 28–31. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat (accessed on 16 September 2021). [CrossRef] 15. Popovici, E.A.; Balteanu, D.; Kucsicsa, G. Assessment of changes in land-use and land-cover pattern in Romania using CORINE Land Cover database. Carpathian J. Earth Environ. Sci. 2013, 8, 195–208. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/272161616_Assessment_of_changes_in_land-use_and_land-cover_pattern_in_Romania_using_CORINE_Land_ Cover_database (accessed on 28 August 2021). Land 2021, 10, 996 15 of 17 16. De Arriba Bueno, R. Evaluating land reform and market in Bulgaria. J. Econ. Bus. 2007, 10, 11–13. 17. Csaki, C.; Lerman, Z. Agricultural Transition Revisited: Issues of Land Reform and Farm Restructuring in East Central Eu- rope and the Former USSR. 1996. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290007608_Agricultural_ transition_revisited_Issues_of_land_reform_and_farm_restructuring_in_East_Central_Europe_and_the_former_USSR (accessed on 27 July 2021). 18. Izakovicov ˇ á, Z.; Mederly, P.; Petrovic, ˇ F. Long-Term Land Use Changes Driven by Urbanisation and Their Environmental Effects (Example of Trnava City, Slovakia). Sustainability 2017, 9, 1553. [CrossRef] 19. European Commission. Urban Sprawl in Europe—The Ignored Challenge—European Environment Agency. 2006. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/eea_report_2006_10/eea_report_10_2006.pdf/view (accessed on 29 July 2021). 20. Roy, J.; Bose, C.; Bose, R.; Das, S.; Dhakal, S.; Dasgupta, M.; Ghate, R.; Roy, S.S.; Konar, M.; Wickramasinghe, A.; et al. Development Pathway. In Global Environmental Changes in South Asia; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2000; pp. 14–53. [CrossRef] 21. Liu, Y.; Li, J.T.; Yang, Y. Strategic adjustment of land use policy under the economic transformation. Land Use Policy 2018, 74, 5–14. [CrossRef] 22. Satterthwaite, D.; McGranahan, G.; Tacoli, C. Urbanization and its implications for food and farming. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2010, 365, 2809–2820. [CrossRef] 23. Long, H.; Li, Y.; Liu, Y.; Woods, M.; Zou, J. Accelerated restructuring in rural China fueled by ‘increasing vs. decreasing balance’ land-use policy for dealing with hollowed villages. Land Use Policy 2012, 29, 11–22. [CrossRef] 24. Liu, Y.; Yang, R.; Long, H.; Gao, J.; Wang, J. Implications of land-use change in rural China: A case study of Yucheng, Shandong province. Land Use Policy 2014, 40, 111–118. [CrossRef] 25. Zhou, X.; Li, X.; Song, W.; Kong, X.; Lu, X. Farmland Transitions in China: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Land 2021, 10, 122. [CrossRef] 26. Boudreaux, K.; Sacks, D. Land Tenure Security and Agricultural Productivity. MERCATUS ON POLICY No.57. 2009. Available online: https://www.mercatus.org/publications/development-economics/land-tenure-security-and-agricultural-productivity (accessed on 28 August 2021). 27. Bambio, Y.; Agha, S.B. Land tenure security and investment: Does strength of land right really matter in rural Burkina Faso? World Dev. 2018, 111, 130–147. [CrossRef] 28. Segura Warnholtz, G.; Fernández, M.; Smyle, J.; Springer, J. Securing Forest Tenure Rights for Rural Development: Lessons from Six Countries in Latin America; PROFOR: Washington, DC, USA, 2017; ISBN 9780991040780. 29. Kasimbazi, E. Global Land Outlook Working Paper Land Tenure and Rights for Improved Land Management and Sustainable Development. 2017. Available online: https://knowledge.unccd.int/sites/default/ﬁles/2018-06/5.Land%2BTenure%2Band% 2BRights__E_Kasimbazi.pdf (accessed on 29 August 2021). 30. Singirankabo, U.A.; Ertsen, M.W. Relations between Land Tenure Security and Agricultural Productivity: Exploring the Effect of Land Registration. Land 2020, 9, 138. [CrossRef] 31. Nasrin, M.; Uddin, M.T. Land Tenure System and Agricultural Productivity in a Selected Area of Bangladesh. Progress. Agric. 2013, 22, 181–192. [CrossRef] 32. International Fund for Agricultural Development. Improving Access to Land and Tenure Security. 2008. Available online: https://www.ifad.org/documents/38711624/39417918/land_e.pdf/99f1a767-4ed1-41fc-a341-9bbd7fd2fe7f (accessed on 29 August 2021). 33. International Fund for Agricultural Development. Land Tenure Security and Poverty Reduction. 2015. Available online: https://www.ifad.org/documents/38714170/39148759/Land+tenure+security+and+poverty+reduction.pdf/c9d0982d-40e4 -4e1e-b490-17ea8fef0775 (accessed on 29 August 2021). 34. Byamugisha, F. Securing Land Tenure and Easing Access to Land. 2016. Available online: www.acetforafrica.org (accessed on 29 August 2021). 35. Secretary-General of the OECD. Cities in the World: An New Perspective on Urbanization. 2020. Available online: www.oecd. org/regional/regional-statistics (accessed on 28 August 2021). 36. UN-DESA (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs). World Population Prospects 2019: Highlights. Available online: https://population.un.org/wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2019_Highlights.pdf (accessed on 3 April 2021). 37. Yawson, D.O.; Mulholland, B.J.; Ball, T.; Adu, M.O.; Mohan, S.; White, P.J. Effect of Climate and Agricultural Land Use Changes on UK Feed Barley Production and Food Security to the 2050s. Land 2017, 6, 74. [CrossRef] 38. Hinz, R.; Sulser, T.B.; Huefner, R.; Mason-D’Croz, D.; Dunston, S.; Nautiyal, S.; Ringler, C.; Schuengel, J.; Tikhile, P.; Wimmer, F.; et al. Agricultural Development and Land Use Change in India: A Scenario Analysis of Trade-Offs Between UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Earth’s Futur. 2020, 8, e2019EF001287. [CrossRef] 39. Verburg, P.H.; Van Berkel, D.; Van Doorn, A.M.; Van Eupen, M.; Heiligenberg, H.A.R.M.V.D. Trajectories of land use change in Europe: A model-based exploration of rural futures. Landsc. Ecol. 2009, 25, 217–232. [CrossRef] 40. Jepsen, M.R.; Kuemmerle, T.; Müller, D.; Erb, K.; Verburg, P.H.; Haberl, H.; Vesterager, J.P.; Andric, M.; Antrop, M.; Austrheim, G.; et al. Transitions in European land-management regimes between 1800 and 2010. Land Use Policy 2015, 49, 53–64. [CrossRef] 41. Centre de Suivi Ecologique. Annuaire sur l’environnement et les Ressources Naturelles au Sénégal, 4th ed.; Centre de Suivi Ecologique: Dakar, Senegal, 2018; pp. 12–19. Available online: https://www.cse.sn/index.php (accessed on 28 August 2021). Land 2021, 10, 996 16 of 17 42. Bourgoin, J.; Diop, D.; Dia, D.; Sall, M.; Zagré, R.; Grislain, Q.; Anseeuw, W. Regard sur le modèle agricole sénégalais: Pratiques foncières et particularités territoriales des moyennes et grandes exploitations agricoles. Cah. Agric. 2020, 29, 18. [CrossRef] 43. Faye, N.F.; Gérard, F.; Sall, M.; Affholde, F.; Roudier, P. Poverty and Inequality in Rural Areas of Central Senegal: Status, Causes and Consequences. 2021. Available online: https://agritrop.cirad.fr/598426/1/Ndeye%20et%20al.%20SFER%202021.pdf (accessed on 25 July 2021). (In French) 44. Toure, A.K.; Diakhate, M. Descriptive Analysis of The Inﬂuence of Rainfall and Temperature Indicators on Agricultural Yields in Senegal. 2020. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338698842_Analyse_descriptive_de_l%27 inﬂuence_des_indicateurs_de_pluie_et_de_la_temperature_sur_les_rendements_agricoles_au_Senegal (accessed on 10 August 2021). (In French) 45. National Agency Statistics and Demography. General Census of Population and Housing Senegal. 2013. Available online: https://satisfaction.ansd.sn/ (accessed on 30 April 2021). (In French) 46. New Partnership for Africa’s Development-FAO. Project to Restore the Agricultural Production Base in The Groundnut Basin. 2006. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/ah215f/ah215f00.htm (accessed on 30 April 2021). (In French) 47. Ricome, A.; Affholder, F.; Gérard, F.; Muller, B.; Poeydebat, C.; Quirion, P.; Sall, M. Are subsidies to weather-index insurance the best use of public funds? A bio-economic farm model applied to the Senegalese groundnut basin. Agric. Syst. 2017, 156, 149–176. [CrossRef] 48. United States Agency for International Development. Feed the Future Senegal Naatal Mbay Project: Women’s Economic Empowerment Strategy. 2016. Available online: https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00MMW4.pdf (accessed on 24 May 2021). 49. Sanogo, D. The Living Hedge in the Southern Groundnut Basin of Senegal: Adoption and Agro-Ecological Consequences. Ph.D. Thesis, Cheikh Anta Diop University of Dakar, Dakar, Senegal, 2000. 50. Ndour, M. Investing in Rural People in Senegal; International Fund for Agricultural Development: Rome, Italy, 2015. Available online: https://www.ifad.org/documents/38714170/39972302/Investir+dans+les+populations+rurales+au+Sénégal.pdf/60 b009ed-ef32-45f5-ab1d-35fe04674825 (accessed on 5 July 2021). 51. Mbow, M. The Challenges of Senegalese Agriculture in a Climate Change Perspective. Master ’s Thesis, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada, 2017. 52. Gueye, G.; Fall, M.; Edwige, C.; Louhounghou, R. Characterization and Typology of Family Farms in Senegal: Volume 3 Groundnut Basin. 2008. Available online: https://www.bameinfopol.info/IMG/pdf/Expl._Fam_2.pdf (accessed on 30 April 2021). (In French) 53. Ramde, F.; Lo, B.S. The Role of The Agricultural Sector in The Senegal Economy. 2015. Available online: https://mpra.ub.uni- muenchen.de/81906/ (accessed on 11 May 2021). (In French) 54. National Agency Statistics Demography. Republic of Senegal Provisional 2017 and Final 2016 National Accounts (2014 Base). 2019. Available online: http://www.ansd.sn/ressources/publications/NOTE%20ANALYSE%20COMPTES%20NATIONAUX% 202017_.pdf (accessed on 11 May 2021). (In French) 55. Ambiente, Y.M. Les Paysages de l’Afrique de l’Ouest: Une Fenêtre sur un Monde en Pleine Évolution; U.S. Geological Survey EROS: Garretson, SD, USA, 2016; pp. 279–280. 56. Ndong, J.-B. L’évolution de la pluviométrie au Sénégal et les incidences de la sécheresse récente sur l’environnement/The evolution of rainfall in Senegal and the consequences of the recent drought on the environment. Rev. De Geogaphie Lyon 1995, 70, 193–198. [CrossRef] 57. Faye, M.; Fall, A.; Faye, G.; Van Hecke, E. La variabilité pluviométrique et ses incidences sur les rendements agricoles dans la région des Terres Neuves du Sénégal oriental. Belgeo 2018. [CrossRef] 58. D’Alessandro, S.; Fall, A.A.; Grey, G.; Simpkin, S.; Wane, A. Senegal Agricultural Sector Risk Assessment. 2015. Available online: Agritrop.cirad.fr/583362/ (accessed on 29 July 2021). 59. Rowland, J.; Funk, C. Famine Early Warning Systems Network-Informing Climate Change Adaptation Series A Climate Trend Analysis of Senegal. 2012. Available online: Fews.net/sites/default/ﬁles/documents/reports/FS12-3123.pdf (accessed on 24 May 2021). 60. Mechiche-Alami, A.; Abdi, A.M. Agricultural productivity in relation to climate and cropland management in West Africa. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 1–10. [CrossRef] 61. Faye, C. Analysis of Drought Trends in Senegalese Coastal Zone on Different Climatic Domains (1951–2010). An. Univ. Din Oradea Ser. Geogr. 2018, 28, 231–244. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329351771_ANALYSIS_OF_ DROUGHT_TRENDS_IN_SENEGALESE_COASTAL_ZONE_ON_DIFFERENT_CLIMATIC_DOMAINS_1951-2010 (accessed on 29 July 2021). 62. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and African Development Bank Group. Agricultural Growth in West Africa as a Market and Policy Driver. 2015. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/i4337f/i4337f.pdf (accessed on 30 April 2021). (In French) 63. Niang, A.; Knapman, C. Land Access for Senegal’s Small Producers under Threat; International Institute for Environment and Development: London, UK, 2017. Available online: https://pubs.iied.org/17375iied (accessed on 29 April 2021). 64. The Republic of Senegal. National Land Reform Commission Land Policy Document. 2016. Available online: http://www. hubrural.org/IMG/pdf/version_preliminaire_du_document_de_politique_fonciere.pdf (accessed on 30 April 2021). (In French) Land 2021, 10, 996 17 of 17 65. Oya, C.; Ba, C.O. Agricultural policies 2000–2012: Between Voluntarism and Incoherence. 2013. Available online: https: //eprints.soas.ac.uk/16799/1/04Oya-Ba130131%20proof.pdf (accessed on 29 April 2021). (In French) 66. Faroukh, A.T.; Tellal, R.; Qarro, M. Analysis of socio-economic mutations in the Benslimane forest Lever for sustainable development (Province of Benslimane, Morocco). J. Mater. Environ. Sci. 2017, 8, 4415–4425. [CrossRef] 67. Agro-Innov, R. Voluntary Cooperation Program for Innovative and Sustainable Agricultural Entrepreneurship Senegal Portrait- Diagnosis of Agricultural Soil Health. 2017. Available online: https://docplayer.fr/158367777-Programme-de-cooperation- volontaire-pour-un-entrepreneuriat-agricole-innovant-et-durable-senegal-portrait-diagnostic-de-la-sante-des-sols-agricoles. html (accessed on 30 April 2021). (In French) 68. Díaz-Pacheco, J.; van Delden, H.; Hewitt, R. The importance of scale in land use models: Experiments in data conversion, data resampling, resolution and neighborhood extent. In Geomatic Approaches for Modeling Land Change Scenarios; Springer: Madrid, Spain, 2018; pp. 163–186. [CrossRef] 69. Guoming, D.; Jingpan, M.; Xiang, C. Study on the transformation of arable land use patterns in modern agricultural areas. Angew. Chemie Int. 2018, 6, 951–952. [CrossRef] 70. Thierry, A.; Martin, P.; Ismaïla, T.I.; Brice, T. Modelisation des Changements D’occupation des Terres en Région Soudanienne au Nord-Ouest du Benin. Eur. Sci. J. ESJ 2018, 14, 248. [CrossRef] 71. Sagna, P.; Ndiaye, O.; Diop, C.; Niang, A.D.; Sambou, P.C. Les variations récentes du climat constatées au Sénégal sont-elles en phase avec les descriptions données par les scénarios du GIEC? Pollut. Atmos. 2015, 227. [CrossRef] 72. Thi, N.P.; Kappas, M.; Faust, H. Impacts of Agricultural Land Acquisition for Urbanization on Agricultural Activities of Affected Households: A Case Study in Huong Thuy Town, Thua Thien Hue Province, Vietnam. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8559. [CrossRef] 73. Faye, A.; Lejeune; Neya, O. The IPCC Special Report on Climate Change and Land What Impacts for Africa? 2019. Available online: www.climateanalytics.org/publications (accessed on 11 August 2021). 74. Li, Z.; Deng, X.; Yin, F.; Yang, C. Analysis of Climate and Land Use Changes Impacts on Land Degradation in the North China Plain. Adv. Meteorol. 2015, 2015, 1–11. [CrossRef] 75. Nhemachena, C.; Nhamo, L.; Matchaya, G.; Nhemachena, C.R.; Muchara, B.; Karuaihe, S.T.; Mpandeli, S. Climate Change Impacts on Water and Agriculture Sectors in Southern Africa: Threats and Opportunities for Sustainable Development. Water 2020, 12, 2673. [CrossRef] 76. Jarju, A.M.; Solly, B. Analysis of the Efﬁciency of Precipitation on the Evolution of Agricultural Production in Upper- Casamance (South Senegal) between 1985 and 2018. 2020. Available online: www.researchgate.net/publication (accessed on 3 September 2021). 77. Nouaceur, Z.; Murarescu, O. Rainfall Variability and Trend Analysis of Rainfall in West Africa (Senegal, Mauritania, Burkina Faso). Water 2020, 12, 1754. [CrossRef] 78. Faye, B. The Problems of the Agricultural Sector in the Face of Rainfall Variability in the Commune of Dara Mboss, Kaolack Region from 1980 to 2014. Marster ’s Thesis, Cheikh Anta Diop University of Dakar, Dakar, Senegal, 2016; pp. 28–47. 79. Rajpar, H.; Zhang, A.; Razzaq, A.; Mehmood, K.; Pirzado, M.B.; Hu, W. Agricultural Land Abandonment and Farmers’ Perceptions of Land Use Change in the Indus Plains of Pakistan: A Case Study of Sindh Province. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4663. [CrossRef] 80. Mu, J.E.; Sleeter, B.M.; Abatzoglou, J.T.; Antle, J.M. Climate impacts on agricultural land use in the USA: The role of socio-economic scenarios. Clim. Chang. 2017, 144, 329–345. [CrossRef] 81. Davies, M.; Camara, T.; Diop, S. Invest in Senegal: A Competitive Investment Destination in West Africa; Deloitte: London, UK, 2017; p. 28. 82. Senegal Emergent Plan. National Agricultural Investment Program for Food Security and Nutrition. PNIASAN Senegal 2018– 2022, Final Report. 2016. Available online: https://www.dapsa.gouv.sn/sites/default/ﬁles/publications/PNIASAN%20v4%2 0D%c3%a9c_1.pdf (accessed on 30 August 2021). 83. World Bank. Revue de l’Urbanisation: Villes Emergentes pour un Sénégal Emergent; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2017. [CrossRef] 84. Pronat, E.; LANdac. Securing Women Land Rghts in Africa Working paper 3: Securing Women Land Rights in Africa-Senegal. 2018. Available online: http://www.landgovernance.org/assets/20181127-A4-Working-paper-03_Senegal.pdf (accessed on 12 August 2021). 85. Lyu, L.; Gao, Z.; Long, H.; Wang, X.; Fan, Y. Farmland Use Transition in a Typical Farming Area: The Case of Sihong County in the Huang-Huai-Hai Plain of China. Land 2021, 10, 347. [CrossRef] http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Land Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/multidisciplinary-digital-publishing-institute/agricultural-land-transition-in-the-groundnut-basin-of-senegal-2009-to-U2Xq1Na2SR

Loading next page...

References (88)

(2021)
The IPCC Special Report on Climate Change and Land What Impacts for Africa? 2019
P. Verburg, D. Berkel, A. Doorn, M. Eupen, H. Heiligenberg (2010)
Trajectories of land use change in Europe: a model-based exploration of rural futures
Landscape Ecology, 25
P. Sagna, O. Ndiaye, C. Diop, A. Niang, Pierre Sambou (1970)
Les variations récentes du climat constatées au Sénégal sont-elles en phase avec les descriptions données par les scénarios du GIEC ?
(2013)
Assessment of changes in land-use and land-cover pattern in Romania using CORINE Land Cover database
C. Nhemachena, L. Nhamo, G. Matchaya, Charity Nhemachena, B. Muchara, S. Karuaihe, S. Mpandeli (2020)
Climate Change Impacts on Water and Agriculture Sectors in Southern Africa: Threats and Opportunities for Sustainable Development
Water
J. Torous, M. Keshavan (2019)
Highlights
Schizophrenia Research, 210
J. Ndong (1995)
L'évolution de la pluviométrie au Sénégal et les incidences de la sécheresse récente sur l'environnement / The evolution of rainfall in Senegal and the consequences of the recent drought on the environment
, 70
M. Faye, A. Fall, Guilgane Faye, É. Hecke (2018)
La variabilité pluviométrique et ses incidences sur les rendements agricoles dans la région des Terres Neuves du Sénégal oriental
C. Faye (2018)
ANALYSIS OF DROUGHT TRENDS IN SENEGALESE COASTAL ZONE ON DIFFERENT CLIMATIC DOMAINS (1951-2010)
M. Jepsen, T. Kuemmerle, D. Müller, K. Erb, P. Verburg, H. Haberl, Jens Vesterager, M. Andrič, M. Antrop, G. Austrheim, Ismo Björn, A. Bondeau, M. Bürgi, J. Bryson, G. Caspar, L. Cassar, Elisabeth Conrad, P. Chromý, Vidmantas Daugirdas, V. Eetvelde, R. Elena-rosselló, U. Gimmi, Z. Izakovičová, Vít Jančák, Ulf Jansson, Drago Kladnik, J. Kozak, Éva Konkoly-Gyuró, F. Krausmann, Ü. Mander, J. Mcdonagh, J. Pärn, M. Niedertscheider, O. Nikodemus, K. Ostapowicz, M. Pérez-Soba, T. Pinto-Correia, Gintaras Ribokas, M. Rounsevell, Despoina Schistou, C. Schmit, T. Terkenli, A. Tretvik, P. Trzepacz, A. Vădineanu, A. Walz, E. Zhllima, A. Reenberg (2015)
Transitions in European land-management regimes between 1800 and 2010
Land Use Policy, 49
(2017)
The Challenges of Senegalese Agriculture in a Climate Change Perspective
(2017)
Securing Women Land Rghts in Africa Working paper 3 : Securing Women Land Rights in Africa - Senegal
(2015)
Agricultural Growth in West Africa as a Market and Policy Driver
Yiriyibin Bambio, Salima Agha (2018)
Land tenure security and investment: Does strength of land right really matter in rural Burkina Faso?
World Development
Xiaoping Zhou, Xiaotian Li, Wei Song, Xiangbin Kong, Xiao Lu (2021)
Farmland Transitions in China: An Advocacy Coalition Approach
Land
D. Satterthwaite, G. Mcgranahan, C. Tacoli (2010)
Urbanization and its implications for food and farming
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365
Yan-sui Liu, Jintao Li, Yuanyuan Yang (2018)
Strategic adjustment of land use policy under the economic transformation
Land Use Policy, 74
Gerardo Warnholtz, Mercedes Fernández, J. Smyle, J. Springer (2017)
Securing Forest Tenure Rights for Rural Development
World Bank Publications
(2017)
Global Land Outlook Working Paper Land Tenure and Rights for Improved Land Management and Sustainable Development
R. Gaiha (2006)
Knowledge for development effectiveness
A. Vanbergen, M. Aizen, S. Cordeau, L. Garibaldi, M. Garratt, Anikó Kovács‐Hostyánszki, Lou Lecuyer, H. Ngo, S. Potts, J. Settele, Eirini Skrimizea, J. Young (2020)
Transformation of agricultural landscapes in the Anthropocene: Nature's contributions to people, agriculture and food security
(2021)
Status, Causes and Consequences
M. Bolca, Bahar Turkyilmaz, Y. Kurucu, U. Altinbas, M. Esetlili, B. Gulgun (2007)
Determination of Impact of Urbanization on Agricultural Land and Wetland Land Use in Balçovas’ Delta by Remote Sensing and GIS Technique
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 131
(2021)
Volume 3 Groundnut Basin
M. Diop, E. Ahmed (2001)
New Partnership for Africa's Development
Africa quarterly, 41
K. Takács-György, A. Bandlerová, A. Sadowski (2007)
Land use and land reform in former Central and East European countries
(2000)
The Living Hedge in the Southern Groundnut Basin of Senegal: Adoption and Agro-Ecological Consequences
(2021)
Luxembourg, 2018; pp
Fousseni Ramde, Sérigne Lo (2015)
Le Role Du Secteur Agricole Dans L’Economie Du Senegal [The Role Of The Agricultural Sector In The Senegal Economy]
N. Thi, M. Kappas, Heiko Faust (2021)
Impacts of Agricultural Land Acquisition for Urbanization on Agricultural Activities of Affected Households: A Case Study in Huong Thuy Town, Thua Thien Hue Province, Vietnam
Sustainability
R. Hinz, T. Sulser, R. Huefner, D. Mason-D’Croz, S. Dunston, S. Nautiyal, C. Ringler, J. Schuengel, Pavan Tikhile, F. Wimmer, R. Schaldach (2020)
Agricultural Development and Land Use Change in India: A Scenario Analysis of Trade‐Offs Between UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
Earth's Future, 8
(2021)
Rome, Italy, 2015
(2014)
Republic of Senegal Provisional 2017 and Final 2016 National Accounts
Yan-sui Liu, Ren Yang, H. Long, Jay Gao, Jieyong Wang (2014)
Implications of land-use change in rural China: A case study of Yucheng, Shandong province
Land Use Policy, 40
Other (2006)
Urban sprawl in Europe: the ignored challenge
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Sustainable Consumption and Production: Energy and Industry
A. Mechiche-Alami, A. Abdi (2020)
Agricultural productivity in relation to climate and cropland management in West Africa
Scientific Reports, 10
Wafa Tarawneh (2014)
Urban Sprawl on Agricultural Land (Literature Survey of Causes, Effects, Relationship with Land Use Planning and Environment) A Case Study from Jordan (Shihan Municipality Areas)
Journal of environment and earth science, 4
(2014)
The Problems of the Agricultural Sector in the Face of Rainfall Variability in the Commune of Dara Mboss, Kaolack Region from 1980 to
D. Yawson, B. Mulholland, T. Ball, M. Adu, S. Mohan, P. White (2017)
Effect of Climate and Agricultural Land Use Changes on UK Feed Barley Production and Food Security to the 2050s
Land, 6
Pontus Ambros, M. Granvik (2020)
Trends in Agricultural Land in EU Countries of the Baltic Sea Region from the Perspective of Resilience and Food Security
Sustainability
(2017)
Revue de l'Urbanisation: Villes Emergentes pour un Sénégal Emergent
F. Rubiera-Morollón, Rubén Garrido-Yserte (2020)
Recent Literature about Urban Sprawl: A Renewed Relevance of the Phenomenon from the Perspective of Environmental Sustainability
Sustainability, 12
Uwacu Singirankabo, Maurits Ertsen (2020)
Relations between Land Tenure Security and Agricultural Productivity: Exploring the Effect of Land Registration
Land
(2017)
Invest in Senegal: A Competitive Investment Destination in West Africa; Deloitte
Habibullah Rajpar, A. Zhang, Amar Razzaq, K. Mehmood, Maula Pirzado, Weiyan Hu (2019)
Agricultural Land Abandonment and Farmers’ Perceptions of Land Use Change in the Indus Plains of Pakistan: A Case Study of Sindh Province
Sustainability
(2020)
Descriptive Analysis of The Influence of Rainfall and Temperature Indicators on Agricultural Yields in Senegal
(2021)
Voluntary Cooperation Program for Innovative and Sustainable Agricultural Entrepreneurship Senegal PortraitDiagnosis of Agricultural Soil Health. 2017
(2021)
New York, NY, USA, 2015
W. Sroka, J. Mikołajczyk, T. Wojewodzic, Bogusława Kwoczyńska (2018)
Agricultural Land vs. Urbanisation in Chosen Polish Metropolitan Areas: A Spatial Analysis Based on Regression Trees
Sustainability, 10
(2020)
The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2020
The Sustainable Development Goals Report
(2016)
Les Paysages de l’Afrique de l’Ouest: Une Fenêtre sur un Monde en Pleine Évolution; U.S
R. Vrinat (1961)
[The growth of cities].
Concours medical, 83
Z. Izakovičová, P. Mederly, F. Petrovič (2017)
Long-Term Land Use Changes Driven by Urbanisation and Their Environmental Effects (Example of Trnava City, Slovakia)
Sustainability, 9
M. Nasrin, M. Uddin (2013)
Land Tenure System and Agricultural Productivity in a Selected Area of Bangladesh
Progressive Agriculture, 22
(2010)
Development Pathway
(2015)
Land Tenure Security and Poverty Reduction
R. Bueno (2007)
EVALUATING LAND REFORM AND MARKET IN BULGARIA
I. Holman, C. Brown, V. Janes, D. Sandars (2017)
Can we be certain about future land use change in Europe? A multi-scenario, integrated-assessment analysis
Agricultural Systems, 151
(2018)
Study on the transformation of arable land use patterns in modern agricultural areas
(2016)
The future of food and agriculture: Trends and challenges
J. Bourgoin, D. Diop, D. Dia, M. Sall, Romaric Zagré, Quentin Grislain, Ward Anseeuw (2020)
Regard sur le modèle agricole sénégalais : pratiques foncières et particularités territoriales des moyennes et grandes exploitations agricoles
Cahiers Agricultures
H. Long, Yurui Li, Yan-sui Liu, M. Woods, J. Zou (2012)
Accelerated restructuring in rural China fueled by 'increasing vs. decreasing balance' land-use policy for dealing with hollowed villages
Land Use Policy, 29
Access for Senegal's Small Producers under Threat
Zhihui Li, Xiangzheng Deng, Fangping Yin, Cuiyuan Yang (2015)
Analysis of Climate and Land Use Changes Impacts on Land Degradation in the North China Plain
Advances in Meteorology, 2015
Agricultural Transition Revisited: Issues of Land Reform and Farm Restructuring in East Central Europe and the Former USSR
(2021)
Securing Land Tenure and Easing Access to Land. 2016
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs/population Division
Available online: www.acetforafrica.org (accessed on
A. Ricome, F. Affholder, F. Gérard, B. Muller, C. Poeydebat, P. Quirion, M. Sall (2017)
Are subsidies to weather-index insurance the best use of public funds? A bio-economic farm model applied to the Senegalese groundnut basin
Agricultural Systems, 156
(2021)
London, UK, 2017
(2021)
Dakar, Senegal, 2018; pp
Agbanou Thierry, P. Martin, Toko Ismaïla, Tente Brice (2018)
Modelisation Des Changements D’occupation Des Terres En Region Soudanienne Au Nord-Ouest Du Benin
European Scientific Journal, ESJ, 14
Jianhong Mu, B. Sleeter, J. Abatzoglou, J. Antle (2017)
Climate impacts on agricultural land use in the USA: the role of socio-economic scenarios
Climatic Change, 144
Z. Nouaceur, O. Murărescu (2020)
Rainfall Variability and Trend Analysis of Rainfall in West Africa (Senegal, Mauritania, Burkina Faso)
Water
S. D'Alessandro, Amadou Fall, G. Grey, S. Simpkin, A. Wane (2015)
Senegal - Agricultural sector risk assessment
(1985)
Analysis of the Efficiency of Precipitation on the Evolution of Agricultural Production in Upper-Casamance
(2014)
World Development Report 2015: Mind, Society, and Behavior
Ligang Lyu, Z. Gao, H. Long, Xiaorui Wang, Yeting Fan (2021)
Farmland Use Transition in a Typical Farming Area: The Case of Sihong County in the Huang-Huai-Hai Plain of China
Land
Jaime Díaz-Pacheco, H. Delden, R. Hewitt (2018)
The Importance of Scale in Land Use Models: Experiments in Data Conversion, Data Resampling, Resolution and Neighborhood Extent
Carlos Oya, C. Ba (2013)
Les politiques agricoles 2000-2012 : entre volontarisme et incohérence [Agricultural policies 2000-2012: between voluntarism and incoherence]
General Census of Population and Housing Senegal
A. Faroukh, R. Tellal, M. Qarro (2017)
Analysis of socio-economic mutations in the Benslimane forest Lever for sustainable development (Province of Benslimane, Morocco
, 8
(2021)
Women’s Economic Empowerment Strategy
Poverty and Inequality in Rural Areas of Central Senegal : Status , Causes and Consequences . 2021
(2021)
http://www
(2011)
Famine Early Warning Systems Network — Informing Climate Change Adaptation Series A Climate Trend Analysis of Uganda
(2021)
An New Perspective on Urbanization

Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
Copyright: © 1996-2021 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated Disclaimer The statements, opinions and data contained in the journals are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy
ISSN: 2073-445X
DOI: 10.3390/land10100996
Publisher site: See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

land Article Agricultural Land Transition in the “Groundnut Basin” of Senegal: 2009 to 2018 1 2 , Bonoua Faye and Guoming Du * School of Economics and Management, Northeast Agricultural University, Harbin 150030, China; bonoua.faye2021@neau.edu.cn School of Public Administration and Law, Northeast Agricultural University, Harbin 150030, China * Correspondence: duguoming@neau.edu.cn; Tel.: +86-13384657203 Abstract: The study aims to reveal the transition features of agricultural land use in the Groundnut Basin of Senegal from 2009 to 2018, especially the impact of urbanization on agricultural land and the viewpoint of farmland spatiotemporal evolution. Integrated data of time series MCD12Q1 land-use images of 2009, 2012, 2015, and 2018 were used to provide a land transition in agricultural and urban areas through the synergistic methodology. Socio-economic data was also used to serve as a basis for the argument. The results highlight that: (1) Agricultural land increased by 14.53%, with a dynamic index of 1.45 from 2009–2018. (2) Over the same period, urbanization increased by 2.80%, with a dynamic index of 0.28. (3) In different regions, the transition of agricultural land in Kaffrine is most intense (expansion rate: 22.80%). The same situation of urbanization happened in Thiès Region with a value of 7.94%. Except for Thiès, agricultural land in other regions has not yet been subject to major pressure due to urbanization. Overall, the farming system in Groundnut Basin is an extensive model, the recommendations from the point of view of land-use planning and land law are necessary to ensure efﬁcient agricultural land management in the area. Citation: Faye, B.; Du, G. Keywords: agricultural land transition; urbanization; land management; groundnut basin; Senegal Agricultural Land Transition in the “Groundnut Basin” of Senegal: 2009 to 2018. Land 2021, 10, 996. https:// doi.org/10.3390/land10100996 1. Introduction Academic Editors: Uchendu Land-use changes are consistently the principal driver of habitat change on approxi- Eugene Chigbu, Ruishan Chen and mately half of the earth’s terrestrial surface [1]. From 2000 to 2015, the global land cover Chao Ye trend indicated a net loss of natural/semi-natural lands. These losses of land resulted from many processes. Among the processes, we can identify deforestation, unsustainable Received: 15 August 2021 agricultural practices, urbanization, land tenure, and poverty [2]. This situation is more Accepted: 16 September 2021 visible in industrialized countries, in Europe or Asia. Therefore, the land-use study is of Published: 22 September 2021 fundamental signiﬁcance, as the land resources play a strategic role in the determining man’s economic, social and cultural progress [3]. Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral Indeed, the global land system faces unprecedented pressures from growing human with regard to jurisdictional claims in populations and climatic change [4]. Urban sprawl on agricultural land has become a published maps and institutional afﬁl- global phenomenon plaguing all countries of the world, rich or poor [5]. This phenomenon iations. has attracted the attention of social researchers since the mid-20th century [6]. Thus, many researchers are interested in the causes and consequences of urbanization. Some authors such as G. Duranton and D. Puga highlight that economic growth drives urban expansion in constructing businesses, dwellings, roads, leisure centers, transportation, etc. [7]. Therefore, Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. the metropolitan regions face the growing problems of urban sprawl, including a decline in Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. natural vegetation, wildlife habitats, and agricultural land [3]. More than 8.8% of European This article is an open access article Union (EU) land is used for residential, commercial, and industrial purposes [8]. Other distributed under the terms and very important factors are the quality of the environmental conditions of agricultural conditions of the Creative Commons production, population density, and net migration [9], which also affect agricultural land. Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// Therefore, it is important to note that the life of more than 7.7 billion human beings creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ today [10], 9.73 billion by 2050, and 11.2 by 2100 will depend on the soil availability for 4.0/). Land 2021, 10, 996. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10100996 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land Land 2021, 10, 996 2 of 17 food production [11]. As long as urban populations continue to grow, the challenge of maintaining food security is increasing [12]. In Eastern and Central European countries, namely in Hungary, Slovak Republic, Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia, agricultural land prices were gradually increasing in these countries during the past decade [13], and this price depends on the market forces of the supply and the demand [14]. In Romania, the political and socio-economic changes began in the early 1990s had a strong impact on land, especially on the quantity and quality of agricultural terrains [15]. Furthermore, we found that in Bulgaria arable land abandoned without cultivation, represents a very large area because of a shortage of ﬁnancial resources [16]. In addition, land privatization and farm restructuring are inseparable issues for agriculture and the rural sector in the transformation to a market economy [17]. The case of Slovakia illustrates this. Indeed, the pressure from investors has increased in creating new residential, commercial services and shopping centers, logistic and industrial parks, which is consequently reﬂected in land-use changes [18]. In summary, in Europe the areas with the most visible impacts of urban sprawl are in countries or regions with high population density and economic activity like Belgium, northern Italy, the Paris and Madrid regions, and Germany [19]. The south Asian region as a whole is experiencing expansion and intensiﬁcation of cropland and urbanization, shrinking of forests and grassland [20]. On the other hand, in China, for example, the problems in urban-rural spatial structure and food security have been the hot spots of land use research [21]. It is because China has urbanized rapidly over the past three decades, underpinned by rapid economic growth. It has many rapidly growing cities and some that have had declining populations [22]. As such, the per capita area of farmland fell from 0.106 ha in 1996 to 0.092 ha in 2008, raising concerns about food security [23]. Therefore, migration, rural economic development, and urbanization are the primary forces driving the conversion from farmland to non-agricultural uses in China [24]. Other researchers attest that immigration plays an important role in land-use transitions because it leads to urban expansion and farmland occupation [25]. The review of the literature also conduced us to examine land tenure. Indeed, land tenure security refers to the right of individuals and groups of people to effective protection by their government against forcible evictions [26]. Therefore, in the agricultural sector, securing land tenure has regularly been prioritized by policy-makers to ensure and develop more productive agriculture [27]. In that sense, secure tenure is widely recognized as an essential foundation for achieving a range of rural economic development goals [28]. However, land tenure security is central to agricultural production and sustainable use of natural resources [29], and the links between tenure security and agricultural produc- tivity are of primary interest [30]. This may imply that land tenure systems can affect agricultural productivity by inﬂuencing the efﬁcient use of inputs and the adoption of modern technology [31]. On another note, secure access to productive land reduces the vulnerability to hunger and poverty to the millions of poor people living in rural areas and depending on agriculture. It inﬂuences their capacity to invest in their productive activities and the sustainable management of their resources [32]. From then on, land tenure security is important not only for agricultural production, but it also allows people to diversify their livelihoods by using their land as collateral, renting it out, or selling it [33]. Finally, strengthening land tenure security is key to achieving efﬁcient land allocation among farmers in both in land abundant and land-constrained areas as it facilitates land markets [34]. In the above background, it is important to analyze the evolution of the population to in order to understand rapid urbanization. Globally, more people live in urban areas than in rural areas [35]. We found that 54 percent of the world’s population live in urban areas. In view of this, we noted that the urban population of the world has grown rapidly since 1950, from 746 million to 3.9 billion in 2014 [10]. Along with this, the medium-variant projection indicates that the global population could grow to around 8.5 billion in 2030 [36]. Hence, prior work has highlighted that urbanization is a problem because urban expansion inevitably covers some agricultural land. Land 2021, 10, 996 3 of 17 In contrast, changes in land values and land markets around cities often result in va- cant land as the owners anticipate their gains from selling it or using it for non-agricultural uses [22]. Therefore, the changes in land use arise from competing for economic, politi- cal, social, and environmental goals [37], and urban sprawl dynamics will also play an important role in the future land-use change in some countries like India [38], and Africa countries. In summary, land-use change is characterized by a high diversity of change trajectories depending on the local conditions, regional context, and external inﬂuences [39]. Therefore, it is important to understand the underlying technological, institutional, and economic drivers of land-use change and how they play out in different environmental, socio-economic, and cultural contexts [40]. According to the literature review, the drivers of the agricultural land transition are mainly non-agricultural activities—for instance, residential construction. The more human activities intensify, the more agricultural land is threatened. Therefore, as Senegal is a developing country, this study is important from the point of view of understanding the mechanisms and the main factors inﬂuencing the transition of agricultural land. Given this worrying situation, the objective of this work is to (i) understand the degree and trend of transition and evolution of agricultural land space and time. Then, our interest is to (ii) identify the keys drivers of this transition and evolution of agricultural land in the Groundnut Basin. In this study, we will focus on these important issues. 2. Study Area Senegal is located in the West African continent, with a land area of 196,722 km . 0 0 0 It is located between the latitudes 12 20 and 16 20 N and the longitudes 11 20 and 17 30 W [41]. Ecologically and agriculturally, the country is subdivided into six geograph- ical eco-zones [42]. Our research concerned the Groundnut Basin. It covers the administra- tive regions of Diourbel, Thiès, Kaolack, Fatick, Kaffrine, part of the Tambacounda region (departments of Koumpentoum and part of the department of Tambacounda) and the department of Kébémer [43]. Therefore, our study focuses only on the ﬁve administrative regions (Figure 1). They are considered most important in this area because they occupy almost all the arable land in the Groundnut Basin, and constitute an area of very high agricultural production in Senegal [44]. It has a population of 6,436,912 people according to the population censuses in 2013 [45], and covers a total area of 34,964.36 km , with a density of 184.10 people per km . The distribution of arable land by agro-ecological zone shows that the Groundnut Basin represents 70% of arable land [46]. Throughout the Groundnut Basin, the cropping systems are mainly cereal-leguminous rotations [47], and it is dominated by subsistence production of millet, maize, groundnuts, cowpeas, and bissap (hibiscus) [48]. Groundnut Basin is characterized by degraded and patchy open forests dominated by Bombax costatum, Lannea acida, Pterocmpuserinaceus, Sterculia setigera, Khaya senegalensis, Daniellia oliveri, Detarium senegalensis [49]. With a poverty rate of 47% in 2011 [50], agriculture in Senegal has always been seen as the foundation of the country’s socio-economic development [51]. In terms of economic activities, this sector is dominated by agriculture and occupies 74% of the population in the area [52]. Its average in terms of gross domestic product (GDP) ranged from 21.24% (1960–1989) to 15.26% (1990–2011) [53], and further to 16.1% in 2017 [54]. According to data from the National Agency for Statistics and Demography (NASD) site, in 2020, the areas planted (in hectares) in peanuts represent, respectively, 55.16% (2017) and 63.15% (2018) of the national areas (in hectares) planted. In 2013, the population censuses showed that 70% of farms were small family farms with an area of fewer than ﬁve hectares [45]. In the study area, the median value of annual rain-fed crop sales per household in 2018 is around $246.61. According to the NASD site, the percentage of farm household members with agricultural education vary from 5.34% in 2017 to 0.67% in 2018. Land 2021, 10, 996 4 of 17 Land 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 18 Figure 1. Geographic information: (A) represents the blue color represents the localization of the Figure 1. Geographic information: (A) represents the blue color represents the localization of the study study a ar re ea a w within ithin S Senegal; enegal; ( (B B) ) r repr epresents esents the the G Grro oundnut undnut B Basin asin w with ith f ﬁve ive re regions. gions. In fact, in Africa, particularly in the Sahel, after the rainy periods of the 1960s, many 3. Materials and Methods researchers noted anomalies of rain in the early 1970s [55]. The consequences of this rainfall 3.1. Data Sources deterioration are reﬂected in Senegal by the degradation of the natural environment, with The data presented in this study are derived from different databases (please see Ta- drought leading to the degradation of the plant cover, the soils being subjected to erosion ble 1). The analysis model aims at analyzing the agricultural land evolution and transition and runoff, and the accentuation acidiﬁcation and salinization [56]. In addition, the factors in terms of area and soil occupation change over ten years chronological series between of low annual rainfall, frequent dry spells, and the rainy season shortening affect the 2009 to 2018. vegetative cycle of crops [57]. Severe droughts, especially in northern regions, appear as the biggest risk in estimated aggregate losses to crop and livestock [58]. In Senegal, Table 1. Data sources information. agriculture is mainly rain-fed and depends heavily on seasonal rainfall amounts, and distribution [59]. Therefore, the combined effect of rainfall, land surface temperature, Types Information and solar radiation explain approximately 40% of the variation in cropland productivity The spatial data used for this study are obtained from over West Africa at the 95% signiﬁcance level [60]. This situation underlines the fact that USGS (United States Geological Survey) and NASA (Na- the evolution of agricultural land, and climate are closely linked. Drought is a recurring Spatial data Source tional Aeronautics and Space Administration), Modis land phenomenon in the coastal zone of Senegal and its hazards affect the economies of the cover-Modis MCD12Q1V6 (acquisition data: 26 March predominantly agricultural population [61]. 2021) https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/, The main factors affecting land-use in Senegal are manifold. Firstly, lots of land areas cropland; grassland; urban and built-up; permanent wet- were changed by the urban setting and associated rapid growth and transformation of Types land (four images in 2009; 2012; 2015, and 2018 between human societies in Senegal [42]. In 2015, Senegal’s population was estimated at 14,356,575 June and October) people with an average annual growth rate of 2.7% [45]. The growth of the rural population National Agency for Statistics and Demography (NASD) has brought greater pressure on land and natural resources and contributed to land frag- Socio- mentation, particularly Source in densely populated (acquisitioand n dahigh-potential ta: 30 March 20 ar 21) eas htt with ps://s easy atisf access ac- to economic data markets [62]. As a result, in Sangalkam, around Dakar (capital of Senegal), some 7.64 km tion.ansd.sn/ of agricultural land use was ofﬁcially developed in the area between 2003 and 2009 [63]. Evolution of the population; characteristics of farm house- The law n 64–46 of 17 June 1964, governs land management in Senegal, which stipulates, Types hold members; farm household members with agricultural land does not belong to the State, territorial communities, or users, but the “Nation” [63]. education. Local governments are responsible for the allocation/dedication of land in the national World Bank (W.B) and Food and Agriculture Organization domain for rural activities [64]. Secondly, the chronological summary of agricultural policy Agricultural (FAO) (acquisition data: 30 March 2021) in Senegal has gone through several phases. The literature shows the Agricultural Program Sources data http://www.fao.org/faostat/fr/#data (1960–1980), the New Agricultural Policy (1985–1994) and the Agricultural Development https://donnees.banquemondiale.org/indicator Policy Programs, letters and Declaration (1995–2003). Since the 2000s, we have seen a reconﬁguration of the situation regarding agriculture. For example, we have the Law of Land 2021, 10, 996 5 of 17 Agro-Sylvo-Pastoral (LOASP) in 2004. Since 2013, Senegal has deﬁned a new agricultural policy called the Program to Accelerate the Cadency of Senegalese Agriculture (PRACAS). Despite all these agricultural policies, Senegalese agriculture still faces difﬁculties [65]. Third, soils in Africa affected by water erosion ranging from medium to high effect cover an area of more than 12 million hectares, or 18.5% of the total national territory [66]. The Groundnut Basin is today confronted with chemical and physical-biological degradation which has become more intense. Thus, the soils are impoverished, restructured, chemically exhausted by wind and water erosion, recurrent droughts [67]. 3. Materials and Methods 3.1. Data Sources The data presented in this study are derived from different databases (please see Table 1). The analysis model aims at analyzing the agricultural land evolution and transi- tion in terms of area and soil occupation change over ten years chronological series between 2009 to 2018. Table 1. Data sources information. Types Information The spatial data used for this study are obtained from USGS (United States Geological Survey) and NASA (National Spatial data Source Aeronautics and Space Administration), Modis land cover-Modis MCD12Q1V6 (acquisition data: 26 March 2021) https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/ cropland; grassland; urban and built-up; permanent Types wetland (four images in 2009; 2012; 2015, and 2018 between June and October) National Agency for Statistics and Demography (NASD) Socio-economic Source (acquisition data: 30 March 2021) data https://satisfaction.ansd.sn/ Evolution of the population; characteristics of farm Types household members; farm household members with agricultural education. World Bank (W.B) and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (acquisition data: 30 March 2021) Agricultural data Sources http://www.fao.org/faostat/fr/#data https://donnees.banquemondiale.org/indicator Fertilizer consumption; permanent cropland (% of land Types area); agriculture value added (% of gross domestic product) Data Portal: Center for Hydrometeorology and Remote Sources sensing—available online: https://chrsdata.eng.uci.edu/ Climatic data Types (acquisition data: 28 August 2021) Rainfall data (between June and October) 3.2. Methodology The spatial data used in this study are obtained from NASA LPDAAC Collections- Modis Land Cover—MCD12Q1V6 (Earth Explorer USGS). However, due to their character- istics, pre-processing is necessary to have more clarity. Therefore, several steps have been taken. First, to optimize the quality of the images, the layers were re-projected according to the reference projection system of the study area, which is World Geodetic System (WGS)_1984_Complex_UTM_Zone_28N (EPSG:31028). In addition, the strips were cut ac- cording to the size of the study area. To make the classiﬁed land cover images comparable, we resampled the images to 50 m, which is the common resolution for all images [68]. This resampling allows us to obtain common results between the processed images. Second, after this geometric correction, we used supervised classiﬁcation to categorize the land Land 2021, 10, 996 6 of 17 cover components used in our study. The land-use types are mainly classiﬁed into four cate- gories: cropland, grassland, urban and built-up, and permanent wetland. Then, concerning the spatial analysis, four temporal remotely sensed images were selected for evolution and transition land use detection, namely, Modis Land Cover of USGS in 2009, 2012, 2015, and 2018. All four images, respectively, were used to examine the area’s evolution and transition land-use dynamics. The area information was used as a basis for analyzing the quantitative change in land use. After the conversion of raster data to vector data, we had to use ArcGIS 10.6 platform to analyze the change pattern of cropland, grassland, urban and built-Up, and permanent wetland. 3.2.1. Analysis of Land Use Dynamics Dynamics of land use are expressed as an increase or decrease in area. Therefore, this method positively affects the analysis of the evolutionary pattern of land use in the study area. In addition, it gives an idea of the future dynamics of transition and evolution of land use over time. Ub U a 1 KT = (1) U a T where KT is the dynamic attitude of the pattern using during the study period, Ua is the area of the pattern at the beginning of the study period, Ub is the area of the pattern at the end of the study period T is the time interval of the study years [69]. 3.2.2. Calculation of the Land Evolution The degree of evolution in each tenure category will be assessed by calculating the rate of evolution E (i, k) in the area of land use as follows [70]. Sk Si E (i, k) = 100 (2) Si (Si) the area of a land-use category of the year i and (Sk) the area of a land-use category of year k, with k > i. E (i, k) will be equal to: If E (i, k) = 0, it is concluded that this land use category is stable, if E (i, k) < 0, it is concluded that there is a regression of this category, and if E (i, k) > 0, there is an extension or evolution of this category. 3.2.3. Analysis of Agricultural Land Transition To visualize the land cover transition, we merged the layers using the intersection tool in the ArcGIS platform. Then, we used the equation below to show the different transitions between the spatial data and used the pivot table function in Excel to produce statistics according to a couple of classes. Initially, the results of the four components studied showed fourteen different land-use change classes. Since not all land-use change classes have the same degree of importance, those representing the main changes were kept and the others were uniﬁed. For example, when we considered the relationship between grassland and permanent wetland, we obtained two different couple of classes change: grassland to permanent wetland and permanent wetland to grassland. Accordingly, the difference in change between these two couple of classes is maintained. In addition, we opted for this methodology to highlight the most important or the dominate transition between couple classes. This operation allowed us to keep the four most representatives, land-use change classes. T = Layer A + () + layer B (3) Layer A = corresponds to the year of beginning, Layer B = corresponds to the year of arrival, T = result of the transformation. (This method is used by GIS and RS solutions). 3.2.4. Analysis of Climatic Data: Rainfall To better understand the factors of evolution and transition of agricultural land in the Groundnut Basin, we have analyzed the inter-annual evolution of rainfall over the Land 2021, 10, 996 7 of 17 period from 2009 to 2018. Indeed, Senegal has two main seasons that mark the climatic regime: a dry season from November to April–May, and a rainy season from May–June to October, depending on the geographical location [41]. Accordingly, the rainfall values used in this analysis only concern the period from June to October, which coincides with the rainy season in our study area [71]. The methodology adopted is based on a statistical approach, using the averages of the ﬁve months of rainfall for each year in the series. 4. Results 4.1. Analysis of the Land-Use Evolution 4.1.1. Cropland and Grassland Evolution Agricultural land is becoming increasingly scarce and threatened by several factors. This situation can be fast/slow and differs from one country to another. Therefore, the tran- sition of agricultural land is relatively fast in developed countries due to industrialization but is slow in underdeveloped countries. Tables 2 and 3 shed light on the rate of evolution in agricultural land area, and urbanization has been increased in the last few decades. On the other hand, grassland has decreased. Table 2. The statistics of the land-use area in years 2009, 2012, 2015 and 2018 (km ). Land Use Pattern Years/Values 2009 2012 2015 2018 Cropland 14,569.53 15,541.06 15,913.48 16,687.16 Grassland 18,656.27 17,704.38 17,295.78 16,566.23 Permanent wetland 758.80 778.41 779.76 768.63 Urban and built up 172.49 174.85 175.41 177.32 Other 807.27 765.66 799.93 765.02 The total surface of the study area 34,964.36 34,964.36 34,964.36 34,964.36 Table 3. Dynamic land-use evolution in the period of 2009–2012, 2012–2015 and 2015–2018 (%). Land Use Pattern Permanent Urban and Number Periods Cropland Grassland Wetland Built Up P1 2009–2012 +6.67 5.10 +2.58 +1.37 P2 2012–2015 +2.40 2.31 +0.17 +0.32 P3 2015–2018 +4.86 4.22 1.43 +1.09 The study period 2009–2018 +14.53 11.20 +1.30 +2.80 () Decrease in area; (+) increase in area. The research revealed that an increase in cropland (Figure 2), at the beginning of the study period, which coincides with the year 2009, the cropland represented around 14,569.53 km . On the other hand, at the end of the study in 2018, the cropland is around 2 2 16,687.16 km . Therefore, a difference of 2117.63 km was noted, including an increase of 14.53%. The dynamic attitude of cropland amounts to 1.45. This dynamic seems to be important. This means a potential doubling of the cultivated areas around 2028. On the other hand, our analysis shows a decrease in grassland. The grassland repre- 2 2 sented respectively 18,656.27 km in 2009 and 16,566.23 km in 2018, showing a decrease of about 2090.04 km (11.20%). Therefore, the cropland increases as the grasslands decrease. Land 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 18 first period to the last period, the results reflect that the cropland has not increased signif- icantly. In summary, the cropland has slightly increased by 1.81% between the first and last periods (Table 3). This situation remains the same for the grassland. Respectively, the results are decreasing by −5.10%, −2.31%, and −4.22% and the difference noted between the first and third periods is about 0.88%. In summary, the study highlights important knowledge that an expansion of cropland during the study period (Figure 2). These results are confirmed by the data of the World Bank site (2020). Indeed, they show that the per- Land 2021, 10, 996 8 of 17 manent cropland represented 0.30% in 2009 and 0.35% in 2016, increasing 0.05% in Sene- gal. Figure 2. (a–d) show land use evolution patterns in years of 2009, 2012, 2015, and 2018 in the study Figure 2. (a–d) show land use evolution patterns in years of 2009, 2012, 2015, and 2018 in the area. study area. Table 2. As for The s the tati results stics ofbetween the land-periods, use area ithe n yecr aropland s 2009, 20 also 12, shows 2015 anﬂuctuations. d 2018 (km ). Thus, Table 3 reﬂects an evolution of 6.67% over the period 2009–2012. This result has decreased to 2.40% Land Use Pattern Years/Values between 2012 to 2015 with a deviation of 4.27%. Compared to the second period, we have 2009 2012 2015 2018 observed in the third period an increase of 4.86%. Therefore, if we compare the ﬁrst period Cropland 14 569.53 15541.06 15913.48 16687.16 to the last period, the results reﬂect that the cropland has not increased signiﬁcantly. In Grassland 18656.27 17704.38 17295.78 16566.23 summary, the cropland has slightly increased by 1.81% between the ﬁrst and last periods Permanent wetland 758.80 778.41 779.76 768.63 (Table 3). This situation remains the same for the grassland. Respectively, the results are decreasing Urban by an d5.10%, built up2.31%, and 172.4.22% 49 and the 174 dif .85 f erence noted 175.41 between the 177 ﬁrst .32 and third periods is about 0.88%. In summary, the study highlights important knowledge that Other 807.27 765.66 799.93 765.02 an expansion of cropland during the study period (Figure 2). These results are conﬁrmed The total surface of the study 34964.36 34964.36 34964.36 34964.36 by the data of the World Bank site (2020). Indeed, they show that the permanent cropland area represented 0.30% in 2009 and 0.35% in 2016, increasing 0.05% in Senegal. 4.1.2. Urban and Built Up and Permanent Wetland Evolution 4.1.2. Urban and Built Up and Permanent Wetland Evolution Urbanization is one of the factors that affect agricultural land. Therefore, it appears Urbanization is one of the factors that affect agricultural land. Therefore, it appears differently depending on the context and evolution of the population. In our study area, differently depending on the context and evolution of the population. In our study area, urbanization seems to be slow and occupies the space little by little. The dynamic attitude urbanization seems to be slow and occupies the space little by little. The dynamic attitude of urban and built-up turns around 0.28. Between 2009 and 2018, urban and built-up rep- of urban and built-up turns around 0.28. Between 2009 and 2018, urban and built-up resent 2.80% and permanent wetland 1.30%. represent 2.80% and permanent wetland 1.30%. Urban and built-up and permanent wetland are not signiﬁcantly represented. Indeed, at the beginning of our study in 2009, urban and built-up represents an area of 172.49 km out of 34,964.36 km , which corresponds to the total area of the study area. This area has evolved to reach 177.32 km at the end of the study in 2018, including an increase of 2.80%. However, the inter-period results show an increase of 1.37% between 2009 and 2012. This value has changed slightly from 2012 to 2015 with an area of 0.32 km , a decrease of about 1.05% less. For the last period, our research reﬂects an increase of 1.09%. In addition, between the ﬁrst and the last period, urban and built-up grew by 0.28%. Land 2021, 10, 996 9 of 17 In summary, urbanization has intensiﬁed in the second and last periods. The perma- nent wetland reﬂects an increase of 2.58% in the ﬁrst period, 0.17% in the second period, that is to say, a difference 2.41%. This result continues to decrease, reaching 1.43% in the third period. Finally, between the ﬁrst and the last period, this variable has decreased by about 1.15%. 4.2. The Regional Difference of the Study Area in Land-Use Transition Analysis of regional differences is important to understand the dynamics of agri- cultural land use in each region. We have ﬁrstly analyzed the cropland and grassland. Concerning cropland, from 2009 to 2018, an increase is noted in all the ﬁve regions. The region of Kaffrine has the highest value with 1337.95 km (22.80%). It is followed by the regions of Diourbel (19.50%) and Fatick (9.71%). The regions of Kaolack and Thiès show 3.83% and 2.53% over the ten years, respectively. This increase hides inter-annual disparities. Between 2009 and 2012, the area of cropland in the Diourbel region decreased by 5.81%. However, over the same period, the area increased in Fatick (4.27%), Kaffrine (13.31%), Kaolack (7.01%), and Thies (1.70%). This approach shows that cropland evolution is not exponential but in a sawtooth pattern. This pattern is similar to grassland. In general, it has decreased. The Kaffrine region occupied ﬁrst place with 24.81%, followed by the Diourbel (18.74%) and Kaolack (7.26%). In contrast, the Thiès region shows an increase of 0.11%. For urban and built-up and permanent wetland, the situation is the same. Concerning urban and built-up, the region of Thies comes in ﬁrst place with an evolution of 4.02 km (7.94%) between 2009 and 2018 (Figure 3). This evolution trend remains the same for the Diourbel region with 0.93%. The evolution of urban and built-up is average in the Factick region with 0.77%. In contrast, the regions of Kaolack (0.17%) and Kaffrine (0.61%) show a decrease in urban and built-up areas in the same period. Permanent wetland concern largely the Fatick and Thiès regions. In the Thiès region, the evolution is stable. However, in the region of Fatick, it has been recorded an increase of 9.80 km (1.31%). However, this result hides disparities. In the same region shows an increase of 2.60% from 2009–2012, to reach a decline of 1.43% from 2015–2018. Finally, the analysis of regional Land 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 18 differences in land use shows several aspects. The ﬁrst aspect shows that in the regions of Kaffrine and Diourbel, cropland has evolved rapidly, but urban and built-up remains low in Kaffrine (Figure 3). In contrast, urban and built-up expansion is relatively rapid in the Thiès region, and moderate in the Diourbel region. However, in the Thies region, the Thies region, the evolution of cropland and grassland has evolved weaknesses compared evolution of cropland and grassland has evolved weaknesses compared with other regions. with other regions. Figure Figure 3. 3. Regional Regionaldif difer ffer ences encesin inland landuse useevolution evolutionfr fr om om2009 2009 t too2018 2018(%). (%). 4.3. Analysis of Land Use Transitions 4.3.1. Inter-Period Transition To understand agricultural land transition dynamics, the series is divided into three equal periods. The first period from 2009–2012 shows a decrease in grassland in favor of 2 2 other variables. 944.58 km of grassland was transformed into cropland. Then, 12.23 km of grassland transformed into a permanent wetland, and 2.12 km became urban and built up. This first approach shows a significant decrease of grassland at the expense of urban- ism and permanent wetland indeed. Urbanism and permanent wetland have occupied 2 2 about 14.35 km of grassland. Urban and built-up alone, records 2.27 km on the grassland. Transition in the second period (2012–2015) appears to be less intensive than in the first period. The transformation of cropland decreased. The area transformed from grass- 2 2 2 land to cropland went from 944.58 km to 363 km , a decreasing 580.8 km . Dynamic con- tinues with the changes from grassland to permanent wetland with 2 km . Similarly, 1.15 km of grassland has been converted to urban up and built. This situation shows a rela- tively slow evolution of urbanization. Therefore, compared to the first period, the results reflect a difference of 1.03 km of grassland converted to urban up. Concerning the last period, it witnesses transition compared to the second period. Indeed, we still note an extension of agricultural land compared to the grassland, representing 772.12 km . In this last part, our analysis points to a reversal of the permanent wetland and grass- land. About 10.96 km of permanent wetland have been transformed into grassland. Ur- banization as for it evolved. We observed a 2.21 km of grassland are again transformed into urban and built up. The inter-period analysis of land transition shows significant fluc- tuations. A few areas of cropland were transformed into urban and built up, in other cases, the grassland was transformed into cropland or urban and built up. 4.3.2. Changes That Occurred during the Study Period Analysis done during the period of the study period highlights some changes be- tween the variables. Among the most significant changes, the results underline an exten- sion of other components on the grassland. 2083.29 km of grassland was transformed into agricultural areas (Table 4). Similarly, 5.42 km of grassland was transformed into urban and built up. In addition, 3.63 km of grassland was transformed into a permanent wet- land. We have noticed a significant change in grassland, in the study area which has con- tinued to increase. This change is especially noticeable in the Kaffrine region (Figure 4). Land 2021, 10, 996 10 of 17 4.3. Analysis of Land Use Transitions 4.3.1. Inter-Period Transition To understand agricultural land transition dynamics, the series is divided into three equal periods. The ﬁrst period from 2009–2012 shows a decrease in grassland in favor of 2 2 other variables. 944.58 km of grassland was transformed into cropland. Then, 12.23 km of grassland transformed into a permanent wetland, and 2.12 km became urban and built up. This ﬁrst approach shows a signiﬁcant decrease of grassland at the expense of urbanism and permanent wetland indeed. Urbanism and permanent wetland have occupied about 2 2 14.35 km of grassland. Urban and built-up alone, records 2.27 km on the grassland. Transition in the second period (2012–2015) appears to be less intensive than in the ﬁrst period. The transformation of cropland decreased. The area transformed from grassland to 2 2 2 cropland went from 944.58 km to 363 km , a decreasing 580.8 km . Dynamic continues 2 2 with the changes from grassland to permanent wetland with 2 km . Similarly, 1.15 km of grassland has been converted to urban up and built. This situation shows a relatively slow evolution of urbanization. Therefore, compared to the ﬁrst period, the results reﬂect a difference of 1.03 km of grassland converted to urban up. Concerning the last period, it witnesses transition compared to the second period. Indeed, we still note an extension of agricultural land compared to the grassland, representing 772.12 km . In this last part, our analysis points to a reversal of the permanent wetland and grassland. About 10.96 km of permanent wetland have been transformed into grassland. Urbanization as for it evolved. We observed a 2.21 km of grassland are again transformed into urban and built up. The inter-period analysis of land transition shows signiﬁcant ﬂuctuations. A few areas of cropland were transformed into urban and built up, in other cases, the grassland was transformed into cropland or urban and built up. 4.3.2. Changes That Occurred during the Study Period Analysis done during the period of the study period highlights some changes between the variables. Among the most signiﬁcant changes, the results underline an extension of other components on the grassland. 2083.29 km of grassland was transformed into agricultural areas (Table 4). Similarly, 5.42 km of grassland was transformed into urban and built up. In addition, 3.63 km of grassland was transformed into a permanent wetland. We have noticed a signiﬁcant change in grassland, in the study area which has continued to increase. This change is especially noticeable in the Kaffrine region (Figure 4). The balance of land-use changes observed over the study period shows that the most important relationships are between grassland and the other land use pattern, namely cropland and urban up and built. Table 4. Land use transition over the study period (2009–2018) in km . Permanent Urban and Cropland Grassland Wetland Built Up Cropland 13,288.12 x x x Grassland 2083.29 15,202.92 3.63 5.42 Permanent Wetland x x 747.53 x Urban and built up x x x 166.35 Land 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 18 The balance of land-use changes observed over the study period shows that the most im- portant relationships are between grassland and the other land use pattern, namely cropland and urban up and built. Table 4. Land use transition over the study period (2009–2018) in km . Permanent Urban and Built Cropland Grassland Wetland Up Cropland 13288.12 x x x Grassland 2083.29 15202.92 3.63 5.42 Land 2021, 10, 996 11 of 17 Permanent Wetland x x 747.53 x Urban and built up x x x 166.35 Figure 4. Land use transition throughout the study period (2009–2018). Figure 4. Land use transition throughout the study period (2009–2018). 5. Discussion 5. Discussions 5.1. Impacts of Urbanization and Population on Agricultural Land Transition 5.1. Impacts of Urbanization and Population on Agricultural Land Transition The National Agency of Statistics and Demography (NASD) site projections of popu- The National Agency of Statistics and Demography (NASD) site projections of pop- lation trends in the study area show a rapid evolution. The population projections data ula show tion tthat rendther s ine th wer e st eu5.059,331 dy area sh million ow a ra people pid evol inu 2009 tion.and The6.436,913 population million projec in tions 2018, da with ta show an incr thaease t there of w 27.23% ere 5.0 in 59ten ,331 years. millioA n rapid people incr in ease 2009 in anpopu d 6.43 lation 6,913 may millio be n an in 2 explanatory 018, with an increase of 27.23% in ten years. A rapid increase in population may be an explanatory factor that is at the origin of agricultural land transition because evolution in population fac induces tor thatdemand is at the for orig housing in of agand riculoccupation tural land tof ran new sition b spaces. ecau On se e the volother ution hand, in pop the ula rtesults ion ind highlight uces dem that andurbanization for housing a is nd expanding occupation of rapidly new in sthe pace Thi s. O ès n ar the ea o (Figur ther he a3 nd ). ,Accor the reding sultsto NASD site data, the Thiès region is the most urbanized and populated region after Dakar. highlight that urbanization is expanding rapidly in the Thiès area (Figure 3). According This region, whose land area represents less than 2% of Senegal’s land area (196,722 km ), to NASD site data, the Thiès region is the most urbanized and populated region after Da- concentrates more than 25% of the national population [45]. As a result, the overcrowding kar. This region, whose land area represents less than 2% of Senegal’s land area (196,722 of the capital (Dakar), partly explains the rapid development of urbanization in the Thies km ), concentrates more than 25% of the national population [45]. As a result, the over- region. This region (70 km from Dakar) now serves as a secondary city to correct the crowding of the capital (Dakar), partly explains the rapid development of urbanization in territorial imbalance; it has been the area to major state projects such as the new Blaise the Thies region. This region (70 km from Dakar) now serves as a secondary city to correct Diagne International Airport. From this perspective, agricultural land fragmentation and the territorial imbalance; it has been the area to major state projects such as the new Blaise scarcity are still mentioned as of considerable constraints on agricultural modernization. Diagne International Airport. From this perspective, agricultural land fragmentation and It could be exacerbated in the affected area due to a huge agricultural land acquired to scarcity are still mentioned as of considerable constraints on agricultural modernization. support urbanization and industrialization [72]. Therefore, it is undeniable that the loss of It could be exacerbated in the affected area due to a huge agricultural land acquired to agricultural land to urbanization is a serious threat to food security and poverty alleviation, support urbanization and industrialization [72]. Therefore, it is undeniable that the loss of especially in regions where many people are already poor. Consequently, agricultural development in Senegal has to face many challenges related to good land administra- tion and planning for successful socio-economic development, particular rural economic transformation. 5.2. Climatic Factors That Inﬂuence the Evolution of Agricultural Land The links between the land and the global climate have long been known [73]. Thus, the scientiﬁc literature provides positive examples of that problem. It points out that land degradation is a complex process involving the natural ecosystem and the socioeconomic system. Climate and land-use changes are the two predominant driving factors [74]. However, it is clear that climatic factors, including temperature or rainfall, can impact land-use. In this study, the pivotal factors that can inﬂuence agricultural land’s transition focus on the rainfall. Land 2021, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 18 agricultural land to urbanization is a serious threat to food security and poverty allevia- tion, especially in regions where many people are already poor. Consequently, agricul- tural development in Senegal has to face many challenges related to good land admin- istration and planning for successful socio-economic development, particular rural eco- nomic transformation. 5.2. Climatic Factors That Influence the Evolution of Agricultural Land The links between the land and the global climate have long been known [73]. Thus, the scientific literature provides positive examples of that problem. It points out that land degradation is a complex process involving the natural ecosystem and the socioeconomic system. Climate and land-use changes are the two predominant driving factors [74]. How- Land 2021, 10, 996 12 of 17 ever, it is clear that climatic factors, including temperature or rainfall, can impact land- use. In this study, the pivotal factors that can influence agricultural land’s transition focus on the rainfall. Generally, the projected changes in climate include recurring climate extremes like Generally, the projected changes in climate include recurring climate extremes like droughts, flooding, and outbreaks of pests and diseases exposing the region to the vul- droughts, ﬂooding, and outbreaks of pests and diseases exposing the region to the vulnera- nerabilities of the changing environment [75]. The agricultural sector is one of the first bilities of the changing environment [75]. The agricultural sector is one of the ﬁrst affected affected by this change [64] because rainfall is the main factor affecting agricultural pro- by this change [64] because rainfall is the main factor affecting agricultural production [76]. duction [76]. Therefore, the erratic spatio-temporal distribution of rainfall can often be the Therefore, the erratic spatio-temporal distribution of rainfall can often be the origin of an origin of an increase or a decrease in the cropland. Past studies emphasized two normal increase or a decrease in the cropland. Past studies emphasized two normal years with a dryness years wtr ith end a dry in 2012 nessand tren 2013 d in in 2012 West anAfrican, d 2013 iparticularly n West Afric Senegal an, par[t77 icul ].a This rly Se dry ne ness gal [7 can 7]. have This d a r negative yness cainﬂuence n have a n on egthe ativ ar e i ea nfplanted. luence on t Forhinstance, e area pla our ntestudy d. For i shows nstance a decr , our ease stud iny cropland during the periods of 2012–2015 and 2015–2018. Indeed, the inter-annual evolu- shows a decrease in cropland during the periods of 2012–2015 and 2015–2018. Indeed, the tion inter of -annu rainfall al ev during olution the of r period ainfal1985–2014 l during the in p the erirod egion 198of 5–20 Kaolack 14 in the shows regithirteen on of Ka years olack out shoof wsthirty thirtee that n yea are rsdeﬁcient out of thcompar irty thaed t arto e def theic average ient com of pa the red series to the which averais ge604.0 of the mm seriof es rain. The most deﬁcient year was 2014 with 423 mm [78]. The above background conﬁrms which is 604.0 mm of rain. The most deficient year was 2014 with 423 mm [78]. The above the rainfall results analyzed for the whole study area. Indeed, the analysis made on the background confirms the rainfall results analyzed for the whole study area. Indeed, the evolution of the rainfall shows that the rainfall varies from one year to another. Indeed, analysis made on the evolution of the rainfall shows that the rainfall varies from one year Figure 5 shows three periods. The results of the second period show that the rainfall is to another. Indeed, Figure 5 shows three periods. The results of the second period show decreasing and 2014 is the most deﬁcient year of the whole period. Similarly, after an that the rainfall is decreasing and 2014 is the most deficient year of the whole period. Sim- increase in rain in 2015, the rainfall decreased over the third period. Accordingly, the ilarly, after an increase in rain in 2015, the rainfall decreased over the third period. Ac- decrease/ﬂuctuation in rainfall during this period may explain the reduction or increase in cordingly, the decrease/fluctuation in rainfall during this period may explain the reduc- cropland in the Groundnut Basin. tion or increase in cropland in the Groundnut Basin. Figure 5. Annual evolution of rainfall: 2009 to 2018. Source CRHS 2021. Figure 5. Annual evolution of rainfall: 2009 to 2018. Source CRHS 2021. On the other hand, our analysis reﬂects the decline of urban and built-up in the regions On the other hand, our analysis reflects the decline of urban built-up in the re- of gions Kaolack of Kaand olack Kaf and frine. KafFormerly frine. Form inhabited erly inha ar beas itedar ar eeabandoned, as are abandleaving oned, lethe aving place theto plfal- ace low. These two regions are predominantly agricultural (Figure 2). Therefore, this situation to fallow. These two regions are predominantly agricultural (Figure 2). Therefore, this sit- has been proven in some studies in the past. Indeed, the decline of groundnut cultiva- uation has been proven in some studies in the past. Indeed, the decline of groundnut cul- tion, coupled with the disappearance of certain industrial facilities for processing this raw tivation, coupled with the disappearance of certain industrial facilities for processing this material, has aggravated the situation, leading to a massive displacement of populations raw material, has aggravated the situation, leading to a massive displacement of popula- from the former urban centers of the Groundnut Basin to the metropolis of Dakar [65]. tions from the former urban centers of the Groundnut Basin to the metropolis of Dakar Therefore, many socio-economic and climatic factors can inﬂuence agricultural land, and some studies demonstrate about 74% of farmers perceived that erratic rainfall seasonality contributes signiﬁcantly to the land-use change and agricultural land abandonment [79]. 5.3. The Means of Financial Has Effect on Agricultural Land Evolution in Senegal This link between agricultural land transition and ﬁnancial means has been high- lighted in the literature. For instance, cropland increases in the United States, and pasture- land decreases when government payments go up [80]. The same observation is noted in China, where economic restructuring also inﬂuences the overall evolution of farmland areas [25]. Despite a shortfall in rainfall in recent years, Senegal has signiﬁcantly improved its results due to the selection of seeds and strong mechanization, which have positively impacted agricultural yields. Yields have witnessed a dramatic increase [81]. To under- stand this phenomenon, we have analyzed the evolution of agricultural investments. This analysis shows an identical correlation between the variables. According to data from the World Bank site, investments in the agricultural sector in Senegal have evolved consider- Land 2021, 10, 996 13 of 17 ably during the study period. They represented 16,323 million CFA ($30,471.27) in 2009 and 51,585.6 million CFA ($96,297.26) in 2018, including an increase of 35,262.6 million CFA ($65,826). Accordingly, we found that the agricultural investments for the Groundnut Basin represent 17.3% [82]. Meanwhile, fertilizer use has doubled. The use of fertilizer has evolved from 18,489,000 kg in 2008 to 37,000,000 kg in 2018, including an increase of 18,511,000 kg. These huge investments in the sector can justify the evolution of agricultural land in the area. The evolution of agricultural land in the Groundnut Basin depends more on ﬁnancial means. 6. Conclusions and Recommendations The ﬁndings of this study reveal that the agricultural land has not yet been subjected to real human pressure. From 2009–2018, urban and built-up occupies only 177.5 km of the total area (34,964.36 km ) and increases at 2.80%, with a dynamic attitude of 0.28. This situation is because the fact that it is an under-populated area with little urbanization. The density represented 184.10 people per km . Therefore, basic needs such as housing, infrastructure, and services are poorly developed in the area. Analysis of the regional difference shows that the Thiès region alone occupies 54.61 km . Today, this region is considered an integral part of the Dakar region (25% of the country’s population), which is the most urbanized in the country [83]. The most visible case in the study is the extension 2 2 of cropland on the grassland. It represents 14,569.53 km in 2009 and 16,687.16 km in 2018, including an increase of 2117.63 km (14.53%). The region of Kaffrine alone recorded an increase of 1337.95 km (22.80%) and followed by Diourbel (19.50%). The justifying factors can be related to agricultural investments and climatic performances such as rainfall or fertilizer. The use of fertilizer is increase reaching about 18,511,000 kg over the period. For the transition of areas is relatively intense, and the results reﬂected that 2083.29 km of the grassland was transformed into cropland; 5.36 km of the grassland was transformed into urban and built up. In general, the agricultural land in the study area has not yet undergone a major transition. According to these ﬁndings, recommendations are necessary to ensure efﬁcient and balanced management of agricultural land in the future. First, agricultural land use planning is essential. Given the increasing urbanization and large-scale agriculture, the establishment of an agricultural nature protection zone is necessary, to develop and seek consensus on rules guiding the sustainable utilization of agricultural resources. Second, the agricultural land is disappearing faster than population growth. It is therefore imperative to move towards zero lands “artiﬁcialization”. That is to say that we must resort to the restoration of degraded land to compensate for the land newly occupied by urban and built up. Third, land tenure management. Secure land and property rights are critical for reducing poverty and for enhancing economic development, gender equality, social stabil- ity, and sustainable resource use. We propose a restructuring of the basics of law No. 64–46 of 17 June 1964 to facilitate access to and proper management of agricultural land. Thus, the restructuring of this law will strive to put in the place a legal system that will facilitate access to and management of land in general and agricultural land in particular. However, it is relevant to integrate all stakeholders in the reform process, strengthen the existing land access procedure, and to further include land issues in the decentralization and agricultural development policy laws. In addition, access and control over land are problematic in Senegal, especially under customary rule [84]. Therefore, a more equitable redistribution of access to land, especially to those who can invest in agricultural development, might be an important point in restructuring this law. Furthermore, land issues are becoming increasingly complex due to economic devel- opment and population growth. Thus, the lack of coordination between socio-economic development laws can be seen as a blocking factor in the reform. Similarly, customary laws on land rights are increasingly challenged in the context of globalization. However, the lack of a clear delineation between the state and private domain may be a limiting factor in the reconstruction of this law. Therefore, it is necessary to formulate rural (such Land 2021, 10, 996 14 of 17 urban) spatial planning promotes; promote the implementation of comprehensive land consolidation projects throughout the region; and optimizes agricultural, ecological, and construction space [85]. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, B.F. and G.D.; methodology, B.F.; validation, G.D., and B.F.; formal analysis, G.D; resources, B.F.; data curation, B.F.; writing—original draft preparation, B.F.; writing—review and editing, G.D.; visualization, B.F.; supervision, G.D.; project administration, G.D.; acquisition of funding, G.D. Both authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Grant Number 41571167. Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available online. Kindly check the Table 1. Acknowledgments: We would like to express our gratitude to the professionals of the Northeast Agricultural University who encouraged us to make this project a success. Conﬂicts of Interest: The authors declare no conﬂict of interest. References 1. Vanbergen, A.J.; Aizen, M.A.; Cordeau, S.; Garibaldi, L.A.; Garratt, M.P.; Kovács-Hostyánszki, A.; Lecuyer, L.; Ngo, H.T.; Potts, S.G.; Settele, J.; et al. Transformation of agricultural landscapes in the Anthropocene: Nature’s contributions to people, agriculture and food security. Adv. Ecol. Res. 2020, 63, 193–253. [CrossRef] 2. Sachs, J.; Schmidt-Traub, G. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2020; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2020. 3. Bolca, M.; Turkyilmaz, B.; Kurucu, Y.; Altinbas, U.; Esetlili, T.; Gulgun, B. Determination of Impact of Urbanization on Agricultural Land and Wetland Land Use in Balçovas’ Delta by Remote Sensing and GIS Technique. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2007, 131, 409–419. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 4. Holman, I.; Brown, C.; Janes, V.; Sandars, D. Can we be certain about future land use change in Europe? A multi-scenario, integrated-assessment analysis. Agric. Syst. 2017, 151, 126–135. [CrossRef] 5. Al Tarawneh, W.M. Urban Sprawl on Agricultural Land (Literature Survey of Causes, Effects, Relationship with Land Use Planning and Environment) A Case Study from Jordan (Shihan Municipality Areas). J. Environ. Earth Sci. 2014, 4, 97–124. 6. Rubiera-Morollón, F.; Garrido-Yserte, R. Recent Literature about Urban Sprawl: A Renewed Relevance of the Phenomenon from the Perspective of Environmental Sustainability. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6551. [CrossRef] 7. Duranton, G.; Puga, D. The Growth of Cities. 2013. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/economy/growth/Growth_of_ cities_Duranton.pdf (accessed on 29 August 2021). 8. Eurostat Regional Yearbook. Land Cover and Land Use. 2011. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/ 3217494/5728541/KS-HA-11-001-12-EN.PDF.pdf/88b77a74-2628-4ed7-bb9f-24244d6c78a1?t=1414775978000 (accessed on 10 August 2021). 9. Sroka, W.; Mikolajczyk, J.; Wojewodzic, T.; Kwoczynska, B. Agricultural Land vs. Urbanisation in Chosen Polish Metropolitan Areas: A Spatial Analysis Based on Regression Trees. Sustainability 2018, 10, 837. [CrossRef] 10. United Nations. Department of Economic and Social Affairs—Population Division. World Urbanization Prospects. The 2014 Revision; ST/ESA/SER.A/366; UN: New York, NY, USA, 2015. Available online: https://population.un.org/wup/Publications/Files/ WUP2014-Report.pdf (accessed on 27 July 2021). 11. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The Future of Food and Agriculture Trends and Challenges; Food and Agriculture Organization: Rome, Italy, 2017. 12. Ambros, P.; Granvik, M. Trends in Agricultural Land in EU Countries of the Baltic Sea Region from the Perspective of Resilience and Food Security. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5851. [CrossRef] 13. György, K.T.; Sadowski, A.; Bandlerova, A. Land Use and Land Reform in former Central and East European Countries. 2007. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23508765_Land_use_and_land_reform_in_former_Central_and_ East_European_countries (accessed on 27 July 2021). 14. Cook, E. Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery Statistics 2018 Edition; European Commission: Luxembourg, 2018; pp. 28–31. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat (accessed on 16 September 2021). [CrossRef] 15. Popovici, E.A.; Balteanu, D.; Kucsicsa, G. Assessment of changes in land-use and land-cover pattern in Romania using CORINE Land Cover database. Carpathian J. Earth Environ. Sci. 2013, 8, 195–208. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/272161616_Assessment_of_changes_in_land-use_and_land-cover_pattern_in_Romania_using_CORINE_Land_ Cover_database (accessed on 28 August 2021). Land 2021, 10, 996 15 of 17 16. De Arriba Bueno, R. Evaluating land reform and market in Bulgaria. J. Econ. Bus. 2007, 10, 11–13. 17. Csaki, C.; Lerman, Z. Agricultural Transition Revisited: Issues of Land Reform and Farm Restructuring in East Central Eu- rope and the Former USSR. 1996. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290007608_Agricultural_ transition_revisited_Issues_of_land_reform_and_farm_restructuring_in_East_Central_Europe_and_the_former_USSR (accessed on 27 July 2021). 18. Izakovicov ˇ á, Z.; Mederly, P.; Petrovic, ˇ F. Long-Term Land Use Changes Driven by Urbanisation and Their Environmental Effects (Example of Trnava City, Slovakia). Sustainability 2017, 9, 1553. [CrossRef] 19. European Commission. Urban Sprawl in Europe—The Ignored Challenge—European Environment Agency. 2006. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/eea_report_2006_10/eea_report_10_2006.pdf/view (accessed on 29 July 2021). 20. Roy, J.; Bose, C.; Bose, R.; Das, S.; Dhakal, S.; Dasgupta, M.; Ghate, R.; Roy, S.S.; Konar, M.; Wickramasinghe, A.; et al. Development Pathway. In Global Environmental Changes in South Asia; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2000; pp. 14–53. [CrossRef] 21. Liu, Y.; Li, J.T.; Yang, Y. Strategic adjustment of land use policy under the economic transformation. Land Use Policy 2018, 74, 5–14. [CrossRef] 22. Satterthwaite, D.; McGranahan, G.; Tacoli, C. Urbanization and its implications for food and farming. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2010, 365, 2809–2820. [CrossRef] 23. Long, H.; Li, Y.; Liu, Y.; Woods, M.; Zou, J. Accelerated restructuring in rural China fueled by ‘increasing vs. decreasing balance’ land-use policy for dealing with hollowed villages. Land Use Policy 2012, 29, 11–22. [CrossRef] 24. Liu, Y.; Yang, R.; Long, H.; Gao, J.; Wang, J. Implications of land-use change in rural China: A case study of Yucheng, Shandong province. Land Use Policy 2014, 40, 111–118. [CrossRef] 25. Zhou, X.; Li, X.; Song, W.; Kong, X.; Lu, X. Farmland Transitions in China: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Land 2021, 10, 122. [CrossRef] 26. Boudreaux, K.; Sacks, D. Land Tenure Security and Agricultural Productivity. MERCATUS ON POLICY No.57. 2009. Available online: https://www.mercatus.org/publications/development-economics/land-tenure-security-and-agricultural-productivity (accessed on 28 August 2021). 27. Bambio, Y.; Agha, S.B. Land tenure security and investment: Does strength of land right really matter in rural Burkina Faso? World Dev. 2018, 111, 130–147. [CrossRef] 28. Segura Warnholtz, G.; Fernández, M.; Smyle, J.; Springer, J. Securing Forest Tenure Rights for Rural Development: Lessons from Six Countries in Latin America; PROFOR: Washington, DC, USA, 2017; ISBN 9780991040780. 29. Kasimbazi, E. Global Land Outlook Working Paper Land Tenure and Rights for Improved Land Management and Sustainable Development. 2017. Available online: https://knowledge.unccd.int/sites/default/ﬁles/2018-06/5.Land%2BTenure%2Band% 2BRights__E_Kasimbazi.pdf (accessed on 29 August 2021). 30. Singirankabo, U.A.; Ertsen, M.W. Relations between Land Tenure Security and Agricultural Productivity: Exploring the Effect of Land Registration. Land 2020, 9, 138. [CrossRef] 31. Nasrin, M.; Uddin, M.T. Land Tenure System and Agricultural Productivity in a Selected Area of Bangladesh. Progress. Agric. 2013, 22, 181–192. [CrossRef] 32. International Fund for Agricultural Development. Improving Access to Land and Tenure Security. 2008. Available online: https://www.ifad.org/documents/38711624/39417918/land_e.pdf/99f1a767-4ed1-41fc-a341-9bbd7fd2fe7f (accessed on 29 August 2021). 33. International Fund for Agricultural Development. Land Tenure Security and Poverty Reduction. 2015. Available online: https://www.ifad.org/documents/38714170/39148759/Land+tenure+security+and+poverty+reduction.pdf/c9d0982d-40e4 -4e1e-b490-17ea8fef0775 (accessed on 29 August 2021). 34. Byamugisha, F. Securing Land Tenure and Easing Access to Land. 2016. Available online: www.acetforafrica.org (accessed on 29 August 2021). 35. Secretary-General of the OECD. Cities in the World: An New Perspective on Urbanization. 2020. Available online: www.oecd. org/regional/regional-statistics (accessed on 28 August 2021). 36. UN-DESA (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs). World Population Prospects 2019: Highlights. Available online: https://population.un.org/wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2019_Highlights.pdf (accessed on 3 April 2021). 37. Yawson, D.O.; Mulholland, B.J.; Ball, T.; Adu, M.O.; Mohan, S.; White, P.J. Effect of Climate and Agricultural Land Use Changes on UK Feed Barley Production and Food Security to the 2050s. Land 2017, 6, 74. [CrossRef] 38. Hinz, R.; Sulser, T.B.; Huefner, R.; Mason-D’Croz, D.; Dunston, S.; Nautiyal, S.; Ringler, C.; Schuengel, J.; Tikhile, P.; Wimmer, F.; et al. Agricultural Development and Land Use Change in India: A Scenario Analysis of Trade-Offs Between UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Earth’s Futur. 2020, 8, e2019EF001287. [CrossRef] 39. Verburg, P.H.; Van Berkel, D.; Van Doorn, A.M.; Van Eupen, M.; Heiligenberg, H.A.R.M.V.D. Trajectories of land use change in Europe: A model-based exploration of rural futures. Landsc. Ecol. 2009, 25, 217–232. [CrossRef] 40. Jepsen, M.R.; Kuemmerle, T.; Müller, D.; Erb, K.; Verburg, P.H.; Haberl, H.; Vesterager, J.P.; Andric, M.; Antrop, M.; Austrheim, G.; et al. Transitions in European land-management regimes between 1800 and 2010. Land Use Policy 2015, 49, 53–64. [CrossRef] 41. Centre de Suivi Ecologique. Annuaire sur l’environnement et les Ressources Naturelles au Sénégal, 4th ed.; Centre de Suivi Ecologique: Dakar, Senegal, 2018; pp. 12–19. Available online: https://www.cse.sn/index.php (accessed on 28 August 2021). Land 2021, 10, 996 16 of 17 42. Bourgoin, J.; Diop, D.; Dia, D.; Sall, M.; Zagré, R.; Grislain, Q.; Anseeuw, W. Regard sur le modèle agricole sénégalais: Pratiques foncières et particularités territoriales des moyennes et grandes exploitations agricoles. Cah. Agric. 2020, 29, 18. [CrossRef] 43. Faye, N.F.; Gérard, F.; Sall, M.; Affholde, F.; Roudier, P. Poverty and Inequality in Rural Areas of Central Senegal: Status, Causes and Consequences. 2021. Available online: https://agritrop.cirad.fr/598426/1/Ndeye%20et%20al.%20SFER%202021.pdf (accessed on 25 July 2021). (In French) 44. Toure, A.K.; Diakhate, M. Descriptive Analysis of The Inﬂuence of Rainfall and Temperature Indicators on Agricultural Yields in Senegal. 2020. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338698842_Analyse_descriptive_de_l%27 inﬂuence_des_indicateurs_de_pluie_et_de_la_temperature_sur_les_rendements_agricoles_au_Senegal (accessed on 10 August 2021). (In French) 45. National Agency Statistics and Demography. General Census of Population and Housing Senegal. 2013. Available online: https://satisfaction.ansd.sn/ (accessed on 30 April 2021). (In French) 46. New Partnership for Africa’s Development-FAO. Project to Restore the Agricultural Production Base in The Groundnut Basin. 2006. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/ah215f/ah215f00.htm (accessed on 30 April 2021). (In French) 47. Ricome, A.; Affholder, F.; Gérard, F.; Muller, B.; Poeydebat, C.; Quirion, P.; Sall, M. Are subsidies to weather-index insurance the best use of public funds? A bio-economic farm model applied to the Senegalese groundnut basin. Agric. Syst. 2017, 156, 149–176. [CrossRef] 48. United States Agency for International Development. Feed the Future Senegal Naatal Mbay Project: Women’s Economic Empowerment Strategy. 2016. Available online: https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00MMW4.pdf (accessed on 24 May 2021). 49. Sanogo, D. The Living Hedge in the Southern Groundnut Basin of Senegal: Adoption and Agro-Ecological Consequences. Ph.D. Thesis, Cheikh Anta Diop University of Dakar, Dakar, Senegal, 2000. 50. Ndour, M. Investing in Rural People in Senegal; International Fund for Agricultural Development: Rome, Italy, 2015. Available online: https://www.ifad.org/documents/38714170/39972302/Investir+dans+les+populations+rurales+au+Sénégal.pdf/60 b009ed-ef32-45f5-ab1d-35fe04674825 (accessed on 5 July 2021). 51. Mbow, M. The Challenges of Senegalese Agriculture in a Climate Change Perspective. Master ’s Thesis, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada, 2017. 52. Gueye, G.; Fall, M.; Edwige, C.; Louhounghou, R. Characterization and Typology of Family Farms in Senegal: Volume 3 Groundnut Basin. 2008. Available online: https://www.bameinfopol.info/IMG/pdf/Expl._Fam_2.pdf (accessed on 30 April 2021). (In French) 53. Ramde, F.; Lo, B.S. The Role of The Agricultural Sector in The Senegal Economy. 2015. Available online: https://mpra.ub.uni- muenchen.de/81906/ (accessed on 11 May 2021). (In French) 54. National Agency Statistics Demography. Republic of Senegal Provisional 2017 and Final 2016 National Accounts (2014 Base). 2019. Available online: http://www.ansd.sn/ressources/publications/NOTE%20ANALYSE%20COMPTES%20NATIONAUX% 202017_.pdf (accessed on 11 May 2021). (In French) 55. Ambiente, Y.M. Les Paysages de l’Afrique de l’Ouest: Une Fenêtre sur un Monde en Pleine Évolution; U.S. Geological Survey EROS: Garretson, SD, USA, 2016; pp. 279–280. 56. Ndong, J.-B. L’évolution de la pluviométrie au Sénégal et les incidences de la sécheresse récente sur l’environnement/The evolution of rainfall in Senegal and the consequences of the recent drought on the environment. Rev. De Geogaphie Lyon 1995, 70, 193–198. [CrossRef] 57. Faye, M.; Fall, A.; Faye, G.; Van Hecke, E. La variabilité pluviométrique et ses incidences sur les rendements agricoles dans la région des Terres Neuves du Sénégal oriental. Belgeo 2018. [CrossRef] 58. D’Alessandro, S.; Fall, A.A.; Grey, G.; Simpkin, S.; Wane, A. Senegal Agricultural Sector Risk Assessment. 2015. Available online: Agritrop.cirad.fr/583362/ (accessed on 29 July 2021). 59. Rowland, J.; Funk, C. Famine Early Warning Systems Network-Informing Climate Change Adaptation Series A Climate Trend Analysis of Senegal. 2012. Available online: Fews.net/sites/default/ﬁles/documents/reports/FS12-3123.pdf (accessed on 24 May 2021). 60. Mechiche-Alami, A.; Abdi, A.M. Agricultural productivity in relation to climate and cropland management in West Africa. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 1–10. [CrossRef] 61. Faye, C. Analysis of Drought Trends in Senegalese Coastal Zone on Different Climatic Domains (1951–2010). An. Univ. Din Oradea Ser. Geogr. 2018, 28, 231–244. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329351771_ANALYSIS_OF_ DROUGHT_TRENDS_IN_SENEGALESE_COASTAL_ZONE_ON_DIFFERENT_CLIMATIC_DOMAINS_1951-2010 (accessed on 29 July 2021). 62. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and African Development Bank Group. Agricultural Growth in West Africa as a Market and Policy Driver. 2015. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/i4337f/i4337f.pdf (accessed on 30 April 2021). (In French) 63. Niang, A.; Knapman, C. Land Access for Senegal’s Small Producers under Threat; International Institute for Environment and Development: London, UK, 2017. Available online: https://pubs.iied.org/17375iied (accessed on 29 April 2021). 64. The Republic of Senegal. National Land Reform Commission Land Policy Document. 2016. Available online: http://www. hubrural.org/IMG/pdf/version_preliminaire_du_document_de_politique_fonciere.pdf (accessed on 30 April 2021). (In French) Land 2021, 10, 996 17 of 17 65. Oya, C.; Ba, C.O. Agricultural policies 2000–2012: Between Voluntarism and Incoherence. 2013. Available online: https: //eprints.soas.ac.uk/16799/1/04Oya-Ba130131%20proof.pdf (accessed on 29 April 2021). (In French) 66. Faroukh, A.T.; Tellal, R.; Qarro, M. Analysis of socio-economic mutations in the Benslimane forest Lever for sustainable development (Province of Benslimane, Morocco). J. Mater. Environ. Sci. 2017, 8, 4415–4425. [CrossRef] 67. Agro-Innov, R. Voluntary Cooperation Program for Innovative and Sustainable Agricultural Entrepreneurship Senegal Portrait- Diagnosis of Agricultural Soil Health. 2017. Available online: https://docplayer.fr/158367777-Programme-de-cooperation- volontaire-pour-un-entrepreneuriat-agricole-innovant-et-durable-senegal-portrait-diagnostic-de-la-sante-des-sols-agricoles. html (accessed on 30 April 2021). (In French) 68. Díaz-Pacheco, J.; van Delden, H.; Hewitt, R. The importance of scale in land use models: Experiments in data conversion, data resampling, resolution and neighborhood extent. In Geomatic Approaches for Modeling Land Change Scenarios; Springer: Madrid, Spain, 2018; pp. 163–186. [CrossRef] 69. Guoming, D.; Jingpan, M.; Xiang, C. Study on the transformation of arable land use patterns in modern agricultural areas. Angew. Chemie Int. 2018, 6, 951–952. [CrossRef] 70. Thierry, A.; Martin, P.; Ismaïla, T.I.; Brice, T. Modelisation des Changements D’occupation des Terres en Région Soudanienne au Nord-Ouest du Benin. Eur. Sci. J. ESJ 2018, 14, 248. [CrossRef] 71. Sagna, P.; Ndiaye, O.; Diop, C.; Niang, A.D.; Sambou, P.C. Les variations récentes du climat constatées au Sénégal sont-elles en phase avec les descriptions données par les scénarios du GIEC? Pollut. Atmos. 2015, 227. [CrossRef] 72. Thi, N.P.; Kappas, M.; Faust, H. Impacts of Agricultural Land Acquisition for Urbanization on Agricultural Activities of Affected Households: A Case Study in Huong Thuy Town, Thua Thien Hue Province, Vietnam. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8559. [CrossRef] 73. Faye, A.; Lejeune; Neya, O. The IPCC Special Report on Climate Change and Land What Impacts for Africa? 2019. Available online: www.climateanalytics.org/publications (accessed on 11 August 2021). 74. Li, Z.; Deng, X.; Yin, F.; Yang, C. Analysis of Climate and Land Use Changes Impacts on Land Degradation in the North China Plain. Adv. Meteorol. 2015, 2015, 1–11. [CrossRef] 75. Nhemachena, C.; Nhamo, L.; Matchaya, G.; Nhemachena, C.R.; Muchara, B.; Karuaihe, S.T.; Mpandeli, S. Climate Change Impacts on Water and Agriculture Sectors in Southern Africa: Threats and Opportunities for Sustainable Development. Water 2020, 12, 2673. [CrossRef] 76. Jarju, A.M.; Solly, B. Analysis of the Efﬁciency of Precipitation on the Evolution of Agricultural Production in Upper- Casamance (South Senegal) between 1985 and 2018. 2020. Available online: www.researchgate.net/publication (accessed on 3 September 2021). 77. Nouaceur, Z.; Murarescu, O. Rainfall Variability and Trend Analysis of Rainfall in West Africa (Senegal, Mauritania, Burkina Faso). Water 2020, 12, 1754. [CrossRef] 78. Faye, B. The Problems of the Agricultural Sector in the Face of Rainfall Variability in the Commune of Dara Mboss, Kaolack Region from 1980 to 2014. Marster ’s Thesis, Cheikh Anta Diop University of Dakar, Dakar, Senegal, 2016; pp. 28–47. 79. Rajpar, H.; Zhang, A.; Razzaq, A.; Mehmood, K.; Pirzado, M.B.; Hu, W. Agricultural Land Abandonment and Farmers’ Perceptions of Land Use Change in the Indus Plains of Pakistan: A Case Study of Sindh Province. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4663. [CrossRef] 80. Mu, J.E.; Sleeter, B.M.; Abatzoglou, J.T.; Antle, J.M. Climate impacts on agricultural land use in the USA: The role of socio-economic scenarios. Clim. Chang. 2017, 144, 329–345. [CrossRef] 81. Davies, M.; Camara, T.; Diop, S. Invest in Senegal: A Competitive Investment Destination in West Africa; Deloitte: London, UK, 2017; p. 28. 82. Senegal Emergent Plan. National Agricultural Investment Program for Food Security and Nutrition. PNIASAN Senegal 2018– 2022, Final Report. 2016. Available online: https://www.dapsa.gouv.sn/sites/default/ﬁles/publications/PNIASAN%20v4%2 0D%c3%a9c_1.pdf (accessed on 30 August 2021). 83. World Bank. Revue de l’Urbanisation: Villes Emergentes pour un Sénégal Emergent; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2017. [CrossRef] 84. Pronat, E.; LANdac. Securing Women Land Rghts in Africa Working paper 3: Securing Women Land Rights in Africa-Senegal. 2018. Available online: http://www.landgovernance.org/assets/20181127-A4-Working-paper-03_Senegal.pdf (accessed on 12 August 2021). 85. Lyu, L.; Gao, Z.; Long, H.; Wang, X.; Fan, Y. Farmland Use Transition in a Typical Farming Area: The Case of Sihong County in the Huang-Huai-Hai Plain of China. Land 2021, 10, 347. [CrossRef]

Journal

Land – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

Published: Sep 22, 2021

Keywords: agricultural land transition; urbanization; land management; groundnut basin; Senegal

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Agricultural Land Transition in the “Groundnut Basin” of Senegal: 2009 to 2018

Agricultural Land Transition in the “Groundnut Basin” of Senegal: 2009 to 2018

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Agricultural Land Transition in the “Groundnut Basin” of Senegal: 2009 to 2018

Agricultural Land Transition in the “Groundnut Basin” of Senegal: 2009 to 2018

References (88)

Abstract

Journal

Recommended Articles

There are no references for this article.

Our policy towards the use of cookies