MARATTO

article · Geographies

Spatial Footprint of Anthropogenic Activities in the Lubumbashi Charcoal Production Basin (DR Congo): Insights from Local Community Perceptions

Abstract

Village landscapes within an 80 km radius of Lubumbashi (south-eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo) are undergoing rapid spatial transformation driven by subsistence agriculture, charcoal production, and mining activities. This study analyzes how these transformations are spatially perceived and organized across five village territories of the Lubumbashi Charcoal Production Basin using an adapted version of Kevin Lynch’s perceptual model. Landscape elements were independently identified by trained cartographic observers and by local community members. A comparison of the resulting maps yields a Sørensen similarity index ranging between 70% and 75% across villages, indicating strong convergence in spatial interpretation despite differences in expertise. Among the perceptual components, districts and landmarks account for nearly half of all identified elements and comprise the most perceptible anthropogenic disturbances. Spatial analysis shows that areas perceived as negatively impacted represent between 40% and 79% of total village surfaces. Deforestation associated with post-cultivation fallow dominates in Makisemu (47.6%) and Texas (64.4%), while woodland degradation linked to charcoal production is particularly pronounced in Mwawa (39.0%) and Luisha (25.1%). Mining-related disturbances, including soil and water alteration, are especially evident in Nsela (24.6%). These findings demonstrate that Lynch’s framework, although originally developed for urban systems, can effectively structure perception in diffuse rural woodland environments when methodologically adapted. Perception-based cartography therefore provides a robust complementary tool to biophysical monitoring for understanding the spatial footprint of anthropogenic pressures at the village scale and informing ecosystem restoration strategies.

Research topics

  • Land Use and Ecosystem Services
  • Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Mining and Resource Management

Read the original research

This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.

DOI: 10.3390/geographies6010024

Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.

Discussion

Discuss this research

Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.

No discussion yet. Open the first thread.