## 3 Results
### RESTRED Analysis  
The RESTRED of the NDVI time series was modelled by determining the difference between the observed NDVI and the NDVI predicted by rainfall. The dots in the figure represent NDVI residuals against rainfall, values mainly contributed to the trend are reflected in the grey-shaded area. The RESTRED analysis was performed by firstly running the linear regression models of NDVI against rainfall and then analysing the residual NDVI trend over time (Figure 6). The results show that the negative residual trend R-value of \(-0.021\) with a Sen's slope of \(-0.00018\) (Figure 6) and indicates degradation of the GSDM vegetation. The \(p\)-value of \(0.89\) obtained in the residual trend means that LD in the district is due to rainfall. A strong negative decline in NDVI residuals, for instance, in 1994, 2004, 2008, 2014, and 2018, could indicate human-induced degradation. On the other hand, the strong positive spike of NDVI, in 1996, 2003 and 2007 could be due rainfall variability in the area. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l} \hline \hline
**Rank** & **From Class Name** & **To Class Name** & **Period** & **Season** & **Area (Ha)** \\ \hline
1 & Shrub/grassland & Bare soil/exposed rock & 2015–2019 & Dry & 129,255.85 \\ \hline
2 & Thicket/dense bush & Shrub/grassland & 2010–2015 & Wet & 110,625.63 \\ \hline
3 & Shrub/grassland & Bare soil/exposed rock & 2010–2015 & Wet & 109,736.63 \\ \hline
4 & Shrub/grassland & Bare soil/exposed rock & 1995–1999 & Dry & 92,186.56 \\ \hline
5 & Shrub/grassland & Eroded Land & 2005–2010 & Dry & 79,494.00 \\ \hline
6 & Thicket/dense bush & Bare soil/exposed rock & 1990–1995 & Dry & 76,749.93 \\ \hline
7 & Eroded Land & Shrub/grassland & 2015–2019 & Dry & 74,632.24 \\ \hline
8 & Residential & Shrub/grassland & 2005–2010 & Wet & 73,953.02 \\ \hline
9 & Bare soil/exposed rock & Shrub/grassland & 2015–2019 & Dry & 71,890.83 \\ \hline
10 & Bare soil/exposed rock & Shrub/grassland & 2010–2015 & Wet & 70,188.57 \\ \hline
11 & Bare soil/exposed rock & Shrub/grassland & 2005–2010 & Wet & 69,619.38 \\ \hline
12 & Bare soil/exposed rock & Shrub/grassland & 1990–1995 & Dry & 69,079.58 \\ \hline
13 & Shrub/grassland & Bare soil/exposed rock & 2005–2010 & Wet & 65,193.11 \\ \hline
14 & Shrub/grassland & Residential & 1995–1999 & Dry & 64,465.42 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: The 14 most common LULC conversions, periods, and seasons. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline
**Land Use and Cover Type** & **Kendal’s Tau** & **Sen’s Slope** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline Bare/Exposed rock & \(0.11\) & \(0.0006\) & \(0.42\) \\ Shrub/Grassland & \(-0.049\) & \(-0.0003\) & \(0.72\) \\ Thicket/Dense bush & \(0.11\) & \(0.0006\) & \(0.42\) \\ Eroded Land & \(0.03\) & \(0.0002\) & \(0.84\) \\ Subsistence Cultivation & \(0.044\) & \(-0.0004\) & \(0.75\) \\ Commercial Cultivation & \(-0.13\) & \(-0.0013\) & \(0.32\) \\ Residential Area & \(-0.034\) & \(-0.0003\) & \(0.81\) \\ Industrial Land & \(0.15\) & \(0.0011\) & \(0.26\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: NDVI MK Trend Test per Land Use and Land Cover type. The RESTREND was spatially analysed to show areas with significant positive or negative trends in residual NDVI using the MK trend. These areas show vegetation change dynamics caused by factors other than rainfall variability i.e., human activities, through an overlay process of negative residual NDVI that is significant. The summary statistics of residual trend of NDVI against rainfall are presented in Table 5.  
Areas with an insignificant residual trend or no trend are explained by rainfall changes, while the significant negative (degraded) and positive (improved) vegetation production changes reflect changes induced by anthropogenic activities. Figure 5 represents spatial NDVI RESTREND Spatial RESTREND analysis which revealed that the NDVI residual trend magnitude decreased mostly in the central to the western part of the district by 53%, then increased in the north to the western part of the district by 40.99% (Figure 7 and Table 4).