Journal of Mountain Science

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 1051–1064 | Cite as

Effect of land use change on runoff and sediment yield in Da River Basin of Hoa Binh province, Northwest Vietnam

  • Thanh Son Ngo
  • Duy Binh Nguyen
  • Prasad Shrestha Rajendra


The objective of this study was to assess runoff discharge and sediment yield from Da River Basin in the Northwest of Vietnam using Soil and Water Assessment Tools (SWAT) model. The SWAT model was calibrated and validated using the observed monthly stream flows and sediment yield at selected gauging stations. The results indicated that SWAT generally performs well in simulating runoff and sediment yield according to Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE), Observation’s standard deviation ratio (RSR), and percent bias (PBIAS) values. For runoff, the values of NSE, RSR, and PBIAS were 0.98, 0.02, and 3.69 during calibration period and 0.99, 0.01, and 1.56 during validation period, respectively. For sediment yield, the efficiency was lower than the value of NSE, RSR, and PBIAS during calibration period were 0.81, 0.19, and −4.14 and 0.84, 0.16, and −2.56 during validation period, respectively. The results of the study indicated that the vegetation status has a significant impact on runoff and sediment yield. Changes in land use type between 1995 and 2005 from forest to field crop and urban strongly contributed to increasing the average annual runoff from 182.5 to 342.7 mm and sediment yield from 101.3 to 148.1 ton−1 ha. Between 2005 and 2010, a decrease of both runoff (from 342.7 to 167.6 mm) and sediment yield (from 148.1 to 74.0 ton−1 ha) was due to the expansion of forested area and application of soil conservation practices. The results of this study are important for developing soil and water conservation programs, extending future SWAT modelling studies and disseminating these results to other regions in Vietnam.


Land use change Hydrology Soil erosion Soil and Water Assessment Tools (SWAT) Da River Basin 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arnold JG, Williams JR, Nicks AD (1990) SWRRB: A Basin Scale Simulation Model for Soil and Water Resources Management. Texas A&M Press: College Station. pp 160–163.Google Scholar
  2. Arnold JG, Srinivasan R, Muttiah RS Williams JR (1998) Large area hydrologic modelling and assessment. Part I: Model development. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 34 (1): 73–89. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.1998.tb05961.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beasley DB, Huggins LF, Monke EJ (1980) Answers: A model for watershed planning. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 23(4): 938–944.Google Scholar
  4. Binh ND (2013) SWAT software package and its Interface MWSWAT in Vietnamese. In Proceeding: National Conference on Environment, Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment, Hanoi, Vietnam. pp 356–412. (In Vietnamese)Google Scholar
  5. Binh ND, Trung LĐ (2005) Modelling applications for watershed management. In Proceeding: National Conference on Environment, Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment, Hanoi, Vietnam. pp 919–928. (In Vietnamese)Google Scholar
  6. Costa MH, Botta A, Cardille JA (2003) Effects of large-scale changes in land cover on the discharge of the Tocantins River, Southeastern Amazonia. Journal of Hydrology 7(2): 206–217. DOI:10.1016/S0022-1694(03)00267-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dao Nguyen Khoi, Tadashi Suetsugi (2013) Impact of climate and land use changes on the hydrological processes and sediment yield–A case study for the Be River Catchment, Vietnam. Hydrological Sciences. 59(5): 1095–1108. DOI: 10.1080/02626667.2013.819433Google Scholar
  8. De Roo APJ, Wesseling CG, Ritsema CJ (1996b) LISEM: A single-event, physically based hydrological and soil erosion model for drainage basins.I: Theory, input and output. Hydrological Processes 10: 1107–1117. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1009-1085(199608)10:8<1107::AID-HYP415> 3.0.CO;2-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Flanagan DC, Ascough JC, Nearing MA, Laflen JM (2001) The Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEEP) model. In: Harmon RS, Doe WW (eds.), Landscape erosion and evolution modeling. Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York, USA. pp 145–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Flanagan DC, Ascough JC, Nearing MA, Laflen JM (2001) The Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) model. In: Harmon RS, Doe WW (eds.), Landscape erosion and evolution modelling. Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York, USA. pp 145–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gassman PW, Reyes MR, Green CH, Arnold JG (2007) The soil and water assessment tool: historical development, applications, and future research directions. Transactions of theAmerican Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers 50(4): 1211–1250. DOI: 10.13031/2013.23637Google Scholar
  12. General Statistics Office of Vietnam (GSOV), Statistical year book (2010) National Political Publishing House, Ha Noi, Viet Nam. pp 40–46. (In Vietnamese)Google Scholar
  13. Hoa Binh People’s Committee (2005) Report on Soil map in Hoa Binh. pp 12–38. (In Vietnamese)Google Scholar
  14. Hoa Binh People’s Committee (2010) Report on Land use planning of Hoa Binh. pp 5–22. (In Vietnamese)Google Scholar
  15. Jetten V, De Roo APJ (2001) Spatial analysis of erosion conservation measures with LISEM. In: Harmon RS, Doe WW (eds.), Landscape erosion and evolution modelling. Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York, USA. pp 429–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kim SH (2006) Soil Erosion modeling using RUSLE and GIS on the Imha watershed, South Korean. MSc Thesis, Colorado State University, USA. pp 33–54.Google Scholar
  17. Lanh VV (1999) First assessment about sea pollution in the southern coastal zone of Vietnam. In: Ministry of Environmental and Resource Management (ed.), Country workshop on environment. Science and Technology Publishing House, Hanoi, Vietnam. pp 274–281. (Vietnamese)Google Scholar
  18. Li Z, Liu WZ, Zhang XC, Zheng FL (2009) Impact of land-use change and climate variability on hydrology in an agricultural catchment on the Loess Plateau of China. Journal of Hydrology 377: 35–42. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol. 2009.08.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Licciardello F, Zema DA, Zimbone SM, Bingner RL (2007) Runoff and soil erosion evaluation by the AnnAGNPS model in a small Mediterranean watershed. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers 50(5): 158511593.Google Scholar
  20. Luis FL (2013) MapWindows Interface for SWAT (MWSWAT): User’s Guide, June 2013. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas, and USDA Agricultural Research Service, Temple, Texas, USA. pp 83–99.Google Scholar
  21. Ministry of Science and Technology (2009) TCVN 5299:2009 Soil quality: method for the determination of soil erosion. Science and Technology Publishing House, Hanoi, Vietnam. pp 1-12. (In Vietnamese)Google Scholar
  22. Mishra A, Kar S, Singh VP (2007) Determination of runoff and sediment yield from a small watershed in sub-humid subtropics using the HSPF model. Hydrological Processes 21: 3035–3045. DOI: 10.1002/hyp.6514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Morgan RCP (2001) A simple approach to soil loss prediction: a revised Morgan–Morgan-Finney Model. Catena 44: 305–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Moriasi DN, Arnold JG, Van Liew, et al. (2007) Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in Watershed Simulations. Watershed Simulation 50 (3): 885–900. DOI: 10.13031/2013.23153Google Scholar
  25. National Water Resources Board (NWRB) (2004) Water for food: Aiming for self-sufficiency and rural development. Available at: (Accessed on 10 June 2004)Google Scholar
  26. Neitsch SL, Arnold JG, Kiniry JR, Williams JR (2005) Soil and Water Assessment Tool user’s manual version 2005:, US Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service, Temple, Texas. pp 205–234.Google Scholar
  27. Nguyen TL, Patanothai A, Rambo AT (2004) Recent changes in the composite swidden farming system of a Da Bac Tay ethnic minority community in Vietnam’s Northern Mountain Region. Southeast Asian Studies 42(3): 273–293.Google Scholar
  28. Nie WM, Yuan YP, Kepner W, et al. (2011) Assessing impacts of Land use and Land cover changes on hydrology for the upper San Pedro watershed. Journal of Hydrology 407: 105–114. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.07.012Google Scholar
  29. Phan DB, Wu CC, Hsieh SC (2010) Land-use change effects on discharge and sediment yield of Cau River Catchment in Northern Vietnam. In Proceeding: 2010 International SWAT Conference, Seoul, Korea. pp 350–361.Google Scholar
  30. Phan DB, Wu CC, Hsieh SS (2011) Impact of climate change and deforestation on stream discharge and sediment yield in Phu Luong watershed. Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering 5: 1063–1072.Google Scholar
  31. Phien T, Trinh MV, Vinh NC, et al. (2000) Soil erosion under different short fallow shifting cultivation systems on sloping land. Vietnam Soil Science 13: 109–116. (In Vietnamese)Google Scholar
  32. Phong TA (1995) Open and bare lands in Vietnam. Vietnam Soil Science 5: 67–69. (In Vietnamese)Google Scholar
  33. Ouyang W, Skidmore AK, Hao FH, Wang TJ (2010) Soil erosion dynamics response to landscape pattern. Science of the Total Environment Journal 408(6): 1358–1366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ranzi R, Le TH, Rulli MC (2012) A RUSLE approach to model suspended sediment load in the Lo river (Vietnam): Effects of reservoirs and land-use changes. Journal of Hydrology 422-423: 17–27. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.12.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Refsgaard JC, Storm B (1995) MIKE SHE. In: Singh VP (ed.), Computer models of watershed hydrology. Water Resources Publications, Colorado, USA. pp 809–846.Google Scholar
  36. Rossi CG, Srinivasan R, Jirayoot K, et al. (2009) Hydrologic evaluation of the lower Mekong River basin with the Soil and Water Assessment Tool model. International Agricultural Engineering Journal. 18(1-2):1-13.Google Scholar
  37. Schlesinger WH, Reynolds JF, Cunningham GL, et al. (1990) Biological feedbacks in global desertification. Science 247: 1043–1048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Srikhajon M (1988) Direction of the study on Soil Erosion and Soil Conservation. Lecture Note for the ITC-LDD Training Course on the Application of Aerial Photography in soil survey, Bangkok, Thailand. pp 2–4.Google Scholar
  39. Srikhajon M, Somarang A, Promojanee S, et al. (1984) Application of the Universal Soil Loss Equation for Thailand. The 5th ASEAN Soil Conference, Bangkok. pp 46–52.Google Scholar
  40. Thanh NT (2009) Assessment of land cover change in Chieng Khoi Commune, Northern Vietnam, by combining remote sensing tools and historical local knowledge. MSc Thesis, Institute of Plant Production and Agroecology in the Tropics and Subtropics. University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany. pp 37–48.Google Scholar
  41. Trinh MV (2007) Soil erosion and nitrogen leaching in northern Vietnam: Experimentation and modelling. PhD Thesis. Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands. pp 27–47.Google Scholar
  42. Van Griensven A, Meixner T, Grunwald S, et al. (2006) A global sensitivity analysis tool for the parameters of multivariable catchment models. Journal of Hydrology 324: 10–23. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.09.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wang GX, ZhangY, Liu GM, Chen LL (2006) Impact of land-use change on hydrological processes in the Maying River basin, China. Science in China Series D: Earth Sciences 49 (10): 1098–1110.DOI: 10.1007/s11430-006-1098-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wantanasak M (1978) A preliminary study on the Evaluation of Soil Erosion study on the Evaluation of soil Erosion status using USLE and Landsat Imagery Technique in Chinburi and Rayong Provinces. MSc Thesis, Mahidol University, Bangkok. Thailand. pp 12–36.Google Scholar
  45. Winchell M, Srinivasan R, Di Luzio M, et al. (2009) ArcSWAT 2.1.5 Interface for SWAT2005: User’s Guide, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas, and USDA Agricultural Research Service, Temple, Texas, USA. pp 11–37.Google Scholar
  46. Williams JR (1975) Sediment-yield prediction with universal equation using runoff energy factor, Present and Prospective Technology for Predicting Sediment Yield and Sources. Proceedings of the Sediment Yield Workshop, USDA Sedimentation Lab., Oxford, Mississippi, USA. pp 244–252.Google Scholar
  47. Wischmeier WH, Smith DD (1978) Predicting rainfall erosion losses: a guide to conservation planning. USDA Agriculture Handbook No. 537. USDA-SEA, US Government Printing Office, Washington DC, USA. pp 3–37.Google Scholar
  48. Young RA, Onstad CA, Bosch DD, Anderson WP (1989) AGNPS: a non-point Source Pollution Model for Evaluating Agricultural Watersheds. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 44(2): 168–173.Google Scholar
  49. Zema DA, Bingner RL, Govers G, et al. (2012) Evaluation of unoff, peak flow and sediment yield for events simulated by the AnnAGNPS model in a Belgian agricultural watershed. Land Degradation and Development 23: 205–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ziegler AD, Giambelluca TW, Plondke D, et al. (2007) Hydrological consequences of landscape fragmentation in mountainous northern Vietnam: Buffering of Hortonian overland flow. Journal of Hydrology. 337: 52–67. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydro.2007.01.031CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Science Press, Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, CAS and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thanh Son Ngo
    • 1
    • 3
  • Duy Binh Nguyen
    • 2
  • Prasad Shrestha Rajendra
    • 1
  1. 1.Asian Institute of Technology, P.O. Box 4, Klong LuangPathumthaniThailand
  2. 2.Faculty of Information TechnologyVietnam National University of AgricultureHanoiVietnam
  3. 3.Faculty of Land Resources ManagementVietnam National University of AgricultureHanoiVietnam

Personalised recommendations