Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Cost-benefit analysis of vetiver system-based rehabilitation measures for landslide-damaged mountainous agricultural lands in the lower Northern Thailand

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Natural Hazards Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

On May 23, 2006, the landslide-debris flow occurred in several places of the lower Northern Thailand. These destroyed about 4,000 houses resulting in about 10,000 people having to be permanently evacuated. They also damaged large areas of high potential agricultural growth in the highland and mountains in the region. The impact of the landslide was both in terms of disruption of agricultural production and lowering of land productivity. A cost-benefit analysis (CBA) was used to compare the net welfare gained from different land rehabilitation measures applied in landslide-damaged agricultural areas in the lower Northern Thailand. In this paper, ex ante CBA was conducted based on the interviews with knowledgeable stakeholders prior to land rehabilitation project and policy implementations. The alternative measures were as follows: Measure 1—planting of vetiver grass (Chrysopogon zizanioides (L.) Roberty) with waterway construction; Measure 2—planting vetiver grass with intercropping of durian seedling and sunn hemp (Crotalaria juncea L.) including waterway construction; Measure 3—planting vetiver grass with intercropping of durian seedling and banana (Musa sapientum L.) including waterway construction; and Measure 4—status quo (under natural ecological succession process). For a 20-year project period, the highest net present value (NPV) was obtained from Measure 2 followed by Measure 3. The NPV of Status Quo option was higher than Measure 1. This is because if the land were to be left to naturally regenerate as is the case under Status quo, farmers would benefit from the natural rehabilitation process by native pioneer plants. The appropriate measures as studied in this research can be competent representative model for rehabilitating the landslide-damaged areas in the lower Northern Thailand where rehabilitation systems have not yet been introduced.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alfsen KH, De Franco MA, Glomsr S, Johnsen T (1996) The cost of soil erosion in Nicaragua. Ecol Econ 16:129–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (2006) Rapid assessment: flashflood and landslide disaster in the provinces of Uttaradit and Sukhothai, Northern Thailand, May 2006, Urban Disaster Risk Management, 19 pp

  • Babalola O, Jimba SC, Maduako O, Dada AO (2003) Use of vetiver grass for soil and water conservation in Nigeria. Department of Agronomy, University of Ibadan, Nigeria. http://www.vetiver.org/NIG_SWC.pdf. Accessed 10 June 2011

  • Babalola O, Oshunsaya OS, Are K (2007) Effects of vetiver grass (Vetiveria nigritana) strips, vetiver grass mulch and an organomineral fertilizer on soil, water and nutrient losses and maize (Zea mays, L) yields. Soil Tillage Res 96:6–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Betters DR (1988) Planning optimal economic strategies for agroforestry systems. Agrofor Syst 7:17–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boardman AE, Greenberg DH, Vining AR, Weimer DL (2001) Cost-benefit analysis: concepts and practice, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Bockheim JG (1997) Proposal to study economic and environmental benefits of reducing soil erosion in Albania. Land Tenure Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Technical Paper 7

  • Bojö J (1986) An introduction to cost-benefit analysis of soil and water conservation projects. SADCC Soil and Water Conservation and Land Utilization Programme, Report No. 6, Maseru, September

  • Boonyanuphap J, Preamprasit S (2009) Weighted linear combination technique for landslide susceptibility assessment in the lower Northern Thailand. In the 11th Pacific Science Inter-Congress (PSI 2009): Pacific countries and their ocean, Facing local and global changes, 2-6 March 2009, TAHITI–Polynésiefrançaise (French Polynesia)

  • Boonyanuphap J, Thonglem P (2010) Land resource accounting system for agricultural land-use zoning: a case study of agricultural areas damaged by landslides and debris-mud deposition. Research report. Thailand Research Fund (TRF). Thailand

  • Chutubtim P (2001) Guideline for conducting extended cost-benefit analysis of dam projects in Thailand. Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA). [Online]. Available at http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/bitstream/10625/28695/1/117849.pdf. Accessed 25 Oct 2012

  • Cruz W, Francisco HA, Conway ZT (1988) The on-site and downstream costs of soil erosion in the Magat and Pantabangan watersheds. J Philipp Dev 15:85–111

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Agriculture (2009) Trends in global chemical fertilizer. Pibai, vol. 9 [Online]. Available at http://it.doa.go.th/pibai/pibai/n12/v_9-oct/rai.html. Accessed 16 Nov 2012 (in Thai)

  • Dixon JA, Scura LF, Carpenter RA, Sherman PB (1994) Economic analysis of the environmental impacts, 2nd edn. Earthscan Publication Ltd, London 224 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Donjadee S, Clemente R, Tingsanchali S, Chinnarasri C (2010) Effects of vertical hedge interval of vetiver grass on erosion on steep agricultural lands. Land Degrad Dev 21(3):219–227

    Google Scholar 

  • Drechsel P, Giordano M, Gyiele L (2004) Valuing nutrients in soil and water: concepts and techniques with examples from IWMI studies in the developing world. Research report No. 82. International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Colombo, Sri Lanka

  • Enters T (1998) Methods for the economic assessment of the on- and off-site impacts of soil erosion. International Board for Soil Research and Management. Issues in Sustainable Land Management No. 2. IBSRAM, Bangkok

  • Fox G, Dickson EJ (1988) What’s economic about the economic cost of soil erosion to Canadian farmers? Discussion Paper DP88/3, Department of Agricultural Economics and Business, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario

  • Gunatilake HM, Vieth GR (2000) Estimation of on-site cost of soil erosion: a comparison of replacement and productivity change methods. J Soil Water Conserv 55:197–204

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen LT, Breneman VE, Davison CW, Dicken CW (2002) The cost of soil erosion to downstream navigation. J Soil Water Conserv 57(4):205–212

    Google Scholar 

  • Hellin J, Haigh MJ (2002) Better land husbandry in Honduras: towards the new paradigm in conserving soil, water and productivity. Land Degrad Dev 13(3):233–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoekstra DA (1985) Choosing the discount rate for analysing agroforestry systems/technologies from a private economic viewpoint. For Ecol Manag 10:177–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howeler RH (1994) Integrated soil and crop management to prevent environmental degradation in cassava-based cropping systems in Asia. In: Bottema IWT, Stoltz DR (eds) Proceedings of the workshop on upland agriculture in Asia, Bogor, Indonesia, 6–8 April 1993, pp 195–224

  • Kerr J, Pender J (2005) Farmers’ perceptions of soil erosion and its consequences in India’s semiarid tropics. Land Degrad Dev 16:257–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleijin D, Sutherland W (2003) How effective are European agri-environmental schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity? J Appl Ecol 40:947–969

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lablae Agriculture Office (2009) Economic plants data of Lablae District [CD-ROM]. Agriculture Office. Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Bangkok

    Google Scholar 

  • Lal R (1987) Effects of soil erosion on crop productivity. Crit Rev Plant Sci 5:303–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lal R (1995) Erosion crop productivity relationships for soils of Africa. Soil Sci Soc Am J 59:661–667

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Land Development Department (1998) Soil resource management report in the lowland area [CD-ROM]. Land Development Department. Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Bangkok

    Google Scholar 

  • Land Development Department (2006) A study on the causes of debris flow damage in Provinces of Uttaradit, Sukhothai and Phrae Northern, Thailand. Final Report. 179

  • Lam KC, Leung YF, Yao QY (1997) Nutrient fluxes in the Shenchong basin, Deqing County. South China. Catena 29:191–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luk SH, Yao QY, Gao JQ (1997) Environmental analysis of soil erosion in Guangdong Province: a Deqing case study. Catena 29:97–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Casasnovas JA, Ramos MC (2006) The cost of soil erosion in vineyard fields in the Penede`s–Anoia Region (NE Spain). Catena 68:194–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marta-Pedrodo C, Domingos T, Freitas H, de Groot RS (2007) Cost-benefit analysis of the Zonal Program of Castro Verde (Portugal): highlighting the trade-off between biodiversity and soil conservation. Soil Tillage Res 97:79–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niskanen A (1998) Value of external environmental impacts of reforestation in Thailand. Ecol Econ 26:287–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (1993) Vetiver Grass: a thin green line against erosion. National Academic Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Panchaban S, Col P, Phuaphan W, Ta-oun M (2001) Use of Vetiver for soil erosion control and better water quality in farm ponds in salt affected sandy areas of northeast. Department of Land Resources and Environment, Faculty of Agriculture, KhonKaen University, Thailand, Thailand

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratruangkrai P (2012) Steep hike in fertilizer price hurting farmers. The Nation, 19 March [Online]. Available at http://www.nationmultimedia.com/business/Steep-hike-in-fertiliser-price-hurting-farmers-30178228.html. Accessed 16 Nov 2012

  • Putthachareon S (1992) The loss of plant nutrients in cassava fields compared with those of other field crops. M.S. thesis, KasetsartUnivrsity, Bangkok (in Thai)

  • Ramos MC, Martínez-Casasnovas JA (2004) Nutrient losses from a vineyard soil in Northeastern Spain caused by an extraordinary rainfall event. Catena 55:79–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roose E (1996) Land husbandry: components and strategy. 70 FAO Soils Bulletin. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome

  • Schreier DF (1989) Agricultural project investment analysis. In: Tweeten L (ed) Agricultural project analysis. Tools for economic development. Westview Press/IT Publications, Boulder & San Francisco/London, pp 238–277

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens A (2004) The application and limitations of cost-benefit assessment (CBA) for intelligent transport systems. Res Transp Econ 8:91–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Truong P, Tran TV, Pinner E (2008) Vetiver system applications: technical reference manual, 2nd edn. The Vetiver Network International, Lexington

    Google Scholar 

  • Troung PNV, Loch R (2004) Vetiver system for erosion and sediment control. ISCO 2004—13th international soil conservation organisation conference, 4–7 July 2004, Brisbane, http://www.vetiver.com/AUS_Sediment.pdf, Accessed 20 July 2011

  • Verstraten G, Poesen J (2002) Regional scale variability in sediment and nutrient delivery from small agricultural watersheds. J Environ Qual 31:870–879

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verstraeten G, Poesen J, Govers G, Gillijns K, Van Rompaey A, Van Oost K (2003) Integrating science, policy and farmers to reduce soil loss and sediment delivery in Flanders, Belgium. Environ Sci Policy 6:95–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vongkasem W, Klakhaeng K, Hemvijit S, Tongglum A, Katong S, Suparhan D, Howeler RH (2001) Reducing soil erosion in Cassava Production Systems in Thailand: a farmer participatory approach. In 6th regional workshop on Cassava’s potential in Asia in the 21st Century: present situation and future research and development needs, 21–25 February 2000, Ho Chi Minh City, pp 402–412

  • Vongkasem W, Klakhaeng K, Hemvijit S, Tongglum A, Katong S, Suparhan D, Howeler RH (2002) Reducing soil erosion in Cassava production systems in Thailand—a farmer participatory approach. In the 7th regional Cassava workshop. 28 October–1 November 2002, Bangkok, pp 402–413

  • Walker DJ (1982) A damage function to evaluate erosion control economics. Am J Agric Econ 64:690–698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walter DJ, Young DL (1986) The effect of technical progress on erosion damage and economic incentives for soil conservation. Land Econ 62:83–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Resources Institute and Tropical Science Center (1991) Accounts overdue. Natural Resource Depreciation in Costa Rica, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA) (Grant No. 105920-00001003-032). The author is grateful to the staffs of Maepoon Subdistrict Administration Office, Lablae Agriculture Office, and Uttaradit Land Development Office. The author also thanks the local farmers and communities for their excellent participation in the survey, interview, and discussions. The author is grateful to Dr. Orapan Nabangchang-Srisawalak and Dr. Herminia Francisco for their assistance and support during this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Agriculture Natural Resources and Environment, Naresuan University, Muang, 65000, Phitsanulok, Thailand

    Jaruntorn Boonyanuphap

Authors
  1. Jaruntorn Boonyanuphap
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jaruntorn Boonyanuphap.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Photo No. 1

A destroyed house by 1 the May 2006 landslide (JPG 276 kb)

Supplementary Photo No. 2

A destroyed house by 1 the May 2006 landslide (JPG 614 kb)

Supplementary Figure No. 3

Land use map of Meaphoon Subdistrict in year 2005 (TIFF 4135 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Boonyanuphap, J. Cost-benefit analysis of vetiver system-based rehabilitation measures for landslide-damaged mountainous agricultural lands in the lower Northern Thailand. Nat Hazards 69, 599–629 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0730-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0730-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation