IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/nathaz/v69y2013i1p599-629.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Jaruntorn Boonyanuphap

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. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Suggested Citation

  • Jaruntorn Boonyanuphap, 2013. "Cost-benefit analysis of vetiver system-based rehabilitation measures for landslide-damaged mountainous agricultural lands in the lower Northern Thailand," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 69(1), pages 599-629, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:69:y:2013:i:1:p:599-629
    DOI: 10.1007/s11069-013-0730-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11069-013-0730-y
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11069-013-0730-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Niskanen, Anssi, 1998. "Value of external environmental impacts of reforestation in Thailand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 287-297, September.
    2. Francisco, Herminia A. & Cruz, Wilfrido & Conway, Zenaida T., 1988. "The On-Site and Downstream Costs of Soil Erosion in the Magat and Pantabangan Watersheds," Philippine Journal of Development JPD 1988 Vol. XV No. 1-d, Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
    3. Piyaluk Chutubtim, 2001. "Guidelines for Conducting Extended Cost-benefit Analysis of Dam Projects in Thailand," EEPSEA Research Report rr2001123, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Dec 2001.
    4. Bockheim, James G., 1997. "Proposal To Study Economic And Environmental Benefits Of Reducing Soil Erosion In Albania," Working Papers 12768, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Land Tenure Center.
    5. Stevens, Alan, 2004. "The Application And Limitations Of Cost-Benefit Assessment (Cba) For Intelligent Transport Systems," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 91-111, January.
    6. Alfsen, Knut H. & De Franco, Mario A. & Glomsrod, Solveig & Johnsen, Torgeir, 1996. "The cost of soil erosion in Nicaragua," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 129-145, February.
    7. David J. Walker, 1982. "A Damage Function to Evaluate Erosion Control Economics," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 64(4), pages 690-698.
    8. Drechsel, Pay & Giordano, Mark & Gyiele, Lucy, 2004. "Valuing nutrients in soil and water: concepts and techniques with examples from IWMI studies in the developing world," IWMI Research Reports H035856, International Water Management Institute.
    9. Francisco, Herminia A. & Cruz, Wilfrido & Conway, Zenaida T., 1988. "The On-Site and Downstream Costs of Soil Erosion," Working Papers WP 1988-11, Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Laura Schmitt, 2009. "Developing and applying a soil erosion model in a data-poor context to an island in the rural Philippines," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 19-42, February.
    2. Ekbom, Anders & Brown, Gardner M. & Sterner, Thomas, 2009. "Muddy Waters: Soil Erosion and Downstream Externalities," Working Papers in Economics 341, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    3. Torras, Mariano, 2000. "The total economic value of Amazonian deforestation, 1978-1993," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 283-297, May.
    4. Niskanen, Anssi, 1998. "Value of external environmental impacts of reforestation in Thailand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 287-297, September.
    5. Coxhead, Ian, 2000. "Consequences of a Food Security Strategy for Economic Welfare, Income Distribution and Land Degradation: The Philippine Case," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 111-128, January.
    6. Vinish Kathuria & R. Balasubramanian, 2013. "Environmental Cost of Using Top-soil for Brick-Making," Review of Market Integration, India Development Foundation, vol. 5(2), pages 171-201, August.
    7. Coxhead, Ian & Jayasuriya, Sisira, 2002. "Development Strategy, Poverty and Deforestation in the Philippines," Staff Paper Series 456, University of Wisconsin, Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    8. Briones, Roehlano M., 2012. "Addressing Land Degradation: Benefits, Costs, and Policy Directions," Philippine Journal of Development PJD 2010 Vol. 37 No. 1c, Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
    9. Diriba Shiferaw G., 2017. "Water-Nutrients Interaction: Exploring the Effects of Water as a Central Role for Availability & Use Efficiency of Nutrients by Shallow Rooted Vegetable Crops - A Review," Journal of Agriculture and Crops, Academic Research Publishing Group, vol. 3(10), pages 78-93, 10-2017.
    10. Withey, P. & Lantz, V.A. & Ochuodho, T. & Patriquin, M.N. & Wilson, J. & Kennedy, M., 2018. "Economic impacts of conservation area strategies in Alberta, Canada: A CGE model analysis," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 33-40.
    11. Jónsson, Jón Örvar G. & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur & Nikolaidis, Nikolaos P. & Giannakis, Georgios V., 2019. "Tools for Sustainable Soil Management: Soil Ecosystem Services, EROI and Economic Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 109-119.
    12. Franco, Juan Agustin & Calatrava-Requena, Javier, 2008. "Adoption and diffusion of no tillage practices in Southern Spain olive groves," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 44014, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Bossio, Deborah & Geheb, Kim & Critchley, William, 2010. "Managing water by managing land: Addressing land degradation to improve water productivity and rural livelihoods," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 97(4), pages 536-542, April.
    14. Pagoulatos, Angelos & Debertin, David L. & Sjarkowi, Fachrurrozie, 1987. "Soil Erosion and Yield Uncertainty in the Soil Conservation Decision," Agricultural Economics Research Reports 140066, University of Kentucky, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    15. Kongyang Nhiakao & Helmut Yabar & Takeshi Mizunoya, 2022. "Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Nam Che 1 Hydropower Plant, Thathom District, Laos: An Ex-Post Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-16, March.
    16. Raghbendra Jha & John Whalley, 2001. "The Environmental Regime in Developing Countries," NBER Chapters, in: Behavioral and Distributional Effects of Environmental Policy, pages 217-250, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Damnyag, Lawrence & Tyynelä, Tapani & Appiah, Mark & Saastamoinen, Olli & Pappinen, Ari, 2011. "Economic cost of deforestation in semi-deciduous forests — A case of two forest districts in Ghana," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2503-2510.
    18. IAN COXHEAD & Sisira Jayasuriya, "undated". "Economic Growth, Development Policy and the Environment in the Philippines," Wisconsin-Madison Agricultural and Applied Economics Staff Papers 430, Wisconsin-Madison Agricultural and Applied Economics Department.
    19. Lakshminarayan, P. G. & Atwood, J. D. & Johnson, Stanley R. & Sposito, V. A., 1991. "Compromise Solution for Economic-Environmental Decisions in Agriculture," Staff General Research Papers Archive 375, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    20. Peralta, Alexandra & Swinton, Scott M., 2016. "Food vs. Wood: Dynamic Choices for Kenyan Smallholders," Sustainable Agriculture Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 5(1).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:69:y:2013:i:1:p:599-629. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.