Spatial variation in costs of sustainableland management technologies – a reviewLuuk FleskensUNCCD 2nd Scientific Conferen...
SustainableOverview        land management (SLM)                               • Often requires investment                ...
Cost variabilityOverview            effects of environmental conditionsi. Slope      •    spacing for line interventions  ...
Cost variabilityOverview           effects of locationPlot location often found to be of importance inexplaining adoption ...
as follows:Overview data for variability investment costExample                     (1)    Tenge et al. 2005. Appl Geog 25...
as follows:Overview mapping spatial variability investment costExample                             (1)                  Th...
as follows:Overviewassessment spatial variability investment costImpact                 (1)as follows:       𝐼𝑁𝑉𝑆 = 𝑈𝑆$1,8...
as follows:Effect ofOverview                  spatial variability of investment cost                                      ...
BottleneckOverview     III: Scale and circumstances
BottleneckOverview     III: Scale and circumstances
ConclusionsOverview1. Spatial variation in investment costs of SLM technologies and distance to   markets play a key role ...
Overview           l.fleskens@leeds.ac.uk
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Luuk FLESKENS "Spatial variation in costs of sustainable land management technologies – a review"

197

Published on

UNCCD 2nd Scientific Conference

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
197
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Luuk FLESKENS "Spatial variation in costs of sustainable land management technologies – a review""

  1. 1. Spatial variation in costs of sustainableland management technologies – a reviewLuuk FleskensUNCCD 2nd Scientific ConferenceEconomic assessment of desertification, sustainable landmanagement and resilience of arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas10 April 2013, Bonn, Germany
  2. 2. SustainableOverview land management (SLM) • Often requires investment • Almost always takes time to develop beneficial effects • Variability in investment costs matters www.desire-his.eu
  3. 3. Cost variabilityOverview effects of environmental conditionsi. Slope • spacing for line interventions • soil movement requirements (terraces) • type of construction mechanisms • loss of effective area for cultivationii. Soil type (texture, depth) • workability (labour and machine input) • stability of risersiii. Land use • initial condition/local availability resources • severity of land degradation (temporal effect)iv. Combinations of environmental conditions • interactions of e.g. slope and soil texture, or slope and soil depth
  4. 4. Cost variabilityOverview effects of locationPlot location often found to be of importance inexplaining adoption patterns of SLM technologiesi. Labour • manpower major component of SLM investment labour opportunity costs are difficult to establish (often assumed to be zero) but important • often near homesteads where high value crop production is concentrated and labour opportunity costs are lowestii. Material inputs (commodities/non-commodities) • Availability building materials (stones, poles) depends on position in landscape; due to bulky nature difficult to transport over long distances. • Many commodities to be purchased from markets; location affects market price and transport costs.
  5. 5. as follows:Overview data for variability investment costExample (1) Tenge et al. 2005. Appl Geog 25: 348-365
  6. 6. as follows:Overview mapping spatial variability investment costExample (1) The standard cost reported for TUN11 is 50 US$ ha-1 for fencing. An allowance was made for transport costs of fencing material (up to US$3.36) and slope (up to US$3.00). The resulting map of investment costs ranges from US$ 50.11 (blue) – US$ 54.91 (red) Cost of different types of SLM measures (Eur/ha) TUN11 Rangeland resting
  7. 7. as follows:Overviewassessment spatial variability investment costImpact (1)as follows: 𝐼𝑁𝑉𝑆 = 𝑈𝑆$1,823 ∗ 𝑆/30 (1 In Yanhe river basin, China bench terraces are applicable in 3,732 km2 The average cost is $1,591 ± $717 Subtracting mean from calculated cost, we can reduce spatial variability by multiplying by fractions 0.75, 0.5, 0.25 and 0.
  8. 8. as follows:Effect ofOverview spatial variability of investment cost (1) 60% Financial viability (% applicable area) Investment cost Relative level of spatial cost 50% (US$) variability 40% 0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1 30% 20% Maximum 1,591 2,488 3,386 4,284 5,182 10% Minimum 1,591 1,196 801 406 12 0% St. deviation 0 179 359 538 717 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Relative level of spatial cost variability 0 - 25 25 - 50 0 - 25 50 - 100 0 - 25 0 - 25 0 - 25 25 - 50 100 - 250 25 - 50 25 - 50 25 - 50 50 - 100 250 - 500 50 - 100 50 - 100 50 - 100 100 - 250 500 - 750 100 - 250 100 - 250 100 - 250 250 - 500 250 - 500 250 - 500 250 - 500 500 - 750 500 - 750 500 - 750 500 - 750 0 0-0.2 0 0 0.2-0.5 0-0.2 0-0.2 0.5-1 0.2-0.5 0.2-0.5 1-2 0.5-1 0.5-1 2-5 1-2 1-2 5-10 2-5 2-5 10-20 5-10 5-10 20-50 10-20 10-20 > 50 20-50 20-50 > 50 > 50
  9. 9. BottleneckOverview III: Scale and circumstances
  10. 10. BottleneckOverview III: Scale and circumstances
  11. 11. ConclusionsOverview1. Spatial variation in investment costs of SLM technologies and distance to markets play a key role in defining appropriate SLM strategies and policies. Explicit studies of variations in costs are scarce.2. SLM projects, institutions and stakeholders at all levels could be engaged in better documenting the variability of investment costs of SLM technologies, ideally in connection with M&E of impacts.3. Such data are invaluable for modelling approaches that are bound to become more important in making ex-post and ex-ante assessments of the viability of SLM technologies.4. Evidence for spatial variability of investment costs will inform model assessments of SLM viability. Such assessments have an important role to play in assessing the potential for upscaling of SLM5. Through partnerships and data-sharing multi-level impacts can best be achieved, and links between remote locations with similar land degradation concerns harnessed.
  12. 12. Overview l.fleskens@leeds.ac.uk

×