4.6 Article

Cost-effectiveness evaluation of model design variants of broad-base terrace in soil erosion control

Journal

ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING
Volume 68, Issue -, Pages 260-269

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2014.03.082

Keywords

Broad-base terrace; Cost-benefit analyses; Soil degradation; Soil erosion

Funding

  1. Brno University of Technology [CZ.1.07/2.3.00/30.0039]
  2. Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic [QJ1230066]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Soil erosion in the Czech Republic is a serious degradation process affecting more than 50% (about 1.5 million ha) of arable land, 80% of which is affected by water erosion. Soil degradation by water erosion and related impacts can be effectively limited by various types of soil erosion control measures. This study is a sensitivity analysis of the impact parameters of selected types of soil erosion control measures on changes in flow rate in the catchment area. The study further evaluates the effectiveness of these measures. A soil erosion control measure in the form of broad-base terrace, designed with different variants, was evaluated for this analysis in two selected case study areas in the Hostisovsky stream catchment (tributary of the Drevnice, Czech Republic). In the model locations evaluation was carried out on the influence of design variants of furrowed broad-base terraces on water-course sedimentation and on potential damage in urban areas. It was found that, in model Location L1 and variant V5, there was an 80% reduction in soil loss to the water-course. In the case of variants V1, V5, V6 and V7 there was a reduction in water-course capacity of up to 10%. In model Location L2 the variants with relatively greatest ability to reduce potential damage in urban areas were variants V11, V17 and V18. The reduction in average potential damage in the stated variants exceeded the sum of 2A EUR/m(2). (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available