Environ Geol (2009) 57:695–705
DOI 10.1007/s00254-008-1348-3
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Mapping soil erosion susceptibility using remote sensing and GIS:
a case of the Upper Nam Wa Watershed, Nan Province, Thailand
K. C. Krishna Bahadur
Received: 14 December 2007 / Accepted: 14 April 2008 / Published online: 15 May 2008
Ó Springer-Verlag 2008
Abstract Land degradation is still a very common
problem in the mountains of Asia because of inappro-
priate land use practice in steep topography. Many studies
have been carried out to map shifting cultivation and
areas susceptible to soil erosion. Mostly, estimated soil
loss is taken as the basis to classify the level of soil loss
susceptibility of area. Factors that influence soil erosion
are: rainfall erosivity, soil erodibility, slope length and
steepness, crop management and conservation practices.
Thus the reliability of estimated soil loss is based on how
accurately the different factors were estimated or pre-
pared. As each and every small pixel of our earth surface
is different from one area to another, the manner in which
the study area was discretized into smaller homogenous
sizes and how the most accurate and efficient technique
were adopted to estimate the soil loss are very important.
The purpose of this study is to produce erosion suscep-
tibility maps for an area that has suffered because of
shifting cultivation located in the mountainous regions of
Northern Thailand. For this purpose, an integrated
approach using RS and GIS-based methods is proposed.
Data from the Upper Nam Wa Watershed, a mountainous
area of the Northern Thailand were used. An Earth
Resources Data Analysis System (ERDAS) imagine
image processor has been used for the digital analysis of
satellite data and topographical analysis of the contour
data for deriving the land use/land cover and the
K. C. Krishna Bahadur (&)
Department of Agricultural Economics and Related Sciences
in the Tropics and Subtropics,
University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany
e-mail: krishna@uni-hohenheim.de
topographical data of the watershed, respectively. ARC-
Info and ARCView have been used for carrying out
geographical data analysis. The watershed was discretized
into hydrologically, topographically, and geographically
homogeneous grid cells to capture the watershed hetero-
geneity. The soil erosion in each cell was calculated using
the universal soil loss equation (USLE) by carefully
determining its various parameters and classifying the
watershed into different levels of soil erosion severity.
Results show that during the time of this study most of
the areas under shifting cultivation fell in the highest
severity class of susceptibility.
Keywords Land degradation
Soil loss mapping

GIS
Remote sensing
Introduction
Soil erosion is a major problem throughout the world
(Rauschkalb 1971; Hitzhusen 1993). As the economies of
developing countries are based primarily on agricultural
production, the primary concern in leveling off the agri-
cultural growth is soil erosion and land degradation.
Erosion and degradation not only decrease land produc-
tivity but can also result in major downstream or off-site
damage than on-site damage.
The fact that ‘‘soil erosion is the foreseeable result of
poor or incorrect land use and that it cannot be overcome
unless land use and land management are improved’’ has
generally not been appreciated (Sanders 1992). Water
erosion is the major type of physical land degradation in
the global perspective. Asia alone has almost half of the
area of the total water-eroded land of the world (Haen
1991). In Asia and in the Pacific region, after India and
123
696 Environ Geol (2009) 57:695–705

Laos, Thailand has the significant proportion of land area

(33.7% of the total country’s area) degraded by water.
Thus, soil erosion is one of the most critical environ-
mental hazards of modern times. Vast areas of land now
being cultivated may be rendered economically unpro-
ductive if the erosion of soil continues unabated.
Information on the factors leading to soil erosion can be
used as a perspective for the development of appropriate
land use plan. Simple methods such as the universal soil
loss equation (USLE) (Wischmeier and Smith 1965, 1978),
the modified universal soil loss equation (MUSLE) (Wil-
liams 1975), or the revised universal soil loss equation
(RUSLE) (Renard et al. 1991) are frequently used for the
estimation of soil erosion from watershed areas (Ferro and
Minacapilli 1995; Ferro 1997; Kothyari and Jain 1997;
Ferro et al. 1998). This estimation is found to have large
variability because of the spatial variation of rainfall and
watershed heterogeneity. Such variability has promoted the
use of data-intensive process-based distributed models for
the estimation of watershed erosion by discretizing a
watershed into subareas, each having approximately
homogeneous characteristics and uniform rainfall distri-
bution (Young et al. 1987; Wicks and Bathurst 1996). The
use of GIS methodology is well suited for the quantifica-
tion of heterogeneity in the topographic and drainage
features of a watershed (Shamsi 1996; Rodda et al. 1999).
The objectives of this research were to map erosion prone
areas in the Upper Nam Wa Watershed Thailand by using
GIS and RS for the discretization of the watershed into
small grid cells and for the computation of physical char-
acteristics of these cells such as slope, land use and soil
type, all of which affect the processes of soil erosion in the
different subareas of a watershed. Further GIS methods are Fig. 1 Location of the study area
also used to estimate the soil erosion in individual grid
cells. 95% of the area falls under the slope complex. Other
three soil series are found in the remaining area. The area
has a humid tropical climate with a mean annual rainfall
Study area of 1,675 mm. The elevations at the highest and lowest
points are 2,065 m and 477 m above mean sea level,
The study area constitutes a mountainous watershed, respectively. The land use/land cover of the area com-
named Upper Nam Wa Watershed falling in the northern prises 54% mixed deciduous forest, 22.7% scrubland,
region in Nan Province of Thailand. The watershed area 10.5% evergreen forest, 7.9% paddy fields, and 4.9%
is 64,628.9 ha, between 18°360 31.1700 and 19°200 48.2600 under shifting cultivation. The chief characteristics of the
north latitudes and 101°010 3900 to 101°210 38.8800 east watershed area are undulating land, high and low hill
longitudes (Fig. 1). The area is known to have an abun- slopes and eroded surface, and limestone hills running
dance of some resources, such as forests and cultural from north to south separating lowland and upland areas.
attraction but severally lacking others, most notably, fer- Most part of the watershed lies in the mountainous region
tile soil, investment capital, and so on. The ecological under forest cover. The drainage pattern of the area is
condition of the watershed is at risk because a major dendritic. Limestone, sandstone and granite rock types are
portion of the area is under unsustainable land use prac- found in the study area. Limestone is found in large areas
tices. The average slope of this area exceeds 30%. There of the watershed. Sand stone is found in the southeast
are four soil series, present in the study area slope com- corner of watershed, where as, granite rock is found in the
plex, alluvial soil, hang dong and rock land. More that upper west and east corner of watershed.

123
Environ Geol (2009) 57:695–705
Methodology
Apart from rainfall and runoff, the rate of soil erosion from
an area is also strongly dependent on its soil, vegetation
and topographic characteristics. In real situations, these
characteristics are found to vary greatly within the various
subareas of a watershed. A watershed therefore needs to be
discretized into smaller homogeneous units before making
computations for soil loss. A grid-based discretization is
found to be the most reasonable procedure in both process-
based models as well as in other simple models (Beven
1996; Kothyari and Jain 1997). For this study, a grid-based
discretization procedure was adopted. The 25 m grid size
was adopted for discretization because it should be small
enough so that a grid cell encompasses a homogeneous
area. Soil loss was computed based on USLE in GIS
environment using ERDAS IMAGINE and ARCINFOÒ
and ARCVIEWÒ GIS Packages. The entire analytical
methodology follows the steps shown in Fig. 2. First, grid
cell of rainfall, soil units, combined slope length and
steepness and land use and practice management were
prepared. Computed values for R, K, LS and CP were
Fig. 2 GIS methodology of
estimating soil loss
697
encoded into the respective units of the respective cover-
age. This coverage was overlaid and soil loss rate was
calculated as per USLE equation. These were further
grouped into six major groups to show the erosion severity
in relation to the spatial distribution and their aerial extent.
USLE method has been found to produce realistic esti-
mates of soil erosion over areas of small size (Wischmeier
and Smith 1978). Therefore, soil erosion within a grid cell
was estimated via the USLE. The USLE is expressed as.
E ¼ RKLSCP ð1Þ
where E is the amount of soil erosion (tons ha-1 year-1); R
is the rainfall erosivity factor; K is the soil erodibility
factor; LS is the slope steepness and slope length factor; C
is the cover management factor and P is the supporting
practice factor.
R factor is the principal function of USLE, which is
mainly responsible for the amount of soil loss. It can be
assumed that if there is no rain, contribution of other factors
of USLE will result in a much less amount of soil loss, which
perhaps can be attributed to erosion because of wind. The
landform and the direction of rainfall are also responsible for
123
698 Environ Geol (2009) 57:695–705

the varying amount of soil entrainment. R is expressed in topographical factor commonly expressed as LS factor.
terms of annual erosivity in MJ mm ha-1 year-1. There are Many researchers have used these two L and S factors as
established relationships between the rainfall amount and R the combined LS factor. Slope length, defined as ‘‘the
factor. distance from the point of origin of overland flow to either
As there is no meteorological station in Upper Nam Wa the point where the slope decreases to the extent that
Watershed, information on rainfall amount and pattern deposition begins or the point where runoff enters well-
needs to be assumed based on the neighboring stations. The defined channels’’ (Wischmeier and Smith 1978), is one of
rainfall information available represents the point data and the difficult parameter to compute when estimating soil
this has to be extrapolated in terms of spatial distribution erosion unless an empirical field study is conducted. S
using arc view contouring function. In this study, the factor termed as ‘slope steepness factor’ is important
equation (Eq. 2), developed by Lo (Harper 1987) and used because it determines the velocity of the sediment runoff
by El-swaify et al. (1985); and Funnpheng et al. (1991) in through water erosion. S factor is basically the function of
their study in Phetchabun Province Thailand, was used for the slope gradient.
computing the R factor. R factor map (Fig. 3) based on 30-
year average rainfall record was used to delineate the dif-
Table 1 Rainfall regime of watershed studied
ferent rainfall regimes in the study area. For the study
area, seven zones of different rainfall regimes were iden- Average annual Average of average Area Computed
rainfall range (mm) annual rainfall (mm) (ha) R
tified; the computed R for each rainfall regime was encoded
into the respective spatial data in the GIS coverage 1,450–1,500 1,475 7,515.4 554.75
(Table 1). 1,500–1,550 1,525 10,795.4 572.25
R ¼ 38:5 þ 0:35 r ð2Þ 1,550–1,600 1,575 9,214.7 589.75
1,600–1,650 1,625 16,587.1 607.25
Where R = rainfall erosivity and r = total rainfall amount 1,650–1,700 1,675 13,633.8 624.75
in mm.
1,700–1,750 1,725 6,001.9 642.25
L factor, which is the function of ‘slope length’ along
1,750–1,800 1,775 880.6 659.75
with the S factor (slope steepness), represents the

Fig. 3 R factor map of the

study area

123
Environ Geol (2009) 57:695–705
For this study, the combined LS factor was computed by
means of arc view gis spatial analyst extension. Twenty-
five metre DEM (digital elevation model) of the study area
was prepared by 20 m interval digitized contour from
1.50,000 scale topographic map of Royal Thai Survey
Department. Topographic analysis was carried out using
terrain analysis of ERDAS. Grid theme of elevation and
slope prepared by 25 m DEM was used for preparing
combined LS factor data of the study area. Combined LS
factor was estimated using flow accumulation theme. The
flow accumulation, which denotes the accumulated upslope
contributing area for a given cell, was calculated by sum-
ming the cell area of all upslope cells draining into it.
Computation was done from DEM using the watershed
delineation tool available in hydrological modeling exten-
sion in arc view spatial analyst. The slope units were
degrees, and elevation values were in meters. The tech-
nique for estimating the USLE LS factor that is used here
was proposed by Moore and Burch (1986a, b) (Eq. 3). The
combined LS factor for the watershed was calculated and
Fig. 4 LS factor map of the
study area
699
its spatial distributions in the different spatial gradients of
the watershed were presented (Fig. 4)
LS ¼ ðFlow accumulation  Cell size=22:13Þ0:4
 ðsin slope=0:0896Þ1:3 ð3Þ
where flow accumulation denotes the accumulated upslope
contributing are for a given cell, LS = combined slope
length and slope steepness factor, cell size = size of grid
cell (for this study 25 m) and sin slope = slope degree
value in sin.
C is the crop management factor and P is the erosion
control practice or conservation factor. Most of the
researchers have reported the use of these two factors as
different factors when computing for USLE. These two
factors are also treated together as CP factor. For this study,
because of the lack of separate information for these two
factors, they were treated as a single combined CP factor.
The land cover type of the study area was obtained from
the classified satellite data. The study area was covered by
the satellites Landsat TM (path 129 and row 47 on 4 March
123
700
1999). The areas of interest was first cut from the entire
path/row of the Landsat TM scene and was then geo-coded
using the method suggested by Sabins (1997) at 30 m and
24 m pixel resolutions, respectively, by means of the
ERDAS imagine image processing software (ERDAS
1998). The geo-coded scene was then masked by the
boundary of the watershed derived earlier for delineating
the areas lying within the watershed. Land cover was then
generated using the supervised classification scheme
(Sabins 1997) using TM data. In the Upper Nam Wa
Watershed, five types of land cover, namely, evergreen
forest, mixed deciduous forest, scrub, paddy field and
shifting cultivation, were identified and mapped. Land
cover (Fig. 6) information was thus available for each cell
of the watershed. The base map used had relatively less
detail as it was of small scale; the situation could be that
some or majority of the details on land use and cropping
pattern were missing and consequently treated as the same
land use types. Cropping pattern and cultivation practices
were not fully considered as the value for CP factor was
inferred from the previous research; however, as the output
of USLE is expressed on an annual basis, the information
would not have been possible to consider. P factor can
differ according to the farming practices and the level of
conservation practice adopted particularly in the agricul-
tural land. By interviewing the farmers during the field
visit, it was found that soil conservation measures are not
adopted in the area. Therefore, based on the index value
used by Funnpheng et al. (1991), the CP value was adjusted
for the study area (Table 2).
K factor, termed as ‘soil erodibility’, is the integrated
effect of processes that regulate rainfall acceptance and the
resistance of the soil to particle detachment and subsequent
transport. These processes are influenced by soil properties,
such as particle size distribution, structural stability,
organic matter content and nature of clay minerals, of
which soil texture is an important factor that influences
erodibility. Soil information was not available on the soil
map of Land Development Department of Thailand. In this
study, soil erodibility was estimated by using the K value
triangle (Fig. 5) based on the soil texture as suggested by
Monchareonm 1982.
Table 2 Land covers statistics and adjusted CP factors for the
watershed studied
Land cover Area (ha) % CP factor
Evergreen forest 6,787.5 10.50 0.003
Mixed deciduous forest 34,912.9 54.02 0.004
Scrub 5,105.0 22.74 0.020
Paddy field 14,694.0 7.90 0.001
Shifting cultivation 3,129.5 4.84 0.350
123
Environ Geol (2009) 57:695–705
Required parameters for computing the K factor were
carried out by collecting soil samples. For this study,
geology and current land use maps were taken as the basis
for selecting the soil sample. Twenty-two locations within
the watershed with equal intervals were selected. These
twenty-two locations represented one from each rock and
land use types. On the basis of the geological map of Royal
Thai Survey Department, there are four types of rocks. (1)
JPW = White to pinkish, cross-bedded, massive sand-
stone, and interrelated reddish-brown and grey silt stone.
The grey silt stone is found in the northwest corner of the
watershed and covers about 3% of the watershed and all the
land is under forest cover; one sample was collected from
this zone. (2) JSK = Reddish-brown or Grey micaceous
sandstone; grey or brown silt stone, conglomerate is found
in southwest part of the watershed and covers about 19% of
the watershed. About 70% of the area is under forest cover
and the remaining area is under shifting cultivation. Five
soil samples from this zone, two from shifting cultivation
and three from forest area were collected. (3) J = Argil-
laceous limestone, calcareous shale, and silt stone; this type
of rock is found in the center of the watershed stretching
from north to south in two homogenous blocks covering
about 30% of the area and mostly forested. Most of the
shifting cultivation and little paddy fields exist in these
zones; three soil samples from shifting cultivation, three
from forested area, and one from the paddy field were
collected. (4) P2 = Greenish grey, grey and dark grey to
black shale; brownish-yellow, greenish-grey and grey
sandstone; these rock types contain about 48% of the area.
Forest, shifting cultivation and paddy fields are the three
major land types in this zone; three from each land use type
totaling nine soil samples were collected from this zone.
Fig. 5 Triangle used for the estimation of K value
Environ Geol (2009) 57:695–705 701

Fig. 6 Spatial distribution of

the CP factor in the study area

Geographical locations of each soil sampled were recorded Table 3 Soil types and estimated soil erodibility (K) factor for the
by means of global positioning system (GPS). Altogether watershed studied
22 samples were taken from the study area representing at Soil type Area (ha) K factor
least one from each geology and land use type. In terms of
Clay loam 1,157.7 0.232
the area of the watershed studied, the sample size is quite
Sandy clay loam 5,134.9 0.220
small but they are assumed to be representative because of
Sandy loam 33,706.5 0.256
the homogenous patterns of rocks and land use types and
Loam 20,833.8 0.310
financial constraints did not permit more soil sample col-
lection. The grain size analysis of these soil samples was Silt loam 3,796.0 0.450
done by performing the hydrometer analysis at the Soil
Science Laboratory of the Soil Science Department of coverage by means of inverse distance weighted interpo-
Kasetsart University of Thailand. Soils were classified into lation taking the watershed boundary as the outer extent.
five categories: clay loam, sandy clay loam, sandy loam, Spatial distribution of K factor is represented in the Fig. 7.
loam and silt loam. Thus, the information on soil type in
individual grids of the watershed was known. The K value
for the mapped soil categories were then estimated for each Results and discussion
of the cells using K value triangle suggested by Mon-
chareonm (1982). The estimated K values for the mapped In practice, USLE provides two ways of estimating erosion
soil units of the study area are listed in Table 3. Computed rates. The fundamental difference is the factors considered
K factor for each soil sample unit was encoded into the GIS for the computation of soil erosion. The first termed as

123
702
Fig. 7 Spatial distribution of
the K factor in the study area
‘potential erosion’ is computed based only on four factors,
namely, R, K, L and S, whereas the second one termed as
‘actual erosion’ is computed with C and P factors taken into
account along with the first four used for potential erosion.
The first type implies that even in natural conditions, ero-
sion occurs, as the factors considered are difficult to change
because of human interference. But in reality, a majority of
the area is heavily subjected to human interference
regardless of the form of land use. In such cases, the C
factor ‘vegetation cover’ plays an important role in the
actual amount of soil loss or the rate of erosion. Similarly,
the types of conservation measures (mechanical or biolog-
ical) further determine the extent of actual erosion. Hence,
the latter type of erosion gives a better real-world picture of
erosion rates when all the factors R, K, L, S, C, and P are
considered. The rate of potential soil erosion ranged as low
as 0 to a maximum of more than 800 tons ha-1 year-1.
Analysis showed that majority of the area has potential
soil erosion rate of more than 800 tons ha-1 year-1,
followed by areas with 0–50 tons, 400–800 tons, and
50–400 tons.
Considering the C and P factors, the estimated actual
erosion rates ranged from 0 to 619.29 tons ha-1 year-1.
Maximum proportion (46%) of the total area of the
watershed have nil to very extremely slight erosion severity
with less than 3 tons/ha soil loss annually. At the same
123
Environ Geol (2009) 57:695–705
time, about 19.5% area of the watershed experience more
than 9 tons ha-1 year-1 which shows the critical condition
of the watershed requiring urgent, need of sustainable land
management. Various researchers have categorized erosion
severity with different soil erosion rates depending on the
erosion range in a specific locality. In this case, areas with
more than 100 tons ha-1 of soil erosion annually were
classified as extremely severe erosion severity and such
area accounted for 4.6% of the total area. Severe classes
collectively comprise about 13.7% of the total area
(Table 4). The erosion rates were regrouped into six classes
and their spatial distributions in the different spatial gra-
dients of the watershed are presented in Fig. 8.
After knowing the soil erosion rating classes, it is very
important to know the kind of land uses that are most prone
to soil erosion. Once the land use types and associated soil
erosion severity are known, such information becomes
extremely valuable as these can be used to formulate a plan
focusing conservation measures in those areas. Thus, not
only the on-site effect but also the downstream effect of the
sediment transport can be minimized.
In this study, an absolute majority of the total soil loss
can be attributed to the shifting cultivation along the steep
slope, which constitutes about 70% of the total soil loss. An
average rate of soil loss found for different land use types
are presented in Fig. 8. The average soil loss from shifting
Environ Geol (2009) 57:695–705 703

Table 4 Soil erosion classes

Class Soil loss rating Area (ha) Erosion severity %
and rating for the watershed
(ton ha-1 year-1)
studied
1 0–1 6,915.3 Nil to very extremely slight 10.7
2 1–3 22,814.0 Extremely slight 35.3
3 3–6 16,092.5 Very slight 24.9
4 6–9 6,204.4 Slight 9.6
5 9–12 3,748.5 Moderate 5.8
6 12–25 1,486.5 Severe 2.3
7 25–50 4,007.0 Moderate severe 6.2
8 50–100 387.8 Very severe 0.6
9 100–400 2,132.7 Extremely severe 3.3
10 [400 840.2 Very extremely severe 1.3
Total 64,628.9 100.0

Fig. 8 Spatial distribution of

estimated soil loss in the study
area

cultivation area is 307.25 tons ha-1 year-1, 0.67 tons ha-1
year-1 from paddy rice, 3.91 tons ha-1 year-1 from mixed
deciduous forest and 3.16 tons ha-1 year-1 from ever-
green forest (Table 5). Onchan (1993) cited 0.02–
0.2 tons ha-1 year-1 soil loss from the forested land and
10–100 from the cultivated land; and Suddhapreda et al.
(1988) reported 4.5–132 tons ha-1 year-1 of soil loss for
the field crops and 2–8 tons for the forestland use in their
studies on Phetchabun and Uthai Thani Provinces
Thailand.

123
704
Table 5 Average rate of soil loss for different land use types of the watershed studied
Land use types Total area
(ha) %
Paddy 5,105.0 7.90
Shifting 3,129.5 4.84
Scrub 14,694.0 22.74
Mixed deciduous
Forest 3,4912.9 54.02
Evergreen forest 6,787.5 10.50
Total 6,4628.9 100.00
The estimated actual soil erosion was classified into
different erosion severity classes (Table 4; Fig. 8). In the
reclassified erosion map (Fig. 8) and result presented in
Table 4 shows that the areas under the shifting cultivation
at the time of the study were producing large soil loss
amounts which can be identified as more susceptible to soil
erosion for the Upper Nam Wa Watershed. It should be
emphasized that the areas producing more erosion would
need special priority for the implementation of soil erosion
control measures.
Conclusions
Soil erosion is still a serious problem in the mountainous
regions of Southeast Asia, and attempting different meth-
ods to evaluate soil loss at the watershed scale is necessary
for sustainable land use and comprehensive regional
development. USLE is often used to estimate average
annual soil loss from an area. USLE model in GIS envi-
ronment is a relatively simple soil erosion assessment
method. To adopt the USLE, large sets of data starting
from rainfall, soil, slope, crop, and land management are
needed in detail. In developing countries all the necessary
data are often not available or require ample time, money,
and effort to prepare such data sets. This paper attempts to
evaluate soil losses and map the area susceptible to the soil
erosion in Upper Nam Wa Watershed by means of satellite
images and GIS tools, despite the lack of direct observation
data. Indirect ways were used to collate the required data of
the watershed; this has been discussed in the methodology
section. Estimated erosion rates ranged from 0 to
619.29 tons ha-1 year-1. Maximum proportion (46%) of
the total area of the watershed have nil to very extremely
slight erosion severity with less than 3 tons/ha soil loss
annually. At the same time, about 19.5% area of the
watershed experience more than 9 tons ha-1 year-1, which
shows the critical condition of the watershed requiring
urgent need of sustainable land management.
123
Environ Geol (2009) 57:695–705
Average rate of soil loss Total soil loss Contribution to
(ton ha-1 year-1) (ton year-1) total loss%
0.67 3,409.9 0.25
307.25 961,558.7 69.94
17.14 251,889.0 18.32
3.91 136,525.9 9.93
3.16 21,452.4 1.56
21.27 1,374,835.9 100.00
An assessment of land use prone to soil erosion shows
that an absolute majority of the total soil loss can be
attributed to the shifting cultivation along the steep slope,
which constitutes about 70% of the total soil loss. The
average soil loss from shifting cultivation area is
307.25 tons ha-1 year-1, 0.67 tons ha-1 year-1 from
paddy rice, 3.91 tons ha-1 year-1 from mixed deciduous
forest, and 3.16 tons ha-1 year-1 from evergreen forest.
Through the reclassified erosion map, areas under
shifting cultivation have been identified as more suscepti-
ble to soil erosion for the Upper Nam Wa Watershed. It
should be emphasized that the areas producing more ero-
sion would need special priority for the implementation of
soil erosion control measures. The predicted amount of soil
loss and its spatial distribution can provide a basis for
comprehensive management and sustainable land use for
the watershed studied. The ways of evaluating soil losses
even with the lack of direct observation data presented in
this paper could be useful for the land use decision makers
in other part of the world.
Acknowledgements I would like to thank Dr. Apisit Eiumnoh and
Dr. Rajendra P. Shrestha for the helpful discussions, encouragements
and their valuable criticism and constructive comments on the draft
paper. The author is grateful to anonymous reviewers whose valuable
comments and suggestions helped to consolidate and strengthens this
article.
References
Beven KJ (1996) A discussion of distributed modeling. In: Abbott
MB, Refsgaard JC (eds) Distributed hydrological modeling.
Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 255–278
El-swaify SA, Moldenhauer WC, Lo A (1985) Soil erosion and
conservation. Soil conservation society of America, Ankeny
ERDAS (1998) ERDAS Imagine 8.3.1. ERDAS, Atlanta
Ferro V (1997) Further remarks on a distributed approach to sediment
delivery. Hydrol Sci J 42(5):633–647
Ferro V, Minacapilli M (1995) Sediment delivery processes at basin
scale. Hydrol Sci J 40(6):703–717
Ferro V, Porto P, Tusa G (1998) Testing a distributed approach for
modeling sediment delivery. Hydrol Sci J 43(3):425–442
Environ Geol (2009) 57:695–705
Funnpheng P, Patinavin S, Mekpaiboon Wattana S, Pramojanee P
(1991) Application of remote sensing and a geographic infor-
mation system for appraising soil erosion hazard. In:
Proceedings of the international workshop on conservation and
sustainable development. Asian Institute of Technology Bang-
kok and Khao Yai National Park, Thailand, pp 79–91
Haen HD (1991) Environmental consequences of agricultural growth
In: Vosti SA, Reardon T, Winfried Von Urff (eds) Agricultural
sustainability, growth and poverty alleviation and policies,
Feldafing, pp 31–46
Harper D (1987) Improving the accuracy of the universal soil loss
equation in Thailand. Paper presented at the fifth international
conservation conferences, Bangkok, Thailand
Hitzhusen FJ (1993) Land degradation and sustainability of agricul-
tural growth. some economic concepts and evidence from
selected developing countries. Agric Ecosyst Environ 46:69–79
Kothyari UC, Jain SK (1997) Sediment yield estimation using GIS.
Hydrol Sci J 42(6):833–843
Monchareon L (1982) Application of soil maps and report for soil and
water conservation. department of land development, Bangkok
Moore ID, Burch GJ (1986a) Physical basis of the length slope factor
in the Universal Soil Loss Equation. Soil Sci Soc Am
50(5):1294–1298
Moore ID, Burch GJ (1986b) Modeling erosion and deposition.
Topographic effects. Trans Am Soc Agric Eng 29(6):1624–1630
Onchan T (1993) Land use, conservation and sustainable land
management in Asia. Rural land use in the Asia and the Pacific.
Asian Productivity Organization (APO), Tokyo
Rauschkalb RS (1971) Land degradation, FAO, Rome, Soil bulletin
no. 13
Renard KG, Foster GR, Weesies GA, Porter JP (1991) RUSLE,
revised universal soil loss equation. J Soil Water Conserv
46(1):30–33
705
Rodda HJ, Demuth S, Shankar U (1999) The application of a GIS
based decision support system to predict nitrate leaching to
ground water in south Germany. Hydrol Sci J 44(2):221–236
Sabins FS (1997) Remote sensing. Principles and interpretations. 3rd
edn, W. H. Freeman, NY
Sanders DW (1992) Developing national and regional conservation
policies. In: Arsyad S et al. (eds) Conservation policies for
sustainable hillslope farming, soil and water conservation
society, pp 3–13
Shamsi UM (1996) Storm-water management implementation
through modeling and GIS. J Water Resour Plann Manage
122(2):114–127
Suddhapreda N, Paningbatan EP, Chakong W, Piadong B (1988) In:
Rimwanich S (ed) Land conservation for future generations.
Prediction of soil erosion in Northern Thailand using a physical
model, vol 1. Bangkok, pp 489–502
Wicks JM, Bathurst JC (1996) A physically based distributed erosion
and sediment yield component for the SHE hydrological
modeling system. J Hydrol 175:213–238
Wischmeier WH, Smith DD (1965) Predicting rainfall erosion losses
from cropland east of the Rocky Mountains. Handbook no. 282,
USDA. Washington, DC
Wischmeier WH, Smith DD (1978) Predicting rainfall erosion losses.
Agriculture handbook no. 537, USDA science and education
administration
Williams JR (1975) Sediment routing for agricultural watersheds.
Water Resour Bull 11:965–974
Young RA, Onstad CA, Bosch DD, Anderson WP (1987) An
agricultural non point source pollution model (AGNPS). Con-
servation Research Report 35, US Department of Agricultural
Research Services, WA
123