Science of the Total Environment 745 (2020) 141128

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv

Landslides in the Andes: Forests can provide cost-effective landslide

regulation services
Nelson Grima a,⁎, David Edwards b, Felicity Edwards b, David Petley c, Brendan Fisher a,d
a
Environmental Program, Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Vermont, 153 South Prospect Street, Burlington, VT 05401, USA
b
Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Western Bank, Sheffield, S10 2TN, UK
c
Department of Geography, University of Sheffield, Western Bank, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK
d
Gund Institute for Environment, University of Vermont, 617 Main Street, Burlington, VT 05401, USA

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• Forests deliver slope stability, helping to

prevent landslides.
• Landslides cause considerable damage
(including casualties) in the Colombian
Andes.
• We combine economic data with geo-
graphical information to assess costs
and benefits.
• Critical infrastructure can be protected
by restoring forests alongside.
• Restoring forests is 16 times more cost-
effective than repairing damaged
infrastructure.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Landslides cause billions of dollars (USD) in damage and hundreds of life losses every year in mountainous areas
Received 16 May 2020 globally, and these effects are exacerbated by climate change and increased human occupation of vulnerable
Received in revised form 14 July 2020 areas. In many mountainous regions forests deliver slope stability, helping to prevent landslides. However, forests
Accepted 18 July 2020
are progressively converted into other land uses in many mountainous regions. In this study, we focus on the
Available online 22 July 2020
Colombian Andes, the most populated and deadly landslide-prone part of Colombia. We aim to determine the dif-
Editor: Jay Gan ference in frequency of landslides from forested and non-forested areas, and subsequently, quantify the potential
costs and benefits of protecting forest and of restoring forest from agricultural lands. To that end, we combine
Keywords: economic data with geographical information related to public and private infrastructure, land use, and landslide
Andes susceptibility. Analyzing the national landslide database of Colombia, we established that landslides are almost
Landslides six times (581%) more likely to occur on non-forested lands than on forested lands. From an economic perspec-
Colombia tive, by preventing landslides, forests provide a net benefit through the provision of slope stability services. Our
Tropical forest conservation most conservative estimates indicate it is 16 times more cost-effective to promote forest corridors, via conserva-
Ecosystem services
tion or reforestation along roads by paying farmers and cattle herders their opportunity costs, than for the public
Payments for ecosystem services
to pay the expected value of landslide damage. Our analysis provides strong evidence that vegetated hillsides can
provide a cost-effective ecosystem service approach to mitigate economic losses due to landslides in one of the
world's most landslide prone areas.
© 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: nelson.grima@uvm.edu (N. Grima).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141128
0048-9697/© 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
2 N. Grima et al. / Science of the Total Environment 745 (2020) 141128
1. Introduction
Landslides are natural geological hazards that have become more
frequent due to anthropogenic factors, including forest clearance for
farmland, building and development on unstable or steep terrain
(Sidle and Ochiai, 2006). Any factor or combination of factors that re-
duce slope stability can trigger a landslide. Among the most common
of these factors are heavy rainfall, tectonic or volcanic movements
(e.g. earthquakes), natural erosion, human activities (e.g. road construc-
tion), etc. (McColl, 2015). Landslides cause considerable damage, injury,
and loss of life (Klimes and Rios Escobar, 2010). Between 2006 and
2015, landslides accounted for 37.6% of the geological disasters recorded
worldwide (which includes earthquakes, landslides and other mass
movements, and volcanic activities), killing 9477 people (Red Cross,
2016). Furthermore, according to the World Disasters Report (Red
Cross, 2016), the effects of climate change combined with an increase
of vulnerability due to human occupation of exposed areas steadily in-
creases the number of disasters worldwide.
Globally, the area occupied by forests is in decline, with 1.5 million
km2 of forests lost between 2000 and 2012 (Hansen et al., 2013). The
loss of forests is irregular over space, and while in some places forest
loss continues, in other places forests are recovering mainly due to re-
forestation programmes and land abandonment (Song et al., 2018).
Since forests provide a suite of well-known ecosystem services, span-
ning carbon storage, food and fibre provision, and water and air regula-
tion, the loss of forested area translates into a loss of goods and services
provision. Critically, the vegetation and root structure of forests on
hillslopes and mountains also improves slope stability that helps to mit-
igate landslides, including rock falls, debris flows, and other mass move-
ments (e.g. Brang et al., 2006; Forbes et al., 2011; Rickli and Graf, 2009).
Thus forests on steep slopes deliver substantial benefits to humans by
reducing geological hazards. Deforestation and overexploitation of nat-
ural resources removes the vegetation and root matrix that hold soil in
place, which increases the magnitude and frequency of landslides
(Allan, 2004; Keefer and Larsen, 2007), and since climate change is ex-
pected to increase the frequency of sudden very heavy rainfall events
(Fischer and Knutti, 2016), these effects are predicted to worsen in the
next decades (Nadim et al., 2006). Therefore, there is a need to better
understand whether re-growing forests is a management tool to in-
crease resilience in landslide-prone landscapes, in particular in face of
the predicted future climate change scenarios.
A key question is the wide-scale economic value of the landslide-
regulating service that forests provide to local and regional inhabitants
of steep landscapes. Small-scale case studies suggest that the economic
values of protecting forests from clearance can be high. For example, a
study in New Zealand determined that one shallow landslide on a
deforested slope decreased the value of ecosystem services provided
by 64% (Dominati et al., 2014). However, how these benefits scale up
to entire regions at which core policy decisions are made is a critical
knowledge gap.
Given that in many landslide prone regions deforestation has al-
ready occurred, a key unknown is the potential net economic benefits
that restoring forest on degraded or deforested hillslopes could provide.
The economic and social value of transport and provision of resources
(including energy) makes the infrastructure networks of a country ex-
tremely important (e.g. Lucas et al., 2016; Weber et al., 2016). The line-
arity of these infrastructure systems makes them vulnerable to any
disruption that threatens their continuity (Muriel-Villegas et al.,
2016). Landslides can suddenly interrupt the flow through these net-
works, oftentimes with grave consequences (e.g. Ojeda and Donnelly,
2006). Thus, studies offering solutions on how landslides can be cost-
effectively prevented or minimized can be a powerful tool for govern-
mental and corporate decision makers in charge of constructing and
managing such infrastructure systems.
Our main aim in this study was to understand the costs and benefits
of paying farmers to let grow forests near critical infrastructure
networks instead of cultivating the land, in order to prevent some of
the negative effects cause by landslides. To do so we create scenarios
of different land use around existing infrastructure networks, and eval-
uate the outcomes relative to potential costs and benefits of each sce-
nario. We combine economic data with geographical information
related to infrastructure, land use, and landslide susceptibility in the
Colombian Andes. The Andes experience a high number (100's to
1000's) of landslides annually. Combined with areas of high population
densities (including several cities with over a million inhabitants), this
makes the region prone to extensive material and personal damages
(Hermanns et al., 2012) with the mortality risk, one of the highest glob-
ally (United Nations, 2005). We address three critical questions relating
to the value of forest for landslide prevention in Colombia. Firstly, we
analyze the frequency of landslides on non-forested slopes relative to
forested slopes. Secondly, given that forests can maintain a high land
value through the provision of ecosystem services, we evaluate the eco-
nomic value of forests around critical infrastructure. Finally, we evaluate
the potential economic costs and benefits of changing land use from ag-
riculture to forests, aimed at reducing the susceptibility of landslides
around infrastructure systems. The results can support decision-
makers to efficiently allocate the available resources to mitigate natural
hazards, thus minimizing future damages and losses.
2. Methods and data
2.1. Study region
The Andes encompass approximately 28% of Colombia and are the
most densely populated region, with major cities (Bogotá, 12 million in-
habitants; Medellin, 2.5 million) and a large rural population (Klimes
and Rios Escobar, 2010). Due to the rugged topography and frequent
heavy rainfall, landslides are a major hazard in the region (Huggel
et al., 2010). Moreover, the fast urbanization rates around big popula-
tion centres, and the socioeconomic conditions driving people to settle
on areas with high susceptibility to landslides, induce extensive dam-
ages (Klimes and Rios Escobar, 2010).
2.2. Landslide-related data acquisition
Landslide susceptibility models predict that landslides are more
likely to occur in non-forested areas (e.g. Forbes and Broadhead, 2013;
Kleinschroth and Healey, 2017; Rickli and Graf, 2009). We tested this
with data from the most complete historical dataset available related
to the frequency of landslides in Colombia. The Colombian Ministry of
Mines and Energy (Ministerio de Minas y Energía – MinMinas), through
its Geological Service (Servicio Geológico Colombiano) has created a geo-
graphical database of landslide events (Sistema de Información de
Movimientos en Masa – SIMMA) that provides, for each event recorded
since the year 1900, information including date, location, casualties, in-
jured people, etc. The database is publicly accessible through simma.sgc.
gov.co/#/. From the Colombian Ministry of Environment and Sustain-
able Development (Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo sostenible –
MinAmbiente), through its Environmental Information System
(Sistema de Información Ambiental de Colombia – SIAC), we obtained
land-cover maps for the longest continuous time series available
(2012–2016). These maps are publicly available through siac.gov.co/
catalogo-de-mapas.
Using the software ArcGIS (ESRI, 2014) and the locations provided in
the SIMMA database for landslide events, we created clouds of points for
the events of each year between 2013 and 2017. To analyze the statisti-
cal significance of the difference between landslides occurring on for-
ested lands and those occurring on non-forested lands, we compared
the cloud of points of each year to binomial land cover maps showing
the presence or absence of forests (i.e. forest/no-forest maps). Then,
using R software (R Core Team, 2017), we applied a binomial test to
test the difference in frequency between landslide events occurring in
 N. Grima et al. / Science of the Total Environment 745 (2020) 141128
forested areas and landslide events in non-forested areas. Binomial tests
are used to statistically determine whether two categories have the
same probability to occur (Howell, 2012). Thus, it is adequate for this
purpose.
From the Colombian Geological Service (Servicio Geologico
Colombiano, 2019), we then gathered geospatial data of current suscep-
tibility to landslides. The Colombian Geological Service (SGC, 2017) es-
tablishes the susceptibility categories (high, medium, and low)
according to a combination of values that include a) how many events
they have already recorded in a particular area, and b) geological and
environmental factors (e.g. geomorphological subunits, land use). The
data is from 2015, it is provided at regional scale for each Department
(sub-national division) in the country with a 1:100,000 scale, and
needs to be aggregated to obtain a national-scale map. We performed
this step using ArcGIS software (ESRI, 2014). By overlaying the suscep-
tibility to landslides data with geospatial data related to the critical in-
frastructure systems (gathered from other sources), we can determine
how much of each infrastructure system is exposed to each class of sus-
ceptibility to landslides. The susceptibility to landslides data combines
information regarding the Geological Surface Units (composition, dispo-
sition and expected behaviour of the geological materials such as bed-
rock or soil), Geomorphological Subunits (curvature of the plane,
slope angle, Indicative Geomorphological Subunits such as morphology,
morphometry, and morphodynamics), units of land use (gains or
losses) and land cover (for the last 3 years), and inventory of
morphodynamic processes, including date of the event, location,
shape, size, factors of occurrence or potential occurrence, mechanisms,
triggering factors, and dynamics of the movement (magnitude and
intensity).
Regarding the relationship between landslide occurrence and alti-
tude, Šajgalik (1990) and Zhang et al. (2012) described a high correla-
tion between elevation and the type of landslide, but not between
elevation and occurrence. Since in this study we included all landslide
types recorded in the aforementioned SIMMA database, elevation did
not play a determining role in our study.
2.3. Combination of landslide and infrastructure data
To have a better understanding of the exposure of critical infrastruc-
ture systems, we combined national-level susceptibility to landslides
data with available geospatial data on major pipelines, high voltage
power lines, and roads (overlying spatial information layers with ArcGIS
software at the same 1:100,000 scale). Additionally, to understand how
land is used around infrastructure, since land cover is the only variable
that can be changed to reduce the susceptibility to landslides in a partic-
ular area (as opposed to, for example, slope angle or morphodynamic
processes), we compared the infrastructure systems data with land-
use geospatial data for the year 2017 at the same 1:100,000 scale,
provided by the Colombian Ministry of Environment and Sustainable
Development (Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo sostenible –
MinAmbiente), through its Environmental Information System
(Sistema de Información Ambiental de Colombia – SIAC). We used ArcGIS
10.1 software for this purpose.
2.4. Costs estimation
Understanding that the susceptibility to landslides in a particular
area and, therefore, the vulnerability of the infrastructure existing in
that area could be reduced by changing land cover from non-forest to
forest, we provide an economic analysis of such changes. We gathered
information from the Colombian Ministry of Transport and private com-
panies on construction and rehabilitation costs for the different types of
infrastructure. To understand the opportunity costs farmers would en-
counter if they avoided deforestation or let forests re-grow instead of
cultivating their lands, we collected data related to the dominant agri-
cultural products (including pastures for cattle) from the National
3
Agricultural Census (DANE, 2016) and the Colombian Ministry of Agri-
culture and Rural Development (MinAgricultura, 2018), the main
wholesale market corporation in Colombia (Corporación de Abastos de
Bogotá – CORABASTOS), national associations of producers, and other
similar sources. For each department (regional division of the country),
we obtained data on price (USD/kg), yield (kg/ha), and hectares (ha) of
land dedicated to each one of the main crops within the groups
established by the Colombian Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Devel-
opment: industrial crops (e.g. cocoa, coffee, sugar cane), bananas and
tubers (e.g. bananas, potatoes, yucca), fruits (e.g. mango, avocado, pine-
apple), cereals (e.g. rice, wheat, corn), vegetables (e.g. tomato, onion,
beans), aromatic and medicinal plants (e.g. parsley, peppermint,
basil), flowers (e.g. rose, hortensia, astromelia), and pastures. We cor-
roborated the accuracy of the prices obtained for the different agricul-
tural products with previous studies on sugar cane (Gil, 2017), oil
palm (Acevedo et al., 2015), banana, potato, and other crops (Fuller,
2015).
The opportunity costs are the forgone benefits of an option due to
implementing a different option. In this study, we estimate the opportu-
nity costs in which farmers would incur if instead of cultivating their
lands with crops, pastures, etc., they would let forests grow. We perform
these estimations by calculating the yearly benefits per hectare farmers
currently obtain (according to the different crops grown and their re-
spective yields). As with the rest of calculations and estimations in
this study, we chose a conservative approach, assuming that farmers
do not receive any economic benefit from the forests they let grow in
their lands (e.g. selling wood or non-wood products, hunting, collecting
firewood).
To introduce variability due to uncertainty in our estimations of the
opportunity costs, we considered three different buffer areas along the
different infrastructure systems. Buffer areas of 100 ha (1 km from infra-
structure), 50 ha (500 m from infrastructure), and 25 ha (250 m from
infrastructure) were applied along each side of each km of linear infra-
structure thus equating to 200 ha (100 ha/km * 2 sides), 100 ha, and
50 ha of land available for potential land conversion per km, respec-
tively. Taking a step further, we compared for each infrastructure sys-
tem how the cost-effectiveness of paying farmers would change if the
infrastructure was completely surrounded by coffee, the main agricul-
tural product with highest revenues (470 USD/ha). This was not to indi-
cate the probability of coffee being planted everywhere, but to simulate
a high opportunity cost scenario.
3. Results
3.1. Landslide occurrence
Across Colombia, 2540 landslides were recorded between 2013 and
2017. Landslide events were particularly concentrated in the central
and eastern cordilleras. Overlying the landslide events of each year
over the land-use map of the region allows us to visualize differences
(Fig. 1). For each year within the period of study, the difference between
landslides occurring on forested lands and those occurring on non-
forested lands is statistically significant (each year, Signif. 0.05,
P b 0.0001). Considering the five years of the study period together,
369 landslides occurred on forested lands while 2143 occurred on
non-forested lands (there is no data on land cover for 28 landslide
events). Thus, over the five-year period, landslides were almost six
times (581%) more likely to occur on non-forested lands than on for-
ested lands and, as such, having forests correlates with lower frequency
of landslides.
3.2. Forest conservation and infrastructure
Colombia is clearly divided into an east half locally known as ‘The
Lowlands’ (including the Llanos grasslands and Amazon forest), and a
west half dominated by the three main branches of the Colombian
4 N. Grima et al. / Science of the Total Environment 745 (2020) 141128

Fig. 1. Landslide events in Colombia occurred in 2017, overlaid on the 2016 Colombian land-use map (forests vs. no forests).

Andes (Western Cordillera, Central Andes, and Eastern Cordillera). Due
to the predominantly flat topography of the east half, the susceptibility
to landslides is between low and medium, whereas in the west half of
the country, the susceptibility to landslides is predominantly high and
very high, with medium susceptibility along the wider Magdalena Val-
ley and low susceptibility in flatter and drier northern regions. Combin-
ing susceptibility to landslides data with the available geospatial data
related to the major infrastructure in the country (i.e. 7372 km of pipe-
lines, 15,448 km of high voltage power lines, and 49,813 km of roads),
we found that most infrastructure (57.1%) is built on areas classified
as medium susceptibility, while more than a quarter of the infrastructure
(26.4%) is built on areas classified as high susceptibility and 2.9% on very
high susceptibility areas. Just 13.6% of the infrastructure was developed
on low susceptibility areas.
Comparing the susceptibility to landslides with land-use data
highlighted that large portions of each infrastructure type are
surrounded by pastures. Additionally, crops and the mixture of crops
and pastures accounted for roughly 30% of the vegetation around pipe-
lines, power lines, and roads (Table 1). We also gathered data on the
construction and rehabilitation costs per kilometre for the three
 N. Grima et al. / Science of the Total Environment 745 (2020) 141128 5

infrastructure types (Table 2). Roads are the most expensive infrastruc- that farmers would incur if land was not in agricultural production
ture systems, with costs of 650,000 USD/km, followed by power lines would be greatest in cases where coffee or potato crops were converted.
and pipelines (prices one order of magnitude lower than roads).
3.3.2. Comparison of agricultural opportunity costs and costs of rebuilding
infrastructure
3.3. The value of re-growing forests In the case of roads, the annual cost of paying farmers along 1 km of
infrastructure for the opportunity costs incurred if they let forests re-
3.3.1. Value of agricultural products grow on their lands is extremely low. The most conservative option of
Reforestation of crops and pastures implies that the revenues gener- a 100 ha buffer area on each side of the infrastructure would represent
ated from farming would be lost. Thus, any action directed to change just 6.0% of the infrastructure costs compared to rebuilding 1 km of that
land use should take into account the opportunity costs incurred by infrastructure damaged by a landslide. In the case of pipelines and
farmers. To determine these opportunity costs, we collected informa- power lines, since the repairing and rebuilding costs are much lower,
tion on costs and benefits of producing the main agricultural products paying the opportunity costs to farmers is closer to the costs of rebuild-
in Colombia (Table 3). Pastures and coffee have the highest net revenue ing the infrastructure. Nevertheless, paying for the opportunity costs is
(0.67 and 0.46 USD/kg), being an order of magnitude higher than any still less costly than rebuilding the infrastructure (74.1% of the infra-
other product. Interestingly, pasture to feed beef and dairy cows is the structure costs for pipelines and 45.6% of the infrastructure costs for
least efficient product (at 75 USD/ha, it is an order of magnitude power lines using the 100 ha buffer option).
below any other product), and its importance relies on the sheer The opportunity costs indicated here take into account how many
amount of land dedicated to it (more than double that of all other agri- km of infrastructure are surrounded by each type of agricultural product
cultural products combined). Therefore, the annual opportunity costs (coffee, sugar cane, oil palm, banana, potato, rice, other crops, pasture,
mixture of crops and pasture), along with the total length of each infra-
Table 1
Land use concordant with infrastructure.
structure system. Considering that forest will not stop all landslides, we
account for fallibility by analyzing how often the forest should be suc-
Susceptibility Land use Pipelines Power lines Roads cessful at stopping a landslide to be still a cost-effective measure. The re-
km % km % km % sults show that considering the most conservative buffer area of 100 ha,
Low Coffee 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 forests would provide a cost-effective ecosystem service if they miti-
Sugar cane 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 gated landslides just three quarters of the time around pipelines, less
Oil palm 0 0.06 0 0.00 25 0.29 than half of the times around power lines and in just six of 50 times
Banana 1 0.25 1 0.24 2 0.02 around roads. Moreover, we also compare the infrastructure costs to
Potato 0 0.00 1 0.10 2 0.02
Rice 0 0.00 0 0.04 6 0.07
the opportunity costs in the hypothetical case that all infrastructure
Other crops 77 14.40 43 7.14 686 7.85 would be surrounded by coffee, the agricultural product with highest
Pasture 72 13.50 184 30.76 1191 13.63 revenue. In such case, within a 100 ha buffer area, the opportunity
Crops and pasture 42 7.92 103 17.27 528 6.04 costs for farmers would be almost double the costs of a km of pipelines,
Natural vegetation 214 40.00 146 24.46 2645 30.27
and slightly higher than the costs of a km of power lines. Inversely, for-
Unproductive 128 23.87 119 19.98 3653 41.81
Medium Coffee 15 0.27 95 0.96 376 1.44 est would be a cost effective prevention measure around roads if they
Sugar cane 1 0.03 2 0.02 12 0.05 mitigated landslides one out of every seven times (Table 4).
Oil palm 81 1.49 41 0.42 136 0.52
Banana 26 0.48 12 0.12 18 0.07 3.3.3. Combination of results
Potato 0 0.00 1 0.01 11 0.04
Rice 101 1.85 196 1.98 346 1.33
Aggregating the different layers obtained in the previous steps
Other crops 783 14.34 826 8.36 2505 9.59 (building and maintenance costs of each infrastructure system, level of
Pasture 2676 49.04 4542 45.96 8532 32.66 susceptibility to landslides for each section of the infrastructure, and op-
Crops and pasture 576 10.57 1753 17.74 5222 19.99 portunity costs derived from the different agricultural products that
Natural vegetation 894 16.39 1718 17.38 3027 11.59
surround the infrastructure), maps can be produced displaying the
Unproductive 303 5.55 696 7.04 5935 22.72
High Coffee 45 3.51 71 1.66 439 3.22 combination of information, and helping to identify where investments
Sugar cane 1 0.06 2 0.05 43 0.32 would be more cost-effective (Fig. 2).
Oil palm 8 0.61 1 0.02 41 0.30
Banana 0 0.00 0 0.00 24 0.18 4. Discussion
Potato 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 0.04
Rice 8 0.61 30 0.70 95 0.69
Other crops 58 4.50 190 4.43 973 7.14 In this study, we combined geographic data related to susceptibility
Pasture 659 51.44 1433 33.46 4734 34.75 to landslides, land use, and critical infrastructure systems in Colombia to
Crops and pasture 205 15.97 1114 26.00 3842 28.20 better understand the role of forests in protection against landslides.
Natural vegetation 250 19.50 1160 27.08 1659 12.18
Our results show that given the current agricultural products, even
Unproductive 49 3.80 282 6.60 1767 12.97
Very high Coffee 5 5.47 2 0.26 46 3.47 with our most conservative estimates, paying farmers the opportunity
Sugar cane 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.02 costs of maintaining or re-growing forests is less costly than rebuilding
Oil palm 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 any of the three types of infrastructure studied in case they were dam-
Banana 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.02 aged by landslides.
Potato 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Rice 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
There are a few studies and projects building databases of landslides
Other crops 1 0.55 40 5.80 55 4.16 at large scale, overlapping with Colombia (e.g. Dilley et al., 2005;
Pasture 31 31.20 223 32.58 540 40.54 DESINVENTAR Project - desinventar.org/). Among them, we used the of-
Crops and pasture 28 28.72 206 30.04 405 30.42 ficial database from the Colombian Government, the most complete da-
Natural vegetation 33 33.69 203 29.57 225 16.93
tabase available at national level. However, there is no estimate of how
Unproductive 0 0.38 12 1.75 59 4.44
Total Crops 1211 16.42 1554 10.06 5847 11.74 many landslides are not recorded, in particular in remote areas, which
Pasture 3438 46.63 6382 41.31 14,997 30.11 could bias some of the results here presented. On the one hand, remote
Crops and pasture 852 11.56 3175 20.56 9997 20.07 areas where landslides might not be recorded likely have no infrastruc-
Natural vegetation 1392 18.88 3227 20.89 7556 15.17 ture. On the other hand, the literature suggests that forests reduce the
Unproductive 480 6.50 1110 7.19 11,415 22.92
probability of landslides to happen. Therefore, allowing for the
6 N. Grima et al. / Science of the Total Environment 745 (2020) 141128

Table 2
Construction and rehabilitation costs for different types of infrastructure.

Infrastructure USD/km Reference Notes

Pipelines 44,600 SNC-LAVALIN Itansuca (2012) For an 18 in (45.72 cm) diameter pipe, adding 15,000 USD/km for each additional inch (2.54 cm) in diameter.
Power lines 75,300 Electrificadora del Meta (2013) Average. Real price depending on the materials used (steel or concrete).
Roads 650,262 INVIAS (2017) Price for a 7 m wide tertiary road, designed for low transit volume.

possibility of some landslides on forested areas not being recorded, and covers surrounding the infrastructure, infrastructure costs, opportunity
knowing that the landslide events used for our estimations did happen, costs for farmers, and landslide susceptibility for a particular area. As
the results of our study should be taken as an indication of the potential such, these maps can and do help to translate spatial cost-benefit anal-
cost-effectiveness of forests as slope stability service providers. yses into policy actions (Ruckelshaus et al., 2015).
We found that over three quarters of the country's infrastructure is To better understand the variability of opportunity costs depending
built upon medium to high susceptibility to landslide areas, and is on the crops, and how this variability affects the cost-benefit analysis,
mostly surrounded by crops and pastures (65.3% of the total infrastruc- we modelled the costs of each infrastructure system under a scenario
ture networks included in the study). The ecological conditions of these where the whole length of the infrastructure is surrounded by coffee.
areas would allow forest to grow, potentially reducing the current sus- At 470 USD/ha, coffee is the agricultural product with highest revenue
ceptibility levels. As seen in studies from around the world (e.g. among the main products analyzed. The results show that considering
Lundberg et al., 2018; McCall et al., 2018; Thompson et al., 2017), any the most conservative 100 ha buffer, the damage costs to pipelines
conservation action taken at a local, regional, or national scale (such as and power lines would be lower than the opportunity costs of coffee –
compensations to farmers through the implementation of Payments meaning coffee is likely the better investment. However, the damage
for Ecosystem Services schemes) to change farmers' attitudes should costs to roads would still be 7 times higher than the opportunity cost
take into account the opportunity costs, which are mainly derived of not planting coffee. For the other buffer areas (50 ha and 25 ha),
from the type of product harvested (Lienhoop and Brouwer, 2015). only for pipelines at 50 ha the opportunity costs are slightly higher
Our results suggest that damages to critical infrastructure in Colombia, than the infrastructure costs.
and the costs of rebuilding it, could be potentially reduced by compen- We expect that reforesting areas buffering infrastructural networks
sating farmers along the infrastructure with the opportunity costs of re- in Colombia would have multiple environmental, social and ecological
growing forests instead of producing agricultural products. benefits. The soil stability gained from vegetation root systems will
Overall, the opportunity costs of replacing crops or pasture with for- likely reduce the likelihood of landslides and surface runoff, and in
est are far less than probable infrastructure costs in the event of a land- turn sedimentation in rivers downstream (e.g. Brang et al., 2006;
slide, even with our most conservative estimate. However, coffee and Forbes et al., 2011; Rickli and Graf, 2009). Furthermore, the reduction
potatoes represent key crop commodities of the Andean region of of landslides in proximity to infrastructure may minimise economic
Colombia for both local use and international export. They provide and social costs associated with a lack of access or fatalities, such as
high returns, and thus, have greater opportunity costs than other loss of economic returns through disruption of travel or the isolation
crops. Under certain infrastructure scenarios, for example 1 km of of communities from food or medical supplies (e.g. Kjekstad and
power lines completely surrounded by coffee fields, the opportunity Highland, 2009). Lastly, increasing forest cover is likely to have wider
cost of replacing coffee is higher than the infrastructure costs, and a benefits for biodiversity conservation by increasing connectivity and
more detailed assessment of the risks, costs and benefits may be needed overall habitat area (Gilroy et al., 2014).
if replacement by forest was to be economically viable. Detailed assess- We compared infrastructure costs with opportunity costs along
ments at local level adjusting to a specific context is a recurrent recom- every km of infrastructure, but acknowledge that not every km of infra-
mendation suggested by previous studies aimed to provide structure will be affected by landslides. However, it is unknown where
conservation outcomes by providing compensations to farmers (Gavin exactly infrastructure will be damaged by landslides in the future.
et al., 2015; Ite, 2018; Neudert et al., 2017). The map displayed in Therefore, we propose that with the current capacity to generate infor-
Fig. 2 is an example of how to graphically display the information. mation that accurately locates potential future landslides, the approach
Maps like this are used for communication purposes in order to convey
the information to non-experts. For example, governments and other
infrastructure managers can profit and make use of the condensed, spa-
tially explicit information displayed in these maps, such as precise loca- Table 4
tion of the infrastructure networks, types of vegetation and other land a) Comparison of infrastructure costs and opportunity costs for each infrastructure system
and buffer area, including forest effectiveness needed around each infrastructure system
(considering a 100 ha buffer). b) Comparison of infrastructure costs and opportunity costs
for each infrastructure system and buffer area if all the infrastructure was surrounded by
the agricultural product with highest revenue (coffee).
Table 3
Main agricultural products in Colombia, including their yields, investments and revenues. Infrastructure Opportunity costs Forest effectiveness
costs needed (for 100 ha
Product Total Yield Gross Investment Net Net 100 ha 50 ha 25 ha
buffer)
Colombia [kg/ha] revenue [USD/kg] revenue USD/ha buffer buffer buffer
[ha] [USD/kg] [USD/kg]
a) Present products
Coffee 751,576 1033 2.11 1.65 0.455 470 Pipelines 44,600 33,040 16,520 8260 3/4
Sugar 517,817 103,900 0.02 0.02 0.003 277 Power 75,300 34,334 17,167 8583 9/20
cane lines
Oil palm 356,455 2853 0.72 0.67 0.051 146 Roads 650,262 38,982 19,491 9746 3/50
Banana 1,029,894 2071 0.46 0.40 0.059 122
Potato 172,015 15,942 0.30 0.27 0.028 446 b) Coffee (470 USD/ha)
Rice 473,164 4450 0.32 0.25 0.064 286 Pipelines 44,600 94,000 47,000 23,500 2/1
Other 3,291,154 5180 0.59 0.52 0.071 369 Power 75,300 94,000 47,000 23,500 9/7
crops lines
Pasture 24,797,935 111 1.55 0.88 0.671 75 Roads 650,262 94,000 47,000 23,500 47/325
 N. Grima et al. / Science of the Total Environment 745 (2020) 141128 7

Fig. 2. A section of the Casanare Department in the Colombian Andes, displaying the road network (high infrastructure costs) and the susceptibility to landslides on each section of the
network. This information is overlaid with the opportunity costs for the different agricultural products grown around the network.

used in this study (analyzing the costs and benefits for each km of infra-
structure) is adequate. A similar approach has been taken in a previous
study in Central and Southern Italy, where the authors perform a cost-
benefit analysis establishing a price per metre of road over the complete
primary and secondary road networks in the area (Donnini et al., 2017).
The costs of rebuilding damaged infrastructure and the opportunity
costs of farmers are likely to vary with slope (EPYPSA-Ardanuy, 2011;
Rendon et al., 2016). To present a general analysis for the complete in-
frastructure networks, here we provided average costs of rebuilding in-
frastructure and overestimated opportunity costs for farmers. However,
a more detailed analysis for specific sections of each infrastructure
would provide more accurate values according to the slope in those sec-
tions. Additionally, the costs and benefits of agricultural production
refer only to the maintenance and harvest of products; the establish-
ment costs are not accounted for and, therefore, our opportunity costs
are likely overestimated and the net benefits of forest cover are an un-
derestimate. Moreover, we did not include an analysis of the economic
benefits of harvesting wood and non-timber forest products, which re-
sults in a representation of forests as mere expenses instead of showing
also their direct economic contributions to society (e.g. Huber et al.,
2019; Pandey et al., 2016). Furthermore, our analysis only accounts for
the direct costs of repairing and rebuilding the infrastructure, but it
8 N. Grima et al. / Science of the Total Environment 745 (2020) 141128
does not take into account the costs infrastructure managers would
have to assume derived from not providing the expected service for as
long as the repair works are undergoing (Baroud et al., 2015). Summing
all these considerations, the economic analysis presented in this study is
likely an underestimation of the positive values of forests regarding pro-
tection from landslides.
As expected, large portions of the different infrastructure networks
are built approximately parallel to each other, taking advantage of the
natural lines of the terrain. Therefore, although our analysis considers
each infrastructure system independently, very often the governments
or companies who pay for and manage the different infrastructure
could co-invest to address potential compensations to farmers, resulting
in a much lower investment for each one of the companies involved.
Similar arrangements have already been implemented in conservation
projects, consolidating programmes for the mid- and long-term, and
in general enhancing positive results (e.g. Muchapondwa et al., 2018).
Considering that those compensations are nearly negligible for roads,
the companies in charge of the management of pipelines and power
lines (where investments directed to compensate farmer's opportunity
costs would be more costly) could greatly benefit from such alliances.
Finding arguments and financial means to halt the loss of forests is
becoming increasingly important. These land-use changes are primarily
driven by the economic needs of the local rural populations (e.g.
Armenteras et al., 2011; Baral et al., 2012; Rahman et al., 2014). In
turn, human populations in these areas become particularly vulnerable
to geological risks such as landslides, along with the infrastructure sys-
tems built to satisfy their needs (Klimes and Rios Escobar, 2010). Given
the high prices of building and maintaining infrastructure in mountain-
ous area, and the relatively low rents obtained from farming on moun-
tain slopes, the results shown in this study offer a cost-effective
argument to address deforestation in tropical mountainous areas
prone to suffer landslides and other related geological risks.
5. Conclusion
In Colombia, landslides are recurring natural hazards that annually
cause damages valued in hundreds of millions of US dollars, lead to fa-
talities, injured and missing people, and affect the population in a num-
ber of other ways (e.g. closed roads, power blackouts, limitations to the
access of water and other supplies). Forests are known to help reduce
the susceptibility to landslides of a given area (e.g. Brander et al.,
2018; Guns and Vanacker, 2013). However, large portions of the critical
infrastructure systems of the country (i.e. pipelines, power lines, and
roads) are surrounded by crops or pastures. From an economic stand-
point, changing land use in the vicinity of infrastructure networks
would help reduce the annual investments necessary to repair and re-
build the infrastructure damaged by landslides. Furthermore, we show
that the opportunity costs to farmers to encourage land conversion to
forest is nearly negligible compared to the costs of repairing and re-
building roads. Based on these findings, we provide examples of how
to display the most relevant information (i.e. maps including land use,
infrastructure, exposure to damage, infrastructure costs and opportu-
nity costs to farmers) to be presented to government officials and infra-
structure managers. These maps could help developing new policies
and implementing projects based on the understanding of costs and
benefits of paying farmers to let grow forests near critical infrastructure
networks. Overall, we highlight the huge potential that exists for forest
restoration to cost-effectively assist in reducing susceptibility to land-
slides, while providing wider biodiversity benefits and enhancing the
provision of other ecosystem services.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Nelson Grima: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data curation, For-
mal analysis, Writing - original draft, Visualization, Investigation, Writ-
ing - review & editing. David Edwards: Conceptualization,
Methodology, Writing - review & editing. Felicity Edwards: Data
curation, Writing - review & editing. David Petley: Writing - review &
editing. Brendan Fisher: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal anal-
ysis, Investigation, Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the Environmental Program Enrichment
Fund, the Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources
from the University of Vermont, and Natural Environment Research
Council (grant no. NE/R017441/1) for their financial support. This is
publication #20 of the Biodiversity, Agriculture, and Conservation in
Colombia (Biodiversidad, Agricultura, y Conservación en Colombia
[BACC]) project.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141128.
References
Acevedo, J.C., Hernández, J.A., Valdés, C.F., Khanal, S.K., 2015. Analysis of operating costs
for producing biodiesel from palm oil at pilot-scale in Colombia. Bioresour. Technol.,
International Conference on Emerging Trends in Biotechnology 188, 117–123.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.01.071.
Allan, J.D., 2004. Landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosys-
tems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 35, 257–284. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.
ecolsys.35.120202.110122.
Armenteras, D., Rodríguez, N., Retana, J., Morales, M., 2011. Understanding deforestation
in montane and lowland forests of the Colombian Andes. Reg. Environ. Chang. 11,
693–705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-010-0200-y.
Baral, N.R., Acharya, D.P., Rana, C.J., 2012. Study on Drivers of Deforestation and Degrada-
tion of Forests in High Mountain Regions of Nepal. Community Forestry Research and
Training Centre (COMFORTC), Kathmandu.
Baroud, H., Barker, K., Ramirez-Marquez, J.E., Rocco, C.M., 2015. Inherent costs and inter-
dependent impacts of infrastructure network resilience. Risk Anal. 35, 642–662.
https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12223.
Brander, L.M., Tankha, S., Sovann, C., Sanadiradze, G., Zazanashvili, N., Kharazishvili, D.,
Memiadze, N., Osepashvili, I., Beruchashvili, G., Arobelidze, N., 2018. Mapping the
economic value of landslide regulation by forests. Ecosyst. Serv. 32, 101–109.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.06.003.
Brang, P., Schönenberger, W., Frehner, M., Schwitter, R., Wasser, B., 2006. Management of
protection forests in the European Alps: an overview. For. Snow Landsc. Res 80,
23–44.
DANE, 2016. 3er Censo Nacional Agropecuario. Ministerio de Agricultura, Bogota D.C.,
Colombia.
Dilley, M., Chen, R.S., Deichmann, U., Lerner-Lam, A.L., Arnold, M., 2005. Natural Disaster
Hotspots, Disaster Risk Management. The World Bank, Washington, D.C https://doi.
org/10.1596/0-8213-5930-4.
Dominati, E.J., Mackay, A., Lynch, B., Heath, N., Millner, I., 2014. An ecosystem services ap-
proach to the quantification of shallow mass movement erosion and the value of soil
conservation practices. Ecosyst. Serv. 9, 204–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecoser.2014.06.006.
Donnini, M., Napolitano, E., Salvati, P., Ardizzone, F., Bucci, F., Fiorucci, F., Santangelo, M.,
Cardinali, M., Guzzetti, F., 2017. Impact of event landslides on road networks: a statis-
tical analysis of two Italian case studies. Landslides 14, 1521–1535. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10346-017-0829-4.
EPYPSA-Ardanuy, 2011. Estudio de viabilidad y conveniencia del cambio de trocha
yardica a trocha estandar y sus impactos en el transporte de carga y pasajeros.
Ministerio de Transporte.
ESRI, 2014. ArcGIS Desktop Help 10.2 Geostatistical Analyst. Environmental Systems Re-
search Institute, Redlands, CA.
Fischer, E.M., Knutti, R., 2016. Observed heavy precipitation increase confirms theory and
early models. Nat. Clim. Chang. 6, 986–991. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3110.
Forbes, K., Broadhead, J., 2013. Forests and Landslides: The Role of Trees and Forests in the
Prevention of Landslides and Rehabilitation of Landslide-Affected Areas in Asia (No.
Second Edition). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Bangkok.
Forbes, K., Broadhead, J., Bischetti, G.B., Brardinoni, F., Dykes, A., Gray, D., Imaizumi, F.,
Kuriakose, S.L., Osman, N., Petley, D., Stokes, A., Verbist, B., W., T.H., 2011. Forests
 N. Grima et al. / Science of the Total Environment 745 (2020) 141128
and Landslides the Role of Trees and Forests in the Prevention of Landslides and Re-
habilitation of Landslide-Affected Areas in Asia. Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific.
Fuller, R., 2015. Livelihoods in Colombia: Evaluation of Market Access and Food Security in
the Central Region. Oxfam GB. https://doi.org/10.21201/2015.347363.
Gavin, M.C., McCarter, J., Mead, A., Berkes, F., Stepp, J.R., Peterson, D., Tang, R., 2015. Defin-
ing biocultural approaches to conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 140–145. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2014.12.005.
Gil, J.G.R., 2017. Characterization of traditional production systems of sugarcane for
panela and some prospects for improving their sustainability. Rev. Fac. Nac. Agron.
Medellín 70, 8045–8055. https://doi.org/10.15446/rfna.v70n1.61763.
Gilroy, J.J., Woodcock, P., Edwards, F.A., Wheeler, C., Baptiste, B.L.G., Medina Uribe, C.A.,
Haugaasen, T., Edwards, D.P., 2014. Cheap carbon and biodiversity co-benefits from
forest regeneration in a hotspot of endemism. Nat. Clim. Chang. 4, 503–507.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2200.
Guns, M., Vanacker, V., 2013. Forest cover change trajectories and their impact on land-
slide occurrence in the tropical Andes. Environ. Earth Sci. 70, 2941–2952. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s12665-013-2352-9.
Hansen, M.C., Potapov, P.V., Moore, R., Hancher, M., Turubanova, S.A., Tyukavina, A., Thau,
D., Stehman, S.V., Goetz, S.J., Loveland, T.R., Kommareddy, A., Egorov, A., Chini, L.,
Justice, C.O., Townshend, J.R.G., 2013. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century
forest cover change. Science 342, 850–853. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1244693.
Hermanns, R.L., Valderrama, P., Fauque, L., Penna, I.M., Sepulveda, S., Moreiras, S., Zavala
Carrion, B., 2012. Landslides in the Andes and the need to communicate on an
interandean level on landslide mapping and research. Rev. Asoc. Geol. Argent. 69,
321–327.
Howell, D.C., 2012. Statistical Methods for Psychology. Cengage Learning.
Huber, P., Hujala, T., Kurttila, M., Wolfslehner, B., Vacik, H., 2019. Application of multi
criteria analysis methods for a participatory assessment of non-wood forest products
in two European case studies. For. Policy Econ., Models and tools for integrated forest
management and forest policy analysis 103, 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
forpol.2017.07.003.
Huggel, C., Khabarov, N., Obersteiner, M., Ramírez, J.M., 2010. Implementation and inte-
grated numerical modeling of a landslide early warning system: a pilot study in
Colombia. Nat. Hazards 52, 501–518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-009-9393-0.
Ite, U.E., 2018. Global Thinking and Local Action: Agriculture, Tropical Forest Loss and
Conservation in Southeast Nigeria. Routledge https://doi.org/10.4324/
9781315203775.
Keefer, D.K., Larsen, M.C., 2007. Assessing Landslide Hazards. Science 316, 1136–1138.
Kjekstad, O., Highland, L., 2009. Economic and social impacts of landslides. In: Sassa, K.,
Canuti, P. (Eds.), Landslides – Disaster Risk Reduction. Springer Berlin Heidelberg,
Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 573–587 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-69970-5_30.
Kleinschroth, F., Healey, J.R., 2017. Impacts of logging roads on tropical forests. Biotropica
49, 620–635. https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.12462.
Klimes, J., Rios Escobar, V., 2010. A landslide susceptibility assessment in urban areas
based on existing data: an example from the Iguana Valley, Medellin City,
Colombia. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 10, 2067–2079. https://doi.org/10.5194/
nhess-10-2067-2010.
Lienhoop, N., Brouwer, R., 2015. Agri-environmental policy valuation: farmers’ contract
design preferences for afforestation schemes. Land Use Policy 42, 568–577. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.09.017.
Lucas, K., Mattioli, G., Verlinghieri, E., Guzman, A., 2016. Transport poverty and its adverse
social consequences. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. - Transp. 169, 353–365.
Lundberg, L., Persson, U.M., Alpizar, F., Lindgren, K., 2018. Context matters: exploring the
cost-effectiveness of fixed payments and procurement auctions for PES. Ecol. Econ.
146, 347–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.11.021.
McCall, M.K., Bermudez, R., Granados, J., 2018. ‘Signing up to PES’ - why communities par-
ticipate in PES programmes in Mexico. In: Namirembe, S., Leimona, B., van
Noordwijk, M., Minang, P. (Eds.), Co-Investment in Ecosystem Services: Global Les-
sons From Payment and Incentive Schemes. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Nai-
robi, p. 16.
McColl, S.T., 2015. Chapter 2 - landslide causes and triggers. In: Shroder, J.F., Davies, T.
(Eds.), Landslide Hazards, Risks and Disasters. Academic Press, Boston, pp. 17–42
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-396452-6.00002-1.
9
MinAgricultura, 2018. Agronet. Red Inf. Comun. Sect. Agropecu. Colomb. URL. https://
www.agronet.gov.co/Paginas/inicio.aspx.
Muchapondwa, E., Stage, J., Mungatana, E., Kumar, P., 2018. Lessons from applying
market-based incentives in watershed management. Water Econ. Policy 04,
1850011. https://doi.org/10.1142/S2382624X1850011X.
Muriel-Villegas, J.E., Alvarez-Uribe, K.C., Patiño-Rodríguez, C.E., Villegas, J.G., 2016. Analy-
sis of transportation networks subject to natural hazards – insights from a Colombian
case. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 152, 151–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2016.03.006.
Nadim, F., Kjekstad, O., Peduzzi, P., Herold, C., Jaedicke, C., 2006. Global landslide and av-
alanche hotspots. Landslides 3, 159–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-006-0036-
1.
Neudert, R., Ganzhorn, J.U., Wätzold, F., 2017. Global benefits and local costs – the di-
lemma of tropical forest conservation: a review of the situation in Madagascar. Envi-
ron. Conserv. 44, 82–96. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892916000552.
Ojeda, J., Donnelly, L., 2006. Landslides in Colombia and their impact on towns and cities.
Int. Assoc. Eng. Geol. Environ. 13.
Pandey, A.K., Tripathi, Y.C., Kumar, A., 2016. Non timber forest products (NTFPs) for
sustained livelihood: challenges and strategies. Res. J. For 10, 1–7. https://doi.org/
10.3923/rjf.2016.1.7.
R Core Team, 2017. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Founda-
tion for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
Rahman, F., Haq, F., Tabassum, I., Ullah, I., 2014. Socio-economic drivers of deforestation in
Roghani Valley, Hindu-Raj Mountains, Northern Pakistan. J. Mt. Sci. 11, 167–179.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-013-2770-x.
Red Cross, 2016. World Disasters Report 2016: Resilience: Saving Lives Today, Investing
for Tomorrow. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies,
Geneva.
Rendon, O., Dallimer, M., Paavola, J., 2016. Flow and rent-based opportunity costs of water
ecosystem service provision in a complex farming system. Ecol. Soc. 21.
Rickli, C., Graf, F., 2009. Effects of forests on shallow landslides – case studies in
Switzerland. For. Snow Landsc. Res 82, 33–44.
Ruckelshaus, M., McKenzie, E., Tallis, H., Guerry, A., Daily, G., Kareiva, P., Polasky, S.,
Ricketts, T., Bhagabati, N., Wood, S.A., Bernhardt, J., 2015. Notes from the field: lessons
learned from using ecosystem service approaches to inform real-world decisions.
Ecol. Econ., Ecosystem Services Science, Practice, and Policy: Perspectives from
ACES, A Community on Ecosystem Services 115, 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolecon.2013.07.009.
Šajgalik, J., 1990. Sagging of loesses and its problems. Quat. Int. 7–8, 63–70. https://doi.
org/10.1016/1040-6182(90)90039-7.
Servicio Geologico Colombiano, 2019. Geociencias Basicas. URL. https://www2.sgc.gov.co/
sgc/mapas/Paginas/geoportal.aspx.
SGC, 2017. Guía metodológica para la zonificación de amenaza por movimientos en masa,
escala 1:25.000. Servicio Geológico Colombiano, Dirección de Geoamenazas, Grupo
de Evaluación de Amenaza por Movimientos en Masa, Bogota D.C., Colombia.
Sidle, R.C., Ochiai, H., 2006. Landslides: Processes, Prediction, and Land Use. Water Re-
sources Monograph Series.
Song, X.-P., Hansen, M.C., Stehman, S.V., Potapov, P.V., Tyukavina, A., Vermote, E.F.,
Townshend, J.R., 2018. Global land change from 1982 to 2016. Nature 560,
639–643. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0411-9.
Thompson, B.S., Primavera, J.H., Friess, D.A., 2017. Governance and implementation chal-
lenges for mangrove forest payments for ecosystem services (PES): empirical evi-
dence from the Philippines. Ecosyst. Serv. 23, 146–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecoser.2016.12.007.
United Nations, 2005. Investing in Development: A Practical Plan to Achieve the
Millenium Development Goals. UN Millennium Project, New York.
Weber, B., Alfen, H.W., Staub-Bisang, M., 2016. Infrastructure as an Asset Class: Invest-
ment Strategy, Sustainability, Project Finance and PPP. John Wiley & Sons.
Zhang, F., Chen, W., Liu, G., Liang, S., Kang, C., He, F., 2012. Relationships between landslide
types and topographic attributes in a loess catchment, China. J. Mt. Sci. 9, 742–751.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-012-2377-7.