International Soil and Water Conservation Research 6 (2018) 99–110

HOSTED BY
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Soil and Water Conservation Research

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

Original Research Article

Integrated universal soil loss equation (USLE) and Geographical

Information System (GIS) for soil erosion estimation in A Sap basin:
Central Vietnam
Tung Gia Pham a,b,n, Jan Degener a, Martin Kappas a
a
Cartography, GIS and Remote Sensing Department, Göttingen University, Germany
b
University of Agriculture and Forestry, Hue University, Vietnam

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Central Vietnam is very susceptible to soil erosion due to its complicated terrain and heavy rainfall. The
Received 5 September 2017 objective of this study was to quantify soil erosion in the A Sap river basin, A Luoi district, Thua Thien
Received in revised form Hue Province, Vietnam, using the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) and Geographical Informa-
3 January 2018
tion System (GIS). The results showed that 34% of land area lost accumulated to 10 t ha
1 year
1 while
Accepted 5 January 2018
47% of the total area lost less than 1 t ha
1 year
1. Natural forest land lost the most with an average of
Available online 10 January 2018
about 19 t ha
1 year
1, followed by plantation forest with approximately 7 t ha
1 year
1 and other
Keywords: agricultural lands at 3.70 and 1.45 t ha
1 year
1 for yearly crops and paddy rice, respectively. Soil erosion
Central Vietnam was most sensitive to the topographic factor (LS), followed by the practice support factor (P), soil
GIS
erodibility factor (K), cropping management (C), and the rainfall erosivity factor (R). Implications are that
Soil erosion
changes to the cultivated calendar and implementing intercropping are effective ways to prevent soil
USLE
erosion in cultivated lands. Furthermore, introducing broad leaves trees for mountainous areas in A Sap
basin was the most effective practice in reducing soil erosion. The study also pointed out that the
combination of available data sources used with the USLE and GIS technology is a viable option to cal-
culate soil erosion in Central Vietnam, which would allow targeted attention toward a solution is to
reduce future soil erosion.
& 2018 International Research and Training Center on Erosion and Sedimentation and China Water and
Power Press. Production and Hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-
ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction
Soil loss due to erosion is a global problem, especially affecting
natural resources and agricultural production (Pimentel, 2006;
Parveen & Kumar, 2012; Bakker et al., 2005; Ighodaro, Lategan, &
Yusuf, 2013; Littleboy, Freebairn, Hammer, & Silburn, 1992) The
average rates of soil erosion throughout the world are estimated
between 12 and 15 t ha
1 year
1 (Biggelaar, Lal, Wiebe, & Bre-
neman, 2003), meaning that every year the land surface lost about
0.90–0.95 mm of soil (FAO, 2015). In the upland area, soil erosion is
one of most dangerous hazards (Ashiagbor, Forkuo, Laari, & Aa-
beyir, 2013; Ristić, Kostadinov, Radi, Trivan, & Niki, 2012). Wind
and water are biggest elements causing soil erosion, with water
proving more influential (Pimentel, 2006). For example Lal (2001)
n
Corresponding author at: Cartography, GIS and Remote Sensing Department,
Institute of Geography, Georg August University of Goettingen, Goldschmidstr. 5,
37077 Goettingen, Germany.
E-mail address: phamgiatung@huaf.edu.vn (T.G. Pham).
Peer review under responsibility of International Research and Training Center
on Erosion and Sedimentation and China Water and Power Press.
proposed that there are 1094 million hectares affected worldwide
by soil erosion due to water compared to 548 million by wind. In
the mountainous regions of Vietnam, soil erosion due to rainfall is
the leading cause of soil degradation in the mountainous region of
Vietnam (Trinh, 2015; Vezina, Bonn, & Pham, 2006).
Forty percent of natural areas covering 13 million of hectares in
Vietnam facing soil erosion risk (Nguyen, 2010 cited in Tran, Chau,
Nguyen, & Huynh, 2014), with the Northwest and Central West
having the highest potential (Nguyen & Thai, 1999). In the upland
area, soil erosion leads to changes in land use type and is the main
cause of reduced crop yields (Vu, 2015). For example, Bui (2001)
calculated that income loss due to soil erosion in Thua Thien Hue
Province is 0.635–1.022 million VND ha
1 year
1 (approximately
30 to 45 USD ha
1 year
1) depending on the type land use
system.
In Vietnam, there are two approaches to study soil erosion, at
the plots scale and watershed scale. At watershed scale, soil ero-
sion rates depend on the watershed size and other factors such as
topography, slope degree, land use type etc. (Mai, 2007). In Central
Vietnam, due to the steep terrain and heavy rainfall, the erosion
situation becomes more serious. Ho (2000), Pham (2008), Nguyen

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2018.01.001
2095-6339/& 2018 International Research and Training Center on Erosion and Sedimentation and China Water and Power Press. Production and Hosting by Elsevier B.V. This
is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
100 T.G. Pham et al. / International Soil and Water Conservation Research 6 (2018) 99–110
and Nguyen (2014), Tran et al. (2014) conducted several studies on
Thua Thien Hue Province showing that the amount of soil erosion
fluctuates widely depending on many factors, with annual rainfall
as the most influential. No research has been conducted on soil
erosion for the highest area of this province that focuses on var-
ious soil erosion factors such as land use type.
Researchers have developed many tools for estimating soil loss,
such as the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT), the Water
Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP), the Universal Soil Loss
Equation (USLE), the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE),
etc. Among them, USLE is widely used for the study of soil erosion
by water because of its simplicity, despite some inconveniences
due to its extensive requirement for input data (Lufafa, Tenywa,
Isabirye, Majaliwa, & Woome, 2003; Parveen & Kumar, 2012; Ti-
wari, Risse, & Nearing, 2000). The USLE method predicts the long-
term average annual rate of erosion on a field based on rainfall
pattern, soil type, topography, crop system and management
practices.
The original purpose of the USLE was to calculate soil erosion
on cultivated land with gentle slope in Midwestern USA (Renard,
Foster, Weesies, McCool, & Youder, 1997; Gitas, Douros, Minakou,
Silleos, & Karydas, 2009). Recently, the Revised Universal Soil Loss
Equation (RUSLE) has been developed that has a similar structure
of the USLE and contains several improvements in identifying in-
put factors based on the updated database in the United States.
Therefore, there is no difference between USLE and RUSLE in
measuring soil erosion in Vietnam. Data used for calculating input
factors of the USLE model are available and easy to access in
Vietnam. As a result, researchers have applied the USLE model to
study soil erosion on a variety of scales (Ho, 2000; Tran, Thai, La,
Do, & Nguyen, 2000; Vezina et al., 2006; Nguyen, 2009; Pham &
Le, 2010; Nguyen, 2011; Lai, 2011; Nguyen & Nguyen, 2014; Trinh,
2015). We chose the USLE model due to its wide use, relative
simplicity to assess soil loss, and most importantly to compare
with other research on soil erosion in Vietnam.
Fig. 1. Research site and land use map of year 2015.
In recent years, Geographical Information System (GIS) and
Remote Sensing (RS) have become useful tools for natural re-
sources management and disaster research. This research requires
much spatial data, which GIS is capable of handling easily and
efficiently. For this reason, many researcher uses GIS as main ap-
proach to estimate soil erosion at all scales (Fistikoglu & Har-
mancioglu, 2002; Gunawan, Sutjiningsih, Soeryantono, & Sulis-
tioweni, 2013; Parveen & Kumar, 2012; Trinh, Vu, & Do, 2015; Ali &
Hagos, 2016; Belasri & Lakhouili, 2016)
Therefore, this study, conducted in the A Sap river basin, aims
to (1) utilize the USLE model and ArcGIS to determine the soil
erosion rates and (2) propose the research frame for soil erosion
estimation using the available database for Central Vietnam.
2. The study area
The A Sap river basin encompasses 33,542 ha and belongs to A
Luoi district (16°30′N, 107°0′E and 16°0′N, 107°30′E), Thua Thien
Hue Province, Vietnam (Fig. 1).
The climate at the research site shows tropical monsoon char-
acteristics with an annual rainy season from September to De-
cember. According to statistics from 2005 to 2015, the average
yearly precipitation is about 3180 mm. The average temperature
reaches the highest in May and the lowest in January, 25 °C and
17 °C degree respectively (A Luoi Meteorological Station, 2015).
The elevation of the basin fluctuates from 504 m to 1770 m above
sea level and decreases from the West to the East. Some excep-
tional high areas are the Dong Ngai Mountain (1770 m) and the A
So Mountain (1528 m). The slope of the terrain is complex and
steep with an average of 10°. There are also 7 land use types in the
basin area with natural forest and plantation forest as the pre-
dominant types (Natural Resources and Environment Department
of A Luoi, 2015).
 T.G. Pham et al. / International Soil and Water Conservation Research 6 (2018) 99–110
3. Methods
3.1. The universal soil loss equation
The USLE, proposed by Wischmeier and Smith (1978), is ap-
plied in many areas worldwide. In Vietnam, it ranges for many
research scales from the river catchment (Tran et al., 2000; Vezina
et al., 2006; Nguyen, 2009; Nguyen & Nguyen, 2014; Trinh, 2015)
to the regional scale (Nguyen, 2011; Pham & Le, 2010; Lai, 2011). It
is described by the following equation:
A = R*K*LS*C*P
Where:
A is the average annual soil loss (tons ha
1 year
1),
R is the rainfall erosivity (MJmm ha
1 h year),
K is the soil erodibility factor (tons ha
1 R unit
1),
LS is the topographic factor (dimensionless),
C is the cropping management factors (dimensionless), and
P is the practice support factor (dimensionless)
According to the Vietnamese Government Standards Document
(Ministry of Science and Technology Vietnam, 2009), soil erosion
classification in Vietnam is divided into 5 levels (Table 1)
3.1.1. Rainfall erosivity factor (R)
Rainfall erosivity (R) was defined as the product of the total
kinetic energy multiplied by the maximum 30 min rainfall in-
tensity (Wischmeier & Smith, 1978). Many methods can be used to
calculate the annual rainfall erosivity factor (Gitas et al., 2009;
Parveen & Kumar, 2012; Yu & Rosewell, 1996). Calculation of R
factor is a complex process and involves long-term data collection.
For conditions in Vietnam, Nguyen (1996) suggested a method to
measure R factor based on annual precipitation by analyzing the
rainfall data over 54 years from 253 meteorological stations
throughout country:
R = 0.548257*P − 59.9
where P is the yearly precipitation (mm)
3.1.2. Soil erodibility factor (K)
The soil erodibility factor (K) represents the effect of soil
properties and soil profile characteristics on soil loss. K is strongly
related to the physical properties of the soil, plays an important
role in soil conservation strategies (Shabani, Kumar, & Esmaeili,
2014), and reflects the rate of soil loss per rainfall erosivity index
(Parveen & Kumar, 2012). All of the equations to measure the K
factor are related to the soil texture, soil organic matter, and per-
centage of sand, silt, and clay in the soil (Millward & Mersey, 1999).
Therefore, K is one of the most challenging factors, requiring
substantial time, cost, and resources for field surveys and analyses
(Bahrami, Vaghei, Vaghei, Tahmasbipour, & Tabari, 2005). Some
researchers (Nguyen & Thai, 1999; Schwab et al., 1981 cited in
Sheikh, Palria, & Alam, 2011; Parveen & Kumar, 2012) found a
Table 1
Soil erosion classification in Vietnam (Ministry of Science and Technology Vietnam,
2009).
Level Soil loss (tons ha
1 year
1)
Very low erosion 0–1
Low erosion 1–5
Medium erosion 5–10
High erosion 10–50
Extreme erosion 4 50
101
Table 2
Soil erodibility value of some main soil types in Central Vietnam (Nguyen, 2011).
Soil type K value
Fluvisols 0.31–0.46
Acrisols 0.10–0.34
Luvisols 0.26–0.52
Ferrasols 0.14 to 0–38
Gleysols 0.61
(1)
relationship between soil organic matter content, soil texture, and
the K factor. Based on the equation developed by Wischmeier and
Smith (1978) and soil profiles in the field, Nguyen (2011) sug-
gested K values for soil type in Central Vietnam (Table 2)
3.1.3. Topographic factor (LS)
Topographic factor (LS) is the slope length gradient factors
comprising L, slope length, and S, slope steepness (Panagos, Bor-
relli, & Meusburger, 2015). Many researchers agree that the
amount of land lost depends on the three-dimensional distribu-
tion of the terrain (Mitasova, Hofierka, Zlocha, & Iverson, 1996;
Moore & Wilson, 1992). This means, for example, that the longer
the slope does not necessarily equate to higher soil loss without
the consideration of the three dimensional complexity of the ter-
rain. Many methods have been proposed to improve the calcula-
tion of the topographic factor; Nearing (1997) offered a continuous
logistic function to estimate the slope steepness in the upland area
and found that it is better than the method proposed by Liu,
Nearing, and Risse (1994) and Mc Cool, Brown, Foster, Mutchler,
and Meyer (1987) at the upland area with a slope 4 25%. Zhang
et al. (2013) proposed to calculate the LS factor from a flow path
based algorithm using high quality Digital Elevation Model (DEM)
data with a spatial resolution of 5 m. This method is not possible
due to lack of data availability in Vietnam database. Therefore,
(2) DEM data for this study was extracted from Shuttle Radar Topo-
graphy Mission (SRTM) with a spatial resolution of 30 m. Many
researchers use the equation suggested by Moore and Wilson
(1992) to calculate the LS factor:
⎛ A s ⎞m ⎛ sinβ ⎞n
LS = ⎜ ⎟ *⎜ ⎟
⎝ 22.13 ⎠ ⎝ 0.09 ⎠ (3)
where AS is the upslope contributing area per unit width (m), β is
steepest slope angle (radian), and m and n are slope length ex-
ponent and slope steepness exponent, respectively. AS can be
calculated based on the multiple direction flow algorithm sug-
gested by Freeman (1991) via the raster calculator tool in ArcGIS.
The values of exponents range for m ¼ 0.2–0.6 and n ¼ 1.0
1.3,
where lower values are used for prevailing sheet flow and higher
values for prevailing rill flow. The values 22.13 m (72.6 ft.) and
0.09 rad (5.14°) are the length and slope of the standard USLE plot,
respectively.
Currently, GIS and RS are regarded as essential tools for natural
management studies; therefore almost all researchers use DEM
and GIS tools to measure LS in soil erosion studies (Panagos et al.,
2015; Remortel, Hamilton, & Hickey, 2001). For a large basin, the
grid resolution is always an important factor that influences the
model output (Wang, Jiang, Xu, Wang, & Yue, 2012). Grid size
change affects the steepness values which consequently affects the
L and S factor values, where L depends on grid size and steepness
while S only on the steepness (Oliveira, Chap. 4 et al., 2013).
Higher resolution DEM data reduces the length of the slope
straight line segments and increases the accuracy of the L and S
factors in the USLE model (Liu, Fohrer, Hörmann, & Kiesel, 2009).
102 T.G. Pham et al. / International Soil and Water Conservation Research 6 (2018) 99–110
Fig. 2. Terrain and flow direction of A Sap basin.
Desmet and Govers (1996) stated that DEM resolution affected to
flow convergence, thus leading to a significantly lower LS value.
In this study, the LS-factor was computed using the ArcGIS
raster calculator tool suggested by Mitasova and Mitas (Chap. 11)
(1999) cited in Simms, Woodroffe, and Jones (2003) using the
following equation:
⎛ FA*cell size ⎞m ⎛ sin( slope angle)/0.01745 ⎞n
LS = ⎜ ⎟ * ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ 22.13 ⎠ ⎝ 0.09 ⎠ (4)
where FA is flow accumulation, cell size is the size of the DEM data
(30 m by 30 m), slope angle is in degrees (°), and 0.01745 is
parameter to convert degrees to radians. The terrain of the A Sap
basin is very complicated with dense stream systems (Fig. 2), re-
sulting in rill erosion to dominate. Therefore, m and n were re-
spectively assigned 0.5 and 1.3 as recommended by Mitasova and
Mitas (Chap. 11) (1999) and Liu, Nearing, Shi, and Jia (2000).
3.1.4. Cropping management factor (C)
The C factor is the second most important factor that controls
soil erosion risk (Knijff, Jones, & Montanarella, 2000), and it re-
flects the effect of cropping and management practices on the soil
erosion rate (Biesemans, Van Meirvenne, & Gabriels, 2000; Jong,
1994; Patil & Sharma, 2013). Generally, the C-factor ranges be-
tween 1 and 0. C equal to 1 indicates no cover present and the
surface is treated as barren land, whereas C near zero (0) indicates
very strong cover effects and well-protected soil. Remote sensing
technology can provide a lot of information about the land surface
through the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI),
which is positively correlated with the amount of green biomass
and gives an indication of differences in green vegetation coverage
(Knijff et al., 2000). Many researchers calculated the C factor with
different equations (Karaburun, 2010; Knijff et al., 2000; Durigon,
Carvalho, Antunes, Oliveira, & Fernandes, 2014), but the equation
suggested by Durigon et al. (2014) is used in this study:
 T.G. Pham et al. / International Soil and Water Conservation Research 6 (2018) 99–110 103

Table 3 A Luoi district and DEM database as used by Shin (1999).

Information of remote sensing data.

Landsat 8 images Date acquired Cloud cover Resolution (m) 3.2. Application: GIS tools
(%)
There are five factors as input data for USLE model, and the
LC08_L1TP_125049_20150124 24 January 2015 0.32 30  30 resources for identifying their values are terrain data, rainfall, land
LC08_L1TP_125049_20150703 03 July 2015 22.89 30  30
LC08_L1TP_125049_20151023 23 October 2015 15.65 30  30
use and, soil properties. These model variables are implemented
LC08_L1TP_125049_20151226 26 December 41.00 30  30 into GIS and related databases. We have set up a process for soil
2015 erosion estimation using ArcGIS 9.3 based on the available data
collected from the Department of Natural Resources and En-
vironment of Thua Thien Hue Province (DNRE); Soils Fertilizers
( − NDVI + 1)
C= Research Institute of Vietnam (SFRI) and Vietnam National In-
2 (5)
stitute of Agricultural Planning and Projection (NIAPP). The GIS
application workflow for this study was showed by Fig. 3. All maps
utilized were stored at the WGS 84 UTM Zone 48N projection,
(NIR − RED)
NDVI= with the scale 1/50,000.
(RED + NIR) (6)

where NIR is the surface spectral reflectance in the near-infrared
band and RED is surface spectral reflectance in the red band were
extracted from Landsat images. NIR and RED were extracted from
Landsat 8 images. The research site is located within the Landsat
scene (path 125, row 49). In this research, the NDVI values were
used to calculate C factor is average value the time series of NDVIs
of 4 times in January, July, October and December of year 2015
with information as in Table 3. There were many agricultural ac-
tivities in those times such as forest harvesting and beginning a
new season.
3.1.5. Support practice index (P)
P factor is defined as the impact of land use or farming system
on the soil erosion. The P factor adjusts the potential erosion by
water runoff through implementing the effects of contouring, strip
cropping, and terraced contour farming (Wischmeier & Smith,
1978; Kim & Julien, 2006; Kuok, Mah, & Chiu, 2013). If there is no
erosion control solution, then P value should be 1.0. P is considered
the most uncertain values (Morgan & Nearing, 2011) due to diffi-
culties in its estimation, such as the need for direct observations at
the specific land plot to determine the land use type and identify
the specific farming system is notably time intensive and costly.
P-values can be derived from either image classifications using
remote sensing data, previous studies, or even expert knowledge
(Panagos et al., 2015). Some researchers suggested the P value is
rather dependent on the slope inclination (Wischmeier & Smith,
1978; Wenner, 1980; Shin, 1999 cited in Karamage et al., 2016;
Lufafa et al., 2003); while others use farming practices to calculate
P value (Stone & Hilborn, 2012). In this research, the P factor is
calculated by the cultivation and slope based on land use map of
year 2015 from Natural Resources and Environment Department of
3.3. Descriptive statistics
This study has chosen the points (with an area of 900 m2, the
size of 1 pixel) where soil erosion occurred (soil loss 4 0) to de-
termine the effect of each input factor on soil loss rate. Therefore,
Eq. (1) was transformed as follows:
ln(A) = ln( R*K*LS*C*P)
= ln( R) + ln( K) + ln( LS) + ln(C) + ln(P) (7)
where ln(A) is the natural logarithm of the soil loss rate. In order
to identify the effect of input factors on soil erosion rate, a multiple
linear regression must be applied to explore the relationship be-
tween those factors. Eq. (7) can be expressed as:
ln(A) = β0 + βi*ln(X i) + βj*ln(X j) + … (8)
Where ln(Xi) is the natural logarithm of value of ith input factor,
and βi is the estimated regression coefficient that quantifies the
association between the factor Xi and A. The β value in Eq. (8) is a
standardized coefficient due to the different units of the input
factors (Menard, 2011; Kephart, 2013). If Xi increases 1% of the
standard deviation, then A will increase βi percent of the standard
deviation. The conditions for Eq. (8) are that the significance level
(Sig) value must be less than 0.05 (with 95% confidence) and there
must be an absence of multicollinearity, (Variance Inflation Factor-
VIF) o 10.
The independent sample test method was applied to test mean
difference of input factors in USLE model for the natural forest and
plantation forest land use types. If the significant value is lower
than 0.05, then there is mean difference on the 95% confidence
level between the input factors of two types of land use.

Fig. 3. Flowchart of research frame.

104 T.G. Pham et al. / International Soil and Water Conservation Research 6 (2018) 99–110

Fig. 4. a. Rainfall erosivity factor (R), b. Soil erodibility factor (K), c. Topographic factor (LS), d. Cropping management factor (C) and e. Support practices factor (P).

4. Results
4.1. Development database for USLE
4.1.1. Rainfall erosivity factor (R)
The average annual rainfall from 2005 to 2015, provided by the
A Luoi hydrology station, was used to calculate the R factor for the
entire basin using Eq. (2). The average annual rainfall ranged from
3090 to 3270 mm mainly from September to November, and
consequently the calculate rainfall erosivity ranged from 1634 to
Haplic Acrisols and Hyperdystric Ferralic Acrisols occupy the lar-
gest area with around 70% of the total natural area of the study site
and are subsequently assigned highest K value. In the A Sap river
catchment, the lowest K values are concentrated in the low lands,
whereas the highest K values are concentrated in the with high
elevation areas (Table 4 and Fig. 4b)
Table 4
Soil types and soil erodibility in A Sap basin.

1732, increasing from the East to the West on the A Sap basin Soil type K factor Area (ha)
(Fig. 4a).
Ferralic Haplic Acrisols 0.32 21,698
4.1.2. Soil erodibility factor (K) Hyperdystric Ferralic Acrisols 0.32 1379
Hyperdystric Haplic Acrisols 0.26 988
There are 6 soil types within the A Sap basin, with K factors Umbric Hyperdystric Acrisols 0.18 5526
ranging from 0.18 to 0.32 (Table 4). Soil types were extracted from Ferralic Humic Acrisols 0.20 2195
soil type map of Thua Thien Hue Province which was provided by Hyperdystric Humic Acrisols 0.20 983
Water 773
the Vietnam National Institute of Agricultural Planning and Pro-
Total 33,542
jection (NIAPP) in 2005 using the scale 1/100,000. The Ferralic
 T.G. Pham et al. / International Soil and Water Conservation Research 6 (2018) 99–110 105

Table 5 Table 7
Topographic factor in A Sap basin. Support practices factor in A Sap basin.

LS factor Area (ha) Slope (°)

0 r LS r 1 32,361 Land use type group 0–5 5–8 8–10 10–15 415 Area (ha)
1 o LS r 10 403
10 o LS r 20 4 Natural forest, Grassland 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 20,427
LS 4 20 1 Plantation forest, Industrial 0.55 0.60 0.80 0.90 1.00 8069
Water 773 crops (Coffee, rubber), Per-
Total 33542 ennial crops
Paddy field (Rice), Yearly 0.27 0.30 0.40 0.45 0.50 2528
crops (Cassava, Soybean,
Corn)
4.1.3. Topographic factor (LS)
Residential Zone 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 1745
The study area is one of the regions with the highest altitude in Water – – – – – 773
the Thua Thien Hue Province. DEM data show that terrain is very Total 33,542
complicated, with 24% of the natural area having a slope steeper
than 25°. The result of Eq. (4) shows that the LS factor in the A Sap
basin ranges from 0 to more than 30 (Table 5; Fig. 4c) with almost Table 8
all of them being below 1.0, meaning that the slope is very steep Soil erosion rate in A Sap basin.
and slope lengths are short. This factor leads to a very powerful
Level Soil loss (tons ha-1 year- Area (ha) Percentage of total area
rain flow rate and makes the soil erosion more serious.
1)

4.1.4. Cropping management factor (C) Very low erosion 0–1 15,788 47
From the satellite images, the basin area shows NDVI value Low erosion 1–5 2738 8
from
0.37 to 0.68. This study excluded the wetland areas (where Medium erosion 5 – 10 3182 10
High erosion 10 – 50 9352 28
NDVI o 0) and applied Eq. (5) to calculate the cropping man- Extreme erosion 4 50 1706 5
agement factor (C). The results showed that the C factor in the Water 773 2
research area ranged from 0.16 to 0.69 with the highest coefficient Total 33,542 100
of C concentrated in high altitude regions (Table 6; Fig. 4d).

4.1.5. Support practices factor (P)

by plantation forest at 7 t ha
1 year
1, yearly crops at 3.7 t ha
1
Land use type impacts the rate of soil erosion via the P and C
year
1 and paddy field areas at 1.45 t ha
1 year
1.
factors. For example, vegetation cover may protect soil and avoid
Table 9 presents the result of the SPSS processing on correlation
erosion depending on the land use type (Saowanee, 2012). For
between soil erosion rate and each input factor of USLE. The sig-
each land use type, the land user will have different farming
nificance level (Sig) of all variables less than 0.05 (with 95% con-
patterns, thus affecting the P value. For example, for agricultural
fidence) and no multicollinearity (VIF o 10), mean that standar-
use in sloped areas, farmers will apply contour framing which
dized coefficients values could be use for multiple linear regres-
reduces the rate of soil erosion. There are 7 different land use
sion. The multiple linear regressions of soil loss rate and input
types in the A Sap catchment. Among them, natural forest land
factors in the A Sap basin follow Eq. (9):
accounted for 54% of the total area, mainly concentrated in areas
with steep slopes. The support practices factor (P) for A Sap basin ln(A) = 0.012*ln( R) + 0.165*ln( K) + 0.852*ln( LS) + 0.131
was calculated by land use type and the slope degrees as sug-
gested by Shin (1999), resulting in a value range from 0.003 to 1.00 *ln( C) + 0.227*ln( P) (9)
(Table 7; Fig. 4e)
The values of standardized coefficients for Eq. (9) show the
relative strength of influence of each input factor on soil loss rate.
4.2. Soil erosion risk mapping
Specifically, LS has the strongest influence on soil erosion (β ¼
0.852), followed by P (β ¼ 0.227), K (β ¼ 0.165), C (β ¼ 0.131), and
The soil loss predictions in the research area range from “very
R (β ¼ 0.012).
low erosion” to “extreme erosion” levels (Table 8; Fig. 5). The data
The results (Table 10) show that mean of all factors in USLE
show that throughout the entire watershed, the area where the
model for natural forest are higher compared to plantation forest
soil rate was greater than 10 t ha
1 year
1 occupied 34% total area
in confidence level at 95%, except C factor of natural forest is less
mostly at high elevations. The “extreme erosion” area accounted
than plantation forest. There are differences between factors that
for 5% of the natural area. The central area of the basin had an
effect the soil erosion. The difference of LS factor between two
erosion rate is less than the other regions.
types of land use is the highest (0.16 compared to 0.07, equal to
Among the land use types, the natural forest accounts for the
228%), followed by P factor (127%), K (107%), C (96%) and R
highest soil erosion rate 19 t ha
1 year
1, followed subsequently
(100.60%).
Table 6
Cropping management factor in A Sap basin.
5. Discussions
C factor Area (ha)

0 o C r 0.2 1954 5.1. Soil erosion rate in A Sap basin

0.2 o C r 0.3 25,083
0.3 o C r 0.4 4887 On average, the catchment eroded soil in the A Sap river is
0.4 o C r 0.7 845 18 t ha
1 year
1. Our results are higher in comparison to other
Water 773
Total 33,542
studies on soil erosion rate, especially in Northern Vietnam. Tran et
al, (2011) argued that amount of soil loss annually in Phu Tho
106 T.G. Pham et al. / International Soil and Water Conservation Research 6 (2018) 99–110

Fig. 5. Soil erosion map in A Sap basin.

Table 9 Table 10
Standardized coefficients of factors in USLE model. The differences between factors of USLE model for natural and plantation forest.

Independent Variable Standardized coefficients β Sig VIF Factor Land use type Mean Comparison SD Significance value

Ln (R) 0.012 0.00 1.030 LS Natural forest 0.16 228% 0.33 0.00
Ln (K) 0.165 0.00 1.117 Plantation forest 0.07 100% 0.22
Ln (LS) 0.852 0.00 1.249 R Natural forest 1680 100.60% 23.28 0.00
Ln (C) 0.131 0.00 1.126 Plantation forest 1670 100% 27.00
Ln (P) 0.227 0.00 1.427 C Natural forest 0.24 96% 0.03 0.00
Plantation forest 0.25 100% 0.04
K Natural forest 0.30 107% 0.05 0.00
Province fluctuated from 0 to 10 t ha
1 year
1 (account for 60% of Plantation forest 0.28 100% 0.06
P Natural forest 1.00 127% 0.01 0.00
total area). Nguyen (2015) indicated that in Quan Ba district, Ha Plantation forest 0.79 100% 0.19
Giang Province, soil erosion rates ranged from 0 to 5 t ha
1 year
1
(account for 72% of total area). We supposed that the difference
between R and K is main reason for soil loss in the A Sap river basin Conversely, compared to other studies in the Thua Thien Hue
higher than northern region (Phu Tho and Ha Giang Provinces). Province, the eroded soil loss in the A Sap river basin is not too
Particularly, annual rainfall in A Sap area exceeded 3000 mm/year serious. Pham (2008) and Tran et al. (2014) estimated the average
compared to 900 mm/year in Phu Tho Province and 1600 mm/year soil loss in the Nam Dong and Huong Tra districts, both in close
in Ha Giang Province. Similarly, K on average for A Sap area is 0.28, proximity to the A Sap basin area, was at approximately 62.50 and
whereas K in Phu Tho and Ha Giang is 0.2. 47.40 t ha
1 year
1, respectively. These studies ignored the
 T.G. Pham et al. / International Soil and Water Conservation Research 6 (2018) 99–110 107

influence of the factor P and assigned it a value of 1, which means
the ability of reducing soil erosion by agricultural practice was
ignored
5.2. Soil erosion and land use
There are many discussions on the influence of land use on soil
erosion. Most studies conclude that land use influences both soil
erosion results and characteristics (Fu et al., 2009; Garcia Ruiz,
2010; Wang et al., 2012). Different land uses impact the degree of
soil erosion differently, Pham (2008) suggested that plantation
forest is eroded the most while Erskine, Mahmoudzadeh, and
Myers (2002), Gangcai, Jianhui, Guanglong, and Chaofu (2005),
and Tran et al. (2014) argue that agricultural land showed the most
severe erosion. Conversely, our research indicates that natural
forests experience the most severe erosion.
The main causes of the high soil erosion in natural forests are
geographical factors. Most of the natural forest areas are located in
steep slope areas. For example, 83% of total natural forest is stee-
per than 20° whereas only 47% of plantation forest area in steeper
than 20°. On average for the basin, the soil erosion rate of natural
forest is near 3 times greater than plantation forest (19 t ha
1
year
1 compared to 7 t ha
1 year
1). However, in the same to-
pography condition, for example, from 15° to 20° slope, the eroded
soil rate between natural forest and plantation forest is 1,9 times
greater (11.4 t ha
1 year
1 compared to 6.1 t ha
1 year
1). The
distribution of natural forest and plantation forest follow slope
degrees presented in a Fig. 6.
5.3. Soil erosion and cultivated calendar
The soil erosion rate and the seasonal calendar have a close
relationship via C factor. In A Sap basin, there are three types of
agricultural land use: plantation forest, yearly crops, and paddy
rice. Among them, plantation forest land has a harvesting cycle
from 4 to 6 years. Acacia species are the dominant trees, often
harvested from August to September and beginning a new season
from October to November. Yearly crops have an 8 months grow-
ing cycles with the majority crop being cassava. They are usually
planted in September and harvested in the following April. In the
first 3 months, the cassava is not well developed, having small
leaves resulting the low ability to protect the soil from erosion.
Therefore, from September to November, the land surface is al-
most not covered by plants. Furthermore, rainfall is the highest
during that time causing a more severe soil erosion rate (Fig. 7).
Overall, there is a need of change in the seasonal calendar as
well as farming practice patterns to reduce the soil erosion risk.
For acacia, harvested time should be in December or January and
the planting season in March or April. Intercropping of acacia and
pineapples should be practiced during the period from planting
time to the second year. For cassava cultivation, land users should
intercrop with peanuts in the first three months. This method

Fig. 6. Distribution of natural and plantation forest by topography condition.

Fig. 7. Average monthly rainfall in A Sap basin from 2005 to 2015.

108 T.G. Pham et al. / International Soil and Water Conservation Research 6 (2018) 99–110
offers an additional income as well as prevents soil erosion,
especially in rainy season.
5.4. Integration GIS and USLE for soil erosion study in Central
Vietnam
The integration of GIS and USLE model is feasible to research on
soil erosion in Central Vietnam. All input data of USLE model is easily
accessible from website of Vietnam National Center for Hydro-Me-
teorological for rainfall, the US Geological Survey for DEM and sa-
tellite images, or from Natural Resources and Environment depart-
ment for land use map and soil characteristics. Our results are in line
with the experimental data collected by Ho (2000) and Tran (2012),
who conducted the soil erosion study in an area with similar natural
and land use conditions. They found that soil erosion rate in area for
perennial trees (such as forest trees and industrial trees) are more
severe than area for yearly crops or paddy field.
However, in the USLE model, P factor was calculated based on
the land use map 2015. This map was created from the cadastral
map, meaning that they mainly focus on land use purpose stated
by the government which does not account for the current status
of the surface cover. For example, some areas in the land use map
are marked as natural forest, although they may be plantation
forest or agricultural land. Therefore, this classification leads to
calculation errors for obtaining the P value, which explains why in
some natural forest areas it is not incorrectly higher than reality.
Furthermore, the rate of soil loss for some natural forests are is
higher than plantation forests based on the calculation errors due
to this classification.
6. Conclusions
We found that the average rate of soil loss of the A Sap river in
Central Vietnam is about 13 t ha
1 year
1. The soil loss rate in this
area is higher than other mountainous areas in Northern Vietnam
as a result of high terrain and rainfall.
Natural forest exhibit highest soil erosion approximate 19 t ha
1
year
1, whereas the soil erosion rate of plantation forest is con-
siderably less at about 7 t ha
1 year
1. This is attributed to the
higher slopes in natural forest compared to that of plantation forest
Integration of USLE model with additional data inside GIS helps
to examine the soil erosion estimation on river basin scale in
mountainous regions in Central Vietnam. All the material used for
USLE model is free and easy to access in Vietnam.
Land use mapping methods in Vietnam must undergo change
by focusing on land use purposes and current surface cover to
improve the accuracy in determining the P value.
Additionally, P and C factors in the USLE model must be im-
proved to minimize soil erosion risk. To reduce C factor, land users
should plant trees with broad leaves. Furthermore, redefining the
cultivation season and practicing intercropping are possible solu-
tions for soil erosion reductions in Central Vietnam.
Acknowledgements
We thank the Ministry of Education and Training of Vietnam
(MOET) for providing a scholarship to conduct this research. We
thank Department of Cartography, GIS and Remote Sensing, Göt-
tingen University for providing the ArcGIS software in the frame-
work of research. We are also thankful for the support of our
fieldwork assistants Mrs Chau Thi Minh Tran, Ms Nu Thi Ai Tran.
Finally, we cordially thank Mrs Huong Thi Thu Ha for the statistical
advice.
Declaration of interests
Conflicts of interest
None.
Declaration of submission and verification
This paper has not been published previously.
Funding
This work was funded by the Ministry of Education and
Training of Vietnam via providing the scholarship for the corre-
sponding author to go to study Ph.D. program in Göttingen Uni-
versity from April 2015 to April 2018.
Authors’ contributions
All authors contributed equally to this work. All authors dis-
cussed the results and implications and commented on the
manuscript at all stages.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in
the online version at doi:10.1016/j.iswcr.2018.01.001.
References
A Luoi Meteorological Station (2015). Annual Report (In Vietnamese).
Ali, S. A., & Hagos, H. (2016). Estimation of soil erosion using USLE and GIS in
Awassa Catchment, Rift valley, Central Ethiopia. Journal of Geoderma Regional, 7,
159–166.
Ashiagbor, G., Forkuo, E., Laari, P., & Aabeyir, R. (2013). Modeling soil erosion using
RUSLE and GIS tools. International Journal of Remote Sensing & Geoscience, 2(4),
7–17.
Bahrami, H. A., Vaghei, H. G., Vaghei, B. G., Tahmasbipour, N., & Tabari, T. F. (2005). A
new method for determining the soil erodibility factor based on fuzzy systems.
Journal of Agricultural Science Technology, 7, 115–123.
Bakker, M. M., Govers, G., Kosmas, C., Vanacker, V., Oost, K. V., & Rounsevell, M.
(2005). Soil erosion as driver of land use change. Journal of Agriculture, Eco-
systems and Environment, 105, 467–481.
Belasri, A., & Lakhouili, A. (2016). Estimation of soil erosion risk using the Universal
Soil Loss Equation (USLE) and Geo-Information Technology in Oued El Ma-
khazine Watershed, Morocco. Journal of Geographic Information System, 8,
98–107. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jgis.2016.81010.
Biggelaar, C. D., Lal, R., Wiebe, K., & Breneman, V. (2003). The global impact of soil
erosion on productivity: I: Absolute and relative erosion-induced yield losses.
Journal of Advances in Agronomy, 81, 1–48.
Biesemans, J., Van Meirvenne, M., & Gabriels, D. (2000). Extending the RUSLE with
the Monte Carlo error propagation technique to predict long-term average off-
site sediment accumulation. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 55(1),
35–42.
Bui, D. T. (2001). The economics of soil erosion and the choice of land use systems by
upland farmers in Central Vietnam. Economy and Environment Program for
Southeast Asia Singapore (ISBN 0889369739).
Desmet, P. J. J., & Govers, G. (1996). A GIS procedure for automatically calculating
 T.G. Pham et al. / International Soil and Water Conservation Research 6 (2018) 99–110
the USLE LS factor on topographically complex landscape units. Journal of Soil
and Water Conservation, 51(5), 427–433.
Durigon, V. L., Carvalho, D. F., Antunes, M. A. H., Oliveira, P. T. S., & Fernandes, M. M.
(2014). NDVI time series for monitoring RUSLE cover management factor in a
tropical watershed. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 35(2), 441–453.
Erskine, W. D., Mahmoudzadeh, A., & Myers, C. (2002). Land use effects on sediment
yields and soil loss rates in small basins of Triassic sandstone near Sydney,
NSW, Australia. Journal of Catena, 49(4), 271–287.
Fistikoglu, O., & Harmancioglu, N. B. (2002). Integration of GIS with USLE in as-
sessment of soil erosion. Journal of Water Resources Management, 16(6),
447–467.
Freeman, T. G. (1991). Calculating catchment area with divergent flow based on a
regular grid. Journal of Computers & Geosciences, 17(3), 413–422. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/0098-3004(91)90048-I.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the Unites Nations (2015). Soil change: Im-
pacts and responses. ISBN 978-92-5-109004-6.
Fu, B. J., Wang, J. F., Lu, Y. H., He, C. S., Chen, L. D., & Song, C. J. (2009). The effects of
land-use combinations on soil erosion: A case study in the Loess Plateau of
China. Progress in Physical Geography, 33(6), 793–804.
Gangcai, L., Jianhui, Z., Guanglong, T., & Chaofu, W. (2005). The effects of land uses
on purplish soil erosion in hilly area of Sichuan Province, China. Journal of
Mountain Science, 2(1), 68–75.
Garcia Ruiz, Jose M. (2010). The effects of land uses on soil erosion in Spain: A
review. Catena Journal, 81(1), 1–11.
Gitas, I. Z., Douros, K., Minakou, C., Silleos, G. N., & Karydas, C. G. (2009). Multi-
temporal soil erosion risk assessment in N. Chalkidiki using a modified USLE
raster model. EARSel eproceedings, 8, 40–52.
Gunawan, G., Sutjiningsih, D., Soeryantono, H., & Sulistioweni, W. (2013). Soil
erosion estimation based on GIS and remote sensing for supporting integrated
water resources conservation management. International Journal of Technology,
4(2), 147–156.
Ho, K. (2000). Soil erosion and Accumulation evaluation on some popular farming
systems on steep land in Huong river catchment, Thua Thien Hue province (Ph.D.
Dissertation). Vietnam: University of Ha Noi Agriculture (In Vietnamese).
Ighodaro, I. D., Lategan, F. S., & Yusuf, S. F. G. (2013). The impact of soil erosion on
agricultural potential and performance of Sheshegu community farmers in the
Eastern Cape of South Africa. Journal of Agricultural Science, 5(5), 140–147.
Jong, S. M. D. (1994). Derivation of vegetative variables from a landsat tm image for
modelling soil erosion. Journal of Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 19(2),
165–178.
Karamage, F., Shao, H., Chen, X., Ndayisaba, F., Nahayo, L., Kayiranga, A., … Zhang, C.
(2016). Deforestation effects on soil erosion in the Lake Kivu Basin, D.R. Congo-
Rwanda. Journal of Forests, 7(281).
Karaburun, A. (2010). Estimation of C factor for soil erosion Modeling using NDVI In
Buyukcekmece watershed. Ozeanistik Journal of Apply Sciences, 3(1), 77–85.
Kephart C. (2013). Lecture: Interpret Regression Coefficient Estimates. Accessed on
24 October 2017. 〈http://www.cazaar.com/ta/econ113/interpreting-beta〉.
Kim, S. H., & Julien, P. Y. (2006). Soil erosion modeling using RUSLE and GIS on the
MIHA watershed. Water Engineering Research Journal, 7(1), 29–41.
Knijff, J. M., Jones, R. J. A., & Montanarella, L. (2000). Soil erosion risk assessment in
Europe. Joint Research Centre, European Commission, EUR 19044 EN.
Kuok, K. K. K., Mah, D. Y. S., & Chiu, P. C. (2013). Evaluation of C and P factors in
universal soil loss equation on trapping sediment: Case study of Santubong
River. Journal of Water Resource and Protection, 5, 1149–1154.
Lal, R. (2001). Soil degradation by erosion. Journal of Land Degradation & Develop-
ment, 12(6), 519–539.
Lai, V. C. (2011). Soil erosion study by using RUSLE models (A case study in Quang
tri province, central Vietnam). VNU Journal of Science, Earth Sciences, 27,
191–198.
Littleboy, M., Freebairn, D. M., Hammer, G. L., & Silburn, D. M. (1992). Impact of soil
erosion on production in cropping systems.II. Simulation of production and
erosion risks for a wheat cropping system. Journal of Australian Soil Research, 30
(5), 775–788.
Liu, B. Y., Nearing, M. A., & Risse, L. M. (1994). Slope gradient effects on soil loss for
steep slopes. Transactions of American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 37(6),
1835–1840.
Liu, B. Y., Nearing, M. A., Shi, P. J., & Jia, Z. W. (2000). Slope length effects on soil loss
for steep slopes. Journal of Soil Science Society of America, 64, 1759–1763. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2000.6451759x.
Liu, H., Fohrer, N., Hörmann, G., & Kiesel, J. (2009). Suitability of S factor algorithms
for soil loss estimation at gently sloped landscapes. Journal of Catena, 77(3),
248–255.
Lufafa, A., Tenywa, M. M., Isabirye, M., Majaliwa, M. J. G., & Woome, P. L. (2003).
Prediction of soil erosion in a Lake Victoria basin catchment using a GIS-based
Universal soil Loss model. Journal of Agricultural Systems, 76, 883–894.
Mai, V. T. (2007). Soil erosion and nitrogen leaching in northern Vietnam: Experi-
mentation and modelling (Ph.D. Dissertation). The Netherlands: University of
Wageningen.
Mc Cool, D. K., Brown, L. C., Foster, G. R., Mutchler, C. K., & Meyer, L. D. (1987).
Revised slope steepness factor for universal soil loss equation. Transactions of
American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 30(5), 1387–1396.
Menard, S. (2011). Standards for standardized logistic regression coefficients.
Journal of Social Forces, 89(4), 1409–1428.
Mitasova, H., Hofierka, J., Zlocha, M., & Iverson, L. R. (1996). Modelling topographic
potential for erosion and deposition using GIS. Journal of Geographical In-
formation Systems, 10(5), 629–641. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
109
02693799608902101.
Mitasova, H., & Mitas, L. (1999). Multiscale soil erosion simulations for land use
management, in landscape erosion and evolution modeling. Boston: Publisher
Springer (ISBN978-1-4613-5139-9).
Ministry of Science and Technology Vietnam (2009). Soil quality – Method for de-
termination of soil erosion by rain (p. 2009) Hanoi, Vietnam: National Standard
Document.
Millward, A. A., & Mersey, J. E. (1999). Adapting the RUSLE to model soil erosion
potential in a mountainous tropical watershed. Journal of Catena, 38(2),
109–129.
Moore, I. D., & Wilson, J. P. (1992). Length-slope factors for the revised universal soil
loss equation: Simplified method of estimation. Journal of Soil and Water Con-
servation, 47(5), 423–428.
Morgan, R. P. C., & Nearing, M. A. (2011). Handbook of erosion modelling. Blackwell
Publishing (ISBN 9781444328455).
Natural Resources and Environment Department of A Luoi (2015). Annual Report (In
Vietnamese).
Nearing, M. A. (1997). A single, continuous function for slope steepness influence
on soil loss. Journal of Soil Science Society of America, 61(3), 917–919.
Nguyen, N. B., & Nguyen, H. K. L. (2014). Basin resources management: Simulating
soil erosion risk by soil and water assessment tool (SWAT) in Ta Trach river
watershed, central Vietnam. Journal of Vietnamese Environment, 6(2), 165–170.
Nguyen M. H. (2009). Spatial Modeling for Soil erosion in Chay basin, in Vietnam.
Proceedings of the 7th Regional conference: Spatial Data Serving People: Land
Governance and the Environment – Building the Capacity. Hanoi, Vietnam, 19–
22 October 2009.
Nguyen M. H. (2011). Application USLE and GIS tool to predict Soil Erosion Potential
and Proposal Land Cover Solutions to reduce Soil Loss in Tay Nguyen. Pro-
ceedings of FIG conference: Bridging the Gap between Cultures. Marrakech,
Morocco, 18–22 May 2011.
Nguyen, T. H. (1996). Identify the factors effect to soil erosion and forecast soil erosion
on slope land (Ph.D. Dissertation). Vietnam: Water Resources University of
Vietnam (Thuyloi University) (In Vietnamese).
Nguyen, T. M. H. (2015). Mapping soil erosion risk and propose models of agricultural
production affordable for Ba District, Ha Giang Province (Master thesis). Vietnam
National University (In Vietnamese).
Nguyen, T. S., & Thai, P. (1999). Upland soils in Vietnam: Degradation and re-
habilitation. Ha Noi, Vietnam: Agricultural Publishing House (In Vietnamese).
Oliveira, A. H., Aparecida da Silva, M., Leandro Naves Silva, M., Curi, N., Neto, G. K., &
França de Freitas, D. A. (2013). Development of topographic factor modeling for
application in soil erosion models in soil processes and current trends in quality
assessment. InTech (ISBN 978-953-51-1029-3).
Panagos, P., Borrelli, P., & Meusburger, K. (2015). A new European slope length and
sSteepness factor (LS-factor) for modeling soil erosion by water. Journal of
Geosciences, 5, 117–126.
Parveen, R., & Kumar, U. (2012). Integrated approach of universal soil loss
equation (USLE) and geographical information system (GIS) for soil loss risk
assessment in upper south Koel Basin, Jharkhand. Journal of Geographic In-
formation System, 4(6), 588–596.
Patil R. J., Sharma S. K. (2013). Remote Sensing and GIS based modeling of crop/
cover management factor (C) of USLE in Shakker river watershed. Proceedings
of International Conference on Chemical, Agricultural and Medical Sciences
(CAMS-2013). Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 29-30 December 2013.
Pimentel, D. (2006). Soil erosion: A food and environmental threat. Journal of En-
vironment, Development and Sustainability, 8(1), 119–137.
Pham H. T. (2008). Soil erosion risk modeling within upland landscapes using re-
motely sensed data and the RUSLE model (A case study in Huong Tra district,
Thua Thien Hue province, Vietnam). International Symposium on Geoinfor-
matics for Spatial Infrastructure Development in Earth and Allied Sciences.
Hanoi, Vietnam, 4–6 December 2008.
Pham V. T., Le T. T. (2010). A Research on Erosion and Counter-Measure of Soil
Erosion by Water Using GIS Technology. International Symposium on Geoin-
formatics for Spatial Infrastructure Development in Earth and Allied Sciences.
Hanoi, Vietnam, 9–11 December 2010.
Renard, K. G., Foster, G. R., Weesies, G. A., McCool, D. K., & Youder, D. C. (1997).
Predicting soil erosion by water: A guide to conservation planning with the revised
universal soil loss equation (RUSLE). USDA (Agriculture Handbook Number 703).
Remortel, R. D. V., Hamilton, M. E., & Hickey, R. J. (2001). Estimating the LS factor for
RUSLE through iterative slope length processing of digital elevation data within
arclnfo grid. Journal of Cartography, 30(1), 27–35.
Ristić R., Kostadinov S., Boris Radić, Trivan G., Nikić Z. (2012). Torrential Floods In
Serbia – Man Made And Natural Hazards. Conference Proceedings of 12th
Congress INTERPRAEVENT 2012 – Grenoble / France, pp 771–779.
Shabani, F., Kumar, L., & Esmaeili, A. (2014). Improvement to the prediction of the
USLE K factor. Journal of Geomorphology, 201(1), 229–234.
Sheikh, A. H., Palria, S., & Alam, A. (2011). Integration of GIS and Universal soil loss
equation (USLE) for soil loss estimation in a Himalayan watershed. Journal of
Recent Research in Science and Technology, 3(3), 51–57.
Shin, G. J. (1999). The analysis of soil erosion analysis in watershed using GIS (Ph.D.
Dissertation). Department of Civil Engineering, Gang-won National University.
Simms A. D., Woodroffe C. D., Jones B. G. (2003). Application of RUSLE for erosion
management in a coastal catchment, southern NSW, in Proceedings of MODSIM
2003: International Congress on Modelling and Simulation, Vol 2, Integrative
Modelling of Biophysical, Social and Economic Systems for Resource Manage-
ment Solutions, Townsville, Queensland, 14-17 July 2003, pp 678–683.
Stone, R. P., & Hilborn, D. (2012). Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) factsheets.
110 T.G. Pham et al. / International Soil and Water Conservation Research 6 (2018) 99–110
ISRIC Library (ISBN 1198-712x).
Tiwari, A. K., Risse, L. M., & Nearing, M. A. (2000). Evaluation of WEPP and its
comparison with USLE and RUSLE. Transactions of the American Society of
Agricultural Engineers, 43(5), 1129–1135.
Tran D. T., Thai P., La N., Do D. P., Nguyen V. G. (2000). Soil erosion Management at
the Watershed level for Sustainable Agriculture and Forestry in Vietnam. Pro-
ceedings of the 5th Management of Soil erosion consortium (MSEC) Assembly:
Soil erosion management research in Asian catchments: Methodological ap-
proaches and initial results. Central Java, Indonesia, 7–11 November 2000.
Tran, Q. V. (2012). Application GIS and remote sensing to evaluate soil erosion in Tam
Nong district, Phu Tho province (Ph.D. Dissertation). Vietnam: University of Ha
Noi Agriculture (In Vietnamese).
Tran, Q. V., Dang, H. V., & Dao, C. T. (2011). Application of Remote Sensing and
Geographic Information System in evaluating soil erosion. A Case study in Tam
Nong district, Phu Tho province. Journal of Sciences and Development, Hanoi
Agriculture University, 9(5), 823–833 (In Vietnamese).
Tran, T. P., Chau, V. T. T., Nguyen, B. N., & Huynh, V. C. (2014). Modeling soil erosion
within small mountainous watershed in central Vietnam using GIS and SWAT.
Journal of Resources and Environment, 4(3), 139–147.
Trinh, C. T. (2015). Soil erosion in Vietnam (The case of Buon Yong catchment).
Scholars Press (ISBN 978-3-639-51692-0).
Trinh, L. H., Vu, D. T., & Do, N. H. (2015). Evaluation of soil erosion risk using remote
sensing and GIS data (A case study: Lang Chanh district, Thanh Hoa province,
Vietnam). Journal of Vestnick OrelGAU, 4(55), 57–64.
Vezina, K., Bonn, F., & Pham, V. C. (2006). Agricultural land-use patterns and soil
erosion vulnerability of watershed units in Vietnam's northern highlands.
Journal of Landscape Ecology, 21(8), 1311–1325.
Vu, T. D. (2015). Soil conservation methods and their impact on nitrogen cycling and
competition on maize cropping systems on steep slopes in Northwest Vietnam (Ph.
D. Dissertation). Germany: University of Hohenheim.
Wang, G., Jiang, H., Xu, Z., Wang, L., & Yue, W. (2012). Evaluating the effect of land
use changes on soil erosion and sediment yield using a grid-based distributed
modelling approach. Journal of Hydrological Process, 26(23), 3579–3592. http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1002/hyp.9193.
Saowanee, Wijitkosum (2012). Impacts of land use changes on soil erosion in Pa
Deng Sub-district, adjacent area of Kaeng Krachan National Park, Thailand. Soil
and Water Research Journal, 7(1), 10–17.
Wischmeier, W. H., & Smith, D. D. (1978). Predicting rainfall erosion losses—a guide to
conservation planning. U.S. Department of Agriculture (Agriculture Handbook
No. 537).
Wenner, C. G. (1980). Soil Conservation in Kenya: Especially in Small-scale farming in
High potential areas using labor intensive methods. Wageningen The Nether-
lands: ISRIC Library.
Yu, B., & Rosewell, C. J. (1996). A robust estimator of the R-factor for the universal
soil loss equation. Transactions of American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 39
(2), 559–561.
Zhang, H., Yang, Q., Li, R., Liu, Q., Moore, D., He, P., … Geissen, V. (2013). Extension of
a GIS procedure for calculating the RUSLE equation LS factor. Journal of Com-
puters & Geosciences, 52, 177–188.