UNCCD 2nd Scientific Conference

1. Spatial variation in costs of sustainable
land management technologies – a review
Luuk Fleskens
UNCCD 2nd Scientific Conference
Economic assessment of desertification, sustainable land
management and resilience of arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas
10 April 2013, Bonn, Germany

2. Sustainable
Overview land management (SLM)
• Often requires investment
• Almost always takes time to
develop beneficial effects
• Variability in investment costs
matters
www.desire-his.eu

3. Cost variability
Overview effects of environmental conditions
i. Slope
• spacing for line interventions
• soil movement requirements (terraces)
• type of construction mechanisms
• loss of effective area for cultivation
ii. Soil type (texture, depth)
• workability (labour and machine input)
• stability of risers
iii. Land use
• initial condition/local availability resources
• severity of land degradation (temporal effect)
iv. Combinations of environmental conditions
• interactions of e.g. slope and soil texture, or slope and
soil depth

4. Cost variability
Overview effects of location
Plot location often found to be of importance in
explaining adoption patterns of SLM technologies
i. Labour
• manpower major component of SLM investment labour
opportunity costs are difficult to establish (often assumed
to be zero) but important
• often near homesteads where high value crop production
is concentrated and labour opportunity costs are lowest
ii. Material inputs (commodities/non-commodities)
• Availability building materials (stones, poles) depends on
position in landscape; due to bulky nature difficult to
transport over long distances.
• Many commodities to be purchased from markets;
location affects market price and transport costs.

5. as follows:
Overview data for variability investment cost
Example (1)
Tenge et al. 2005. Appl Geog 25: 348-365

6. as follows:
Overview mapping spatial variability investment cost
Example (1)
The standard cost reported for TUN11 is 50 US$
ha-1 for fencing. An allowance was made for
transport costs of fencing material (up to
US$3.36) and slope (up to US$3.00). The
resulting map of investment costs ranges from
US$ 50.11 (blue) – US$ 54.91 (red)
Cost of different types
of SLM measures (Eur/ha)
TUN11 Rangeland resting

7. as follows:
Overviewassessment spatial variability investment cost
Impact (1)
as follows:
𝐼𝑁𝑉𝑆 = 𝑈𝑆$1,823 ∗ 𝑆/30 (1
In Yanhe river basin, China bench terraces are applicable in
3,732 km2
The average cost is $1,591 ± $717
Subtracting mean from calculated cost, we can reduce spatial
variability by multiplying by fractions 0.75, 0.5, 0.25 and 0.

8. as follows:
Effect of
Overview spatial variability of investment cost
(1)
60%
Financial viability (% applicable area)
Investment cost Relative level of spatial cost 50%
(US$) variability 40%
0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1 30%
20%
Maximum 1,591 2,488 3,386 4,284 5,182
10%
Minimum 1,591 1,196 801 406 12
0%
St. deviation 0 179 359 538 717 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Relative level of spatial cost variability
0 - 25
25 - 50
0 - 25
50 - 100 0 - 25 0 - 25 0 - 25
25 - 50
100 - 250 25 - 50 25 - 50 25 - 50
50 - 100
250 - 500 50 - 100 50 - 100 50 - 100
100 - 250
500 - 750 100 - 250 100 - 250 100 - 250
250 - 500
250 - 500 250 - 500 250 - 500
500 - 750
500 - 750 500 - 750 500 - 750
0
0-0.2
0 0
0.2-0.5
0-0.2 0-0.2
0.5-1
0.2-0.5 0.2-0.5
1-2
0.5-1 0.5-1
2-5
1-2 1-2
5-10
2-5 2-5
10-20
5-10 5-10
20-50
10-20 10-20
> 50
20-50 20-50
> 50 > 50

9. Bottleneck
Overview III: Scale and circumstances

10. Bottleneck
Overview III: Scale and circumstances

11. Conclusions
Overview
1. Spatial variation in investment costs of SLM technologies and distance to
markets play a key role in defining appropriate SLM strategies and
policies. Explicit studies of variations in costs are scarce.
2. SLM projects, institutions and stakeholders at all levels could be engaged
in better documenting the variability of investment costs of SLM
technologies, ideally in connection with M&E of impacts.
3. Such data are invaluable for modelling approaches that are bound to
become more important in making ex-post and ex-ante assessments of
the viability of SLM technologies.
4. Evidence for spatial variability of investment costs will inform model
assessments of SLM viability. Such assessments have an important role
to play in assessing the potential for upscaling of SLM
5. Through partnerships and data-sharing multi-level impacts can best be
achieved, and links between remote locations with similar land
degradation concerns harnessed.

12. Overview
l.fleskens@leeds.ac.uk