Effectiveness of the strategies to combat land degradation and drought

Salinas, C. X. and Mendieta, J., 2013. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change

Original research (primary data)
View External Publication Link

Abstract

This paper focuses on the determination of the most effective set of mitigation and adaptation strategies applied to combat land degradation and drought in a latitudinal gradient. This study was carried out in Chile, in a latitude gradient between 17A degrees 30’S and 36A degrees 33’S. The northern regions are mostly formed by desert and dry land, which can be considered as marginal areas for agriculture. On the other hand, the area formed by the southern regions has an industrialized agriculture where an increased use of technology takes place and where the climate and water availability are optimal for the development of agriculture. The period considered in this study was between 2000 and 2007. We calculated an Investment Effectiveness Index. Afterwards, and in order to assess the effectiveness of the financial support, we performed multiple regressions (P a parts per thousand currency signaEuro parts per thousand 0.05), where the Index was considered as the independent variable, and the annual difference of the area affected by a high risk of desertification was considered as the dependent variable. Our findings suggest that the effectiveness of the different set of the strategies applied to fight against desertification and drought varies in a latitudinal gradient. Thus, in arid and hyper arid areas the promotion of modern irrigation systems seems to be effective in combating desertification, while in Mediterranean climates the reforestation strategies seem to play an important role. Our results suggest that in areas heavily degraded by overgrazing, the most effective strategies are those oriented to obtain a permanent vegetation cover on degraded soils.

Case studies

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-054-3
  • Intervention type: Created habitats
  • Intervention description:

    reforestation of lands with the purpose of encouraging the recovery of degraded forest lands: -Afforestation, land reclamation and/or stabilization of dunes on fragile soils, and in lands in process of desertification, or in degraded soils with great slopes. -Afforestation and sand dune stabilization in soils suitable for forestry. -Management of forests planted on land suitable for forestry. -Supporting smallholders for afforestation and forest management of stands planted on soils suitable for forestry

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Desertification  Positive inter annual difference of the area affected by a high risk of desertification
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    north-central Chile within biome of Mediterranean shrubs and Forests

  • Country: Chile
  • Habitat/Biome type: Created forest |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: effectiveness evaluated based on change over time - i.e. reduction in desertification from year to year unclear economic cost comparison to alternatives because they assess the costs of each (as part of the economic appraisal) but do simply do a cost comparison. So effectiveness here is interpreted as the relationship between investment and change in area exposed to high risk of desertification We are interpreting this as an economic appraisal because the objective is to determine how effective financial investments in a given strategy are to address land degradation. So the cost effectiveness of the investment depends on the latitude/region In the arid dry areas promoting irrigation is more cost effective In the wetter Mediterranean regions, reforestation is more cost effective
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Combination of another NbS, engineered and other non-NbS approach(s)



  • Compare effectivness?: Yes
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: More effective
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures:
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures:
  • Considers economic costs: Yes
  • Economic appraisal conducted: Yes
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: Yes
  • Compared to an alternative: Unclear

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-054-2
  • Intervention type: Created habitats
  • Intervention description:

    reforestation of lands with the purpose of encouraging the recovery of degraded forest lands: -Afforestation, land reclamation and/or stabilization of dunes on fragile soils, and in lands in process of desertification, or in degraded soils with great slopes. -Afforestation and sand dune stabilization in soils suitable for forestry. -Management of forests planted on land suitable for forestry. -Supporting smallholders for afforestation and forest management of stands planted on soils suitable for forestry

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Desertification  No effect inter annual difference of the area affected by a high risk of desertification
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    north-central Chile within biome of Tropical and subtropical grasslands

  • Country: Chile
  • Habitat/Biome type: Created forest |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: effectiveness evaluated based on change over time - i.e. reduction in desertification from year to year unclear economic cost comparison to alternatives because they assess the costs of each (as part of the economic appraisal) but do simply do a cost comparison. So effectiveness here is interpreted as the relationship between investment and change in area exposed to high risk of desertification We are interpreting this as an economic appraisal because the objective is to determine how effective financial investments in a given strategy are to address land degradation. So the cost effectiveness of the investment depends on the latitude/region In the arid dry areas promoting irrigation is more cost effective In the wetter Mediterranean regions, reforestation is more cost effective
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Combination of another NbS, engineered and other non-NbS approach(s)



  • Compare effectivness?: Yes
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Less effective
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures:
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures:
  • Considers economic costs: Yes
  • Economic appraisal conducted: Yes
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: Yes
  • Compared to an alternative: Unclear

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic:

Basic information

  • Case ID: INT-054-1
  • Intervention type: Created habitats
  • Intervention description:

    reforestation of lands with the purpose of encouraging the recovery of degraded forest lands: -Afforestation, land reclamation and/or stabilization of dunes on fragile soils, and in lands in process of desertification, or in degraded soils with great slopes. -Afforestation and sand dune stabilization in soils suitable for forestry. -Management of forests planted on land suitable for forestry. -Supporting smallholders for afforestation and forest management of stands planted on soils suitable for forestry

  • Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes
  • Climate change impacts Effect of Nbs on CCI Effect measures
    Desertification  No effect inter annual difference of the area affected by a high risk of desertification
  • Approach implemented in the field: Yes
  • Specific location:

    Atacama Desert, north-central Chile

  • Country: Chile
  • Habitat/Biome type: Created forest |
  • Issue specific term: Not applicable

Evidence

  • Notes on intervention effectivness: effectiveness evaluated based on change over time - i.e. reduction in desertification from year to year unclear economic cost comparison to alternatives because they assess the costs of each (as part of the economic appraisal) but do simply do a cost comparison. So effectiveness here is interpreted as the relationship between investment and change in area exposed to high risk of desertification We are interpreting this as an economic appraisal because the objective is to determine how effective financial investments in a given strategy are to address land degradation. So the cost effectiveness of the investment depends on the latitude/region In the arid dry areas promoting irrigation is more cost effective In the wetter Mediterranean regions, reforestation is more cost effective
  • Is the assessment original?: Yes
  • Broadtype of intervention considered: Combination of another NbS, engineered and other non-NbS approach(s)



  • Compare effectivness?: Yes
  • Compared to the non-NBS approach: Same
  • Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
  • Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: No
  • Impacts for the ecosystem: Not reported
  • Ecosystem measures:
  • Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: No
  • Impacts for people: Not reported
  • People measures:
  • Considers economic costs: Yes
  • Economic appraisal conducted: Yes
  • Economic appraisal described:
  • Economic costs of alternative considered: Yes
  • Compared to an alternative: Unclear

Evaluation methodology

  • Type of data: Quantitative
  • Is it experimental: No
  • Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
  • Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
  • Study is systematic: