IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v119y2022ics0264837722002125.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Vegetation loss and recovery analysis from the 2015 Gorkha earthquake (7.8 Mw) triggered landslides

Author

Listed:
  • Pandey, Hari Prasad
  • Gnyawali, Kaushal
  • Dahal, Kshitij
  • Pokhrel, Narayan Prasad
  • Maraseni, Tek Narayan

Abstract

The 2015 Gorkha earthquake (7.8 Mw) triggered thousands of landslides in the highlands of central Nepal, causing widespread vegetation damage. After the earthquake, several attempts were made by the government to recover damaged vegetation; however, the efficacy of artificial restoration (from public finance) vs. self-ecological restoration is unknown. We analyze the vegetation recovery process of the areas impacted by the 2015 Gorkha earthquake landslides with a dual-lens: (1) remote sensing and (2) public finance and policy. Using remote sensing, Vegetation Recovery Rate (VRR) is estimated from the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) from Landsat imagery between 2015 and 2021. Then public finance data is analyzed to compare the efficacy of vegetation recovery from the artificial vs. self-ecological restoration. The study examines fourteen severely impacted districts from the Gorkha earthquake in 2015. Out of 24,826 landslides triggered by the earthquake, ~95% of vegetation damage was caused by 13,670 large landslides (with area >0.09 ha). A total of 8651.58 ha of vegetation was lost due to landslides induced by the 2015 Gorkha earthquake. About 4442 ha (51%) of such lost vegetation has been restored so far. Only 9.5% of this restored vegetation was due to artificial restoration, while the remaining 90.5% was by self-ecological restoration process in protected areas. Furthermore, VRR analysis showed that at least nine years are required to restore vegetation cover to the pre-earthquake level (R2 =0.91). The government had invested 3.73 million USD in this duration for artificial restoration. Our findings suggest that strict protection promotes self-ecological restoration, an effective tract for vegetation recovery, over artificial interventions. Findings provide insights for plausible decision-making in restoring lost vegetation due to earthquake-triggered landslides.

Suggested Citation

  • Pandey, Hari Prasad & Gnyawali, Kaushal & Dahal, Kshitij & Pokhrel, Narayan Prasad & Maraseni, Tek Narayan, 2022. "Vegetation loss and recovery analysis from the 2015 Gorkha earthquake (7.8 Mw) triggered landslides," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:119:y:2022:i:c:s0264837722002125
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106185
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837722002125
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106185?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Acharya, Ram Prasad & Maraseni, Tek & Cockfield, Geoff, 2019. "Global trend of forest ecosystem services valuation – An analysis of publications," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    2. Bartkowski, Bartosz & Lienhoop, Nele & Hansjürgens, Bernd, 2015. "Capturing the complexity of biodiversity: A critical review of economic valuation studies of biological diversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 1-14.
    3. Dislich, Claudia & Huth, Andreas, 2012. "Modelling the impact of shallow landslides on forest structure in tropical montane forests," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 239(C), pages 40-53.
    4. Laudari, Hari Krishna & Aryal, Kishor & Maraseni, Tek, 2020. "A postmortem of forest policy dynamics of Nepal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Smith, Alexander C. & Hurni, Kaspar & Fox, Jefferson & Van Den Hoek, Jamon, 2023. "Community forest management led to rapid local forest gain in Nepal: A 29 year mixed methods retrospective case study," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    2. Zongpan Bian & Dongdong Zhang & Jun Xu & Hongtao Tang & Zhuoli Bai & Yan Li, 2022. "Study on the Evolution Law of Surface Landscape Pattern in Earthquake-Stricken Areas by Remote Sensing: A Case Study of Jiuzhaigou County, Sichuan Province," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-23, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Aryal, Kishor & Maraseni, Tek & Apan, Armando, 2023. "Examining policy−institution−program (PIP) responses against the drivers of ecosystem dynamics. A chronological review (1960–2020) from Nepal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    2. Frings, Oliver & Abildtrup, Jens & Montagné-Huck, Claire & Gorel, Salomé & Stenger, Anne, 2023. "Do individual PES buyers care about additionality and free-riding? A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    3. van der Hoff, Richard & Nascimento, Nathália & Fabrício-Neto, Ailton & Jaramillo-Giraldo, Carolina & Ambrosio, Geanderson & Arieira, Julia & Afonso Nobre, Carlos & Rajão, Raoni, 2022. "Policy-oriented ecosystem services research on tropical forests in South America: A systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    4. Maraseni, Tek & Poudyal, Bishnu Hari & Aryal, Kishor & Laudari, Hari Krishna, 2022. "Impact of COVID-19 in the forestry sector: A case of lowland region of Nepal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    5. Beichen Ge & Congjin Wang & Yuhong Song, 2023. "Ecosystem Services Research in Rural Areas: A Systematic Review Based on Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-18, March.
    6. Alamanos, Angelos & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2022. "Economics of Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Water Resource Planning and Management," MPRA Paper 122046, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Bohn, Friedrich J. & Frank, Karin & Huth, Andreas, 2014. "Of climate and its resulting tree growth: Simulating the productivity of temperate forests," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 278(C), pages 9-17.
    8. Michael Getzner & Barbara Färber & Claudia Yamu, 2016. "2D Versus 3D: The Relevance of the Mode of Presentation for the Economic Valuation of an Alpine Landscape," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-16, June.
    9. Fujino, Masaya & Kuriyama, Koichi & Yoshida, Kentaro, 2017. "An evaluation of the natural environment ecosystem preservation policies in Japan," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 62-67.
    10. Minna Havukainen & Mirja Mikkilä & Helena Kahiluoto, 2022. "Climate Policy Reform in Nepal through the Lenses of the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-21, June.
    11. Meinard, Yves & Remy, Alice & Schmid, Bernhard, 2017. "Measuring Impartial Preference for Biodiversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 45-54.
    12. Dehuan Li & Wei Sun & Fan Xia & Yixuan Yang & Yujing Xie, 2021. "Can Habitat Quality Index Measured Using the InVEST Model Explain Variations in Bird Diversity in an Urban Area?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-27, May.
    13. Mercado, Waldemar & Vásquez Lavín, Felipe & Ubillus, Karina & Orihuela, Carlos Enrique, 2020. "¿Es relevante la biodiversidad en la decisión de visita a los parques nacionales en el Perú?," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 20(02), December.
    14. Mergenthaler, Marcus & Schröter, Iris, 2020. "Institutionelle Grenzen und Perspektiven bei der ökonomischen Bewertung und der Bereitstellung von Tierwohl," 60th Annual Conference, Halle/ Saale, Germany, September 23-25, 2020 305598, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    15. Márquez, Laura Andreina Matos & Rezende, Eva Caroline Nunes & Machado, Karine Borges & Nascimento, Emilly Layne Martins do & Castro, Joana D'arc Bardella & Nabout, João Carlos, 2023. "Trends in valuation approaches for cultural ecosystem services: A systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    16. Ullah, Ayat & Zeb, Alam & Saqib, Shahab E. & Kächele, Harald, 2022. "Landscape co-management and livelihood sustainability: Lessons learned from the billion trees afforestation project in Pakistan," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    17. Wei, Ruhao & Fan, Yanmin & Wu, Hongqi & Zheng, Kai & Fan, Jie & Liu, Zhuo & Xuan, Junwei & Zhou, Jien, 2024. "The value of ecosystem services in arid and semi-arid regions: A multi-scenario analysis of land use simulation in the Kashgar region of Xinjiang," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 488(C).
    18. Taye, Fitalew Agimass & Folkersen, Maja Vinde & Fleming, Christopher M. & Buckwell, Andrew & Mackey, Brendan & Diwakar, K.C. & Le, Dung & Hasan, Syezlin & Ange, Chantal Saint, 2021. "The economic values of global forest ecosystem services: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    19. Sebastian Scheuer & Dagmar Haase & Annegret Haase & Nadja Kabisch & Manuel Wolff & Nina Schwarz & Katrin Großmann, 2020. "Combining tacit knowledge elicitation with the SilverKnETs tool and random forests – The example of residential housing choices in Leipzig," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 47(3), pages 400-416, March.
    20. Laudari, Hari Krishna & Aryal, Kishor & Maraseni, Tek & Pariyar, Shiva & Pant, Basant & Bhattarai, Sushma & Kaini, Tika Raj & Karki, Gyanendra & Marahattha, Anisha, 2022. "Sixty-five years of forest restoration in Nepal: Lessons learned and way forward," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:119:y:2022:i:c:s0264837722002125. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.