IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/masjnl/v8y2014i4p195.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Handling Water through Irrigation Watershed Management for Coping with Stream Pollution Dilution in Phetchaburi River, Thailand

Author

Listed:
  • Soulivanh Vorovong
  • Kasem Chunkao
  • Surat Baulert

Abstract

The research was aimed to find means how to handle water at Phetchaburi diversion dam for coping with stream pollution in Phetchaburi River through irrigation watershed management. There eight sampling points for collecting water samples since the year of 2002 to 2013 for analyzing water quality in relation to release water flow in consecutive velocity of 22.4, 100, and 377m3/s in order to obtain the better diluted stream water. Accordance with the same trends of water quality indicators, this study was taken in BOD and DO as the representatives for determining the role of flow velocity in dilution capability. The results found that the BOD were gradually decreased from Phetchaburi diversion dam all the way to agricultural zone and jumping up during passing the city zone, and still jumping up in estuarine zone. Whenever the BOD decreases, the DO values were also decreased because of bacterial organic digestion process occurring while it flows except very high flow velocity. The flow velocity not more than 30 m3/s is recommended to release from Phetchaburi diversion dam for eliminating stream pollution by dilution process.

Suggested Citation

  • Soulivanh Vorovong & Kasem Chunkao & Surat Baulert, 2014. "Handling Water through Irrigation Watershed Management for Coping with Stream Pollution Dilution in Phetchaburi River, Thailand," Modern Applied Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 8(4), pages 195-195, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:ibn:masjnl:v:8:y:2014:i:4:p:195
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/mas/article/download/35545/21323
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/mas/article/view/35545
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Loomis, John & Kent, Paula & Strange, Liz & Fausch, Kurt & Covich, Alan, 2000. "Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 103-117, April.
    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. Wiboon Mahasinpaisarn & Kasem Chunkao & Wit Tanchalanukit & Paiboon Prabhuddham & Onanong Phewnil & Kittichai Duangmal & Chulabuut Chantrasoon & Noppawan Semvimol & Thanit Pattamapitoon & Watcharapong, 2015. "Appropriate Discharge from Diversion Dam to Dilute High Concentrated Community Wastewater of Riverbank Settlements along Phetchaburi River in Phetchaburi Province, Thailand," Modern Applied Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 9(11), pages 1-18, 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. Hackbart, Vivian C.S. & de Lima, Guilherme T.N.P. & dos Santos, Rozely F., 2017. "Theory and practice of water ecosystem services valuation: Where are we going?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 218-227.
    2. Gurluk, Serkan, 2006. "The estimation of ecosystem services' value in the region of Misi Rural Development Project: Results from a contingent valuation survey," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 209-218, December.
    3. Chopra, Vasudha & Das, Sukanya, 2019. "Estimating Willingness to Pay for Wastewater Treatment in New Delhi: Contingent Valuation Approach," Ecology, Economy and Society - the INSEE Journal, Indian Society of Ecological Economics (INSEE), vol. 2(02), July.
    4. Lopez-Feldman, Alejandro, 2012. "Introduction to contingent valuation using Stata," MPRA Paper 41018, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Frélichová, Jana & Vačkář, David & Pártl, Adam & Loučková, Blanka & Harmáčková, Zuzana V. & Lorencová, Eliška, 2014. "Integrated assessment of ecosystem services in the Czech Republic," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 110-117.
    6. Kaiser, Nina N. & Ghermandi, Andrea & Feld, Christian K. & Hershkovitz, Yaron & Palt, Martin & Stoll, Stefan, 2021. "Societal benefits of river restoration – Implications from social media analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    7. Kousky, Carolyn & Walls, Margaret, 2014. "Floodplain conservation as a flood mitigation strategy: Examining costs and benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 119-128.
    8. Neville D Crossman & Jeffrey D Connor & Brett A Bryan & David A Summers & John Ginnivan, 2009. "Reconfiguring an Irrigation Landscape to Improve Provision of Ecosystem Services," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2009-07, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
    9. Gómez, Carlos M. & Pérez-Blanco, C. Dionisio & Batalla, Ramon J., 2014. "The Flushing Flow Cost: A Prohibitive River Restoration Alternative? The Case of the Lower Ebro River," Climate Change and Sustainable Development 179003, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    10. Karen T. Lourdes & Chris N. Gibbins & Perrine Hamel & Ruzana Sanusi & Badrul Azhar & Alex M. Lechner, 2021. "A Review of Urban Ecosystem Services Research in Southeast Asia," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-21, January.
    11. Warziniack, Travis W. & Finnoff, David & Shogren, Jason F., 2013. "Public economics of hitchhiking species and tourism-based risk to ecosystem services," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 277-294.
    12. Tumaneng-Diete, Tessie & Page, Ashley & Binney, Jim, 2005. "Assessing the economic values of exotic invasive plants on areas of conservation significance in Queensland," 2005 Conference (49th), February 9-11, 2005, Coff's Harbour, Australia 139287, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    13. Richardson, Robert B., 2011. "Ecosystem Services and Food Security: Economic Perspectives on Environmental Sustainability," Food Security International Development Working Papers 98782, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    14. Ik-Chang Choi & Hyun No Kim & Hio-Jung Shin & John Tenhunen & Trung Thanh Nguyen, 2017. "Economic Valuation of the Aquatic Biodiversity Conservation in South Korea: Correcting for the Endogeneity Bias in Contingent Valuation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-20, June.
    15. Matta, Jagannadha & Alavalapati, Janaki & Tanner, George, 2007. "A framework for developing marked-based policies to further biodiversity on non-industrial private forests (NIPF)," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(7), pages 779-788, April.
    16. Brill, Gregg & Anderson, Pippin & O'Farrell, Patrick, 2017. "Urban national parks in the global South: Linking management perceptions, policies and practices to water-related ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PB), pages 185-195.
    17. Ngugi, Daniel & Mullen, Jeffrey D. & Bergstrom, John C., 2008. "Land Use Change and Ecosystem Valuation in North Georgia," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6119, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    18. Xenarios, S. & Tziritis, I., 2007. "Improving pluralism in Multi Criteria Decision Aid approach through Focus Group technique and Content Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3-4), pages 692-703, May.
    19. Hoehn, John & Lupi, Frank & Kaplowitz, Michael, 2001. "Experiments in Valuing Wetland Ecosystems," Western Region Archives 321687, Western Region - Western Extension Directors Association (WEDA).
    20. Zhongmin, Xu & Guodong, Cheng & Zhiqiang, Zhang & Zhiyong, Su & Loomis, John, 2003. "Applying contingent valuation in China to measure the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in Ejina region," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(2-3), pages 345-358, March.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ibn:masjnl:v:8:y:2014:i:4:p:195. 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: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    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.