MoCU Repository

On-Site Cost of Gully Erosion and Benefit-Cost of Rehabilitation vs. Establishment of Conservation Measures in the Kilimanjaro Region, Tanzania

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Mkanda, Francis X.
dc.contributor.author Warsanga, Willium B.
dc.contributor.author Kishaga, Reuben A.L.
dc.date.accessioned 2024-09-04T12:53:31Z
dc.date.available 2024-09-04T12:53:31Z
dc.date.issued 2015
dc.identifier.citation Mkanda, F. X., Warsanga W. B. Kishaga, R. A.L. (2015). On-Site Cost of Gully Erosion and Benefit-Cost of Rehabilitation vs. Establishment of Conservation Measures in the Kilimanjaro Region, Tanzania. Journal of Environment and Earth Science, Vol.5, (7), pp 57-64. en_US
dc.identifier.issn 2224-3216
dc.identifier.issn 2225-0948
dc.identifier.uri http://repository.mocu.ac.tz/xmlui/handle/123456789/1447
dc.description A full text article from the collection of Community and Rural Development en_US
dc.description.abstract This study provides empirical justification for prevention of on-site costs of gully erosion so as to raise political and public awareness of the impacts of land degradation and significance of sustainable land management from an economic perspective in the Kilimanjaro Region. In the context of this paper, the on-site cost of gully erosion is about TZS 82.61 million ha-1 and TZS 82.22 million ha-1 respectively assuming maize, a staple in the Kilimanjaro Region and sunflower, a commercial crop is grown. From an economic perspective, it is more viable to establish soil-erosion control structures than gully rehabilitation. The average benefit-cost ratios for the latter are almost three times as much as for the former if maize is grown, but two times more in the case of sunflower. These results support the old adage that says “prevention is better than cure”. This information is of particular significance because some decision-makers and land-users have inadequate knowledge of the need for preventing soil loss from an economic viewpoint. They contend that the durability of rehabilitation interventions outweighs the short-term gains of investing in soil-erosion control structures. Considering that land in the region is being degraded by soil erosion, while the rest is vulnerable because of physical factors and anthropogenic activities, it would be prudent of decision-makers especially to support sustainable land management initiatives that aim at controlling soil loss instead of rehabilitation after vast amounts of land are rendered unproductive due to soil loss. en_US
dc.language.iso en en_US
dc.publisher Journal of Environment and Earth Science en_US
dc.relation.ispartofseries Vol. 5;7
dc.subject On-site cost en_US
dc.subject Empirical evidence en_US
dc.subject Rehabilitation en_US
dc.subject Conservation en_US
dc.subject Measures en_US
dc.subject Crops en_US
dc.title On-Site Cost of Gully Erosion and Benefit-Cost of Rehabilitation vs. Establishment of Conservation Measures in the Kilimanjaro Region, Tanzania en_US
dc.type Article en_US


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search MoCU IR


Browse

My Account