Next Article in Journal
Revisiting the Leontief Paradox in the Digital Era: Technological Specialization and Sustainable Development of Digital Service Trade
Previous Article in Journal
The First Thirty Years of Green Stormwater Infrastructure in Portland, Oregon
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 15
10.3390/su17157162
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Evaluating the Climate Resilience of Agricultural Livelihoods Through the Impact of Climate Change on Sediment Loss and Retention—A Step Towards Ecosystem-Based Adaptation in Savannakhet Province, Lao People’s Democratic Republic

by
Indrajit Pal
1,*,
Sreejita Banerjee
1,
Oulavanh Sinsamphanh
2,
Jeeten Kumar
1 and
Puvadol Doydee
3
1
Disaster Preparedness, Mitigation and Management, Asian Institute of Technology, Pathum Thani 12120, Thailand
2
Faculty of Environmental Sciences, National University of Laos, Vientiane 7322, Laos
3
Faculty of Natural Resources and Agro-Industry, Kasetsart University Chalermphrakiat Sa. kon Nakhon Province Campus, Sakon Nakhon 47000, Thailand
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(15), 7162; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17157162
Submission received: 20 May 2025 / Revised: 22 July 2025 / Accepted: 4 August 2025 / Published: 7 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Hazards and Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

This study assesses the projected impacts of climate change on sediment retention and soil loss in Savannakhet Province, Lao PDR, through the application of the Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) Sediment Delivery Ratio (SDR) model. Using climate projections under SSP2-4.5 and SSP5-8.5 scenarios for the mid- and late-21st century (2050 and 2080), compared against a 2015 baseline, the analysis quantifies changes in sediment dynamics and ecosystem service provision. Results reveal a substantial increase in sediment retention, particularly in forested and flooded vegetation areas, under moderate and high-emission pathways. However, an overall rise in soil loss is observed across croplands and urbanized zones, driven by intensified high-risk areas, which requires conservative management. This study advocates for ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) strategies—including afforestation, intercropping, and riparian restoration—to enhance watershed resilience. These nature-based solutions align with national adaptation goals and offer co-benefits for biodiversity, climate regulation, and rural livelihoods.

1. Introduction

Climate change has emerged as a significant global threat with profound implications for ecosystems, agricultural systems, and human livelihoods, particularly in developing regions. The intensification of the hydrological cycle and increased frequency of extreme weather events, such as floods and droughts, directly impact the availability and quality of water resources, soil stability, and agricultural productivity [1,2]. These climatic stressors disproportionately affect vulnerable populations whose livelihoods depend on natural resources, including smallholder farmers in Southeast Asia. In regions like Savannakhet Province, Lao PDR, where over 75% of the population relies on subsistence agriculture [3], the degradation of ecosystem services due to climate change can undermine food security and resilience. To address these growing risks, there is increasing recognition of nature-based approaches that strengthen socio-ecological systems. Recent watershed-scale modeling studies have demonstrated the substantial impacts of climate change on sediment yield and soil erosion dynamics, highlighting the need for adaptive land management strategies [4].
Climate change is expected to further intensify the hydrological cycle, altering the quantity and quality of water resources worldwide [1]. Meeting the rising demands for food, water, and energy under changing climate and land use conditions remains one of society’s greatest challenges [2]. These climate-induced shifts will affect the production, distribution, and quality of ecosystems, influencing the services they provide, such as clean water supply, biodiversity habitats, and climate regulation through carbon sequestration [5]. Despite these wide-ranging impacts, relatively few studies have explicitly explored the effects of climate change on ecosystem services, especially in regions where local livelihoods depend directly on these natural benefits. The reasons for this phenomenon encompass the difficulties in comprehending regional discrepancies in climate change, uncertainty about extended timeframes, and the interplay between climate change and other catalysts of transformation [6,7,8]. Addressing these uncertainties is vital for developing sustainable landscape management frameworks incorporating historical and projected erosion patterns [9]. Moreover, after being initiated, there is frequently a restricted ability to adjust to these forecasts, especially in developing nations [6,10,11].
Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA) is an approach that uses biodiversity and ecosystem services as part of broader strategies for climate resilience. By promoting sustainable management, conservation and restoration, EbA enhances ecosystem functions and provides co-benefits such as erosion control, carbon sequestration, and water regulation [5,12]. This approach helps maintain healthy, functioning ecosystems that can buffer communities against climate-related risks [13]. Closely aligned with nature-based solutions (NbS), EbA supports socio-ecological resilience by integrating ecosystem services into climate adaptation planning and actions [14,15]. The functioning and interplay of a robust ecosystem provide valuable resources and services to society, including food, water, erosion control, and cultural values [12]. The anticipated alterations in climate are recognized to have significant implications for biological communities, which will subsequently affect the functioning of ecosystems [16,17,18]. However, the specific ways in which these impacts may influence the supply of ecosystem services remain uncertain.
Understanding the changing trends in ecosystem services and their drivers is an important step in informing decision-makers regarding the development of reasonable landscape management measures. Several studies have explored these dynamics, including assessments of grassland ecosystem services in North China, forest watershed services in Thailand, and further water provisioning in Peninsular India. The impacts of land use and climate change on sediment retention can be efficiently modeled using tools such as Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST), which has been validated in the Vietnamese Mekong Delta to evaluate ecological outcomes under different scenarios [19]. In the context of the Lao PDR, limited studies have examined the spatially explicit impacts of climate change on sediment retention and water regulation at the watershed scale, highlighting the need for more localized assessments to inform EbA strategies.
In the context of Lao PDR, limited studies have examined the spatially explicit impacts of climate change on sediment retention and water regulation at the watershed scale, highlighting the need for more localized assessments to inform EbA strategies.
This study aims to fill this gap by analyzing the impacts of projected climate change scenarios on sediment retention and soil loss in Savannakhet Province, Lao PDR, using the InVEST model. This paper focuses on analyzing the impacts associated with changes in ecosystem services as a result of climate change, through a comparison of two climate change scenarios for 2050 and 2080 against a base scenario of 2014. Here, we study the impacts of climate change on regulating (erosion control) services at the watershed scale in Savannakhet province of Lao PDR. The integrated model was applied to future climatic scenarios (from 2021 to 2080) in a GIS platform and further contrasted with a base scenario (1985–2014). The objectives of this research are to (i) quantify sediment retention and soil loss under future climate projections (SSP2-4.5 and SSP5-8.5); (ii) identify critical areas at risk of increased erosion; and (iii) provide insights for ecosystem-based adaptation planning in the region. The study aims to quantify the extent of these changes in sediment retention and identify the areas of the region that are most affected. We hypothesize that the availability of water for various uses and the overall amount of sediment exported by the basin will decline due to climate change. This study’s consideration of land use and land cover as constant as of 2014 throughout the analysis period is one of its limitations.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

Savannakhet Province is located in the central–southern part of the Lao PDR, sharing borders with Thailand in the west, Vietnam in the east, Salavan Province in the south, and Khammouane Province in the North, as shown in Figure 1. It is located approximately within 15°50′ N to 17°10′ N latitude and 104°40′ E to 106°50′ E longitude [20]. The province experiences a monsoonal climate with a distinct wet season from May to October and a dry season from November to April [20]. Savannakhet Province boasts abundant natural resources, including fertile land, forests, and mineral deposits. The province is known for its agricultural potential, with vast areas suitable for rice cultivation and other crops. Additionally, forests in the province are a source of timber, non-timber forest products, and biodiversity. Agriculture is the primary economic activity in Savannakhet province. In the Savannakhet Province, over 75% of the population lives in rural areas, relying mainly on subsistence agriculture for their livelihoods [3]. In the province, rainfed wet-season rice production accounts for 78% of the total output, with the remaining 22% harvested from irrigated fields during the dry season [20]. Most lowland rice is cultivated under rainfed conditions due to the limited irrigated areas, constituting only 12% of the total agricultural land in Laos. The rice fields in the province are developed along the Mekong River and extend to hilly terrain [21]. The main anthropogenic impacts in the region include deforestation and relevant land degradation, whereas the main threats to local livelihoods are due to severe climate events such as floods and droughts, which increase people’s vulnerability [3]. In particular, the Savannakhet Province has seen an increase in the frequency and intensity of severe floods since 2018, caused by altered rain patterns and tropical cyclones such as the Tropical Storms Son-Tinh of 2018 and Saudel of 2020, which caused flooding in over 50 districts, prompting damage to housing and infrastructure [22]. In macroeconomic terms, GFDRR reported that production losses related to agriculture, trade, and transport services in Lao PDR due to the 2018 floods amounted to LAK 1914.02 billion, equivalent to around USD 220 million, more than 1% of the country’s GDP [22]. For this study, a watershed level comprising an area of 14,555 km2 was taken into account for model analysis.

2.2. Data Sources

2.2.1. Climate Data and Projections

To explore the range of impacts on Savannakhet’s projected ecosystem services, we consider the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) SSP2-4.5 and SSP5-8.5 (IPCC 2007) and five General Circulation Models (GCMs), as listed in Table 1. The GCM data were statistically downscaled using the bias correction and quantile mapping method using R package Version 4.4.2 [23]. Each GCM was selected based on strong regional performance in South East Asia.
We used two sets of climatic data for this analysis: historical gridded data from Aphrodite for precipitation from 1976 to 2015 and projected future precipitation from the downscaled results of GCMs from 2021 to 2080. We then summarized our results based on the baseline period (1976 to 2015) and two future time periods: 2021–2050 as near future (NF) and 2051–2080 as mid future (MF).

2.2.2. Land Use

The land use land cover (LULC) map for the year 2015 was extracted and prepared from ESRI sentinel 2. The LULC is classified into 7 classes comprising water, forest, flooded vegetation, cropland, built-up areas, bare ground, and grassland, as depicted in Figure 2.

2.2.3. Quantifying Ecosystem Services—Sediment Export

The movement of upstream debris and sediment associated with intense rainfall can lead to a decrease in water quality and threaten lives. Vegetation mitigates erosion by stabilizing soil and trapping sediment within its roots and stems. Therefore, to represent the ecosystem service of soil retention, we present the data on the amount of soil loss, soil export, and retention.
We used the InVEST Sediment Delivery Ratio (SDR) model [32] with specific inputs from the Savannakhet province, including soil erodibility data from country-scale soil maps, and a cover factor (C) which represents the influence of vegetation on soil erosion [33]. The proportion of soil loss that reaches the catchment outlet is computed by first quantifying the amount of sediment generated from erosion and then calculating the ratio of the eroded sediment that is delivered to the streams [34]. The general inputs of the SDR model are the land use/land cover map for the specific time, precipitation, digital elevation model, and soil erodibility, the sources of which are listed in Table 2. This model also requires a biophysical table associated with the land cover classes, as mentioned in Table 3; the values are from the InVEST user guide. The physiographical parameters, as explained in Table 4, are the constant values mentioned in the InvEST user guide. The expected outputs from the SDR include annual sediment loads to streams, the amount of sediment eroded in the catchment scale, and finally the amount retained by features such as topographic and vegetative cover.

3. Results

3.1. Climate Change Scenarios

The ensemble technique was employed to avoid uncertainty from different trends observed in GCMs under the SSP2-4.5 and SSP5-8.5 scenarios. The ensemble scenarios in Figure 3 and Figure 4 demonstrate distinct trends, characterized by significantly higher upper and lower peaks under the SSP5-8.5 scenario compared to SSP2-4.5, specifically in the near future (NF) and mid-future (MF).
The precipitation trend has been analyzed. The percentage change in precipitation was calculated, and it shows that there has been a 20% increase from the baseline (2015) to the near future (2050) SSP 245 ensemble models, while a 28% increase is expected in the mid-future (2080). Under the SSP 585 ensemble models, there has been an increase of 24% from the baseline to the near future (2050) and 28% in the mid-future (2080). These increases in precipitation align with anticipated trends under high-emission scenarios and reflect the intensifying hydrological cycle observed in tropical and subtropical regions [35,36].

3.2. Spatiotemporal Distribution and Change in Sediment Retention and Soil Loss Under Different Climate Scenarios

3.2.1. Sediment Retention

The results in Figure 5 indicate that there has been an increase in mean sediment retention in the NF and MF against the baseline year of 2015. There has been an increase of 21% in mean sediment retention in SSP 245 (NF) and 37% in SSP 245 (MF).
The ensemble scenarios demonstrate distinct trends, characterized by significantly higher upper and lower peaks under the SSP5-8.5 scenario than SSP2-4.5, specifically in NF and MF, as shown in Table 5.
We find that when considering individual LULC and its contribution to sediment retention under different climate scenarios, there has been a maximum increase by flooded vegetation from 2,640,483 tons/ha to 3,700,221 tons/ha under SSP 245 NF and 4,147,069 tons/ha in MF. Flooded vegetation has a percentage increase of 54% and 445% under the SSP 585 NF and MF scenarios, respectively. We also observe that there has been a significant increase in sediment retention capacity by forests at 54% and 4191% under SSP 585 NF and MF, respectively. These increases are consistent with findings in similar subtropical regions where dense vegetation, particularly riparian and forested buffers, significantly enhanced sediment retention capacity due to low C and p factors [32,37].

3.2.2. Change in Soil Loss

Preliminary analyses revealed a decreasing trend in total soil loss under future scenarios, driven by expanding vegetation cover and increased rainfall-induced erosion, mitigated by topographical and land cover controls. This observation supports the argument that the InVEST spatially explicit modeling framework captures land use-driven variability in soil conservation effectively [38,39]. There has been an overall increase in estimated soil loss in the watershed under the climate change scenarios, as depicted in Figure 6.
When compared to the overall watershed scale, the mean soil loss for the baseline year was 210 tons/ha, while it was 276 tons/ha for SSP 245 (NF), 311 tons/ha for SSP 245 (MF), 300 tons/ha for SSP 585 (NF) and 297 tons/ha for SSP (MF). Grassland had the maximum contribution of mean soil loss of 5,255,127 tons/ha for the baseline year of 2015, as shown in Figure 7.
The results for soil loss for each LULC show a more detailed comparison. There has been a significant increase in soil loss percentage when compared with the baseline year across all seven types of LULC. The highest percentage increase in mean soil loss is 57% for the flood vegetation for SSP 245 (MF) against the baseline in 2015, while forest contributes to the lowest amount of soil loss, 24% for SSP 245 (NF) and 35% for SSP 585 (MF).

4. Discussion

The present study explored the impacts of future climate change scenarios on sediment retention and soil loss in the Savannakhet province of Lao PDR using the InVEST SDR model. The results indicate notable increases in sediment retention capacity, particularly under high-emission (SSP5-8.5) scenarios, as shown in Figure 5, alongside a reduction in soil loss, suggesting the model’s sensitivity to climate-driven changes in hydrological and ecological parameters. The increase in sediment retention under future climate scenarios can be attributed to the intensification of vegetation productivity and the expansion of land cover types that facilitate sediment trapping, such as forests, flooded vegetation, and grasslands. This trend is in alignment with studies that demonstrated improved retention capacity with increased vegetation cover and reduced surface runoff intensity [37,40]. A similar trend was observed in the Pulangi Basin, where projected climate change scenarios led to altered sediment yield and hydrologic regimes [41]. Vegetated landscapes with high infiltration capacity and root density not only mitigate runoff energy but also stabilize topsoil, thus leading to sediment retention [42]. The simulated increase in soil loss across scenarios indicates a decline in topographic resilience reinforced by vegetative cover and increasing rainfall erosivity under local conditions. This supports findings by [43], who emphasized the role of slope, vegetation type, and cover management practices in governing erosion dynamics. Although some studies report increased erosion under higher precipitation, the spatial heterogeneity and terrain-specific factors in the Savannakhet watershed contribute to non-linear responses, as highlighted in sediment retention increases rather than export [44,45]. A sensitivity analysis of physiographic parameters such as slope, rainfall erosivity, and land use types provides valuable insights for food security assessment in deltaic environments [46]. Furthermore, the differences in sediment retention between scenarios suggest a strong influence of land cover types and hydrological connectivity on the erosion–export continuum [47]. Evaluating sediment connectivity offers more profound insights into how land configuration and management practices influence erosion patterns, reinforcing the need for spatially targeted interventions [48].
The disproportionately high sediment retention values for built-up and bare lands under SSP5-8.5 MF, while counterintuitive, may reflect underlying DEM resolution effects and misclassification of land cover in sediment routing algorithms. Similar inconsistencies have been reported in other InVEST-based studies where model sensitivity to spatial input granularity affects outputs [39,49].
The results of the current study also highlight an upward trend in soil loss and sediment retention, aggravated by climate change over the period of 1985 to 2080. This is consistent with studies from [50] where sediment retention is higher in the forest regions of the Taihu Basin in China. In this study, sediment retention is highest in the eastern part of the watershed, with a higher elevation of 1360 m compared to an average elevation of 235 m, and this area is mostly covered with forest. The results indicate that there will be an increase in sediment retention over the span of 100 years (1985–2080). A high amount of soil loss has been estimated in flooded vegetation and built-up areas over the years. The potential soil loss within the built-up areas may be due to an increase in real estate development and urbanization. The lack of a soil conservation plan will result in the loose soil being transported by the increase in rainfall.
The study’s limitation, which is that it holds land use and land cover constant throughout the analysis, must be considered when interpreting the results. Land use changes, particularly deforestation and urbanization, are likely to further exacerbate the trends observed in this study, as anthropogenic activities interact with climate change to influence sediment dynamics. Therefore, future research should incorporate these variables to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the drivers of sediment retention and loss.
The methodological reliance on ensemble climate scenarios contributes to a robust representation of possible futures, yet the model limitations, such as static LULC assumptions, must be acknowledged. Future research should consider incorporating dynamic land use projections to better simulate coupled socio-economic system responses [40,45]. Overall, our findings reinforce the applicability of the InVEST model for regional-scale assessments of erosion regulation services and provide a spatially explicit basis for ecosystem-based adaptation planning in Lao PDR. The results can guide decision-makers in prioritizing reforestation, riparian zone protection, and land use management to maintain watershed resilience under climate uncertainty.

5. Conclusions

This study assessed the projected impacts of climate change on sediment retention and soil loss using the InVEST SDR model in the Savannakhet province of Lao PDR. The key findings of the research demonstrate that erosion control is a climate-sensitive ecosystem service, with clear trends of increasing soil loss and enhanced sediment retention over the time period (1985–2080). In the current study, we found that the eastern highlands of the watershed, characterized by dense forest cover and elevated topography, exhibited the highest retention capacity, emphasizing the critical role of land cover in regulating hydrological processes. The study also highlights the increased soil loss in built-up and flooded vegetation areas, which underscores emerging risks from urban expansion and unmanaged floodplain dynamics. The results are consistent with global and regional studies that show that climate change can significantly modify ecosystem service flows, especially erosion control [50,51]. The observed rise in sediment retention under future climate scenarios underscores the importance of maintaining vegetation cover as a natural buffer against intensified rainfall and runoff. However, this benefit may be offset by parallel increases in soil loss in vulnerable zones, particularly where conservation practices are lacking.
Most importantly, this study isolated climate change as the sole variable influencing sediment dynamics, while anthropogenic land use changes were held constant. In reality, deforestation, agricultural expansion and infrastructure development will likely interact with climatic drivers, potentially amplifying soil degradation. This simplification represents a limitation and an opportunity for future research to integrate dynamic land use models for more comprehensive risk projection.
Considering the current research findings, EbA emerges as a vital strategy for mitigating climate-related risks and enhancing resilience. EbA approaches such as forest conservation [52], agroforestry, and riparian buffer restoration can reinforce natural processes that reduce erosion and support sustainable water management. These measures align with the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) of the Lao PDR under the Paris Agreement and offer co-benefits including biodiversity conservation, carbon sequestration, and livelihood support. Building capacity at the provincial and district levels will be essential to translate model outputs into actionable plans. Decision-makers need training in ecosystem service modeling, participatory land use planning, and community-based adaptation frameworks. Equally important is the need to enhance intersectoral coordination among environment, agriculture, public works, and water resource agencies to ensure integrated watershed management.
In summary, addressing climate change impacts on erosion control requires a dual strategy, maintaining ecological integrity through nature-based solutions and integrating ecosystem service modeling into national policy frameworks. The results of this study offer timely insights for guiding sustainable watershed management and strengthening ecosystem-based adaptation efforts in Lao PDR.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.P. and S.B.; Methodology, S.B.; Data curation, S.B.; Analysis, S.B.; Writing—original draft preparation, S.B.; Writing—review and editing, I.P., O.S., J.K., and P.D.; Funding acquisition, I.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was conducted under the Mekong Thought Leadership and Think Tanks Network (MTT) Rapid Response Grant (Gran_2024_010) of the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) Asia, and funded by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), Government of Australia. The views expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect those of the funders. Any issues with regard to the completeness and accuracy of the manuscript are the responsibility of the authors.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are contained within the article, however, additional data will be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Huntington, T.G. Evidence for intensification of the global water cycle: Review and synthesis. J. Hydrol. 2006, 319, 83–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Godfray, H.C.J.; Beddington, J.R.; Crute, I.R.; Haddad, L.; Lawrence, D.; Muir, J.F.; Pretty, J.; Robinson, S.; Thomas, S.M.; Toulmin, C. Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People. Science 2010, 327, 812–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. UNDP. M.D. of W.R. (DWR) Integrated Water Resource Management and Ecosys. Integrated Water Resource Management and Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA) in the Xe Bang Hieng River Basin and Luang Prabang City; UNDP: New York, NY, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  4. Chen, C.-N.; Tfwala, S.S.; Tsai, C.-H. Climate Change Impacts on Soil Erosion and Sediment Yield in a Watershed. Water 2020, 12, 2247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Shaw, M.R.; Pendleton, L.; Cameron, D.R.; Morris, B.; Bachelet, D.; Klausmeyer, K.; MacKenzie, J.; Conklin, D.R.; Bratman, G.N.; Lenihan, J.; et al. The impact of climate change on California’s ecosystem services. Clim. Change 2011, 109, 465–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Martinez-Harms, M.J.; Bryan, B.A.; Figueroa, E.; Pliscoff, P.; Runting, R.K.; Wilson, K.A. Scenarios for land use and ecosystem services under global change. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 25, 56–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Runting, R.K.; Bryan, B.A.; Dee, L.E.; Maseyk, F.J.F.; Mandle, L.; Hamel, P.; Wilson, K.A.; Yetka, K.; Possingham, H.P.; Rhodes, J.R. Incorporating climate change into ecosystem service assessments and decisions: A review. Glob. Change Biol. 2016, 23, 28–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. van Vuuren, D.P.; Lucas, P.L.; Hilderink, H. Downscaling drivers of global environmental change: Enabling use of global SRES scenarios at the national and grid levels. Glob. Environ. Change 2007, 17, 114–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Gafforov, K.S.; Bao, A.; Rakhimov, S.; Liu, T.; Abdullaev, F.; Jiang, L.; Durdiev, K.; Duulatov, E.; Rakhimova, M.; Mukanov, Y. The Assessment of Climate Change on Rainfall-Runoff Erosivity in the Chirchik–Akhangaran Basin, Uzbekistan. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ngoc, Q.T.K. Assessing the value of coral reefs in the face of climate change: The evidence from Nha Trang Bay, Vietnam. Ecosyst. Serv. 2019, 35, 99–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Oteros-Rozas, E.; Martín-López, B.; Daw, T.M.; Bohensky, E.L.; Butler, J.R.; Hill, R.; Martin-Ortega, J.; Quinlan, A.; Ravera, F.; Ruiz-Mallén, I.; et al. Participatory scenario planning in place-based social-ecological research: Insights and experiences from 23 case studies. Ecol. Soc. 2015, 20, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Mooney, H.; Larigauderie, A.; Cesario, M.; Elmquist, T.; Hoegh-Guldberg, O.; Lavorel, S.; Mace, G.M.; Palmer, M.; Scholes, R.; Yahara, T. Biodiversity, climate change, and ecosystem services. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2009, 1, 46–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Agol, D.; Reid, H.; Crick, F.; Wendo, H. Ecosystem-based adaptation in Lake Victoria Basin; synergies and trade-offs. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2021, 8, 201847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Reid, H.; Bourne, A.; Muller, H.; Podvin, K.; Scorgie, S.; Orindi, V. A framework for assessing the effectiveness of ecosystem-based approaches to adaptation. In Resilience; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 207–216. [Google Scholar]
  15. International Union for Conservation of Nature. Ecosystem-Based Adaptation: Issues Brief; International Union for Conservation of Nature: Gland, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  16. Thomas, C.D.; Cameron, A.; Green, R.E.; Bakkenes, M.; Beaumont, L.J.; Collingham, Y.C.; Erasmus, B.F.N.; de Siqueira, M.F.; Grainger, A.; Hannah, L.; et al. Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 2004, 427, 145–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. SHAVER, G.R.; Canadell, J.; Chapin, F.S.; Gurevitch, J.; Harte, J.; Henry, G.; Ineson, P.; Jonasson, S.; Melillo, J.; Pitelka, L.; et al. Global Warming and Terrestrial Ecosystems: A Conceptual Framework for Analysis. Bioscience 2000, 50, 871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Fischlin, A.; Midgley, G.F.; Hughs, L.; Price, J.; Leemans, R.; Gopal, B.; Turley, C.; Rounsevell, M.; Dube, P.; Tarazona, J.; et al. Ecosystems, their properties, goods and services. In Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability; Cambridge University Press (CUP): Cambridge, UK, 2007; pp. 211–272. [Google Scholar]
  19. Banerjee, S.; Pal, I.; Loc, H.H. Modeling the impacts of climate and land use changes on nutrient export using the INVEST model in Tra Vinh Province of the Vietnamese Mekong Delta. In The Mekong Delta Environmental Research Guidebook; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2025; pp. 349–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Park, S.; Chun, J.A.; Kim, D.; Sitthikone, M. Climate risk management for the rainfed rice yield in Lao PDR using APCC MME seasonal forecasts. Agric. Water Manag. 2022, 274, 107976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ikeura, H.; Phongchanmixay, S.; Chomxaythong, A.; Matsumoto, N.; Kawamura, K.; Homsengchanh, L.; Inkhamseng, S. Variation in lowland rice yield and its determinants in a rainfed area in Savannakhet Province, Laos. Paddy Water Environ. 2019, 17, 121–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Global Facility for Disaster Risk Reduction. Post Disaster Needs Assessment Floods Lao PDR; Global Facility for Disaster Risk Reduction: Washington, DC, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  23. Maraun, D.; Widmann, M. Statistical Downscaling and Bias Correction For Climate Research. Available online: https://www.scribd.com/document/800673484/Statistical-Downscaling-and-Bias-Correction-for-Climate-Research-Douglas-Maraun-Martin-Widmann-Z-Library (accessed on 3 August 2025).
  24. Swart, N.C.; Cole, J.N.; Kharin, V.V.; Lazare, M.; Scinocca, J.F.; Gillett, N.P.; Anstey, J.; Arora, V.; Christian, J.R.; Hanna, S.; et al. The Canadian Earth System Model version 5 (CanESM5.0.3). Geosci. Model Dev. 2019, 12, 4823–4873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hamed, M.M.; Nashwan, M.S.; Shahid, S.; Wang, Z.; Ismail, T.B.; Dewan, A.; Asaduzzaman, M. Future Köppen-Geiger climate zones over Southeast Asia using CMIP6 multimodel ensemble. Atmos. Res. 2023, 283, 106560. [Google Scholar]
  26. Döscher, R.; Acosta, M.; Alessandri, A.; Anthoni, P.; Arneth, A.; Arsouze, T.; Bergmann, T.; Bernadello, R.; Bousetta, S.; Caron, L.P.; et al. The EC-Earth3 Earth system model for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 6. Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss. 2022, 15, 2973–3020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Desmet, Q.; Duc, T. A novel method for ranking CMIP6 global climate models over the southeast Asian region. Int. J. Climatol. 2022, 42, 97–117. [Google Scholar]
  28. Dunne, J.P.; Horowitz, L.W.; Adcroft, A.J.; Ginoux, P.; Held, I.M.; John, J.G.; Krasting, J.P.; Malyshev, S.; Naik, V.; Paulot, F.; et al. The GFDL Earth System Model Version 4.1 (GFDL-ESM4.1): Overall Coupled Model Description and Simulation Characteristics. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 2020, 12, e2019MS002015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Baghel, T.; babel, M.S.; Shrestha, S.; Salin, K.R.; Virdis, S.G.P.; Shinde, V.R. A generalized methodology for ranking climate models based on climate indices for sector-specific studies: An application to the Mekong sub-basin. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 829, 154551. [Google Scholar]
  30. Yukimoto, S.; Kawai, H.; Koshiro, T.; Oshima, N.; Yoshida, K.; Urakawa, S.; Tsujino, H.; Deushi, M.; Tanaka, T.; Hosaka, M.; et al. The Meteorological Research Institute Earth System Model Version 2.0, MRI-ESM2.0: Description and Basic Evaluation of the Physical Component. J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn. 2019, 97, 931–965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Iqbal, Z.; Shahid, S.; Ahmed, K.; Ismail, T.; Ziarh, G.F.; Chung, E.; Wang, Z. Evaluation of CMIP6 GCM rainfall in mainland Southeast Asia. Atmos. Res. 2021, 254, 105525. [Google Scholar]
  32. Hamel, P.; Chaplin-Kramer, R.; Sim, S.; Mueller, C. A new approach to modeling the sediment retention service (InVEST 3.0): Case study of the Cape Fear catchment, North Carolina, USA. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 524–525, 166–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. AHA Center. The AHA Center Flash Update, Lao PDR, Flooding in Savannakhet; AHA Center: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  34. Tallis, H.; Ricketts, T.; Guerry, A.; Wood, S.; Sharp, R.; Nelson, E. InVEST 2.2.2 User’s Guide; The Natural Capital Project: Stanford, CA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  35. Xue, C.; Chen, X.; Xue, L.; Zhang, H.; Chen, J.; Li, D. Modeling the spatially heterogeneous relationships between tradeoffs and synergies among ecosystem services and potential drivers considering geographic scale in Bairin Left Banner, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 855, 158834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Yin, L.; Zheng, W.; Shi, H.; Ding, D. Ecosystem services assessment and sensitivity analysis based on ANN model and spatial data: A case study in Miaodao Archipelago. Ecol. Indic. 2022, 135, 108511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. da S, P.; Barbosa, M.A.G.A.; Mauad, F.F. Evaluation of InVEST’s Water Ecosystem Service Models in a Brazilian Subtropical Basin. Water 2022, 14, 1559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Sahle, M.; Saito, O.; Fürst, C.; Yeshitela, K. Quantifying and mapping of water-related ecosystem services for enhancing the security of the food-water-energy nexus in tropical data–sparse catchment. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 646, 573–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Grafius, D.R.; Corstanje, R.; Warren, P.H.; Evans, K.L.; Hancock, S.; Harris, J.A. The impact of land use/land cover scale on modelling urban ecosystem services. Landsc. Ecol. 2016, 31, 1509–1522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Aghsaei, H.; Dinan, N.M.; Moridi, A.; Asadolahi, Z.; Delavar, M.; Fohrer, N.; Wagner, P.D. Effects of dynamic land use/land cover change on water resources and sediment yield in the Anzali wetland catchment, Gilan, Iran. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 712, 136449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Panondi, W.; Izumi, N. Climate Change Impact on the Hydrologic Regimes and Sediment Yield of Pulangi River Basin (PRB) for Watershed Sustainability. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kulsoontornrat, J.; Ongsomwang, S. Suitable Land-Use and Land-Cover Allocation Scenarios to Minimize Sediment and Nutrient Loads into Kwan Phayao, Upper Ing Watershed, Thailand. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 10430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Bhattarai, R.; Dutta, D. Estimation of Soil Erosion and Sediment Yield Using GIS at Catchment Scale. Water Resour. Manag. 2006, 21, 1635–1647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Vidarshana, W.D.M.; Illeperuma, I.; Udayakumara, E.P.N. Estimation of the sedimentation in kalu river basin within ratnapura district using invest sdr model. GARI Int. J. Multidiscip. Res. 2021, 7, 87–105. [Google Scholar]
  45. Aneseyee, A.B.; Elias, E.; Soromessa, T.; Feyisa, G.L. Land use/land cover change effect on soil erosion and sediment delivery in the Winike watershed, Omo Gibe Basin, Ethiopia. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 728, 138776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Banerjee, S.; Loc, H.H.; Pal, I.; Mukhopadhyay, A.; Huynh, T.V.P.; Pham, D.T.; Thi, H.C.N. Assessing the sensitivity of physiographical parameters in modeling hydrological ecosystem services that support food security: The case of Vietnamese Mekong Delta. Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 2025, 11, 239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Vigiak, O.; Borselli, L.; Newham, L.T.H.; McInnes, J.; Roberts, A.M. Comparison of conceptual landscape metrics to define hillslope-scale sediment delivery ratio. Geomorphology 2012, 138, 74–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Nazaripouya, H.; Sepehri, M.; Atapourfard, A.; Ghermezcheshme, B.; Santos, C.A.G.; Khoshbakht, M.; Meshram, S.G.; Rana, V.K.; Linh, N.T.T.; Pham, Q.B.; et al. Evaluating Sediment Yield Response to Watershed Management Practices (WMP) by Employing the Concept of Sediment Connectivity. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. López-Vicente, M.; Poesen, J.; Navas, A.; Gaspar, L. Predicting runoff and sediment connectivity and soil erosion by water for different land use scenarios in the Spanish Pre-Pyrenees. Catena 2013, 102, 62–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Chen, J.; Cui, T.; Wang, H.; Liu, G.; Gilfedder, M.; Bai, Y. Spatio-temporal evolution of water-related ecosystem services: Taihu Basin, China. PeerJ 2018, 6, e5041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bangash, R.F.; Passuello, A.; Sanchez-Canales, M.; Terrado, M.; López, A.; Elorza, F.J.; Ziv, G.; Acuña, V.; Schuhmacher, M. Ecosystem services in Mediterranean river basin: Climate change impact on water provisioning and erosion control. Sci. Total Environ. 2013, 458–460, 246–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Tran, T.; Phuong, T.T.B.; Duong, D.V.; Banerjee, S.; Ho, L.H. Linking Ecosystem Services through Nature-Based Solutions: A Case Study of Gia Dinh and Tao Dan Parks in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. J. Urban Plan Dev. 2024, 150, 05024016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 07162 g001
Figure 1. Study area map.
Figure 1. Study area map.
Sustainability 17 07162 g001
Sustainability 17 07162 g002
Figure 2. Land use land cover map of the study area.
Figure 2. Land use land cover map of the study area.
Sustainability 17 07162 g002
Sustainability 17 07162 g003
Figure 3. Change in precipitation under SSP 245 scenarios.
Figure 3. Change in precipitation under SSP 245 scenarios.
Sustainability 17 07162 g003
Sustainability 17 07162 g004
Figure 4. Change in precipitation under SSP 585 scenarios.
Figure 4. Change in precipitation under SSP 585 scenarios.
Sustainability 17 07162 g004
Sustainability 17 07162 g005
Figure 5. Sediment retention under different climate scenarios.
Figure 5. Sediment retention under different climate scenarios.
Sustainability 17 07162 g005
Sustainability 17 07162 g006
Figure 6. Soil loss under different climate scenarios.
Figure 6. Soil loss under different climate scenarios.
Sustainability 17 07162 g006
Sustainability 17 07162 g007
Figure 7. LULC contribution to soil loss under different climate scenarios.
Figure 7. LULC contribution to soil loss under different climate scenarios.
Sustainability 17 07162 g007
Table 1. Brief information on General Circulation Model (GCM) data used in this study.
Table 1. Brief information on General Circulation Model (GCM) data used in this study.
SNGCMInstituteReferenceResolutionEvaluated by
1.CanESM5Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, VictoriaSwart et al. (2019) [24]2.81 × 2.81Hamed et al. (2023) [25]
2.EC-Earth3EC-Earth-Consortium, EuropeDöscher et al. (2022) [26]0.70 × 0.70Desmet and Ngo-Duc (2022) [27]
3.GFDL-ESM4NOAA-Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL), USADunne et al. (2020) [28]1:25 × 1:00Baghel et al. (2022) [29]
4.MRI-ESM2-0Meteorological Research Institute (MRI), Japan.Yukimoto et al. (2019) [30]1:13 × 1:12Iqbal et al. (2021) [31]
5.TaiESM1Research Center for Environmental
Table 2. Data and data sources.
Table 2. Data and data sources.
Required DataData TypeData Source
DEMRasterSRTM
Study area maskVector polygonHydrosheds
Land use/land coverVector polygonESRI
Soil mapVector polygonFAO
PrecipitationTabulateAphrodite gridded dataset
Table 3. Biophysical table for vegetative cover (C) and field support practice (p) for LULC classes.
Table 3. Biophysical table for vegetative cover (C) and field support practice (p) for LULC classes.
LULC CodeLULC ClassC Valuep Value
1Water00
2Forest0.0011
3Flooded vegetation0.151
4Cropland0.11
5Built-up area0.21
6Bare ground0.11
7Grassland0.21
Table 4. Values used for the threshold flow accumulation, Kb, IC0 and SDRmax parameters.
Table 4. Values used for the threshold flow accumulation, Kb, IC0 and SDRmax parameters.
ParametersValues
Threshold Flow Accumulation (TFA)1000
Kb2
IC00.5
SDRmax0.8
Table 5. Showing LULC contribution to sediment retention under different climate scenarios.
Table 5. Showing LULC contribution to sediment retention under different climate scenarios.
Land UseSediment Retention (ton/ha)
Baseline (2015)SSP 245 (2050)SSP 245 (2080)SSP 585 (2050)SSP 585 (2080)
Water7,589,73410,126,93011,364,78811,002,16047,438,735
Forest2,370,8192,877,7573,253,4373,105,434101,739,123
Flooded vegetation2,640,4833,700,2214,147,0694,061,45114,429,936
Cropland3,224,5974,462,2665,018,1374,868,72029,417,001
Built-up area1,614,4562,175,8472,449,2042,371,30530,950,113
Bare ground2,207,2043,029,5863,403,0273,314,36935,711,514
Grassland3,491,7614,609,4935,186,8584,992,86831,929,142
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pal, I.; Banerjee, S.; Sinsamphanh, O.; Kumar, J.; Doydee, P. Evaluating the Climate Resilience of Agricultural Livelihoods Through the Impact of Climate Change on Sediment Loss and Retention—A Step Towards Ecosystem-Based Adaptation in Savannakhet Province, Lao People’s Democratic Republic. Sustainability 2025, 17, 7162. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17157162

AMA Style

Pal I, Banerjee S, Sinsamphanh O, Kumar J, Doydee P. Evaluating the Climate Resilience of Agricultural Livelihoods Through the Impact of Climate Change on Sediment Loss and Retention—A Step Towards Ecosystem-Based Adaptation in Savannakhet Province, Lao People’s Democratic Republic. Sustainability. 2025; 17(15):7162. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17157162

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pal, Indrajit, Sreejita Banerjee, Oulavanh Sinsamphanh, Jeeten Kumar, and Puvadol Doydee. 2025. "Evaluating the Climate Resilience of Agricultural Livelihoods Through the Impact of Climate Change on Sediment Loss and Retention—A Step Towards Ecosystem-Based Adaptation in Savannakhet Province, Lao People’s Democratic Republic" Sustainability 17, no. 15: 7162. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17157162

APA Style

Pal, I., Banerjee, S., Sinsamphanh, O., Kumar, J., & Doydee, P. (2025). Evaluating the Climate Resilience of Agricultural Livelihoods Through the Impact of Climate Change on Sediment Loss and Retention—A Step Towards Ecosystem-Based Adaptation in Savannakhet Province, Lao People’s Democratic Republic. Sustainability, 17(15), 7162. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17157162

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop