Catena 225 (2023) 107028

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Catena
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/catena

Applicability evaluation of agricultural Best Management Practices to

estimate reduction efficiency of suspended solids
Gwanjae Lee a, Seoro Lee b, Jiyeong Hong c, Yonghun Choi a, Jonggun Kim b, Kyoung Jae Lim b,
Jae E. Yang d, Won Seok Jang e, *
a
ILEM Research Institute, 1 Gangwondaehak-gil, Chuncheon-si, Gangwon-do 24341, Republic of Korea
b
Department of Regional Infrastructure Engineering, Kangwon National University, 1 Gangwondaehak-gil, Chuncheon-si, Gangwon-do 24341, Republic of Korea
c
Department of Earth and Environment, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215, USA
d
Department of Biological Environment, Kangwon National University, 1 Gangwondaehak-gil, Chuncheon-si, Gangwon-do 24341, Republic of Korea
e
Department of Ecological Landscape Architecture Design, Kangwon National University, 1 Gangwondaehak-gil, Chuncheon-si, Gangwon-do 24341, Republic of Korea

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Nonpoint source (NPS) pollution affects water quality, and the path of leakage and discharge of NPS pollutants is
Nonpoint-source pollution not clear. NPS pollution is heavily influenced by weather conditions such as precipitation, making NPS pollution
Best management practices difficult to manage. The Soyang River watershed, in the upper reaches of the Han River, is dominated by
MUSLE
mountain farmland, which causes the water to become turbid due to soil erosion during rainfall. Therefore, South
SWAT
Korea’s Ministry of Environment has designated Mandae District as an NPS pollution management area to install
and manage various NPS pollution reduction facilities (NPRF). However, research on the NPS reduction effi­
ciency is insufficient. Therefore, a Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model was used to evaluate soil loss
and suspended solids (SS) reduction efficiency by NPRF installed in the Mandae District. In this study, hydrologic
response units (HRUs) were modified to spatially consider agricultural fields in steep-sloping areas in South
Korea, and soil loss, as well as SS reduction efficiency, were calculated reflecting temporal/spatial characteristics
of best management practices (BMPs). In order to accurately evaluate the NPRF, this study digitized all fields in
the Mandae District and applied them to land use maps where slope and slope length were entered for each
agricultural field. To this end, the digitized boundaries of all agricultural fields have been updated into land use
maps. In addition, the estimated soil loss was corrected by calibrating the exponent and coefficient of the MUSLE
(Modified Universal Soil Loss Equation) formula. Reduction efficiency was assessed by comparing the amount of
soil loss and SS before and after the installation of the NPRF with a scenario-based analysis. As a result, the soil
loss reduction efficiency of the NPRF in Mandae District was 7.8% and the SS reduction efficiency was 5.8%. Both
soil loss and SS were sensitive to slope length in evaluating the effectiveness of reduction. The results showed that
the longer the slope length, the greater the soil loss or SS.

1. Introduction
Climate change causes various changes in the water ecosystem and
has a huge impact on the hydrological cycle, such as runoff. (IPCC, 2014;
Ritter and Shirmohammadi, 2001; Ding and Liu, 2019; U.S.EPA, 2016;
Carpenter et al., 1998; Tao et al., 2003). Changes in the watershed water
cycle have a significant impact on the behavior of non-point source
(NPS) pollution, as the movement of NPS pollution is closely related to
rainfall and runoff processes that are affected by climate change (Ritter
and Shirmohammadi, 2001). Various sources of water pollution (e.g.,
surface runoff, soil erosion, and air pollution) are the main sources of
NPS pollution (Ding and Liu, 2019). NPS pollution has been identified as
a major problem that has a significant impact on water quality world­
wide (Chen et al., 2009; Keller et al., 2014; Kourakos et al., 2012; Zhang
et al., 2020). NPS pollution management is inherently uncertain as the
route of runoff and discharge of pollutants is not clear and depends
heavily on weather conditions such as precipitation (Carpenter et al.,
1998; MOE, 2016). Moreover, the extent of occurrence and difficulties in
monitoring NPS pollution make it difficult to accurately calculate NPS
pollution loads (Ye et al., 2017).

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: wsjang@kangwon.ac.kr (W.S. Jang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2023.107028
Received 25 August 2021; Received in revised form 15 February 2023; Accepted 16 February 2023
Available online 24 February 2023
0341-8162/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
G. Lee et al.
In particular, soil erosion is a significant environmental problem that
negatively affects agricultural productivity, water quality, aquatic
ecology and river morphology (Lin et al., 2016; Peter Heng et al., 2010).
Land use and landscape type play an important role in soil erosion (Qi
et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2009), and various researchers have studied the
impact of land use type on soil erosion and analyzed and reported
landscape patterns (Da Silva et al., 2015; Huang et al., 2013; Xiao and Ji,
2007; Zhang et al., 2017).
In Korea, areas where there are severe water quality problems caused
by NPS pollution, or where NPS pollution needs to be prevented in
advance, are designated as NPS management areas. NPS management
areas include areas that require careful water quality management, such
as priority management reservoirs, marine-protected areas, and
groundwater conservation districts. The Soyang River watershed located
in the upper reaches of the Han River is densely populated with highland
fields, which causes frequent problems with muddy water due to soil
erosion during extreme rainfall events. In 2006, due to heavy rainfall, a
large amount of muddy water flowed into the Soyanggang Dam, causing
environmental, ecological, and economic damage, such as the destruc­
tion of aquatic habitats, damage to fisheries, death of fish in fish farms,
decrease in local revenues due to the declining number of tourists and an
increase in water treatment costs. The aforementioned economic losses
were estimated at around KRW 9 billion (USD 6.9 million). Soil erosion
from agricultural fields has generated various harmful substances and
also caused various water pollution problems when it enters water
bodies (e.g., streams and rivers) (MOE, 2017a). For the sustainable
management of the Soyang River watershed, the Ministry of Environ­
ment has made efforts to reduce soil erosion from arable land by
applying NPS pollution reduction facilities (NPRF), also known as Best
Management Practices(BMPs)(gabion, filter strips, grassed waterway,
sediment trap, drainage water management, etc.) to each arable land
(NIER, 2009). BMPs prevent soil erosion and reduce water pollution by
similar and other pollutants in agricultural fields.(Himanshu et al.,
2019; Lam et al., 2011; Mwangi et al., 2015). BMPs are divided into
structural BMPs and non-structural BMPs. Structural BMPs are natural
or man-made structures installed in the target area, non-structural BMPs
reduce sediment and pollution through agricultural practices such as
fertilizer reduction.(Nepal and Parajuli, 2022).
However, using the NPRF, it is difficult to calculate the reduction
efficiency because various conditions (i.e., area of arable land, slope and
slope length) have to be considered. In order to effectively manage NPS
pollution, it is necessary to address both the possible sources of pollution
and the watershed management. In particular, watershed management,
which is a form of land management, is very important because NPS
pollution is transported to water reservoirs through various channels
during rainfall. Therefore, it is important to investigate the effect of
NPRF installed on each arable land in the watershed (Yu and Zhen,
2004). A watershed-scale hydrological model should be required, to
assess the impact of reduced efficiency of NPRF applied to arable lands
in the watershed (Borah and Bera, 2004). Watershed scale hydrological
models such as Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT)(Arnold et al.,
1998), Hydrological Simulation Program – Fortran (HSPF)(Johanson,
1980), and Agricultural Policy/Environmental eXtender Model (APEX)
(Williams et al., 1998) are widely used for watershed-scale evaluation.
Lee et al. (Lee et al., 2010) estimated the effect of reducing NPS pollution
by applying the NPRF using the SWAT model in the Gyeongancheon
Watershed. Mishra et al. (2009) used HSPF to evaluate the modeling of
NPS pollution impact on small-scale watersheds and Tuppad et al.
(Tuppad et al., 2010) used APEX to study the effects of NPRF on long-
term surface runoff, soil erosion and nutrient runoff in fields and small
watersheds.However, the HSPF has limitations in considering storm
sewer networks or pollutant reduction facilities (Mohamoud et al.,
2010). SWAT can simulate various NPRF for agricultural areas taking
into account climate, land use and soil, and the effect of NPRF on stream
water quality. SWAT simulates responses of the hydrologic system based
on Hydrologic Response Units (HRU) which are the smallest unit and
2
Catena 225 (2023) 107028
combination of all similar land use, soil, and slope within a sub-basin
(Sophocleous and Perkins, 2000; Ouyang et al., 2009; Ouyang et al.,
2012). The current HRU concept in SWAT has limitations because the
same slopes calculated as average slopes in a sub-basin are applied to all
HRUs in the same sub-basin. To overcome this limitation, Jang et al.
(Jang et al., 2009) developed Spatially Distributed-HRU (SD-HRU)
modules capable of applying actual slope and slope length, and
compared flow and soil erosion responses, considering the SD-HRU
module. The SD-HRU module was developed to apply the actual slope
and slope length by assigning individual IDs to the HRU taking into
account the spatial distribution of soil maps when overlaying land use
and soil data. However, since the SD-HRU was developed based on a
land use map, it has the disadvantage of not reflecting the exact location
of the agricultural field at that point in time. A disadvantage made it
challenging to apply the NPRF and estimate the exact mitigation effi­
ciency of arable land where multiple NPRFs were applied to each agri­
cultural field to the model. A large amount of soil erosion has occurred
with rainfall in the Mandae District located in the Soyang River water­
shed, which adversely affects water quality and the ecosystem (MOE,
2017a). South Korea’s Ministry of Environment has designated the
Mandae District as an NPS pollution management area to install and
manage various NPRFs. However, since measured data has been estab­
lished in 2009 in the Mandae District, the measured data before the
installation of the NPRF is insufficient. There are limitations to NPRF
efficiency analysis due to the small amount of flow and suspended solid
(SS) data measured. In addition, there are rare studies on watersheds
where highland fields are dense and many NPRFs have been installed,
such as in Mandae district. In this study, SWAT was used to evaluate the
soil erosion and SS reduction efficiency of the NPRF installed in the
Mandae District. For a more accurate estimation, the slope and slope
length of each arable land were calculated using Google Earth and
Geographic Information System (GIS) software (ArcGIS)(ESRI, 2012),
existing land use was updated by digitizing all the actual arable land
boundaries using satellite images, and NPRF were applied to the actual
arable land. In addition, on the basis of literature reviews, for each HRU,
the reduction efficiency of individual NPS pollution reduction facilities
was investigated.
In order to evaluate the reduction efficiency of NPRF in the water­
shed, both the temporal and spatial characteristics of the NPRF were
considered. In Mandae District, the number of NPRF changes every year
from 2006 to 2017 due to the installation and loss of NPRFs, temporal
changes should be considered. In addition, it is necessary to consider the
spatial characteristics of the NPRF because spatial characteristics such as
area, slope, slope length, and altitude are different for each agricultural
field where the NPRF is installed.
However, in most studies that have evaluated the NPS pollution
reduction efficiency using a watershed model, the reduction efficiency
has been evaluated by applying variations in the amount of pesticides
used, vegetative filter strips (Zhang and Zhang, 2011), crops, and slopes
instead of applying various NPRFs (Briak et al., 2019; Merriman et al.,
2018). Therefore, in this study, NPRFs were applied to changes every
year in Mandae District from 2006 to 2017. In addition, a modification
of the HRU distribution method and MUSLE (Modified Universal Soil
Loss Equation) calibration was applied to evaluate soil erosion and the
effectiveness of SS NPRF reduction installed in Mandae District,
considering the temporal and spatial characteristics of the NPRF.
The novelties of this study compared to other SWAT applications are;
1) consideration of spatially distributed HRUs based on agricultural field
boundaries, instead of the traditional combination of land use, soil and
topography in the conventional SWAT HRU delineation method, 2) in­
dividual NPRFs installed each year (2006–2 NPRF), (2007–18 NPRF),
(2008–31 NPRF), (2009–29 NPRF), (2010–1 NPRF), (2011–6 NPRF),
(2012–11 NPRF), (2013–58 NPRF), 2017–41 NPRF) are included in
SWAT calibration/validation to reflect the spatial and temporal impact
of the NPRF on hydrology and sediment yield, 3) instead of the default
soil erosion model at HRU level, MUSLE, MUSI (MUSLE approach using
G. Lee et al.
input coefficients) was calibrated using local data and then used to
estimation of sediment yield from each spatially distributed HRU.
MUSLE was developed using rainfall-runoff data for 778 single rainfall
events observed in 18 watersheds in Nebraska and Texas with a plain
watershed area of 15–1,500 ha, a slope of 0.9–5.9%, and a slope length
of 78.6–173.7 m. Therefore, the use of MUSLE is not appropriate for
field-level sediment estimation. These three approaches will provide
more accurate sediment behaviors from field level to watershed level
when applied together to simulate what is happening in the watershed
from calibration/validation to scenario analysis (Fig. 1).
In addition, the method of this study proposes a method to improve
the accuracy of SWAT modeling in an area with a large number of steep-
slope farmlands around the world. In addition, a method for estimating
soil loss and SS is presented considering the efficiency of BMPs in areas
where a large number of NPRFs are applied. These proposals can be used
to study land use changes (growth and reduction of agricultural land)
and SWAT modeling uncertainty reduction before and after BMP
application.
Fig. 1. The novelty of this study. There are three new approaches such as 1) application of modified HRU distribution method, 2) application of measured BMPs, and
3) calibration of soil erosion using modified MUSLE. These three approaches will provide more accurate sediment behaviors from field to watershed scales.
3
Catena 225 (2023) 107028
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study area
Mandae District was designated as an NPS pollution management
area in 2015 to reduce soil erosion in the Inbukcheon Watershed and
includes Haean-myeon, Yanggu-gun and Seohwa-myeon, Inje-gun,
Gangwon province in South Korea (Fig. 2). The area of Mandae District
is about 64 km2, the maximum / minimum / average altitude is 1,300 /
348 / 640 m, respectively. The maximum and average slope in the
Mandae District is approximately 113% and 28%, and the average
annual precipitation over the past10 years (2009–2018) is about 1,196
mm. Forests and agricultural fields are the main land use in Mandae
District, with forests and agricultural fields accounting for approxi­
mately 62.4 and 35.8 %, respectively. The main crops are ginseng, po­
tatoes, beans, radishes and green onions (MOE, 2017b). There are
approximately 446 structural/non-structural NPRFs installed in over
230 locations (more than 100 HRUs) in Mandae District (MOE, 2018)
(Table 1).
G. Lee et al. Catena 225 (2023) 107028

Fig. 2. Location of the study area. Mandae District was designated as an NPS pollution management area in 2015 for the soil erosion reduction in the Inbukcheon
Watershed and includes Haean-myeon, Yanggu-gun and Seohwa-myeon, Inje-gun, Gangwon province in South Korea.

Table 1 Table 2
List of abbreviations and symbols used in the manuscript. Type and number of NPRF installed in Mandae district.
Abbreviation Definition Type of NPRF Number of Scheduled Management Operations
NPRF (reduction efficiency)
BMPs Best Management Practices
NPS Non-point source Open channel 30 Generic conservation practice(30%)
NPRF NPS pollution reduction facilities Gabion 87 Generic conservation practice(30%)
SWAT The Soil and Water Assessment Tool Ditch restoration 2 Generic conservation practice(30%)
SS Suspended solids Drop fall structure 5 Generic conservation practice(30%)
MUSLE Modified Universal Soill Loss Equation Roads pavement 1 Generic conservation practice(30%)
HRU Hydrology Response Units Spillway 1 Generic conservation practice(30%)
SD-HRU Spatially Distributed-HRU Mattress 1 Generic conservation practice(30%)
GIS Geographic Information System Drainage water 53 Generic conservation practice(30%)
MUSI MUSLE approach that uses input coefficients management
VFS Vegitation Filter Strip Grade stabilization 96 Generic conservation practice(30%)
.OPS file The Scheduled Management Operations structure
MSDH Modified Spatially Distributed-HRU Irrigation reservoir 1 Generic conservation practice(30%)
NSE Nash-Sutcliffe Model Efficiency Waterway 30 Generic conservation practice(26%)
USLE Universal Soil Loss Equation Vegetative mattress 35 Generic conservation practice(30%)
MOE Ministry of Environment (South Korea) Vegetated ridge 3 Generic conservation practice(74.5%)
WAMIS Water Resources Management Information System Vegetated block 2 Generic conservation practice(30%)
ASF Alaska Satellite Facility (US) Grassed waterway 19 Generic conservation practice(41.7%)
RDA Real Development Administration (South Korea) Vegetated gabion 12 Generic conservation practice(30%)
KMA Korea Meteorological Administration (South Korea) wall
R __ Multiply by value Filter strips 4 Filter strip
V__ Replaced by value Vegitation soil back 29 Generic conservation practice(30%)
NPS Unit Load 1. Amount of pollutants generated from unit area per unit time Under drainage 2 Generic conservation practice(30%)
method 2. It was calculated with the event mean concentration Diversion dike 16 Generic conservation practice(26%)
measured during rainfall and the annual pollutant loads for Drainage inlet 8 Generic conservation practice(30%)
each land use Sediment trap 7 Generic conservation practice(54.1%)
Concrete barrier 2 Generic conservation practice(30%)
Summary 446
In this manuscript, abbreviations and symbols used throughout the
manuscript are listed in Table 1.
The Scheduled Management Operations(.ops) file was used to apply 2.2. Evaluation of SS reduction efficiency
NPRF in the SWAT model. Of the 10 options, we used two options in the.
ops file, which are generic conservation practice and the filter strip. In In this study, the soil loss and SS NPRF reduction efficiency applied
the case of reduction facilities without monitored reduction efficiency, to each of the arable lands were calculated. For this purpose, all arable
the reduction efficiency was assumed to be 30%, considering the un­ land in the study area was digitized and the model was calibrated and
certainty (Table 2). validated applying Modified Spatially Distributed-HRU (MSDH)

4
G. Lee et al. Catena 225 (2023) 107028

method, reflecting digitized arable land for land use. In addition, soil
loss was calculated by modifying the MUSLE coefficients and indices
(Williams, 1975) to reflect domestic land use (South-Korean generated
land use data) to calculate the exact soil loss and soil loss reduction
efficiency. Finally, soil loss and SS reduction efficiency at the watershed
outlet were calculated to see the efficiency of the NPS reduction facilities
applied to each of the arable lands in the watershed (Fig. 3).
2.3. SWAT model and input data
The Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model is a semi-
distributed model that is widely used for long-term hydrologic pre­
dictions in the watershed and evaluates the temporal and spatially
altered characteristics of rainfall and runoff based on various inputs data
related to environmental impacts (e.g., precipitation, soil, topographic
and land use change) in the watershed. SWAT can simulate the function
of various NPS agricultural facilities and evaluate the runoff character­
istics of water, sediment, and chemicals through NPS agricultural fa­
cilities. Thus, this study used a SWAT model to evaluate the impact of
NPS agricultural facilities (i.e., vegetation mats, water pipelines and
gabion retaining walls) on agricultural fields.
Essential SWAT model input data include soil, land use, topographic
and weather data. Since topographic data for the study area is not
available, we used a digital elevation model (DEM, 12.5 m resolution)
provided by the Alaska Satellite Facility (ASF), and land use data was
acquired by the Water Resources Management Information System
(WAMIS, 30 m resolution). Soil data was provided by the Real Devel­
opment Administration (RDA, 1:50,000) (Fig. 4). Weather data was
garnered by the Korea Meteorological Administration (KMA)(e.g.,
temperature, precipitation, wind speed, relative humidity and daylight
hours) and the weather station in the study area is Inje station with an
average annual rainfall of 1,196 mm over the last decade, daily average
high temperature of 16.7℃, daily average low temperature of 5.4℃,
average daylight hours of 5.6 h, average relative humidity of 67 %, and
daily average wind speed of 1.8 km/h.
2.4. Modified Spatially Distributed-HRU (MSDH) method
In the SWAT model, the amount of soil loss is calculated for each
HRU using the MUSLE equation (Behera and Panda, 2006; Jeong et al.,
2011). The HRU, which is the SWAT smallest simulation unit, is
considered the same HRU if the land use, soil and slope are the same
even though the location of the HRU in the study area is different
(Ramos et al., 2015). So it is challenging to consider accurate topo­
graphic information of the actual agricultural field in the current SWAT.
SWAT applies the same slope length of 9.1 m for slopes greater than 25
%. Therefore, it is difficult to accurately calculate the amount of soil loss
in areas with steep slopes. The land use (30x30m) provided by WAMIS
(Water Resources Management Information System) represents one
agricultural area, regardless of how many small pieces of agricultural
fields are in one agricultural area, so it is impossible to confirm the
boundaries of each agricultural field. As such, there are many cases
where the HRU does not reflect the boundaries of an actual agricultural
field and is created with the size of more than one actual agricultural
field. This not only makes it difficult to accurately calculate the amount
of soil loss but also has the disadvantage that it is difficult to apply the
NPRF for each cultivated area. For example, when three NPRFs are
installed on each of the three agricultural fields where HRUs are created
in an area with the same soil types, the following differences exist. 1) If
the existing HRU method is used, three NPRFs must be applied to one
HRU because the three agricultural fields are created as one HRU
because the soil type is the same. 2) If the MSDH method is used, the
NPRF can be applied to different HRUs because the three agricultural
fields are created with different HRUs even if the soil type is the same.
Due to the above differences, it is necessary to use the MSDH method to
consider the actual environment when calculating the NPRF efficiency
in agricultural fields.
In order to overcome these limitations, as mentioned above, we
digitized the boundaries of all actual agricultural fields in the study area
using remotely sensed satellite images (Fig. 5). Using this digitized
agricultural field boundary information, it was verified whether each
actual agricultural field was cultivated in the highland field GIS con­
struction project (MOE, 2017b) for the NPS pollution management area
selected by the Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Korea. The
digitized agricultural field boundaries were checked and corrected to be
the same as the actual agricultural field boundaries, and the corrected
boundaries were applied in this study. Agricultural fields in the land use
map that were not actually cultivated have been classified as bare lands
in the updated land use map to more accurately estimate soil loss from
agricultural fields. The land use map was updated to reflect the modified
agricultural field boundaries of the agricultural fields (Fig. 6(a)). Each
farm has been assigned unique HRU IDs (e.g., A001, A002, and A003) so
that they could be distinguished even when creating an HRU within
SWAT. The slope and slope length calculated from actual measurements

Fig. 3. Procedure of evaluation of BMPs reduction efficiency. 1) Simulation of SWAT by applying the MSDH method, 2) calibration of soil erosion by applying the
modified MUSLE, and 3) SS calibration and SS reduction efficiency estimation.

5
G. Lee et al. Catena 225 (2023) 107028

Fig. 4. Input data of Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) for the Mandae watershed ((a) DEM, (b) Land Use Map, (c) Soil Map). *The abbreviations have the
following meaning. Land uses:　URMD = Urban, Medium Density; AGRR = Agricultural land, row crops; FRST = Forest, mixed; AGRC = Small Grains; WATR =
Water. Soil types: An = Complex of soils, narrow valleys; Ma = Lithosols, siliceous crystalline; odF = sandy loam soil; Ra = Red-yellow podzolic soils, Re = Lithosols,
severely eroded, siliceous; Rocky = Rocky lands(No soils).

Fig. 5. Digitized agricultural field map. All agricultural fields in Mandae district were digitized using remotely sensed satellite images.

6
G. Lee et al.
Fig. 6. Updated land use map and HRUs reflecting actual agricultural field. *The abbreviations have the following meaning. Land uses:　URMD = Urban, Medium
Density; AGRR = Agricultural land, row crops; FRST = Forest, mixed; AGRC = Small Grains; WATR = Water; UPLAND = agricultural fields reflecting digitized
agricultural field. BMPs = Best Management Practices; HRUs = Hydrologic Response Units.
for each agricultural field and currently installed NPRF were applied to
the HRU reflecting the actual agricultural field boundary (Fig. 6(b)). The
slope of each agricultural field was provided by the Ministry of Envi­
ronment (GIS system of the alpine region) (MOE, 2018), and the slope
length was measured using Google Earth (Google, 2001). The NPRF type
and location information used in this study was collected from the
Wonju Regional Environmental Office, and the tabular data was trans­
formed into geospatial data.
2.5. SWAT calibration and validation
Proper model calibration and validation is very important to reduce
uncertainty and increase the accuracy of hydrologic modeling (Moriasi
et al., 2007; Engel et al., 2007). The SWAT-CUP was developed at the
Eawag Institute in Switzerland to facilitate the calibration and valida­
tion process in hydrologic modeling using SWAT (Abbaspour et al.,
2007). SWAT-CUP is a window-based independent program that pro­
vides several model calibration and validation algorithms such as SUFI-
2, GLUE, PARASOL, MCMC and PSO(Abbaspour et al., 2007).
Observed water flow and SS data obtained from the measured data
and evaluation project (2009–2017) for the management of NPS pollu­
tion in the Soyang river watershed were used to calibrate and validate
the SWAT in this study. Daily runoff was simulated from 2006 to 2017
using SWAT, and calibration and validation of water flow were per­
formed using SWAT-CUP. The warm-up period of the model was from
2006 to 2009, and the calibration and validation periods were from
2009 to 2014 and from 2015 to 2017, respectively. There are 105
measured water flow data for a rainfall event from 2009 to 2017. 43
measured water flow data exist from 2009 to 2014 and there are 62 flow
measurement data from 2015 to 2017. Calibration and validation pe­
riods were determined in consideration of the number of measured
7
Catena 225 (2023) 107028
water flow data.
For the parameters used for calibration and validation of the model,
9 variables sensitive to water flow simulation were selected taking into
account the sensitivity analysis from previous studies (Arnold et al.,
2012; Park et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2011; Khalid et al., 2016; Me et al.,
2015). The parameters selected were CN2, SOL_AWC, ESCO and CANMX
which affects the direct runoff, LAT_TTIME sensitive to the lateral flow,
and GW_DELAY, GW_REVAP, GWQMN, ALPHA_BF, REVAPMN, and
SOL_K which affect the baseflow. There are three methods to adjust
parameter values in SWAT-CUP: ‘Add to value’, ‘multiply by value (%)’
and ‘replaced by value’. ‘Add to value’ is used to add or subtract a
parameter value to or from the initial value of each parameter. It is
adjusted by adding or subtracting the initial parameter value. ‘Replaced
by value’ is used to adjust the parameter by replacing the initial
parameter value. ‘Multiply by value’ is a modification of a parameter by
multiplying the initial value of the parameter by a value within the
allowable range set (Table 3).
The optimization algorithm for calibration and validation is SUFI-2
(Sequential Uncertainty Fitting ver.2), which is the easy-to-use among
the five algorithms provided by SWAT-CUP and has been validated for
its usefulness in various previous studies (Abbaspour et al., 2007;
Akhavan et al., 2010; Rostamian et al., 2008). The uncertainty in the
SWAT calibration and validation process is indicated by various model
evaluation methods (Lee et al., 2014; Moriasi et al., 2007). In this study
the coefficient of determination (R2) and Nash-Sutcliffe Model Effi­
ciency (Nash and Sutcliffe, 1970) (NSE) were used among the various
model evaluation methods. R2 ranges from 0 to 1, and is an index that
indicates the degree of the linear relationship between the measured
data and the simulated results. The equation is as follows (Equation 1).
G. Lee et al. Catena 225 (2023) 107028

Table 3 ( )0.56
SWAT parameters for streamflow calibration (Streamflow). MUSLE or Sediment = 11.8 × Qsurf × qpeak × areahru × KUSLE
Parameter Description Calibration Range × CUSLE × PUSLE × LSUSLE × CFRG (3)
Method

CN2 NRCS runoff curve number for Multiply by 35 to 98 where MUSLE is the sediment yield on a given day, Qsurf is the surface
moisture Condition II value runoff volume, qpeak is the peak runoff rate, areahru is the area of the
ESCO Soil evaopration compensation factor Replaced by 0 to 1 HRU, KUSLE is the USLE soil erosion factor, CUSLE is the USLE coverage
value
and management factor, PUSLE is the USLE support practice factor,
LAT_TTIME Lateral flow travel time Replaced by 0 to 180
value
LSUSLE is the USLE topographic factor and CFRG is the coarse fragmen­
CANMX Maximum canopy storage Replaced by 0 to 100 tation factor.
value MUSLE uses total runoff (Qsurf) and peak runoff (qpeak) (Qsurf ×
ALPHA_BF Baseflow alpha factor Replaced by 0 to 1 qpeak × areahru ) as runoff factors instead of USLE rainfall energy factor
value
GW_DELAY Groundwater delay time Replaced by 0 to 500
(RUSLE), and MUSLE runoff coefficient and exponent are explained in
value Equation (3), which are 11.8 and 0.56, respectively.
GWQMN Threshold depth of water in the Replaced by 0 to The MUSLE coefficients and exponents suggested by Williams (Wil­
shallow aquifer required for return value 5000 liams, 1975) were developed for the Great Plains of the United States, so
flow to occur
it is difficult for MUSLE to reflect the characteristics of a forest basin
GW_REVAP Groundwater “revap” coefficient Replaced by 0.02 to
value 0.2 (Kim et al., 2015). Therefore, in order to calculate the amount of soil loss
REVAPMN Threshold depth of water in the Replaced by 0 to 500 in a watershed in the Republic of Korea where forest and steep slope
shallow aquifer for “revap” to occur value areas predominate, it is necessary to modify the MUSLE coefficient and
SOL_AWC Available water capacity of the soil Multiply by 0 to 1 exponent in order to accurately estimate the soil loss in the watershed in
layer value
SOL_K Saturated hydraulic conductivity Multiply by 0 to
the republic of Korea. Won and Lee (Won and Lee, 2012) proposed co­
value 2000 efficients and exponents of 5.33 and 0.91, respectively. Kim et al. (Won
and Lee, 2012) estimated coefficients and exponents in a small forest
catchment and they presented them as 0.0002 and 0.81, respectively.
( ∑n ( )( ) )2
yobs,i − Y obs ysim,i − Y sim Lee et al. (Lee et al., 2019) calculated the amount of soil loss by modi­
R2 = ∑n (i=1 (1)
)2 ∑n ( )2 fying the MUSLE coefficient and exponents according to rice paddies,
i=1 yobs,i − Y obs i=1 ysim,i − Y sim
alpine fields and forests in the watershed using SWAT.
where _Yobs, i is the i-th observation, _Ysim, i is the i-th simulation, _Yobs is Based on Lee et al. (Lee et al., 2019)’s study, the amount of soil loss
the mean of the observations, _Ysim is the mean of the simulations and n was calculated by modifying the MUSLE coefficient and exponents for
is the total number of observations. each land use. To this end, the SWAT source code was modified so that
NSE is widely used to compare differences between measured and the MUSLE coefficients and exponents could be applied for any land use.
predicted values in hydrologic modeling. The NSE is a normalized sta­ In addition, the coefficients and exponents of MUSLE were calculated to
tistic that determines relative magnitude by comparing the residual the extent that the difference between the result values of the basic unit
variance and measured data variance (Nash and Sutcliffe, 1970). The data quantified for each land use and the average amount of soil loss per
NSE value ranges from − ∞ to 1, where 1 means that the observed value unit area of the highland fields is within 5%. The average amount of soil
and the predicted value are perfectly matched (Equation 2). loss per unit area for rice paddies and forests was calculated on the basis
( ∑n ( )2 ) of the new base unit of the National Institute of Environmental Research
i=1 yi
obs
− ysim (rice paddy: 0.168 ton/ha/yr, forest: 0.055 ton/ha/yr) (RIG, 2014). The
NSE = 1 − ∑n i
(2)
obs
− ymean )
2 amount of soil loss in alpine fields was calculated based on the amount of
i=1 (yi
soil loss (55 tons/ha/yr) suggested in the report on NPS pollution
where Yobs sim
i is the ith observation for the evaluated constituent, yi is the reduction in highland fields (MOE, 2004).
ith simulated value for the evaluated constituent, ymean is the mean of Two scenarios were simulated and compared to analyze the reduc­
observed data for the evaluated constituent, and n in the total number of tion efficiency of NPRF. The same flow rate correction parameters and
observations. One NSE value indicates perfect agreement between ob­ MUSLE coefficients and exponents were used in all scenarios. Scenarios
servations and simulations. 1 and 2 were simulated without and with applying NPRF, respectively.
The reduction efficiency of the NPRF was analyzed in terms of the
2.6. Analysis of the effectiveness of BMP reduction amount of soil loss and SS. To evaluate the reduction efficiency of the
amount of soil loss, the amount of soil loss generated in all HRUs in
To assess the soil loss reduction efficiency for the NPRF, the total Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 was divided into 9 sub-watersheds (defined by
amount of soil loss in the watershed was estimated when the NPRF was the Ministry of Environment in Korea) (Fig. 7) and compared to 9 sub-
installed, and after installation, the amount of soil loss caused by rainfall watersheds.
and runoff was estimated using MUSLE (Williams, 1975) in SWAT. In order to effectively manage NPS pollution, watershed-level man­
MUSLE is a modified version of USLE (Universal Soil Loss Equation) agement is important, so the impact of NPRF on water quality was
developed by Wischmeier and Smith(Wischmeier and Smith, 1965). evaluated using SWAT. This study is an area where muddy water is a big
USLE uses the function of rainfall energy when simulating average environmental issue. The Ministry of Environment in Korea manages SS
annual erosion but MUSLE uses total runoff to simulate erosion and which causes turbidity through continuous monitoring (MOE, 2017a).
sediment yield (Jang and Kim, 2017). MUSLE was derived from runoff In this study, since the amount of soil loss for each land use was calcu­
data for 778 single rainfall events observed in 18 watersheds in lated using the improved MUSLE, the SS calibration was conducted
Nebraska and Texas with a watershed area of 15-1,500 ha, a slope of using only the PRF (Table 4) that affects routes, except for variables such
0.9–5.9%, and a slope length of 78.6–173.7 m. Equation (3) describes as USLE_K and USLE_P that directly affect MUSLE.
MUSLE, and the calculation method for any factor other than the runoff
factor is the same as for USLE.

8
G. Lee et al.
Fig. 7. Sub-watershed presented by the Ministry of Environment. Study area
was divided into 9 sub-watersheds from No. 101 to No. 109, and the reduction
efficiency was compared with each sub-watersheds.
Table 4
SWAT parameter for SS calibration.
Parameter Description Calibration Range
Method
PRF Peak rate adjustment factor for Replaced by 0 to 2
sediment routing in the main channel value
3. Results and discussion
3.1. SWAT calibration and validation analysis
The following description outlines the key differences between the
current and previous studies. In Jang et al. (2009) study measured slope
and slope length were applied by the SD-HRU method, but the location
of the actual agricultural fields was not considered and the amount of
soil loss by each land use was not calibrated. In the study by Lee et al.
(2019), the MUSI method was used to calibrate soil loss from land use
and evaluate soil loss and SSs, but the NPRF was not included. In this
study, the MSDH method was used to consider both actual agricultural
fields location and NPRF, and the MUSI method was used to calibrate
soil loss for each land use. In addition, the flow rate, the amount of soil
loss and SSs were further calibrated considering the spatial and temporal
NPRF, and the reduction efficiency of the NPRF was evaluated using the
calibrated results.
There were various studies on the efficiency of BMP applications
using the SWAT model. In the studies of Nepal and Parajuli (2022),
Uniyal et al. (2020), Boufala et al. (2022), and Briak et al. (2019), the
9
Catena 225 (2023) 107028
reduction efficiency of BMPs was evaluated by calculating the sediment
yield (Merriman et al., 2019). evaluated the efficiency of complex BMPs
by applying various BMPs scenarios, and Strauch et al. (2013) evaluated
the BMPs reduction efficiency of SSs. However, as in this study, there
have been few studies evaluating soil loss and SSs reduction efficiency
after accounting for the spatial location of the various NPRFs actually
applied and soil loss calibration.. The measured flow and simulated flow
by SWAT modeling at watershed outlets were calibrated and validated
using SWAT-CUP, and the accuracy of simulated flow the was evaluated
using R2 and NSE. CN2 was the most sensitive parameter in flow cali­
bration, and GW_DELAY, SOL_K, and GWQMN were found to be sensi­
tive parameters after CN2. CN2 is a function of the SCS runoff curve
number and is considered the most sensitive variable as it is directly
related to the amount of infiltration. Since GW_DELAY, SOL_K, and
GWQMN are variables related to baseflow in SWAT (Abraham et al.,
2007), they are also considered sensitive variables in flow simulation.
The parameters optimized using SWAT-CUP are shown in Table 5. The
higher the value of CN2, the greater the initial runoff occurs and the the
lower amount of infiltration. Since the area of the watershed is not large
and the average slope is about 28%, there can be a large amount of direct
runoff due to rainfall, and the CN is calibrated as high. GW_REVAP can
be described as the closer to 0, the more restricted the movement of
water from the shallow aquifer to the root zone. If ALPHA_BF is between
0.1 and 0.3, it means that the recharge reaction is slow. According to Gee
(1987), the groundwater recharge rates in areas covered with deep-
rooted vegetation such as forests are lower than those with thin-
rooted vegetation such as grass. All forests in this study area are
broad-leaved forests (FRSD) and broad-leaved forests create deciduous
forest layers that prevent soil infiltration (Gerrits et al., 2007). There­
fore, ALPHA_BF was calculated as 0.165 because the groundwater
recharge rate is slow due to infiltration by vegetation and fallen leaves
during rainfall. Fig. 8(a) and Fig. 8(b) show a graph of the correlation
between the measured and simulated flow at the outlet. The R2 and NSE
calibration results analyzed were 0.75 and 0.71, respectively, and the
validation results showed that the R2 and NSE were 0.84 and 0.79,
respectively. According to Saleh et al. (2000), NSEs of 0.55 ~ 0.65 was
evaluated as “adequately simulated”, and an NSE greater than 0.65 was
evaluated as “extremely well simulated”. Based on Moriasi et al. (2015),
if R2 is 0.75 ~ 0.85, it can be regarded as “Good”, and if NSE is 0.5 ~ 0.7,
it can be defined as “Satisfactory”. If an NSE is between 0.7 and 0.8, it
can be evaluated as “Good”. Therefore, the results of calibration and
validation of the SWAT simulation were a good representation of natural
phenomena, as both R2 and NSE met the SWAT performance criteria.
In order to apply modified MUSLE to SWAT modeling, this study
used a new SWAT engine with modified source codes. At this point, the.
txt file containing each variable information can be loaded so that the
modified MUSLE variables can be applied, and the part where the
amount of soil loss is calculated for each HRU consists of two parts, as
shown in Fig. 9. The first part (Soil_phys.f) of the pseudocode for the
modified MUSLE below is the process of calculating the amount of soil
Table 5
Parameters calibrated by SWAT-CUP(Streamflow).
Parameter Fitted value
R__CN2* 0.18
R__ESCO 0.955
V__LAT_TTIME 2
V__CANMX 9
V__ALPHA_BF 0.165
V__GW_DELAY 107.5
V __GWQMN 150
V __GW_REVAP 0.00623
V __REVAPMN 432.5
R __SOL_AWC − 0.1
R __SOL_K 0.12
*CN2 varies based on each HRU.
R __: Multiply by value; V__: Replaced by value.
G. Lee et al.
Fig. 8. Comparison of observed and simulated streamflow. (a) Calibration period is from 2009 to 2014, (b) validation period is from 2015 to 2017.
loss by first multiplying K, C, P, LS and CFRG among the MUSLE factors
(Equation (3)). The second part (ysed.f) consists in calculating the
amount of soil loss by changing the coefficients and exponents set in
MUSLE at 11.8 and 0.56 to values modified by users and then multi­
plying it by the previously calculated part (Soil_phys.f)(Fig. 9).
Table 6 shows the coefficients and exponents for each land use
calculated using modified MUSLE. The coefficient and exponent of the
runoff factors of the current MUSLE were set at 11.8 and 0.56, respec­
tively. However, in this study, the coefficient and exponent of runoff
factors were applied differently for each land use. Therefore, the co­
efficients and exponents were calibrated to minimize the difference in
the amount of soil loss by comparing the average amount of soil loss per
unit area for each land use calculated from the measured value infor­
mation for each land use and MUSLE. Table 7 shows the difference be­
tween the results of the amount of soil loss per unit area calculated with
the modified MUSLE and NPS unit load method (Table 1). The reason
why annual soil loss per unit area in the highland agricultural fields is
greater than in other agricultural fields in average slope areas is that it
reflects the characteristics of highland agricultural fields. Highland
agricultural fields are located in areas of high altitude and steep slopes,
so a large amount of soil erosion occurs even with a small amount of
rainfall. In addition, as a result of frequent topdressing, soil cohesion has
been weakened, and the decomposed granite used for topdressing is
susceptible to soil erosion due to its poor moisture absorption or coag­
ulation capacity. The difference between the result of the modified
MUSLE method and the unit load method was calculated to be 1%, so it
is judged that land use characteristics of soil erosion in Korea are well
reflected. According to Lee et al. (2019), the difference between the
average soil erosion per unit area for each land use calculated with the
current MUSLE and the unit load method for each land use was analyzed
to be about 46 ~ 5,477%. Therefore, the difference in the results
calculated within 1% in this study means that the modified MUSLE is a
good representation of the extent of soil erosion.
The parameter used to calibrate and validate the SS was PRF and the
optimized value was 0.95. The PRF adjusts the peak rate of sediment
routing in the main channel and the current MUSLE it is judged to have
overestimated the amount of soil erosion. After applying the modified
MUSLE, the amount of soil erosion in forests and farmland was signifi­
cantly reduced. However, the simulated SS is still overestimated because
the amount of soil erosion calculated by the current MUSLE was
significantly overestimated than the actual soil erosion.
10
Catena 225 (2023) 107028
Fig. 10(a) and Fig. 10(b) show the SS calibration and validation re­
sults simulated by the modified MUSLE. The R2 and NSE of the cali­
bration results indicated 0.86 and 0.65, respectively and the R2 and NSE
of the validation results showed 0.76 and 0.76, respectively. According
to Moriasi et al. (2015), if sediment simulation results show that R2
ranges from 0.4 to 0.65, the simulation can be regarded as “Satisfac­
tory”. If R2 ranges from 0.65 to 0.8, the simulation is classified as “Good”
and if NSE is between 0.45 and 0.7, the simulation result represents
“Satisfactory”. If NSE ranges from 0.7 to 0.8, the simulation result is
“Good”. Therefore, both SS calibration and validation replicated natural
phenomena and “Satisfactory” or “Good” simulation results.
3.2. Application of modified Spatially Distributed-HRU distribution
method
MSDH has been improved and applied to the SWAT model. enables
the application of measured-based calculated slope, slope length, and
NPRF to real agricultural fields. Since slope and slope length affect not
only soil erosion but also flow rate, it is necessary to apply a more ac­
curate slope and slope length to accurately estimate flow rate and soil
erosion. Table 8 shows a comparison of the average slope and slope
length for each subwatershed in the HRU calculated with the current
HRU method and MSDH method. The average slope lengths calculated
with the current HRU method and the modified HRU method were 75.1
m and 40.9 m, respectively. The slope length in the MSDH method was
reduced by about 34 m, i.e. by 45%. When using slope length and slope
with the current HRU method, soil erosion and suspended solids are
usually underestimated in areas with steep slopes and long slopes length,
such as Mandae District. Therefore, the use of measured slopes and slope
lengths by the MSDH method results in more accurate soil erosion and
SSs estimation.The average slopes for the watershed were calculated to
be 14.9% according to the current HRU method and 12.7% according to
MSDH, indicating that the average slope in the current HRU was
calculated 2.3% higher than in the modified HRU. The sub-catchments
with the longest average slopes were sub-catchments No. 103 (64.7 m
according to the current HRU method) and No. 105 (89.4 m according to
MSDH) and the sub-catchments with the steepest average slopes were all
sub-watersheds No. 109, which were calculated at 27% according to the
current HRU method and respectively 18.7% according to MSDH. These
results show that the slope length was underestimated and the slope
overestimated in SWAT using the current HRU method. Because slope
G. Lee et al. Catena 225 (2023) 107028

Fig. 9. Pseudo code for modified MUSLE. 1) in soil phys.f file, soil loss by land use was calculated 2) in ysed.f file, the modified coefficients and indices of MUSLE
were applied to calculate the amount of soil loss by land use.

and slope length affect runoff and soil erosion, it is important to accu­ National Agencies such as the Korea Environment Corporation, the
rately estimate slope and slope length for each HRU in the watershed. Wonju Regional Environmental Agency, and the Han River Watershed
The reduction efficiency values of the NPRF applied in this study Management Committee. Facilities that do not have a reduction effi­
were taken from the arithmetic average of the measured data by Korea ciency value except for slope protection (78.5%), vegetation ridge

11
G. Lee et al. Catena 225 (2023) 107028

Table 6 NPRFs. Although 37, 22, and 29 NPRFs were installed in sub-watersheds
Result of MUSLE parameter estimation. No. 101, 102, and 106, where the total number of HRUs was high, the
Landuse MUSLE runoff factor reduction efficiency was lower than the average reduction efficiency of
the watershed, with the exception of sub-watershed No. 101. In the case
Current MUSLE Modified MUSLE
of subwatershed No. 106, the average reduction efficiency of NPRF was
Coefficient Exponent Coefficient Exponent

Paddy 11.8 0.56 0.132 0.56

Agricultural field 11.8 0.56 12 0.56 Table 8
Forest 11.8 0.56 0.081 0.56
Change on Slope length and slope after applying MSDH (each sub-watershed).
Sub- w/o MSDH w/ MSDH
watershed
Average slope Average Average slope Average
Table 7 #
length(m) slope(%) length(m) slope(%)
Applicability assessment of MUSLE parameter for landuse.
1 101 48.0 12.0 81.9 11.2
Landuse Area Soil erosion (t h− yr− 1) Percentage Error
102 51.4 11.1 76.2 10.0
(ha) (%)
Unit Modified 103 64.7 8.2 73.4 6.0
load MUSLE 104 41.5 13.2 87.6 12.3
105 37.4 14.8 89.4 14.2
Paddy 614.1 0.168 0.168 0.2
106 47.4 12.6 75.8 10.7
Agricultural 1,542.8 55.00 55.04 − 0.1
107 37.7 15.6 78.1 12.8
field
108 26.8 19.9 70.9 18.0
Forest 3,710.1 0.055 0.055 − 0.6
109 13.3 27.0 42.5 18.7
Total 40.9 14.9 75.1 12.7

(74.5%), diversion ditch (26%), vegetated swale (41.7%) and sedi­ MSDH: Modified Spatially Distributed-HRU distribution method.
mentation basin (54.1%) were referred to the results report of the w/o: without.
Ministry of Environment in 2015 and 30% reduction efficiency was w/: with.
adopted. According to the results report, 62.5% of the NPRF operated by
the Ministry of Environment showed a reduction efficiency below 40%,
Table 9
especially in the case of particulate matter, the reduction efficiency was Agricultural area and average reduction efficiency for NPRF (each sub-
22.2% in 2012, 27.3% in 2013, and 45% in 2014 and the average watershed).
reduction efficiency was 31.5% (National Assembly Secretariat, 2016).
Sub- Agricultural HRU Average Number of Total
Table 9 shows the area of agricultural fields and the average watershed Area(Km2) Area reduction HRU with number
reduction efficiency of NPRF. The average area of agricultural fields by # (Km2) efficiency of NPRF of HRUs
sub-catchment was about 0.39 km2, and the smallest was the agricul­ NPRF (%)
tural area of sub-catchment No. 109, which is the end of the watershed. 101 0.53 15.8 70.0 37 895
The upper reaches of the watershed (sub-catchments No. 101, 102, 104, 102 0.34 10.6 55.2 22 896
105 and 106) were above the average agricultural area. It was found that 103 0.13 1.4 52.0 11 253
the average reduction efficiencies of NPRF in the study area amounted to 104 0.59 10.7 58.5 17 565
105 0.59 4.9 70.9 22 393
approximately 62.5%, and in sub-watersheds No. 101, 106 and 107 106 0.44 6.8 61.1 29 725
respectively 70%, 70.9%, and 65.1%, which was indicated as higher 107 0.55 3.3 68.4 5 276
than average reduction efficiency. On the other hand, sub-watersheds 108 0.35 6.8 65.1 4 240
No. 102, 103, and 104 showed 55.2%, 52%, and 58.5%, respectively, 109 0.03 4.0 – – 22
Total 3.57 64 62.5 147 4,265
which was lower than the average reduction efficiency of all applied

Fig. 10. Comparison of observed and simulated SS. (a) Calibration period is from 2009 to 2014, (b) validation period is from 2015 to 2017.

12
G. Lee et al. Catena 225 (2023) 107028

low despite having about 200% more HRUs and 25 more NPRFs Table 11
installed than in the sub-watershed No. 108, which has a similar Soil erosion and Surface runoff, reduction efficiency for scenarios (each sub-
watershed area. It is estimated that sub-watershed No. 106 is affected by watershed).
the inflow and sediment from sub-watersheds No. 104 and 105. The Sub- Soil erosion (kt/yr) Surface runoff (Mt/yr) Reduction
average reduction efficiency of sub-watersheds No. 101, 105, and 108, watershed
Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario
efficiency for
which were not affected by the inflow and sediment from other sub- # soil erosion
1 2 1 2
(%)
watersheds, was evaluated to be high. In Table 9, the number of HRUs
in sub-watersheds No. 101, 105 and 107 with high reduction efficiency 101 17.17 15.48 5.9 5.7 9.9
102 20.21 19.16 4.3 4.2 5.2
was 895, 393, and 276, respectively, which indicates a large difference
103 2.39 2.26 0.8 0.7 5.5
in the number of HRUs. The number of installed NPRFs varies; 37 in sub- 104 9.62 9.11 3.0 2.9 5.2
watershed No. 101, 22 in sub-watershed No. 105 and 5 in sub-watershed 105 11.35 9.40 1.7 1.6 17.1
No. 107. It was found that the reduction efficiency of SS was affected by 106 10.83 9.89 3.0 2.9 8.6
slope and slope length, regardless of the number of HRUs or NRPFs. 107 5.52 5.50 1.6 1.6 0.5
108 4.14 4.08 1.8 1.7 1.5
Table 10 shows the statistics of the average slope, slope length and 109 0.35 0.35 1.2 1.2 0.0
NPRF (updated in 2017) by classifying the reduction efficiency at in­ Total 81.58 75.23 5.9 5.7 7.8
tervals of 10%. The efficiency of the NPS pollution reduction facility
kt: Kilo ton.
shown in Table 11 is not the efficiency of a single NPS pollution
reduction facility, but the efficiency applied to a single agricultural field
(HRU). Thus, three or more NPRFs were applied to one HRU, resulting in was found to occur the most, even though the average slope was not
an efficiency in excess of 80%. The average slope length and slope of all steep compared to other sub-watersheds. For the USLE P value in this
HRUs were 75.1 m and 12.7% (Table 8), respectively, but the average study area, all HRUs were equally allocated as 1, and for the USLE C
slope length and slope of the agricultural field to which NPRF was value, all agricultural fields were equally assigned as 0.2. However, in
applied were shown as 122.84 m and 13.5%, individually. The average the case of the USLE K value, the average USLE K value for sub-
slope length and slope of all agricultural fields were 91.1 m and 12%. watershed No.101 was 0.161, and for sub-watershed No.102 was
0.167, which was higher than the overall average of 0.158. For surface
runoff, sub-watershed No.102 was 4.2 Mt (Megaton) which was the
3.3. NPRF performance(reduction efficiency for soil erosion and SS) second largest after sub-watershed No.101 (5.7 Mt) (Table 11). There­
fore runoff factors (e.g., surface runoff, peak runoff and HRU area) and
The efficiency of soil erosion reduction in all HRUs in the sub- USLE K are assessed to have contributed to a large amount of soil erosion
catchments was analyzed and the reduction efficiency of SS at each in sub-watershed No.102.
sub-watershed outlet was calculated. As shown in Table 11, it can be It was found that the reduction efficiency of soil erosion according to
seen that there is a difference in the reduction efficiency (7.8%) that the NPS pollution reduction facility is higher with a higher slope and
affected the amount of soil erosion in the basin and the reduction effi­ longer slope length. In terms of reduction efficiency, sub-watershed No.
ciency (5.8%) that affected the SS at the outlet of the basin by the NPRF 105 showed the greatest reduction efficiency, followed by sub-
installed on every farmland. This is because when the amount of soil watersheds No. 101 and 106. For sub-watershed No.105, the average
erosion is transported in the river, it would be affected by various factors slope was the steepest slope (14.2%) among all sub-watersheds, and the
such as river flow rate, sedimentation and suspension. The reduction average slope length was the longest and amounted to 89.4 m. As shown
efficiencies for each sub-watershed are similar and it can be seen that in Table 10, the reduction efficiency was high because a certain number
managing pollution sources with NPRF installed on cultivated land is of NPRFs were applied in agricultural fields with a long slope length and
very important in managing the NPS pollution at the basin level. While steep slope.
the reduction efficiency applied to each HRU ranges from 20 to 99%, the Fig. 11 shows changes in soil erosion reduction efficiency at various
soil erosion reduction efficiency (7.8%) and SS reduction efficiency slopes (Fig. 11(a)) and slope lengths (Fig. 11(b)) in each sub-watershed.
(5.8%) are 7.8% and 5.8%, respectively. This is because the area where As shown in Fig. 11(a), it is found that the higher the slope, the higher
the NPRF was applied is 1.3 km2 which is only about 2% of the entire the reduction efficiency, but sub-watersheds No.107, 108 and 109
watershed area (64 km2) and about 36.4% of the total agricultural area indicated low reduction efficiency despite the high slope. Since there is
(3.57 km2). almost no cultivated land in the downstream area and no NPRFs are
Table 11 shows the annual soil erosion and reduction efficiency for installed, this result was shown. Out of all 194 NPRFs, 9 were installed in
each sub-watershed in scenarios 1 and 2. As for the annual soil erosion, sub-watershed No.107 and 5 in sub-watershed No.108, and nothing was
sub-watershed No.102 turned out to be the largest, followed by sub- installed in sub-watershed No.109. In the case of sub-watersheds
watersheds No.101 and 105. The average slope of the entire water­ No.107, 108 and 109, low reduction efficiency was found despite the
shed was 12.7%, but the average slope of sub-watershed No.102 was high slope. As shown in Fig. 11(b), the longer the slope, the higher the
10%, which was the second lowest average slope after subwatershed reduction efficiency. Therefore, the reduction efficiency of the amount
No.103. In the case of sub-watershed No.102, the amount of soil erosion of soil erosion can be proportional to the slope length.
The reduction efficiency of soil loss according to the soil physical
Table 10 characteristics of each sub-watershed was examined. Sub-watersheds
Slope length, slope and NPRF for reduction efficiency (divided by 10% range). with a large portion of Ra and OdF soils showed mostly high reduc­
Reduction Average slope Average slope Number of HRU tion efficiency, especially sub-watersheds No. 105, 106, 101, and 102
efficiency(%) length(m) (%) with NRPF with a high portion of Ra soil showed high reduction efficiency of soil
20–29 52.14 8.6% 1
loss (Table 11 and 12). Ra soil in South Korea is normally comprised of
30–39 116.50 14.0% 39 fine loamy with good drainage, which is suitable for farming. Therefore,
40–49 132.87 14.0% 9 it is judged that the regions where there are a lot of agricultural fields
50–59 130.87 12.3% 21 and NPRFs installed and where Ra soil makes up the majority have a
60–69 126.31 13.8% 7
high efficiency in reducing soil loss. The low reduction efficiency of soil
70–79 129.68 14.0% 25
80–89 104.93 12.2% 22 loss in sub-watershed No. 108 with 32% Ra soil occurs due to the small
90–99 134.05 14.6% 23 number of NPRFs installed (only 4 NPRFs). Therefore, the reduction
Total 122.84 13.5% 147 efficiency of soil loss by sub-watershed is judged to be the result of a

13
G. Lee et al. Catena 225 (2023) 107028

Fig. 11. Relationship between reduction efficiency and slope/slope length (Soil erosion). (a) Changes in soil erosion reduction efficiency at various slopes were
presented (b) changes in soil erosion reduction efficiency at various slope lengths were shown.

Table 12
Agricultural area and average reduction efficiency for NPRF (each sub-watershed).
Sub-watershed An Ma OdF Ra Re Rocky Total
#

101 274.97 494.95 0 504.67 34.87 272.57 1,582.02

102 5.93 335.17 4.39 233.81 169.50 312.08 1,060.87
103 62.72 0 0 2.34 71.95 0 137.02
104 55.72 0 925.91 91.13 0 0 1,072.76
105 2.53 29.16 264.66 172.04 1.23 21.44 491.06
106 191.11 0 235.35 239.03 11.37 0 676.85
107 208.50 0 0 63.29 56.92 0 328.71
108 62.69 136.72 262.54 216.13 0 0 678.08
109 168.49 214.62 0 21.63 0 0 404.73
Total 1,032.66 1,210.61 1,692.85 1,544.06 345.83 606.09 6,432.11

of annual SS and the reduction efficiency at outlets for each sub-

Table 13
watershed. The reduction efficiency of SS was similar to the soil
The amount of SS and reduction efficiency for two scenarios (each
erosion reduction efficiency in Table 11, and in the sub-watersheds 101
subwatershed).
and 105, the upstream watershed, the reduction efficiency of SS was
Sub-watershed SS (kt/yr) Reduction efficiency (%) slightly increased or the same compared to the soil loss reduction effi­
#
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 ciency. In sub-watersheds 102, 104 and 108, the SS reduction efficiency
101 4.73 4.23 10.6 was slightly reduced despite the upstream watershed, as the number and
102 4.03 3.82 5.1 area of NPRF were smaller than in sub-watersheds 101 and 105. In the
103 10.00 9.37 6.3 sub-watersheds 107 and 109, the SS reduction efficiency was signifi­
104 4.91 4.69 4.5 cantly increased compared to the soil erosion reduction efficiency shown
105 1.99 1.65 17.1
106 8.59 7.94 7.6
in Table 11 because the sub-watersheds 107 and 109 were located in
107 15.66 14.42 7.9 downstream of the watershed. The SS reduction efficiency is affected by
108 0.68 0.68 1.0 the amount of soil erosion reduced by NPRFs installed in agricultural
109 19.16 18.05 5.8 fields, so it is important to manage pollution sources such as NPRFs in
kt: Kilo ton. agricultural fields.
Fig. 12 shows the relationship between the SS reduction efficiency
complex effect of the soil physical characteristics of the sub-watershed and slope or slope length for each sub-watershed. Similar to the rela­
and the type and number of NPRFs. tionship between the soil erosion reduction efficiency and the slope or
The Sediment Delivery Ratio (SDR) is the ratio of mobile soil parti­ slope length (shown in Fig. 11), Fig. 12 shows sub-watershed No.108
cles eroded to the total amount of soil eroded from areas to a specific indicating low reduction efficiency even though the slope was high. In
point occurring in a watershed, and the SDR is affected by various fac­ the case of sub-watersheds No.107 and 109, the SS reduction efficiency
tors such as the area and slope of the watershed. Since these SDRs vary was higher than the soil erosion reduction efficiency. Sub-watersheds
from each watershed due to different environmental conditions (USDA, No. 107 and No. 109 are located in the downstream area, and SS
1983), this study analyzed the reduction efficiency of the SS considering reduced by the NPRF installed in the upper sub-watershed flowed down
the SDR as well as the soil erosion reduction efficiency of the NPS into sub-watersheds No. 107 and No. 109. Therefore, it is estimated that
pollution reduction facility. the SS reduction efficiency was higher than the soil loss reduction effi­
Table 13 shows the results of scenarios 1 and 2 indicating the amount ciency. Comparing sub-watersheds No. 107 and No. 109, the SS

14
G. Lee et al.
Fig. 12. Relationship between reduction efficiency and slope/slope length (SS). (a) Changes in SS reduction efficiency at various slopes were presented (b) changes
in SS reduction efficiency at various slope lengths were shown.
reduction efficiency of sub-watershed No. 107 was found to be higher
than that of sub-watershed No. 109. The reason is that sub-watershed
No. 107 has 5 NPRFs installed and there is no NPRF installed in sub-
watershed No. 109. Similar to the soil loss reduction efficiency, the SS
reduction efficiency tends to be higher with increasing slope length. As a
result, it was found that the reduction efficiency of the NPS pollution
reduction facility was higher because the slope length was longer for
both the amount of soil erosion and SS. As mentioned earlier, more or
higher efficient NPRFs were installed where the slope length is long.
As shown in the Fig. 12, the R2 value of the slope and SS reduction
efficiency is 0.018 and the R2 value of the slope length and SS reduction
efficiency is 0.1711, respectively. The reason why the R2 values are low
is the soil loss reduction efficiency is greatly affected by the NPRF. In
Fig. 13, the R2 value between the slope and the generation of SS is 0.58
and the R2 between the slope length and the generation of SS is 0.34,
which is statistically significant. The slope and slope length are impor­
tant factors that influence the generation of SS, but there was no sig­
nificant correlation with soil loss reduction efficiency. Therefore, it
Fig. 13. Relationship between SS amount and slope/slope length. (a) Changes in SS at various slopes were presented (b) changes in SS at various slope lengths
were shown.
15
Catena 225 (2023) 107028
appears that the number and type of NPRF installations have a signifi­
cant impact on the SS reduction efficiency.
4. Conclusions
The soil erosion and SS reduction efficiency of NPRF in the water­
shed were analyzed using the SWAT watershed model. The average area
of agricultural fields for each sub-watershed was about 0.39 km2, and
the average efficiency of the NPRF was about 62.5%. It was challenging
to find a strong correlation between the efficiency of NPRF applied to
each sub-watershed and the reduction efficiency of soil erosion and SS
because the number and area of HRUs to which the NPRF was applied
were different for each sub-watershed. Considering the relationship
between the slope length, the slope and the reduction efficiency, it was
found that the greater the slope and the longer the slope length, the
greater the soil erosion and SS reduction efficiency. However, some sub-
watersheds (No. 107, 108, and 109) had high slopes but low soil erosion
reduction efficiency as agricultural fields and NPRF were rare in the sub-
G. Lee et al.
watersheds. However, in the case of the SS, sub-watershed 108 had a
high slope and low reduction efficiency, while sub-watershed 107 had a
high reduction efficiency due to the impact of the reduced SS from up­
stream. The longer the slope, the greater the soil erosion and SS
reduction efficiency. It was estimated that the longer the slope, the
greater the reduction efficiency or the greater the number of NPRF in­
stallations. The results section indicated that the SS reduction efficiency
is strongly affected by the reduction in the amount of soil erosion. So
source management is very important to reduce SS. Accordingly, the
reduction efficiency of NPRF analyzed in this study can be used as
important information for the installation of reduction facilities when
planning an NPS pollution reduction project in the future. Currently,
there is no previous research in Korea, on how NPRF performance
changes depending on various conditions such as time and seasons. This
study analyzed the efficiency of the NPRF by considering the exact
location, slope and slope length of the NPRF. It is believed that if more
diverse conditions are considered, it will be possible to accurately assess
soil erosion and the SS reduction efficiency of NPRF in the watershed.
Nonlinearly increasing soil erosion and sediment under the influence
of changes in climate and rainfall regimes are important factors in the
assessment of water pollution in watersheds. The MSDH and modeling
techniques enable the evaluation of reduction efficiency at a watershed
scale by considering the temporal and spatial characteristics of the
NPRF. In particular, MSDH was used to evaluate the Mandae District,
where highland fields are dense and a number of NPRFs have been
installed. MSDH is expected to be very useful in evaluating NPS pollu­
tion in various areas where non-point pollution reduction facilities are
installed.
Turbid water generated in highland agricultural fields located in
upstream of the Han River watershed affects water quality and aquatic
ecosystems in downstream. Therefore, the management of water quality
and aquatic ecosystems in the upstream watershed is very important.
Since 2007, the Korean government has been installing and operating
structured and unstructured NPRFs to reduce water turbidity. However,
it has been difficult to establish an environmental policy for NPS
pollution reduction projects because a thorough evaluation of the
reduction efficiency has not been performed. Outside of watersheds that
include the management areas of NPS pollution reduction, it is difficult
to understand the effect of turbid water generated in the NPS control
area due to the lack of measurement data such as the flow rate and water
quality during rainfall. Therefore, as in this study, if the reduction effi­
ciency of NPRF is accurately evaluated using a watershed model, the
results of the study can be practically used to establish environmental
policy for NPS pollution reduction projects. Based on this research
approach, the effect of turbid water on an unmeasured watershed can be
evaluated.
This study has several shortcomings that should be addressed in
further research. There is some doubt as the reduction efficiency of 30%
has been uniformly applied to NPRFs for which there is no observation
value for the reduction efficiency of various NPRFs. In addition, the
reduction efficiency of NPRF decreases with time after the installation,
but the NPRF degradation efficiency over time after installation was not
considered in this study. Therefore, in future studies, 1) additional
measurements of the reduction efficiencies of the various NPRFs are
required, and 2) it is necessary to consider the degradation of the
reduction efficiencies over the period that the NPRFs are installed.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
16
Catena 225 (2023) 107028
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the Ministry of Environment of Korea as
The SS (Surface Soil conservation and management) projects
[2019002820003].
References
Abbaspour, K.C., Yang, J., Maximov, I., Siber, R., Bogner, K., Mieleitner, J., Zobrist, J.,
Srinivasan, R., 2007. Modelling hydrology and water quality in the pre-alpine/alpine
Thur watershed using SWAT. J. Hydrol. 333, 413–430.
Abraham, L.Z., Roehrig, J., Alamirew, C.D., 2007. Calibration and Validation of SWAT
Hydrologic Model for Meki Watershed, Ethiopia, in: Conference on International
Agricultural Research for Developement. pp. 50–53.
Akhavan, S., Abedi-Koupai, J., Mousavi, S.F., Afyuni, M., Eslamian, S.S., Abbaspour, K.
C., 2010. Application of SWAT model to investigate nitrate leaching in Hamadan-
Bahar Watershed. Iran. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 139, 675–688. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.agee.2010.10.015.
Arnold, J.G., Srinivasan, R., Muttiah, R.S., Williams, J.R., 1998. Large area hydrologic
modeling and assessment part I: Model development. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.1998.tb05961.x.
Arnold, J.G., Moriasi, D.N., Gassman, P.W., Abbaspour, K.C., White, M.J., Srinivasan, R.,
Santhi, C., Harmel, R.D., Van Griensven, A., Van Liew, M.W., Kannan, N., Jha, M.K.,
2012. SWAT: Model use, calibration, and validation. Trans. ASABE. 10 (13031/
2013), 42259.
Behera, S., Panda, R.K., 2006. Evaluation of management alternatives for an agricultural
watershed in a sub-humid subtropical region using a physical process based model.
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 113, 62–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2005.08.032.
Borah, D.K., Bera, M., 2004. Watershed-scale hydrologic and nonpoint-source pollution
models: Review of applications. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 10 (13031/2013),
16110.
Boufala, M.H., El Hmaidi, A., Essahlaoui, A., Chadli, K., El Ouali, A., Lahjouj, A., 2022.
Assessment of the best management practices under a semi-arid basin using SWAT
model (case of M’dez watershed, Morocco). Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 8, 713–731.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-021-01123-6.
Briak, H., Mrabet, R., Moussadek, R., Aboumaria, K., 2019. Use of a calibrated SWAT
model to evaluate the effects of agricultural BMPs on sediments of the Kalaya river
basin (North of Morocco). Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 7, 176–183. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.iswcr.2019.02.002.
Carpenter, S.R., Caraco, N.F., Correll, D.L., Howarth, R.W., Sharpley, A.N., Smith, V.H.,
1998. Nonpoint pollution of surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen. Ecol.
Appl. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(1998)008[0559:NPOSWW]2.0.CO;2.
Chen, D.J., Lu, J., Shen, Y.N., Dahlgren, R.A., Jin, S.Q., 2009. Estimation of critical
nutrient amounts based on input-output analysis in an agriculture watershed of
eastern China. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 134, 159–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
agee.2009.06.011.
Da Silva, A.M., Huang, C.H., Francesconi, W., Saintil, T., Villegas, J., 2015. Using
landscape metrics to analyze micro-scale soil erosion processes. Ecol. Indic. 56,
184–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLIND.2015.04.004.
Ding, X., Liu, L., 2019. Long-term effects of anthropogenic factors on nonpoint source
pollution in the upper reaches of the Yangtze river. Sustainability. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su11082246.
Engel, B., Storm, D., White, M., Arnold, J., Arabi, M., 2007. A hydrologic/water quality
model application protocol. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1752-1688.2007.00105.x.
ESRI, 2012. ArcGIS Desktop 10.1. Redlands CA.
Gee, G.W., 1987. Recharge at the Hanford Site: Status report.
Gerrits, A.M.J., Savenije, H.H.G., Hoffmann, L., Pflster, L., 2007. New technique to
measure forest floor interception - An application in a beech forest in Luxembourg.
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-11-695-2007.
Google, n.d. Google Earth [WWW Document]. U.S.A. URL https://www.google.
com/earth/.
Himanshu, S.K., Pandey, A., Yadav, B., Gupta, A., 2019. Evaluation of best management
practices for sediment and nutrient loss control using SWAT model. Soil Tillage Res.
192, 42–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.STILL.2019.04.016.
Huang, J.Y., Liao, I.E., Chung, Y.F., Chen, K.T., 2013. Shielding wireless sensor network
using Markovian intrusion detection system with attack pattern mining. Inf. Sci. (Ny)
231, 32–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.INS.2011.03.014.
IPCC, 2014. Climate Change 2014, Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. 10.1017/
CBO9781107415324.
Jang, S.S., Kim, S.J., 2017. Assessment of Climate Change Impact on Highland
Agricultural Watershed Hydrologic Cycle and Water Quality under RCP Scenarios
using SWAT. J. Korean Soc. Agric. Eng. 59, 41–50. https://doi.org/10.5389/
ksae.2017.59.3.041.
Jang, W., Yoo, D.S., Chung, I.M., Kim, N.W., Jun, M.S., Park, Y.S., Kim, J., Lim, K.J.,
2009. Development of SWAT SD-HRU Pre-processor Module for Accurate Estimation
of Slope Length of Each HRU Considering Spatial Topographic Characteristics in
SWAT. J. Korean Soc. Water Environ. 25, 351–362.
Jeong, J., Kannan, N., Arnold, J.G., Glick, R., Gosselink, L., Srinivasan, R., Harmel, R.D.,
2011. Development of sub-daily erosion and sediment transport algorithms for
SWAT. Trans. ASABE. 10 (13031/2013), 39841.
Johanson, R.C., Imhoff, J.C., Davis, H.H., 1980. Users manual for hydrological
simulation program - FORTRAN (HSPF). Final report, Nov 76-Nov 78.
G. Lee et al.
Keller, A.A., Chen, X., Fox, J., Fulda, M., Dorsey, R., Seapy, B., Glenday, J., Bray, E.,
2014. Attenuation coefficients for water quality trading. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48,
6788–6794. https://doi.org/10.1021/es500202x.
Khalid, K., Ali, M.F., Rahman, N.F.A., Mispan, M.R., Haron, S.H., Othman, Z., Bachok, M.
F., 2016. Sensitivity Analysis in Watershed Model Using SUFI-2 Algorithm, in:
Procedia Engineering. 10.1016/j.proeng.2016.11.086.
Kim, J., Choi, H.T., Lim, H., 2015. Evaluation on MUSLE Runoff Energy Coefficient in
Small Forest Watershed. J. Korea Soc. Environ. Restor. Technol. 18, 191–200.
10.13087/kosert.2015.18.6.191.
Kourakos, G., Klein, F., Cortis, A., Harter, T., 2012. A groundwater nonpoint source
pollution modeling framework to evaluate long-term dynamics of pollutant
exceedance probabilities in wells and other discharge locations. Water Resour. Res.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2011WR010813.
Lam, Q.D., Schmalz, B., Fohrer, N., 2011. The impact of agricultural Best Management
Practices on water quality in a North German lowland catchment. Environ. Monit.
Assess. 183, 351–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10661-011-1926-9.
Lee, S., Lee, G., Yang, D., Choi, Y., Lim, K.J., Jang, W.S., 2019. Occurrence and Behavior
Analysis of Soil Erosion by Applying Coefficient and Exponent of MUSLE Runoff
Factor Depending on Land Use. J. Wetl. Researh 21, 98–106.
Lee, M., Park, G., Park, M., Park, J., Lee, J., Kim, S., 2010. Evaluation of non-point source
pollution reduction by applying Best Management Practices using a SWAT model
and QuickBird high resolution satellite imagery. J. Environ. Sci. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S1001-0742(09)60184-4.
Lee, G., Shin, Y., Jung, Y., 2014. Development of web-based RECESS model for
estimating baseflow using SWAT. Sustain. 6, 2357–2378. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su6042357.
Lin, B.S., Thomas, K., Chen, C.K., Ho, H.C., 2016. Evaluation of soil erosion risk for
watershed management in Shenmu watershed, central Taiwan using USLE model
parameters. Paddy Water Environ. 14, 19–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10333-014-
0476-5.
Me, W., Abell, J.M., Hamilton, D.P., 2015. Effects of hydrologic conditions on SWAT
model performance and parameter sensitivity for a small, mixed land use catchment
in New Zealand. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-4127-
2015.
Merriman, K.R., Daggupati, P., Srinivasan, R., Hayhurst, B., 2019. Assessment of site-
specific agricultural Best Management Practices in the Upper East River watershed,
Wisconsin, using a field-scale SWAT model. J. Great Lakes Res. 45, 619–641. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2019.02.004.
Merriman, K.R., Daggupati, P., Srinivasan, R., Toussant, C., Russell, A.M., Hayhurst, B.,
2018. Assessing the impact of site-specific BMPs using a spatially explicit, field-scale
SWAT model with edge-of-field and tile hydrology and water-quality data in the
Eagle Creek Watershed, Ohio. Water (Switzerland). https://doi.org/10.3390/
w10101299.
Mishra, A., Kar, S., Raghuwanshi, N.S., 2009. Modeling nonpoint source pollutant losses
from a small watershed using HSPF model. J. Environ. Eng. https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2009)135:2(92).
MOE, 2004. Comprehensive Measures for Reducing Pollution in Upland Fields.
MOE, 2017a. Monitoring and evaluation of Non-point source management areas in
Mandae, Gaa and Jaun districts (2nd).
MOE, 2017b. A Study on GIS System Construction for Highland Agricult ural Fields in
Mandae and Gaa Non-point Source Pollution Management Areas.
MOE, 2018. Monitoring and evaluation of Non-point source management areas in
Mandae, Gaa and Jaun districts (3rd).
MOE, n.d. Agricultural Land in Alpine Region Management [WWW Document]. URL
https://www.nonpoint.or.kr/.
MOE, 2016. Installation, Management, and Operation Manual of Non-point source
Pollution Reduction Facilities. MOE.
Mohamoud, Y.M., Parmar, R., Wolfe, K., 2010. Modeling best management practices
(BMPs) with HSPF, in: Watershed Management Conference 2010: Innovations in
Watershed Management under Land Use and Climate Change - Proceedings of the
2010 Watershed Management Conference. pp. 892–898. 10.1061/41148(389)81.
Moriasi, D.N., Arnold, J.G., Liew, M.W.V., Bingner, R.L., Harmel, R.D., Veith, T.L., 2007.
Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed
simulations. Trans. ASABE 50, 885–900.
Moriasi, D.N., Gitau, M.W., Pai, N., Daggupati, P., 2015. Hydrologic and water quality
models: Performance measures and evaluation criteria. Trans. ASABE. https://doi.
org/10.13031/trans.58.10715.
Mwangi, J.K., Shisanya, C.A., Gathenya, J.M., Namirembe, S., Moriasi, D.N., 2015.
A modeling approach to evaluate the impact of conservation practices on water and
sediment yield in Sasumua Watershed, Kenya. J. Soil Water Conserv. 70, 75–90.
https://doi.org/10.2489/JSWC.70.2.75.
Nash, J.E., Sutcliffe, J.V., 1970. River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I -
A discussion of principles. J. Hydrol. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(70)
90255-6.
Nepal, D., Parajuli, P.B., 2022. Assessment of Best Management Practices on Hydrology
and Sediment Yield at Watershed Scale in Mississippi Using SWAT. Agric. 12 https://
doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12040518.
NIER, 2009. Monitoring and evaluation of NPS pollution priority management region -
Soyanggang dam watershed -.
Ouyang, W., Wang, X., Hao, F., Srinivasan, R., 2009. Temporal-spatial dynamics of
vegetation variation on non-point source nutrient pollution. Ecol. Modell. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2009.06.039.
17
Catena 225 (2023) 107028
Ouyang, W., Huang, H., Hao, F., Shan, Y., Guo, B., 2012. Evaluating spatial interaction of
soil property with non-point source pollution at watershed scale: The phosphorus
indicator in Northeast China. Sci. Total Environ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2012.06.017.
Park, J.Y., Ahn, S.R., Hwang, S.J., Jang, C.H., Park, G.A., Kim, S.J., 2014. Evaluation of
MODIS NDVI and LST for indicating soil moisture of forest areas based on SWAT
modeling. Paddy Water Environ. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10333-014-0425-3.
Peter Heng, B.C., Chandler, J.H., Armstrong, A., 2010. Applying close range digital
photogrammetry in soil erosion studies. Photogramm. Rec. 25, 240–265. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1477-9730.2010.00584.x.
Qi, S.S., Hao, F.H., Ouyang, W., Cheng, H.G., 2012. Characterizing landscape and soil
erosion dynamics under pipeline interventions in Southwest China. Procedia
Environ. Sci. 13, 1863–1871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2012.01.180.
Ramos, M.C., Benito, C., Martínez-Casasnovas, J.A., 2015. Simulating soil conservation
measures to control soil and nutrient losses in a small, vineyard dominated, basin.
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 213, 194–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
agee.2015.08.004.
RIG, 2014. Policy Changes in Non-point Source Management and Gangwon-do.
Ritter, W., Shirmohammadi, A., 2001. Agricultural nonpoint source pollution: Watershed
management and hydrology. Boca Raton, Florida CRC Press.
Rostamian, R., Jaleh, A., Afyuni, M., Mousavi, S.F., Heidarpour, M., Jalalian, A.,
Abbaspour, K.C., 2008. Application of a SWAT model for estimating runoff and
sediment in two mountainous basins in central Iran. Hydrol. Sci. J. 53, 977–988.
Saleh, A., Arnold, J.G., Gassman, P.W., Hauck, L.M., Rosenthal, W.D., Williams, J.R.,
McFarland, A.M.S., 2000. Application of SWAT for the Upper North Bosque River
Watershed. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.3000.
Sophocleous, M., Perkins, S.P., 2000. Methodology and application of combined
watershed and ground-water models in Kansas. J. Hydrol. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0022-1694(00)00293-6.
Strauch, M., Lima, J.E.F.W., Volk, M., Lorz, C., Makeschin, F., 2013. The impact of Best
Management Practices on simulated streamflow and sediment load in a Central
Brazilian catchment. J. Environ. Manage. 127, S24–S36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvman.2013.01.014.
Tao, F., Yokozawa, M., Hayashi, Y., Lin, E., 2003. Future climate change, the agricultural
water cycle, and agricultural production in China. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 95,
203–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(02)00093-2.
Tuppad, P., Santhi, C., Wang, X., Williams, J.R., Srinivasan, R., Gowda, P.H., 2010.
Simulation of conservation practices using the apex model. Appl. Eng. Agric.
USDA, 1983. National Engineering Handbook: Sedimentation, USDA.
U.S.EPA, 2016. National Nonpoint Source Program - A catalyst for water quality
improvements. Environ. Prot. Agency. EPA 841-R-16-009.
Uniyal, B., Jha, M.K., Verma, A.K., Anebagilu, P.K., 2020. Identification of critical areas
and evaluation of best management practices using SWAT for sustainable watershed
management. Sci. Total Environ. 744, 140737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2020.140737.
Wang, K., Wang, H.J., Shi, X.Z., Weindorf, D.C., Yu, D.S., Liang, Y., Shi, D.M., 2009.
Landscape analysis of dynamic soil erosion in Subtropical China: A case study in
Xingguo County, Jiangxi Province. Soil Tillage Res. 105, 313–321. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.STILL.2008.08.013.
Williams, J.R., Arnold, J.G., Srinivasan, R., Ramanarayanan, T.S., 1998. APEX: A New
Tool for Predicting the Effects of Climate and CO2 Changes on Erosion and Water
Quality, in: Modelling Soil Erosion by Water. 10.1007/978-3-642-58913-3_33.
Williams, J.R., 1975. Sediment routing for agricultural watersheds. JAWRA J. Am. Water
Resour. Assoc. 10.1111/j.1752-1688.1975.tb01817.x.
Wischmeier, W.H., Smith, D.D., 1965. Predicting Rainfall-Erosion Losses From Cropland
east of the Rocky Mountains: Guide for Selection of Practices for Soil and Water
Conservation, Agriculture handbook no. 282.
Won, J.Y., Lee, J.S., 2012. An Improvement on Estimation of Runoff Factor Equation for
Mountain Area in MUSLE. J. korean Soc. hazard Mitig. 12, 207–214. https://doi.
org/10.9798/kosham.2012.12.5.207.
Xiao, H., Ji, W., 2007. Relating landscape characteristics to non-point source pollution in
mine waste-located watersheds using geospatial techniques. J. Environ. Manage. 82,
111–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2005.12.009.
Ye, H., Yuan, X., Han, L., Marip, J.B., Qin, J., 2017. Risk assessment of nitrogen and
phosphorus loss in a hilly-plainwatershed based on the different hydrological period:
A case study in tiaoxi watershed. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su9081493.
Yu, S.L., Zhen, J.X., 2004. Development of a best management practice (BMP) placement
strategy at the watershed scale, in: Proceedings of the Watershed Management
Symposium. 10.1061/40706(266)16.
Zhang, S., Fan, W., Li, Y., Yi, Y., 2017. The influence of changes in land use and
landscape patterns on soil erosion in a watershed. Sci. Total Environ. 574, 34–45.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.024.
Zhang, X., Srinivasan, R., Arnold, J., Izaurralde, R.C., Bosch, D., 2011. Simultaneous
calibration of surface flow and baseflow simulations: A revisit of the SWAT model
calibration framework. Hydrol. Process. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.8058.
Zhang, T., Yang, Y., Ni, J., Xie, D., 2020. Construction of an integrated technology system
for control agricultural non-point source pollution in the Three Gorges Reservoir
Areas. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 295, 106919 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
agee.2020.106919.
Zhang, X., Zhang, M., 2011. Modeling effectiveness of agricultural BMPs to reduce
sediment load and organophosphate pesticides in surface runoff. Sci. Total Environ.
409, 1949–1958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.02.012.