Prioritizing Rangeland Improvement Practices using Multi-Criteria Decision Making Approach
Selecting the appropriate rangeland improvement method is a challenging task for range managers because it requires consideration of various criteria. This study was aimed to evaluate various restoration and reclamation practices in the rangelands of Semirom-Isfahan using Multi-Criteria Decision M...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | fas |
| Published: |
Isfahan University of Technology
2019-09-01
|
| Series: | Iranian Journal of Applied Ecology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://ijae.iut.ac.ir/article-1-913-en.html |
| _version_ | 1828200466726518784 |
|---|---|
| author | Z. Jafari H. Bashari M. Borhani |
| author_facet | Z. Jafari H. Bashari M. Borhani |
| author_sort | Z. Jafari |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Selecting the appropriate rangeland improvement method is a challenging task for range managers because it requires consideration of various criteria. This study was aimed to evaluate various restoration and reclamation practices in the rangelands of Semirom-Isfahan using Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods. Grazing management, water point development, pit seeding, exclosure, water harvesting and planting almond, fertilization and direct cropping of forage were compared using various social, economic, managerial and environmental criteria. These criteria included cost, local conflict, response time, applicability of method, employment, forage production and their effectiveness. The criteria were weighted from 0 to 1 for all rangeland improvement alternatives based on the results obtained from 30 questionnaires from experts in universities, Isfahan Research and Education Center for Agriculture and Natural Resources, and Natural Resources and Watershed Management Organization of Isfahan. The criteria were ranked based on the Likert method and rangeland improvement alternatives were compared using the MDCM approach and the Facilitator software. According to the results, grazing management and pit seeding were identified as the best rangeland improvement alternatives, with favorability ranges of 0.54-0.98 and 0.6-0.95 respectively Water resource development had a lower risk of failure with the favorability ranges of 0.55-0.76, as compared to the other alternatives. The results, therefore, indicated that performing water harvesting along with planting almond in this area could be an inappropriate rangeland improvement alternative with the favorability of less than 0.5, so it should not be implemented in this area. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-12T11:13:30Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-711c29a008714faeb329bbfa10f968ce |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2476-3128 2476-3217 |
| language | fas |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-12T11:13:30Z |
| publishDate | 2019-09-01 |
| publisher | Isfahan University of Technology |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Iranian Journal of Applied Ecology |
| spelling | doaj.art-711c29a008714faeb329bbfa10f968ce2022-12-22T03:35:33ZfasIsfahan University of TechnologyIranian Journal of Applied Ecology2476-31282476-32172019-09-01828192Prioritizing Rangeland Improvement Practices using Multi-Criteria Decision Making ApproachZ. Jafari0H. Bashari1M. Borhani2 Isfahan University of Technology Isfahan University of Technology Isfahan Agric. and Natur. Resour. Res. and Educ. Center Selecting the appropriate rangeland improvement method is a challenging task for range managers because it requires consideration of various criteria. This study was aimed to evaluate various restoration and reclamation practices in the rangelands of Semirom-Isfahan using Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods. Grazing management, water point development, pit seeding, exclosure, water harvesting and planting almond, fertilization and direct cropping of forage were compared using various social, economic, managerial and environmental criteria. These criteria included cost, local conflict, response time, applicability of method, employment, forage production and their effectiveness. The criteria were weighted from 0 to 1 for all rangeland improvement alternatives based on the results obtained from 30 questionnaires from experts in universities, Isfahan Research and Education Center for Agriculture and Natural Resources, and Natural Resources and Watershed Management Organization of Isfahan. The criteria were ranked based on the Likert method and rangeland improvement alternatives were compared using the MDCM approach and the Facilitator software. According to the results, grazing management and pit seeding were identified as the best rangeland improvement alternatives, with favorability ranges of 0.54-0.98 and 0.6-0.95 respectively Water resource development had a lower risk of failure with the favorability ranges of 0.55-0.76, as compared to the other alternatives. The results, therefore, indicated that performing water harvesting along with planting almond in this area could be an inappropriate rangeland improvement alternative with the favorability of less than 0.5, so it should not be implemented in this area.http://ijae.iut.ac.ir/article-1-913-en.htmlRange management plansWater resource developmentRiskCostWater harvestingLivestock grazing |
| spellingShingle | Z. Jafari H. Bashari M. Borhani Prioritizing Rangeland Improvement Practices using Multi-Criteria Decision Making Approach Iranian Journal of Applied Ecology Range management plans Water resource development Risk Cost Water harvesting Livestock grazing |
| title | Prioritizing Rangeland Improvement Practices using Multi-Criteria Decision Making Approach |
| title_full | Prioritizing Rangeland Improvement Practices using Multi-Criteria Decision Making Approach |
| title_fullStr | Prioritizing Rangeland Improvement Practices using Multi-Criteria Decision Making Approach |
| title_full_unstemmed | Prioritizing Rangeland Improvement Practices using Multi-Criteria Decision Making Approach |
| title_short | Prioritizing Rangeland Improvement Practices using Multi-Criteria Decision Making Approach |
| title_sort | prioritizing rangeland improvement practices using multi criteria decision making approach |
| topic | Range management plans Water resource development Risk Cost Water harvesting Livestock grazing |
| url | http://ijae.iut.ac.ir/article-1-913-en.html |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT zjafari prioritizingrangelandimprovementpracticesusingmulticriteriadecisionmakingapproach AT hbashari prioritizingrangelandimprovementpracticesusingmulticriteriadecisionmakingapproach AT mborhani prioritizingrangelandimprovementpracticesusingmulticriteriadecisionmakingapproach |