دوره 13، شماره 25 - ( بهار و تابستان 1401 1401 )                   جلد 13 شماره 25 صفحات 132-119 | برگشت به فهرست نسخه ها


XML English Abstract Print


گروه محیط زیست، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد تاکستان، تاکستان، ایران
چکیده:   (1624 مشاهده)
مقدمه و هدف: پرداختن به مسئله بیابان­زایی به خاطر ماهیت چند معیاری، توسعه روزافزون، گسترده و بلندمدت بودن و تحت ­تأثیر قرار دادن توأمان منابع سرزمینی و جمعیت­های انسانی، به منظور دستیابی به توسعه پایدار ضروریست، از طرفی علیرغم اجرای طرح­های متعدد مقابله با بیابان­زایی در کشور، به دلیل وجود موانع متعدد و برهم­کنش میان این موانع، این برنامه ­ها نتوانسته ­اند در این حوزه پیشرفت چندانی داشته باشد. از این رو این پژوهش با هدف تجزیه و تحلیل موانع مقابله با بیابان­زایی و به صورت مطالعه موردی در استان یزد به اجرا درآمد.
مواد و روش‌ها: به منظو ر دستیابی به این هدف از روش مدل­سازی ساختاری تفســیری (ISM) استفاده شد. در این روش ابتدا به شناسایی موانع موثر از طریق بررسی مبانی نظری و تکنیک دلفی با مشارکت 30 نفر از متخصصان میدانی پرداخته شد. سپس با استفاده از متدولوژی تحلیلی مدلسازی ساختاری- تفسیری(ISM) روابط بین موانع تعیین و به صورت یکپارچه تحلیل شد و در نهایت با استفاده از روش MICMAC  اقدام به تحلیل موانع موثر با توجه به اثرگذاری و اثرپذیری بر سایر موانع شد.
یافته‌ها: نتایج حاصله حکایت از توانایی بالای این مدل در بررسی موانع مقابله با بیابانزایی دارد به طوری که نتایج تحلیل صورت گرفته نشان داد که موانعی در گروه پیوندی که بیانگر قدرت نفوذ و وابستگی قوی می­باشند وجود ندارد. در عین حال مشاهده ­شد که بیشترین تاثیر به ترتیب مربوط به موانع "تبدیل و تغییر نامناسب کاربری اراضی" ( C31 با قدرت محرکه 10، "تعدد مراکز سیاست­گذاری و عدم تعامل میان آنها" (C6با قدرت محرکه 9، می­ باشد و سه مانع " ناآگاهی عمومی در رابطه با تخریب محیط­زیست، روش­های جدید و دانش روز" (C1)، " عدم وجود طرح­های جامع کنترل بیابان­زایی" (C2) و "نبود نیروی انسانی متخصص و آموزش دیده" (C11) نیز مشترکاً با قدرت محرکه 8 در در ناحیه محرک یا اثرگذار قرار گرفته­ اند و جزو موانع اصلی در طرح های مقابله با بیابان­زایی هستند.
نتیجه‌گیری: بنابراین اهتمام به تحلیل صورت گرفته بر روی موانع از بین طیف وسیعی از موانع مطرح در دستیابی به نتایج بهینه طرح­های مقابله با بیابان­زایی، می­تواند به سرعت این اوضاع نابسامان را بهبود بخشیده و ساختاری پایدار در فرایند مقابله با بیابان­زایی پی­ریزی کند. از این رو پیشنهاد می ­شود طرح­های مقابله با بیابان­زایی بر روی راهبردهای منتج شده از موانع موثر حاصل از اینگونه پژوهش­های سیستماتیک تأکید کنند تا از هدر رفت سرمایه­ های محدود جلوگیری و بازدهی طرح­های کنترل، احیاء و بازسازی بالا رود.

متن کامل [PDF 2295 kb]   (832 دریافت)    
نوع مطالعه: پژوهشي | موضوع مقاله: ساير موضوعات وابسته به مديريت حوزه آبخيز
دریافت: 1399/12/3 | ویرایش نهایی: 1401/4/8 | پذیرش: 1400/3/1 | انتشار: 1401/4/8

فهرست منابع
1. Agarwal, A., R. Shankar and M.K Tiwari. 2006. Modeling agility of supply chain. Industrial Marketing Management, 36: 457- 443. [DOI:10.1016/j.indmarman.2005.12.004]
2. Ahmadi, H.1998. Applied geomorphology, desert and wind erosion. 3ndedn, Tehran university press, Tehran, Iran, 706 pp (In Persian).
3. Akbari, M., E. Neamatollahi and P. Neamatollahi. 2019. Evaluating land suitability for spatial planning in arid regions of eastern Iran using fuzzy logic and multi-criteria analysis. Ecological Indicators, 98: 587-598. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolind. 2018.11.035 [DOI:10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.11.035]
4. Athari, Z., G. Pezeshki Rad, E. Abbasi and A. Alibaygi. 2017. Technical report, challenges facing watershed management in Iran by using Delphi technique. Journal of Watershed Management Research, 8 (15): 268-279 [DOI:10.29252/jwmr.8.15.268]
5. Attri, R., N. Dev and V. Sharma. 2013. Interpretive structural modelling (ISM) approach: An overview. Research Journal of Management Sciences, 2(2): 3-8.
6. Azar, A. and A. Rajabzadeh. 2018. Applied decision making with an approach of Multi-Attribute Decision Making (MADM). Publication of Negah Danesh, Tehran, Iran, 186 pp (In Persian).
7. Azar, A. and K. bayat. 2009. Designing a model for "business process-orientation" using Interpretive Structural Modeling approach (ISM). Journal of Information Technology Management (JITM), 1(1): 3-18.
8. Azar, A., A. Tizro, A. Moghbel, A. Anvari Rostami. 2010. Designing supply chain agility model; Interpretative-Structural Modeling approach. Moderator of Humanities-Management Researches in Iran, 14(4): 1-25 (In Persian)
9. Azar, A., F. Khosravani and R. Jalali. 2016. Soft operational research: Problem structuring approaches. 2ndedn, Publication of Industrial Management Organization. Tehran, Iran, 364 pp (in Persian).
10. Bakhshandehmehr, L., S. Soltani and A. Sepehr. 2013. Assessment of present status of desertification and modifying the MEDALUS model in Segzi plain of Isfahan. Journal of Range & Watershed Management, 66(1): 27-41 (In Persian)
11. Barzani, M and O. S. Khairulmaini. 2013. Desertification risk mapping of the Zayandeh Rood basin in Iran. Journal of Earth System Science, 122(5): 1269-1282. [DOI:10.1007/s12040-013-0348-1]
12. Basiry, Z., N. Rostami and A. Saleh Pour Jam. 2020. Identification and prioritization of effective indicators on preventing sustainable participation of rural societies in combating desertification plans, case study: Mousian region, Dehloran, Journal of Spatial Analysis Environmental Hazards, 7(3): 26-38. http://jsaeh.khu.ac.ir/article-1-3068-en.html [DOI:10.29252/jsaeh.7.3.47]
13. Briassoulis, H. 2019. Combating land degradation and desertification: The Land-Use Planning Quandary. Land, 8(27): 1-26. https://doi.org/10.3390/land8020027 [DOI:10.3390/land80200277]
14. Daneshi, A., A. Najafinejad, M. Panahi and A. Zarandian. 2020. Projecting land use change effects on habitat quality of Narmab dam basin in Golestan province. Degradation and Rehabilitation of Natural Land, 1(1): 120-130 (In Persian).
15. D'Odorico, P., A. Bhattachan., K. F. Davis., S. Ravi and C. W. Runyan. 2013. Global desertification: Drivers and feedbacks. Advances in Water Resources, 51: 326-344. [DOI:10.1016/j.advwatres.2012.01.013]
16. Dregne, H., M. Kassas and B. Rozanov. 1991. A new assessment of the world status of desertification. Desertification Control Bulletin, 20: 6-18.
17. Faisal, M., D.K. Banwet and R. Shankar. 2006. Supply chain risk mitigation: modelling the enablers, Business Process Management, 12(4): 535-552. [DOI:10.1108/14637150610678113]
18. Firuzjaeyan, A.A., M. Firuzjaeyan, S.H. Hashemi Petroodi and F. Gholamrezazadeh. 2013. Applying techniques of Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) in tourism studies, A Pathological Approach. Tourism Planning and Development, 2(6): 129-159.
19. Forest, Range and Watershed Management Organization (FRWMO). 2005. National program for desert land management of Iran, Deputy State of Rangeland and soil, Office of desertification and sand fixation, Tehran, Iran, 112 pp (In Persian).
20. Ghambari, V and A. Safaii Shakib. 2017. Structuring the quality management problems with the Interpretive Structural Modeling approach, Journal of Quality & Standard Management, 7(23): 1-15 (In Persian).
21. Ghodsipour, S.H. 2016. Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP). Amir Kabir University press, Tehran, Iran, 220pp (In Persian).
22. Ghorbani, M. and L. Avazpour. 2017. Analysis of structural characteristics of rural women network for establishment of collaborative management in desert areas, Pilot: Tajmir Village, carbon sequestration international project, South Khorasan province. Iranian Journal of Range and Desert Research, 24(2): 383-391 (In Persian).
23. Grau, J.B., J.M. Anton, A.M. Tarquis, F. Colombo, L. Rios and J. M. Cisneros. 2010. Mathematical model to select the optimal alternative for an integral plan to desertification and erosion control for the Chaco area in Salta Province (Argentine). Journal of Biogeosciences Discussions, 7: 2601-2630. [DOI:10.5194/bgd-7-2601-2010]
24. Hasheminasab, S. and R. Jafari. 2018. Evaluation of land use changes order to desertification monitoring using remote sensing techniques. Journal of Spatial Analysis Environmental Hazards, 5(3): 67-82 (In Persian). [DOI:10.29252/jsaeh.5.3.67]
25. Hatami, M and M. Shafieardekani. 2014. The effect of industrialization on land use changes; evidence from intermediate cities of Iran. International Journal of Current Life Sciences, 4: 11899- 11902.
26. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Summary for policymakers, in Climate Change 2007: Ce Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA, 23pp.
27. IRAN, UNEP, FAO. 1999. Desertification and its control in Iran, Proceedings of the International expert meeting on special needs and requirements of developing countries with low forest cover and unique types of forests (LFCCs). Tehran, Iran. 4-8 October 1999. 190 p. Available from: http://www.lfccs.net/forestry3.html
28. Jafary, M., G. Zehtabian, A.H. Ehsani. 2014. Investigation on the changes of desert lands using remote sensing data, Case study: Kashan, Iranian Journal of Range and Desert Research, 20(4): 644-652 (in Persian).
29. Jayant, A. and M. Azhar. 2014. Analysis of the barriers for implementing green supply chain management (GSCM) practices: An Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) approach. Procedia Engineering, 97: 2157-2166. [DOI:10.1016/j.proeng.2014.12.459]
30. Li, J., X. Yang, Y. Jin, Z. Yang, W. Huang, L. Zhao, T. Gao, H. Yo, H. Ma, Z. Qin and B. Xu. 2013. Monitoring and analysis of grassland desertification dynamics using landsat images in Ningxia China. Remote Sensing of Environment, 138: 19-26. [DOI:10.1016/j.rse.2013.07.010]
31. Mandal, A. and S.G. Deshmukh. 1994. Vendor selection using Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM). International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 14(6): 52-59. [DOI:10.1108/01443579410062086]
32. Meinzen- Dick, R. 1997. Farmer participation in irrigation-20 years of experience and lessons for the future. Irrigation and Drainage Systems. 11(2): 118-103. [DOI:10.1023/A:1005739528481]
33. Meshkat, M.A. 1998. Temporary method for assessing and mapping of desertification. Publishing Research Institute of Forests and Rangelands, Tehran, Iran, 114 pp (In Persian).
34. Mirdeilami, S.Z., E. Moradi and M. Pessarakli. 2019. The role of local settlements in combating desertification of Isfahan's desert rangelands. Journal of Rangeland Science, 9(3): 202-218.
35. Mirhashemi, M.S., S. Mohseni, M. Hasanzadeh and M.S. Pishvaee. 2018. Moringa oleifera biomass-to-biodiesel supply chain design: An opportunity to combat desertification in Iran. Journal of Cleaner Production, 203: 313-327. [DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.257]
36. Moradi, A.R., M. Jafari, H. Arzani and M. Ebrahimi. 2016. Assessment of land use changes into dry land using satellite images and Geographical Information System (GIS). RS & GIS Techniques for Natural Resources, 7(1): 89-100 (In Persian).
37. Movahedipour, M., J. Zeng, M. Yang and X. Wu. 2017. An ISM approach for the barrier analysis in implementing sustainable supply chain management: An empirical study. Management Decision, 55(8): 1824-1850. [DOI:10.1108/MD-12-2016-0898]
38. Mutekanga, F. 2012. Participatory policy development for integrated watershed management in Uganda's highlands. PhD Thesis University of Wageningen, Wageningen, Netherlands, 112 pp, ISBN 978-94-6173-345-0.
39. Olfat, L. and A. Shahriyari niya. 2015. Interpretative structural modeling factors affecting fellow selection in agile supply chain. Production Management and Operations. 5(2): 128-109 (In Persian).
40. Pfohl, H.C., P. Gallus and D. Thomas. 2011. Interpretive structural modeling of supply chain risks. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management; 41(9): 839-859. [DOI:10.1108/09600031111175816]
41. Poormohammadi, P. and H. Malekinezhad. 2013. Classification of homogeneous climatic regions under the impact of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions scenarios using L-Moments technique in Iran. Journal of Watershed Management Research, 4(8): 58-76 (In Persian).
42. Ranjbar, H., A.A. Haghdoost, M. Salsali, A. Khoshdel, M. Soleimani and N. Bahrami. 2012. Sampling in qualitative research: A guide for beginning. Journal Army University Medicine Science, 10(3): 238-250.
43. Rezaei Moghaddam, M.H., A. Sedighi, S. Fasihi and M. Karimi Firozjaei. 2018. Effect of environmental policies in combating aeolian desertification over Sejzy Plain of Iran. Aeolian Research, 35: 19-28. [DOI:10.1016/j.aeolia.2018.09.001]
44. Saaty, T.L. 1995. Decision making for leaders. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. 320 pp.
45. Sadeghi Ravesh, M.H. 2008. Investigation of effective desertification factors on environmental degradation. Ph.D Thesis. Islamic Azad University. Tehran, Iran. 395 pp (In Persian).
46. Sadeghi Ravesh M.H. 2018. Analysis of the desertification strategies derived from the decision-making models using social welfare function of B&C. Desert Ecosystem Engineering Journal (DEEJ), 7)18(: 37-48 (In Persian).
47. Sadeghi Ravesh, M. H and H. Khosravi. 2020. Analysis of the alternatives to combat desertification derived from the decision-making models using the Social Choice functions, case study of Khezerabad region in Yazd province. Journal of Environment Science and Technology (JEST), 22 (4): 227-239 (In Persian).
48. Sadeghi Ravesh, M.H and H. Khosravi. 2020. Analysis of the alternatives to combat desertification derived from the decision-making models using the Social Choice functions, case study of Khezerabad region in Yazd province. Journal of Environment Science and Technology (JEST), 22(4): 227-239 (In Persian).
49. Sadeghi Ravesh, M.H and H. Khosravi. 2020. Quantitative Analysis of Combating Desertification Alternatives Using LINMAP Model in Lingo Software Environment, Desert Management, 8(16): 57-76 (In Persian).
50. Sadeghi Ravesh, M. H., H. Ahmadi., G. R. Zehtabian and M. Tahmoures. 2013. Application of numerical taxonomy analysis in sustainable development planning of combating desertification., Desert, 17: 147-159.
51. Sadeghi Ravesh, M.H., H. Khosravi and S. Ghasemian. 2016. Assessment of combating strategies using the Liner Assignment (LA) method. Journal of Solid Earth, 7: 673-683. [DOI:10.5194/se-7-673-2016]
52. Salvati, L., C. Kosmas, O. Kairis, C. Karavitis, S. Acikalin, A. Belgacem, A. Solé-Benet, M. Chaker, V. Fassouli, C. Gokceoglu, H. Gungor, R. Hessel, H. Khatteli, A. Kounalaki and M. Carlucci. 2016. Assessing the effectiveness of sustainable land management policies for combating desertification: A data mining approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 183(3): 754-762. [DOI:10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.09.017]
53. Salvia, R., E. Gianluca, V. Sabato Vinci, S. Luca. 2019. Desertification risk and rural development in southern europe: Permanent assessment and implications for sustainable land management and mitigation policies. Land, 8(12): 1-16, [DOI:10.3390/land8120191]
54. Sepehr, A and N. Peroyan. 2012. Vulnerability mapping of desertification and combat desertification alternative ranking in Korasan-e-Razavi province ecosystems with application PROMETHEE model. Journal of Earth Science Researches, 8: 58-71.
55. Smits, S. and J. Butterworth. 2006. Literature review: Local government and Integrated Water Resources Management. IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre, Delft, Netherlands, 55pp. https://www.ircwash.org/sites/default/files/Smits-2005-Literature.pdf
56. Soltaninejad, M., M. Javari, A.A. Noroozi and S.A. Javadi. 2019. Evaluation of vegetation changes in desertification projects using RS-GIS techniques. Arid Biome Scientific Journal, 9(1): 153-165 (In Persian).
57. Tenywa, M. 2011. Agricultural innovation platform as a tool for development-oriented research: Lessons and challenges in the formation and operationalization. Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Studies, 2: 117-146.
58. Thakkar, J.J., S.G. Deshmukh., A.D. Gupta and R. Shankar. 2017. Development of a balanced scorecard an integrated approach of Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) and Analytic Network Process (ANP). International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 56(1): 25-59. [DOI:10.1108/17410400710717073]
59. Tong, S., Y. Sun., T. Ranatunga., J. He and Y. Yng. 2013. Predicting plausible impacts of sets of climate and land use change scenarios on water resource. Applied Geography, 32: 477-489. [DOI:10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.06.014]
60. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). 1994. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, UNCCD press, Paris, France, 56pp. https://www.unccd.int/sites/default/files/relevant-inks/201701/UNCCD_Convention_ENG_0.pdF
61. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). 2014. Desertification-The Invisible Frontline. Available online: www.unccd.int/publications/desertification-invisible-frontline-second-edition.
62. Wang, X.M., C.X. Zhang, E. Hasi and Z.B. Dong. 2010. Has the three norths forest shelterbelt program solved the desertification and dust storm problems in arid and semiarid China? Journal of Arid Environment, 74(1): 13-22. [DOI:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2009.08.001]
63. Warfield, J.W. 1974. Developing interconnected matrices in structural modelling. IEEE Transcript on Systems Men and Cybernetics, 4(1): 51-81. [DOI:10.1109/TSMC.1974.5408524]
64. Yang, L. and J. Wu. 2012. Knowledge-driven institutional change: An empirical study on combating desertification in northern china from 1949 to 2004. Journal of Environmental Management, 110: 254-266. [DOI:10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.06.025]
65. Zamfir, R.H.C., D. Smiraglia, G. Quaranta, R. Salvia, L. Salvati and A.G. Morera. 2020. Land degradation and mitigation policies in the mediterranean region: a brief commentary. Sustainability, 12(20): 1-17. [DOI:10.3390/su12208313]
66. Zehtabian, G.R., H. Ahmadi, A. Raesi, M.R. Rahdari and H. Khosravi. 2014. Quantitative assessment of desertification with emphasis on geo-climatology. Elixir International Journal, 68: 22474-22477.
67. Zehtabian, G.R., M. Poorreza, H. Khosravi and M. Rahdari. 2015. The effects of land use change on land degradation and desertification in Ravansar watershed. Journal of Arid Regions Geographics Studies, 4(16): 73-85.

بازنشر اطلاعات
Creative Commons License این مقاله تحت شرایط Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License قابل بازنشر است.