Assessing Land Degradation Hazard Intensity and Management Plans Using Subjective Models and the Analytical Hierarchy Process in Gorgan, Iran

Assessing Land Degradation Hazard Intensity and Management Plans Using Subjective Models and the Analytical Hierarchy Process in Gorgan, Iran

M. Ownegh

Department of Arid Zone Management, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran

Page: 
35-45
|
DOI: 
https://doi.org/10.2495/SDP-V4-N1-35-45
Received: 
N/A
| |
Accepted: 
N/A
| | Citation

OPEN ACCESS

Abstract: 

Land use planning is a comprehensive master plan for any sustainable development action plan and can integrate all land resources and natural hazards management alternatives (strategies, plans and scenarios). This can be done via a multi-attribute decision method such as Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) under data and decision uncertainty. In this paper, first, the potential land degradation hazard was mapped at 1:250,000 scale as four hazard classes. This was done in the context of 14 micro (unit) and six macro (type) physiographic units, regarding the synergetic effects of five key processes (salinization, ponding, water erosion, wind erosion, and vegetation deterioration). A five-class numerical subjective model was used. Secondly, with respect to the nature of land degradation mechanism and intensity in the Gorgan coastal plain (a complex mosaic for land use planning and natural hazard management) four hazard mitigation plans were proposed These were aligned with the goals of national combating of desertifi cation. These include: (1) Drainage and surface flow water collection, (2) shrub plantation and green belt creation, (3) soil physicochemical improvement, and (4) protection and preservation. Finally, the relative weights and priorities of management plan alternatives were determined in each hazard class zone. This was accomplished with respect to the hazard intensity and plan implementation cost and effectiveness using AHP model (CR=0.04 for plans, and CR=0.03 for hazard classes). The results indicate land degradation hazard classes I, II, III and IV which are extended with a spatially ordered pattern from forest covered mountain in the south to steppic coastal plain in the north along a sharp geo-ecological gradient of the study area. The differences of hazard class weights and surface areas, and the priority weights of the plans are signifi cant at 0.01 and 0.05 level, respectively. These differences lead to different possible alternatives for hazard management plans and decision making.

Keywords: 

Analytical Hierarchy Process, Gorgan Plain, hazard management plan, land degradation, land use planning

  References

[1] CEP, Caspian Desertifi cation. CRTC for Combating Desertifi cation, Asghabat, Turkmenistan, Web site, pp. 1–4, 2003.

[2] Williams. J., Search for sustainability agriculture and its place in the natural ecosystem. Agricultural Science, 4(2), pp. 32–39, 1991.

[3] Cocks, D., Use with Care: Managing Australia’s Natural Resources in the Twenty First Century, New South Wales University Press: Sydney, 1992.

[4] Wasson, R., Mazari, R., Starr, B. & Clifton, G., The recent history of erosion and land degradation in Australia, implications for soil conservation. Journal of Geomorphology, 24, pp. 291–298, 1998. 

[5] Wang, X., Chen, F.H. & Xia, D., Evolution of the southern Mu US desert in north China over the past 50 years: an analysis using proxies of human activity and climate parameters. Journal of Land Degradation and Development, 16(4), pp. 351–366, 2005.

[6] Chen., Y. & Tang, H., Desertifi cation in north China: background, anthropogenic impacts and failure in combating. Journal of Land Degradation and Development, 16(4), pp. 367–376, 2005.

[7] Ferrand, N., Multi-reactive Agents Paradigm for Spatial Modeling Contribution to the European Science Foundation, Taylor & Francis: London, 1995.

[8] Pathakam, M., Srivastava, L. & Sharmam, S., IV India: CDM Opportunities and Benefi ts, World Resources Institute, 2000.

[9] Ownegh, M., Landslide Hazard and Risk Assessment in the Southern Suburbs of Newcastle, Australia, sabbatical research project (preliminary results), 100 pp., 2002 (in Persian with English abstract, tables and fi gures).

[10] Ownegh, M., A numerical model for assessing air pollution potential hazard in Golestan Province. Journal of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, 12(1), pp. 5–15, 2005.

[11] Hill, S. & Zammet, C., Identifi cation of community values for regional land use planning and management. Paper presented at the International Society of Ecological Economists Congress, Canberra, Australia, July 5–8, 2000, Australian National University, 2000.

[12] ISNAR, Information and discussion forum on priority setting in agricultural research, Internet, pp. 1–10, 2005.

[13] Peterson, D., Silsbe, D. & Schmoldt, D.L., A case study of resources management planning with multiple objectives and projects. Journal of Environmental Management, 18(5), pp. 729–742, 1994.

[14] De Steiguer, J.E., Duberstein, J. & Lapes, V., The analytical hierarchy process as a mean for integrated watershed management. Proccedings of the First Interagency Conference on Research in the Watersheds, Tucson, AZ, USDA Forest Service-ARS, pp. 736–740, 2000.

[15] Srdjevic, B., Mederios, Y., Srdjevic, Z. & Schaer, M., Evaluating management strategies in Paraguacu River basin by analytical hierarchy process. Proceedings of IEMSs Biannual Meeting, May 12–17, 2002, Darwin, Australia, pp. 42–47, 2002.

[16] Schmoldt, D.L., Kangs, J. & Mendoza, G.A., Basic principles of decision making in natural resources and the environment. The Analytical Hierarchy Process in Natural Resources and Environment Decision Making, Kluwer Academic Publishers: London, pp. 1–13, 2001.

[17] Ownegh, M., Assessing the Applicability of Australian Landslide Databases for Hazard Management, Paper no. 1000, ISCO, 4–9 July 2004, Brisbane, Australia, pp. 1–5, 2004.

[18] Ownegh, M., Assessing Landslide Hazard and Risk in Ziarart Watershed, Gorgan, Iran, Research project report, Gorgan University of Agricultural and Natural Resources, 2006.

[19] Ewing, S., Landcare and community-led waterched management in Victoria, Australia. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 35(3), pp. 663–673, 1999.

[20] Adinarayana, J., Maitra, S. & Dent, D., A spatial decision support system for land use planning at district level in India. The Land, 4(2), p. 111, 2000.

[21] Ramakrishna, N., Production system planning for natural resources conservation in a microwatershed. Electronic Green Journal, 18, pp. 1–10, 2003.

[22] Ownegh, M., Land use planning and natural hazards integrated management in Golestan Province. Abstracts of Seminar on Flash Flood Prevention and Mitigation, 15–16 January 2003, Gorgan, Iran, pp. 9–10, 2003.

[23] Ownegh, M., Geomorphological evidences of quaternary climate changes in Gorgan region (East Caspian Sea). Proceedings of the Second Regional Conference on Climate Change, 4–5 November 1999, Tehran, Iran, pp. 52–57, 1999.

[24] Ownegh, M., Introduction to genetic classifi cation of archeological hills in Gorgan region. Abstracts of the 8th Congress of Iranian Society of Geography, 16–19 March, Tehran University, Iran, pp. 4–5, 1990.

[25] Ownegh, M., The role of geomorphology in soil erosion and land degradation assessment. Abstract of International Conference on Land Degradation, Adana, Turkey, pp. 31–32, 1996.

[26] Soil Institute of Iran, Land Capability of Gorgan Region, Technical Report No. 197, 1970.

[27] Ownegh, M., & Mirkarimi, S.H., A model for assessing land use compatibility in Golestan Province: Introducing a new phase for the second stage of land use planning. Journal of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, 10(3), pp. 5–16, 2003.

[28] Bartholic, J.F., Kang, Y.T., Phillips, N. & He, C., Saginaw Bay integrated watershed priorization and management system. Water Resources Update (UCOWR), Issue no. 100, pp. 55–59, 1996.