اولویت بندی مکان های دپو چوب در جنگل با استفاده از تحلیل سلسله‌مراتبی
محورهای موضوعی :
سیستم اطلاعات جغرافیایی
زهرا عزیزی
1
,
حمداله صادقی
2
1 - استادیار گروه سنجش از دور و GIS، واحد علوم و تحقیقات، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران
2 - دانشجوی دکتری گروه علوم جنگل، دانشکده منابع طبیعی و علوم زمین، دانشگاه شهرکرد، ایران
تاریخ دریافت : 1396/09/11
تاریخ پذیرش : 1397/07/18
تاریخ انتشار : 1401/07/01
کلید واژه:
مکان‌یابی,
جاده‌های جنگلی,
سامانه اطلاعات جغرافیایی,
وزن‌دهی,
تحلیل سلسله‌مراتبی,
چکیده مقاله :
زمینه هدف: یکی از چالش های پیش روی مدیران و برنامه ریزان واحد های جنگلی انتخاب و اولویت بندی مکان های مناسب برای کاربرد های گوناگون است. هدف از این پژوهش اولویت بندی مکان های مناسب دپو چوب در بخشی از جنگل های حوضه لیره سر استان مازندران است.
روش بررسی: بدین منظور گزینه هایی با حداقل شرایط لازم برای دپو چوب انتخاب شدند. در مرحله دوم معیار های مورد نظر برای انتخاب محل دپو مشخص شدند. این معیار ها شامل: شیب، موجودی سرپا و تراکم تاج پوشش بودند. در مرحله سوم وزن‌دهی معیار ها با استفاده از فرایند تحلیل سلسله مراتبی و نظر کارشناسی انجام گرفت. سپس تحلیل نرخ سازگاری مناطق مورد نظر اولویت بندی شدند.
یافته ها: در این تحقیق معیار حجم سرپای توده های جنگلی مجاور محل دپو بالاترین وزن (575/0) را به خود اختصاص داده است. از بین 6 گزینه مورد بررسی، گزینه 3 با داشتن حجم سرپای 300- 400، تراکم تاج پوشش در محل دپوی 50-25% و شیب 10-5% به عنوان بهترین گزینه برای احداث محل دپو مشخص شد.
بحثونتیجه گیری: نتایج وزن دهی معیار ها نشان داد، که حجم سرپای توده های مجاور دپو بیشترین اهمیت را دارد. بهره برداری از توده‌های جنگلی با حجم سرپای بالا لزوم وجود دپوها و انبار های چوب را در نزدیکترین نقطه به توده های جنگلی ضروری می نماید.
چکیده انگلیسی:
Background and Objective: One of the challenges facing the managers and planners of forest selection and prioritization of suitable locations for various uses. The purpose of this study was prioritized the appropriate places in the timber depot of the Lireh Sar basin of Mazandaran province.
Method: For this purpose, the options were chosen with at least the requirements for timber depot. In the second step of the selection criteria were specified for timber landing. These criteria include: slope, stand type and the canopy density. In the third step weighting was performed criteria using the analytic hierarchy process and expert opinion. Finally, the rate of adjustment of regions of interest was prioritized.
Results: The study measures the standing volume of forest stands adjacent to the depot highest weights (0/575) have been allocated. Among the 6 choice, choices 3 with a standing volume of 300- 400, crown density slope at the depot 50-25% and 10.5% were identified as the best option to construction landing.
Conclusion: The results of the weighting of the criteria showed the volume of the forest stands near the depot is the most important. Harvesting of forest stands with high volume requires the existence of wood depots and warehouses in the closest point to the forest stands.
منابع و مأخذ:
Sarikhani, N.A., 2010. Forest harvesting, second edition, Tehran University Press, Tehran, 728 p. (In Persian)
Anonymous. 1994. Guidelines forthe design, implementation andexploitationof forestroads. Journalpublicationsofthe finance 131, VP of Technical AffairsOffice ofResearchandtechnicalcriteria. (In Persian)
Mehdipour, F., and Sdymsgry, M., 2006. A Model for site selectionbased onmulti-criteriadecision-makingmethodsin GIS,Geomatics85. (In Persian)
Ananda, J., Herath, G. 2003. The use of Analytic Hierarchy Process to incorporate stakeholder preferences into regional forest planning, Forest Policy and Economics, 5, 13-26.
Gregory, R.S. 2000. Valuing environmental policy options: a case study comparison of multiattribute and contingent valuation survey methods. Land Economics 76, 151–173.
Varis, O. 1989. The analysis of preferences in complex environmental judgments - a focus on the analytic hierarchy process. Journal of Environmental Management 28, 283–294.
Zahedi, F. 1986. The analytic hierarchy process-A survey of the method and its applications. Interfaces, 16, 96-108.
Kangas, J.1993. A multi-attribute preference model for evaluating the reforestation chain alternatives of a forest stand. Forest Ecology and Management 59, 271–288.
Herath, G. 2004. Incorporating community objectives in improved wetland management: the use of the analytic hierarchy process. Environmental Management, 70, 263-273.
Kangas, J. 1992. Multiple-use planning of forest resources by using the analytic hierarchy process. Scand. J. Forest Res. 7, 259–268.
Kangas, J., Pukkala, T., 1992. A decision theoretic approach applied to goal programming of forest management, Silva Fenn. 26 (3), 169–176.
Smith, R.L., Bush, R.J., and Schmoldt, D. L. 1995. A hierarchical analysis of bridge decision makers. Wood Fiber Sci. 27, 225–238.
Mendoza, G.A., and Sprouse, W. 1989. Forest planning and decision-making under fuzzy environment: an overview and analysis. Forest science. 35, 481-502.
Pesonen, M. 1995. Non-industrial private forest landowners’ choices of timber management strategies and potential allowable cut: Case of Pohjois-Savo. Acta Forest. Fenn, 247, 1–31.
Abdi, E., Majnounian, B., and Darvishsefat, A. A. 2009. Evaluating Forest Road Net Using Multi Criteria Evaluation in GIS Environment (Case study: Namkhane District), Science and Technology of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 44(12):279-289. (In Persian)
Ahmadi, h. The routingof environmental principlesusingGIS. M.Sc. Thesis. GraduateSchool ofNatural Resources, Tehran University. (In Persian)
Coulter, E., Sessions, J., Wing, M. 2006. Scheduling of forest road maintenance using the analytic hierarchy process and heuristics, silva fennica. 40 (1):143-160.
GhodsiPoor, H. 2006.Analytical Hierarchy Process. PressAmirkabir University of Technology, Fifth Edition, 220p. (In Persian)
Ghajar , Najafi A., Imani P., Omidvar S., Mohammadi K., 2016: A heuristic algorithm for finding the most economical logs landing location (Case study: Shiva Dareh district, Kojour watershed), Journal of Wood & Forest Science and Technology, Vol. 23 (2),181-201.
Philippart, J., Minghe, S., Docet J.L., and Lejeune, P. 2012. Mathematical formulation and exact solution for landing location problem in tropical forest selective logging, a case study in Southeast Cameroon. J. of Forest Economics. 18: 113-122
_||_
Sarikhani, N.A., 2010. Forest harvesting, second edition, Tehran University Press, Tehran, 728 p. (In Persian)
Anonymous. 1994. Guidelines forthe design, implementation andexploitationof forestroads. Journalpublicationsofthe finance 131, VP of Technical AffairsOffice ofResearchandtechnicalcriteria. (In Persian)
Mehdipour, F., and Sdymsgry, M., 2006. A Model for site selectionbased onmulti-criteriadecision-makingmethodsin GIS,Geomatics85. (In Persian)
Ananda, J., Herath, G. 2003. The use of Analytic Hierarchy Process to incorporate stakeholder preferences into regional forest planning, Forest Policy and Economics, 5, 13-26.
Gregory, R.S. 2000. Valuing environmental policy options: a case study comparison of multiattribute and contingent valuation survey methods. Land Economics 76, 151–173.
Varis, O. 1989. The analysis of preferences in complex environmental judgments - a focus on the analytic hierarchy process. Journal of Environmental Management 28, 283–294.
Zahedi, F. 1986. The analytic hierarchy process-A survey of the method and its applications. Interfaces, 16, 96-108.
Kangas, J.1993. A multi-attribute preference model for evaluating the reforestation chain alternatives of a forest stand. Forest Ecology and Management 59, 271–288.
Herath, G. 2004. Incorporating community objectives in improved wetland management: the use of the analytic hierarchy process. Environmental Management, 70, 263-273.
Kangas, J. 1992. Multiple-use planning of forest resources by using the analytic hierarchy process. Scand. J. Forest Res. 7, 259–268.
Kangas, J., Pukkala, T., 1992. A decision theoretic approach applied to goal programming of forest management, Silva Fenn. 26 (3), 169–176.
Smith, R.L., Bush, R.J., and Schmoldt, D. L. 1995. A hierarchical analysis of bridge decision makers. Wood Fiber Sci. 27, 225–238.
Mendoza, G.A., and Sprouse, W. 1989. Forest planning and decision-making under fuzzy environment: an overview and analysis. Forest science. 35, 481-502.
Pesonen, M. 1995. Non-industrial private forest landowners’ choices of timber management strategies and potential allowable cut: Case of Pohjois-Savo. Acta Forest. Fenn, 247, 1–31.
Abdi, E., Majnounian, B., and Darvishsefat, A. A. 2009. Evaluating Forest Road Net Using Multi Criteria Evaluation in GIS Environment (Case study: Namkhane District), Science and Technology of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 44(12):279-289. (In Persian)
Ahmadi, h. The routingof environmental principlesusingGIS. M.Sc. Thesis. GraduateSchool ofNatural Resources, Tehran University. (In Persian)
Coulter, E., Sessions, J., Wing, M. 2006. Scheduling of forest road maintenance using the analytic hierarchy process and heuristics, silva fennica. 40 (1):143-160.
GhodsiPoor, H. 2006.Analytical Hierarchy Process. PressAmirkabir University of Technology, Fifth Edition, 220p. (In Persian)
Ghajar , Najafi A., Imani P., Omidvar S., Mohammadi K., 2016: A heuristic algorithm for finding the most economical logs landing location (Case study: Shiva Dareh district, Kojour watershed), Journal of Wood & Forest Science and Technology, Vol. 23 (2),181-201.
Philippart, J., Minghe, S., Docet J.L., and Lejeune, P. 2012. Mathematical formulation and exact solution for landing location problem in tropical forest selective logging, a case study in Southeast Cameroon. J. of Forest Economics. 18: 113-122
