• صفحه اصلی
  • رتبه‌بندی راهبردهای بیابان‌زدایی با استفاده از تئوری مطلوبیت چند معیاره (MAUT)(مطالعه موردی: منطقه خضرآباد یزد)

اشتراک گذاری

آدرس مقاله


کد مقاله : JEST-1701-3346 (R5) بازدید : 169 صفحه: 101 - 112

10.22034/jest.2019.24438.3346

نوع مقاله: پژوهشی

رتبه‌بندی راهبردهای بیابان‌زدایی با استفاده از تئوری مطلوبیت چند معیاره (MAUT)(مطالعه موردی: منطقه خضرآباد یزد)

محورهای موضوعی : مدیریت بلایای طبیعی

محمد حسن صادقی روش 1 , بهاره جبالبارزی 2

1 - - دانشیارگروه محیط زیست، واحد تاکستان، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تاکستان، ایران* (مسوول مکاتبات)
2 - دانشجوی دکتری مدیریت مناطق بیابانی دانشگاه تهران.

تاریخ دریافت : 1395/11/11 تاریخ پذیرش : 1396/03/24 تاریخ انتشار : 1398/08/01

کلید واژه: تئوری مطلوبیت چند معیاره (MAUT), آنتروپی‌شانون, مدل‌های تصمیم‌گیری چند شاخصه (MADM), مقایسه زوجی, بیابان‌زدایی,

چکیده مقاله :

چکیده زمینه و هدف: در حال حاظر بیابان زایی به عنوان یک معضل گریبان گیر بسیاری از کشورهای جهان از جمله کشورهای درحال توسعه می باشد. علیرغم اثرات جدی زیست محیطی، اقتصادی و اجتماعی این پدیده، کوشش های اندکی در زمینه ارایه راهبردهای بهینه صورت پذیرفته است. از این رو هدف از این پژوهش، ارزیابی راهبردهای بیابان زدایی به منظور دست یابی به راهبردهای بهینه در چارچوب مدیریت پایدار مناطق بیابانی می باشد. روش بررسی: جهت دست یابی به این هدف، در چارچوب مدل های تصمیم گیری چند شاخصه، تئوری مطلوبیت چند معیاره (MAUT)، استفاده شد. در این روش برای تعیین وزن معیارها و راهبردها از تکنیک دلفی (Delphi) و آنتروپی شانون تعدیل شده (Modify Shannon Entropy) استفاده گردید و برای رتبه بندی نهایی راهبردها نیز از تابع مطلوبیت چند معیاره (MAUT) استفاده شد. این مدل به منظور ارزیابی کارایی در ارایه راهبردهای بهینه، در منطقه خضرآباد یزد مورد استفاده قرار گرفت. یافته ها: بر مبنای نتایج حاصل شده، راهبردهای جلوگیری از تبدیل و تغییر نامناسب کاربری اراضی (18A) با ضریب مطلوبیت 7429/0، توسعه و احیاء پوشش گیاهی (23A) با ضریب مطلوبیت 6573/0 و تعدیل در برداشت از منابع آب زیرزمینی (31A) با ضریب مطلوبیت 3184/0، به ترتیب به عنوان مهم ترین راهبردهای بیابان زدایی در منطقه تشخیص داده شدند. بحث و نتیجه گیری: نتایج این پژوهش به مدیران مناطق بیابانی این امکان را می دهد که امکانات و سرمایه های محدود اختصاص یافته به منظور کنترل روند بیابان زایی را به شیوه های صحیح و کارآمد به کاربندند تا ضمن دستیابی به نتایج بهتر، از هدر رفتن سرمایه های ملی جلوگیری کنند.

چکیده انگلیسی:

Background and Objective: Today, desertification is considered as a severe problem in most countries of the world, including the developing ones. Despite the serious environmental, social and economical impact of desertification phenomenon, few studies have been done to provide optimal alternatives. The aim of this study was to evaluate the alternatives for combating desertification in order to achieve optimal alternatives in the context of the sustainable management of deserts. Method: To achieve this goal, the Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) has been applied in the context of Multi-Attribute Decision-making (MADM) models. In order to determine the weights of criteria and alternatives, it was used the modified Delphi and Shannon entropy techniques, while the final rating of alternatives was performed using the Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) function. The model was applied to evaluate the efficiency in providing the optimal alternatives in Khezerabad Region of Yazd Province. Findings: The results showed that, the alternatives of prevention of unsuitable land use changes (A18) by a utility factor of 0.7429, vegetation cover development and reclamation (A23) by a utility factor of 0.6573 and modification of ground water harvesting (A31) by a utility factor of 0.3184 respectively were identified as the most important alternatives for combating desertification in the region. Discussion and Conclusion: These results might able the managers to properly and efficiently use the limited available facilities and funds in order to control the desertification. In addition, achieveing better results, this might prevent the waste of national resources.

منابع و مأخذ:


  1. Ahmadi, H., 2004. Study of effective factors on desertification. Forest and Pasture Journal, Vol. 62, pp. 66-70. (In Persian).
    2.
  2. Giordano, L., Giordano, F., Grauso, S., Lannetta, M., Scicortino, M., Bonnati, G., Borfecchia, F., 2002. Desertification vulnerability in Sicily, Proc. Of the 2nd Int. Conf. On New Trend in Water and Environmental Engineering for Safety and Life:Eco-compatible solutions for Aquatic Environmental, June 24-28, Capri, Italy. pp: 85-98. Available from: http://www.Capri2002.com.
    3.
  3. Grau, J. B., Anton, J. M., Tarquis, A. M., Colombo, F.,  Rios, L., Cisneros, J. M., 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 Discuss,Vol. 7, pp. 2601–2630.
    4.
  4. Sadeghi Ravesh, M. H., Ahamadi, H., Zahtabian, G. H., Tahmoures, M., 2010. Application of Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) in assessment of de-desertification alternatives. Iranian Journal of Range and Desert Research, Vol. 17(1), pp. 35-50. (In Persian).
    5.
  5. Sadeghi Ravesh, M. H., Khosravi, H., Ghasemi, S., 2015. Application of fuzzy analytical hierarchy process for Assessment of combating-desertification alternatives in the central Iran, Journal of Natural Hazard, Vol. 75, pp. 653-667.
    6.
  6. Sadeghi Ravesh, M. H., Zehtabian, G. R., Ahmadi, H., Khosravi, H., 2012. Using analytic hierarchy prosess method and ordering technique to assess de-desertification alternatives, case study: Khezrabad, Yazd, IRAN, Carpathian journal of earth and environmental sciences, Vol. 7, pp. 51-60.
    7.
  7. Sadeghi Ravesh, M. H., Tahmoures, M., 2014. Evaluation of alternatives to combat desertification using FTOPSIS model. Environmental Engineering and Sciences Quarterly. Vol. 1(3), pp. 79-94. (In Persian).
    8.
  8. Sadeghi Ravesh, M. H., Khosravi, H., 2014.  Application of AHP and ELECTRE models for Assessment of de-desertification alternatives in Central Iran, DESERT, Vol. 19-2, pp.141-153.
    9.
  9. Sadeghi Ravesh, M. H., Zehtabian, G., 2013. Combat desertification alternatives classification with using of Multi Attribute Decision Making (MADM) view point and Weighted Sum Model (WSM), Case study: Khezrabad region, Yazd province. Journal of Pajouhesh & Sazandeghi, Vol. 100, pp.1-11. (In Persian).
    10.
  10. Sadeghi Ravesh, M. H. 2014. Evaluation of combat desertification alternatives by using BORDA ranking model, Case study: Khezrabad region, Yazd province. Journal of Environmental Management and Planning, Vol. 4(2), pp. 5-16. (In Persian).
    11.
  11. Sadeghi Ravesh, M. H., Khosravi, H., 2016. Evaluation of combat desertification alternatives by using Individual Borda Ranking model. Desert Ecosystem Engineering Journal (DEEJ), Vol. 5(12), pp. 109-121. (In Persian)
    12.
  12. Sadeghi Ravesh, M. H., 2013. Assessment of combat desertification alternatives using Permutation method, case study: Khezrabad region, Yazd province. Journal of Environmental Management and Planning, Vol. 3(4), pp. 5-14. (In Persian). 
    13.
  13. Sadeghi Ravesh, M, H., Khosravi, H., Abolhasani, A., Shekoohizadeghan, S., 2016. Evaluation of de-desertification alternatives by using PROMETHEE model in Khezrabad region, Journal of Geography and Geology, Vol 8(2), pp. 1-14.
    14.
  14. Sadeghi Rravesh, M. H., Khosravi, H., 2015. Application of Network Analysis Process (ANP) in assessment of combating desertification alternatives. Desert Ecosystem Engineering Journal (DEEJ), Vol. 4(8), pp.11-24. (In Persian).
    15.
  15. Sadeghi Ravesh, M, H., Khosravi, H., Ghasemian, S., 2016. Assessment of combating strategies using the Liner Assignment method, Journal of Solid Earth, Vol. 7, pp. 673-683.
    16.
  16. Sadeghi Ravesh, M. H., Khosravi, H., 2018. Assessment of de-desertification approaches using Multi Attribute Decision Making (MADM) and Principal Factor Analysis (PFA). Geographical Explorations of Desert Areas, Vol. 6(1), pp.229-255. (In Persian)
    17.
  17. Sadeghi Ravesh, M. H., 2019. Evaluation of de-desertification alternatives In Ardekan- Khezr Abad plain by using Shannon Entropy method and ORESTE model, Quarterly journal of Environmental Erosion Research,  (In Press) (In Persian).
    18.
  18. Shafiei Nik Abadi, M., Jafarian, A., 2012. Application of the Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) to evaluate the performance of electronic businesses. Management Quarterly. Vol. 9 (26), pp. 57-68. (In Persian).
    19.
  19. Sadeghi Ravesh, M. H., 2008. Investigation of effective desertification factors on environmental degradation. Azad University Ph.D Thesis.395 p. (In Persian).
    20.
  20. Maged, E. G., Chang, L. M., Zang, L., 2005. Utility- Function Model for Engineering performance assessment, journal of construction engineering and management, Vol 131, no. 5, pp. 558-565.
    21.
  21. Ayhan, M. B., 2013.  A FUZZY and approach for supplier selection problem: a case study in a Gearmotor company, International Journal of Managing Value and Supply Chains(IJMVSC), Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 11-23.
    22.
  22. Keeney, R. L., 1992. Value – focused thinking: A path to creative decision- making, Harvard university press, London.UK.
    23.
  23. Keeney, R. L., Raiffa, H., 1993. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Perferences and value trade-Offs, Cambridge university press, Cambridge, UK.
    24.
  24. Keeney, R. L., 1976. A group preference axiomatization with cardinal utility, Management Science, Vol 23, pp.140-145.
    25.
  25. Azar, A., Rajabzadeh, A., 2014. Applied decision making with an approach of Multi-Attribute Decision Making (MADM). 6nd edition.  Tehran, Publication of Negah Danesh. 183 pp. (In Persian).
    26.
  26. Ghodsipour, S. H., 2016. Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP). 12nd edition, Amir Kabir University press, 220 pp. (In Persian).
    27.
  27. Azar, A., Memariani, A., 2003. AHP a new technique for group decision making. Journal of Management Knowledge, Vol. 27-28, pp. 22-32. (In Persian).
    28.
  28. Asgharpoutr, M. J., 2017. Multi-Criteria Decision Making. 15nd edition, Publication of Tehran University, 400 pp. (In Persian).
    29.
  29. Zak. J., 2005. The comparison of multi-objective ranking methods applied to solve the mass transit systems decision problems, proceeding of 16th mini Euro conference and 10th meeting of the Euro working group of transportation (EWGT), September 13-16, 2005, Poznan, Poland.
    30.
  30. Limon, G. A., Martinez, Y., 2006. Multi criteria modeling of irrigation water marked at basin level: A Spanish case study, Eropiangeornal of Operational Reserch, Vol. 173, pp. 313-336
    31.
  31. Wallenius, J., Dyer, J. S., Fishburn, P. C., Steuer, R. E., Zionts, S., Deb, K., 2008. Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Multi- Attribute Utility Therory: Recent accomplishments and what lies ahead, Management Science, Vol. 54, Issue. 7, pp. 1335-1349.
    32.
  32. Momeni, M., 2006. Modern Research Subjects in Practice. Publications of Management Faculty of University of Tehran.
    33.

 
 

 

 

 

_||_

  1. Ahmadi, H., 2004. Study of effective factors on desertification. Forest and Pasture Journal, Vol. 62, pp. 66-70. (In Persian).
    2.
  2. Giordano, L., Giordano, F., Grauso, S., Lannetta, M., Scicortino, M., Bonnati, G., Borfecchia, F., 2002. Desertification vulnerability in Sicily, Proc. Of the 2nd Int. Conf. On New Trend in Water and Environmental Engineering for Safety and Life:Eco-compatible solutions for Aquatic Environmental, June 24-28, Capri, Italy. pp: 85-98. Available from: http://www.Capri2002.com.
    3.
  3. Grau, J. B., Anton, J. M., Tarquis, A. M., Colombo, F.,  Rios, L., Cisneros, J. M., 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 Discuss,Vol. 7, pp. 2601–2630.
    4.
  4. Sadeghi Ravesh, M. H., Ahamadi, H., Zahtabian, G. H., Tahmoures, M., 2010. Application of Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) in assessment of de-desertification alternatives. Iranian Journal of Range and Desert Research, Vol. 17(1), pp. 35-50. (In Persian).
    5.
  5. Sadeghi Ravesh, M. H., Khosravi, H., Ghasemi, S., 2015. Application of fuzzy analytical hierarchy process for Assessment of combating-desertification alternatives in the central Iran, Journal of Natural Hazard, Vol. 75, pp. 653-667.
    6.
  6. Sadeghi Ravesh, M. H., Zehtabian, G. R., Ahmadi, H., Khosravi, H., 2012. Using analytic hierarchy prosess method and ordering technique to assess de-desertification alternatives, case study: Khezrabad, Yazd, IRAN, Carpathian journal of earth and environmental sciences, Vol. 7, pp. 51-60.
    7.
  7. Sadeghi Ravesh, M. H., Tahmoures, M., 2014. Evaluation of alternatives to combat desertification using FTOPSIS model. Environmental Engineering and Sciences Quarterly. Vol. 1(3), pp. 79-94. (In Persian).
    8.
  8. Sadeghi Ravesh, M. H., Khosravi, H., 2014.  Application of AHP and ELECTRE models for Assessment of de-desertification alternatives in Central Iran, DESERT, Vol. 19-2, pp.141-153.
    9.
  9. Sadeghi Ravesh, M. H., Zehtabian, G., 2013. Combat desertification alternatives classification with using of Multi Attribute Decision Making (MADM) view point and Weighted Sum Model (WSM), Case study: Khezrabad region, Yazd province. Journal of Pajouhesh & Sazandeghi, Vol. 100, pp.1-11. (In Persian).
    10.
  10. Sadeghi Ravesh, M. H. 2014. Evaluation of combat desertification alternatives by using BORDA ranking model, Case study: Khezrabad region, Yazd province. Journal of Environmental Management and Planning, Vol. 4(2), pp. 5-16. (In Persian).
    11.
  11. Sadeghi Ravesh, M. H., Khosravi, H., 2016. Evaluation of combat desertification alternatives by using Individual Borda Ranking model. Desert Ecosystem Engineering Journal (DEEJ), Vol. 5(12), pp. 109-121. (In Persian)
    12.
  12. Sadeghi Ravesh, M. H., 2013. Assessment of combat desertification alternatives using Permutation method, case study: Khezrabad region, Yazd province. Journal of Environmental Management and Planning, Vol. 3(4), pp. 5-14. (In Persian). 
    13.
  13. Sadeghi Ravesh, M, H., Khosravi, H., Abolhasani, A., Shekoohizadeghan, S., 2016. Evaluation of de-desertification alternatives by using PROMETHEE model in Khezrabad region, Journal of Geography and Geology, Vol 8(2), pp. 1-14.
    14.
  14. Sadeghi Rravesh, M. H., Khosravi, H., 2015. Application of Network Analysis Process (ANP) in assessment of combating desertification alternatives. Desert Ecosystem Engineering Journal (DEEJ), Vol. 4(8), pp.11-24. (In Persian).
    15.
  15. Sadeghi Ravesh, M, H., Khosravi, H., Ghasemian, S., 2016. Assessment of combating strategies using the Liner Assignment method, Journal of Solid Earth, Vol. 7, pp. 673-683.
    16.
  16. Sadeghi Ravesh, M. H., Khosravi, H., 2018. Assessment of de-desertification approaches using Multi Attribute Decision Making (MADM) and Principal Factor Analysis (PFA). Geographical Explorations of Desert Areas, Vol. 6(1), pp.229-255. (In Persian)
    17.
  17. Sadeghi Ravesh, M. H., 2019. Evaluation of de-desertification alternatives In Ardekan- Khezr Abad plain by using Shannon Entropy method and ORESTE model, Quarterly journal of Environmental Erosion Research,  (In Press) (In Persian).
    18.
  18. Shafiei Nik Abadi, M., Jafarian, A., 2012. Application of the Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) to evaluate the performance of electronic businesses. Management Quarterly. Vol. 9 (26), pp. 57-68. (In Persian).
    19.
  19. Sadeghi Ravesh, M. H., 2008. Investigation of effective desertification factors on environmental degradation. Azad University Ph.D Thesis.395 p. (In Persian).
    20.
  20. Maged, E. G., Chang, L. M., Zang, L., 2005. Utility- Function Model for Engineering performance assessment, journal of construction engineering and management, Vol 131, no. 5, pp. 558-565.
    21.
  21. Ayhan, M. B., 2013.  A FUZZY and approach for supplier selection problem: a case study in a Gearmotor company, International Journal of Managing Value and Supply Chains(IJMVSC), Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 11-23.
    22.
  22. Keeney, R. L., 1992. Value – focused thinking: A path to creative decision- making, Harvard university press, London.UK.
    23.
  23. Keeney, R. L., Raiffa, H., 1993. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Perferences and value trade-Offs, Cambridge university press, Cambridge, UK.
    24.
  24. Keeney, R. L., 1976. A group preference axiomatization with cardinal utility, Management Science, Vol 23, pp.140-145.
    25.
  25. Azar, A., Rajabzadeh, A., 2014. Applied decision making with an approach of Multi-Attribute Decision Making (MADM). 6nd edition.  Tehran, Publication of Negah Danesh. 183 pp. (In Persian).
    26.
  26. Ghodsipour, S. H., 2016. Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP). 12nd edition, Amir Kabir University press, 220 pp. (In Persian).
    27.
  27. Azar, A., Memariani, A., 2003. AHP a new technique for group decision making. Journal of Management Knowledge, Vol. 27-28, pp. 22-32. (In Persian).
    28.
  28. Asgharpoutr, M. J., 2017. Multi-Criteria Decision Making. 15nd edition, Publication of Tehran University, 400 pp. (In Persian).
    29.
  29. Zak. J., 2005. The comparison of multi-objective ranking methods applied to solve the mass transit systems decision problems, proceeding of 16th mini Euro conference and 10th meeting of the Euro working group of transportation (EWGT), September 13-16, 2005, Poznan, Poland.
    30.
  30. Limon, G. A., Martinez, Y., 2006. Multi criteria modeling of irrigation water marked at basin level: A Spanish case study, Eropiangeornal of Operational Reserch, Vol. 173, pp. 313-336
    31.
  31. Wallenius, J., Dyer, J. S., Fishburn, P. C., Steuer, R. E., Zionts, S., Deb, K., 2008. Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Multi- Attribute Utility Therory: Recent accomplishments and what lies ahead, Management Science, Vol. 54, Issue. 7, pp. 1335-1349.
    32.
  32. Momeni, M., 2006. Modern Research Subjects in Practice. Publications of Management Faculty of University of Tehran.
    33.

 
 

 

 

 

مقالات مرتبط

حقوق این وب‌سایت متعلق به سامانه مدیریت نشریات دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی است.
حق نشر © 1403-1400

صفحه اصلی| عضویت/ ورود| درباره سند| تماس با ما|
[English] [العربية] [en] [ar]