Selecting a Framework for Analyzing the Integrated Socio-Ecological System of Farmers Exploiting the Groundwater Resources of an Aquifer: Applying COPRAS Decision Model

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Ph.D. Student, Department of Agricultural Extension and Education, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran

2 Agricultural extension and education, University of Tehran

3 Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural Extension and Education, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran

4 Professor, Department of Agricultural Extension and Education, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran

Abstract

sustainable exploitation of natural resources depends on recognizing the interdependencies, internal social and ecological systems and their capacity to provide the required services. Therefore, there is a need to rethink and change the approach to systemic management of the social-ecological system, which emphasizes the role of various stakeholders in planning and implementing natural resource conservation goals and programs, so that preserving human interests, in addition, sustainable natural resource conservation also be provided. Different frameworks for analyzing social-ecological systems (SES) have been employed in empirical studies. This study was aimed to select the most related frameworks for analyzing social-ecological systems (SES) to investigate and analyze the human dimension in consistency with groundwater as a common-pool resource system in aquifer. The study population consisted of experts and faculty members with experience and expertise in the field of social-ecological systems (SES) which selected 11 cases by purposive sampling technique. Research tool was a questionnaire consisting of two parts: pairwise comparisons of decision criteria and determining the relative importance of Frameworks for analyzing social-ecological systems (SES) based on each of the studied criteria. COPRAS (Complex Proportional Assessment of alternatives) technique was used to analyze the data. The results of this study indicate that, among the decision criteria, capability to detect unsustainable making factor of the system with a relative weighting 0.217 has highest-priority than the other criteria studied. Furthermore, the Social-Ecological System framework (SESF) is the most related framework for analyzing the human dimension in adapting to the hydrological system of aquifer.

Keywords


[1] Alambaigi, A. and Akbari, M. R. (2019). Human-water resources interface in agriculture sector of Iran: A historical theoretical understanding, Iranian Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development Research. 51(2), 361-376. (In Persian)
[2] Binder, C. R., Hinkel, J., Bots, P. W. and Pahl-Wostl, C. (2013). Comparison of frameworks for analyzing social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 18(4).
[3] Brondizio, E. S., Vogt, N. D., Mansur, A. V., Anthony, E. J., Costa, S. and Hetrick, S. (2016). A conceptual framework for analyzing deltas as coupled social–ecological systems: an example from the Amazon River Delta. Sustainability Science, 11(4), 591-609.
[4] Burns, S. J. )1999(. The natural step: a compass for environmental management systems. Corporate Environmental Strategy, 6(4), 329-342.
[5] Das, M. C., Sarkar, B. and Ray, S. (2012). A framework to measure relative performance of Indian technical institutions using integrated fuzzy AHP and COPRAS methodology. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 46(3), 230-241.
[6] Farzaneh, M., Bagheri, A. and Momeni, F. (2016). A system dynamics insight to institutional context analysis of groundwater resources in Rafsanjan Plain. Iran-Water Resources Research, 12(2), 67-82. (In Farsi)
[7] Gholizadeh-Sarabi, Sh., Davary, K., Ghahraman, B. and Shafiei, M. (2020). Historical Study of Coupled Human-Water System from Socio-Hydrological Perspective, Case Study: Mashhad Basin. Iran-Water Resources Research, 15(4), 148-170.
[8] Ghorbani, M. (2016). The action plan of social-policy networks monitoring and assessment in local communities empowerment and integrated landscape management, Tehran university, local communities empowerment and natural resource participatory management research institute press, PP. 1-84. (In Farsi)
[9] Karami, E. and Keshavarz, M. (2016). Natural resources conservation: the human dimensions. Iranian Agricultural Extension and Education Journal, 11(2), 101-120.
[10] Liu, J., Dietz, T., Carpenter, S. R., Alberti, M., Folke, C., Moran, E., ... and Ostrom, E. (2007). Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. science, 317(5844), 1513-1516.
[11] Lotfi, S. and Araghinejad, S. (2017). A Review on Challenges in Application of Agent-based Models in Water Resources Systems. Iran-Water Resources Research, 13(2), 115-126. (In Farsi)
[12] Lotfi, s. (2017). Socio-ecological analysis of the capacity of self-organization to stabilize the aquifer with the modeling approach of agent-based. Ph.D. dissertation in Water Resources Engineering, Department of Irrigation and Reclamation Engineering, University of Tehran. (In Farsi)
[13] Masoomi, E., Ahmadi, H. and Rezaei-Moghaddam, K. (2017). Analysis of the attitude of farmers in Kavar city towards Water conservation: Application of Maslow's theory of needs. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development Research. 49 (2), 135-150. (In Farsi)
[14] Mirnezami, S. J. and Bagheri, A. (2017). Assessing the Water Governance System for Groundwater Conservation in Iran, Iran-Water Resources Research, 13(2), 32-55. (In Farsi)
[15] Moghimi Benhangi, S. (2017). Assessment of water institution in national and local scales regarding the framework of social learning Case Studies: Tashk-Bakhtegan basin and Rafsanjan Plain. M.Sc. Dissertation in Water Resources Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Tarbiat Modares University (TMU). (In Farsi)
[16] Montenegro, L. and Hack, J. (2020). A Socio-Ecological System Analysis of Multilevel Water Governance in Nicaragua. Water, 12(6), 1676.
[17] Mousavi, S. M. J. (2017). Factors Affecting Collective Action of Farmers in Groundwater
Pumping Control in Case of Shahreza County. M.Sc. Dissertation in Rural Development, Faculty of Agriculture, Isfahan University of Technology. (In Farsi)
[18] Mulliner, E., Smallbone, K. and Maliene, V. (2013). An assessment of sustainable housing affordability using a multiple criteria decision making method. Omega, 41(2), 270-279.
[19] Ostrom, E. (2007). A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the national Academy of sciences, 104(39), 15181-15187.
[20] Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325(5939), 419-422.
[21] Pahl-Wostl, C. (2009). A conceptual framework for analyzing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global environmental change, 19(3), 354-365.
[22] Partelow, S. (2018). A review of the social-ecological systems framework. Ecology and Society, 23(4).
[23] Pouladi, P., Afshar, A., Molajou, A., & Afshar, M. H. (2020). Socio-hydrological framework for investigating farmers’ activities affecting the shrinkage of Urmia Lake; hybrid data mining and agent-based modelling. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 1-13. (Accepted Manuscript)
[24] Rahimi fayzabad, F., Yazdanpanah, M., forouzani, M. and Zadeh, S. (2016). Determining the factors affecting farmers’ water conservation behavior in Selsele Township: Application of the Norm Activation Model. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development Research.47 (2), 379-390. (In Farsi)
[25] Redman, C. L., Grove, J. M. and Kuby, L. H. (2004). Integrating social science into the long-term ecological research (LTER) network: social dimensions of ecological change and ecological dimensions of social change. Ecosystems, 7(2), 161-171.
[26] Sałabun, W., Wątróbski, J., and Shekhovtsov, A. (2020). Are MCDA Methods Benchmarkable? A Comparative Study of TOPSIS, VIKOR, COPRAS, and PROMETHEE II Methods. Symmetry, 12 (9), 1549.
[27] Schlueter, M., McAllister, R. R. J., Arlinghaus, R., Bunnefeld, N., Eisenack, K., Hoelker, F., ... and Stöven, M. (2012). New horizons for managing the environment: A review of coupled social‐ecological systems modeling. Natural Resource Modeling, 25(1), 219-272.
[28] Scholz, R. W. and Binder, C. R. (2004). Principles of human-environment systems (HES) research. in Pahl, C.; Schmidt, S.; & Jakeman, T. editors. iEMSs 2004 International Congress: Complexity and Integrated Resources Management. International Environmental Modelling and Software Society, Osnabrueck, Germany, 791-796.
[29] Scholz, R. W. and Binder, C. R.  (2003). The paradigm of human-environment systems. Working Paper 37. Natural and Social Science Interface. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zürich, Switzerland.
 [30] Scholz, R. W., Binder, C. R. and Lang, D. J. (2011). The HES Framework. In Environmental literacy in science and society: from knowledge to decisions (pp. 453-462). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
[31] Serrat, O. (2017). The sustainable livelihoods approach. In Knowledge solutions: Tools, methods, and approaches to drive organizational performance (pp. 21-26). Asian development bank, phillipines.
[32] Turner, B. L., Kasperson, R. E., Matson, P. A., McCarthy, J. J., Corell, R. W., Christensen, L., ... and Polsky, C. (2003). A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 100(14), 8074-8079.
[33] Upham, P. (2000). An assessment of The Natural Step theory of sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 8(6), 445-454.
[34] Wens, M., Johnson, J. M., Zagaria, C., and Veldkamp, T. I. (2019). Integrating human behavior dynamics into drought risk assessment—A sociohydrologic, agent‐based approach. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 6(4), e1345.
 
Volume 74, Issue 1
June 2021
Pages 137-155
  • Receive Date: 19 July 2020
  • Revise Date: 17 March 2021
  • Accept Date: 26 March 2021
  • First Publish Date: 22 May 2021