Volume 1, Issue 3 (Fall 2019)                   Tour Res 2019, 1(3): 18-34 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Mazdeh F, Solimani K, Hosseini S. Prioritization Criteria of the Determining the Potential Forest Management Plan VAZ2 Series for Ecotourism Sustainable Development using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Techniques (Entropy and Topsis). Tour Res. 2019; 1 (3) :18-34
URL: http://journal.richt.ir/index.php?sid=7/article-7-70-en.html
1- Dept. of Remote Sensing and GIS, Haraz Institute of Higher Education, Amol, Iran , fateme.mazde@yahoo.com
2- Dept. of Rangeland Watershed Management, Faculty of Natural Resources, Sari University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Sari, Iran
3- Dept. of Forestry, Faculty of Natural Resources, Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University, Sari, Iran
Abstract:   (650 Views)
Ecotourism is a new trend in the tourism industry that introduces landscapes and beautiful scenery of nature as its attractions. Therefore, it is essential to consider importance of its role in environmental preservation to achieve a sustainable development. Forest management plan VAZ2 Series with an area of 2094 hectares and part of the watershed 49 in the north of Iran, plays an important role in this field with its rich ecotourism abilities and attractions. The purpose of this research is the priority of the criteria for determining the potential forest management plan VAZ2 Series for ecotourism sustainable development using multi-criteria decision-making techniques (Entropy and TOPSIS). In this study, Delphi group decision making method was used to determine the criteria for ecotourism sustainable development. Also, prioritization of the criteria was evaluated by using multi-criteria decision-making techniques Entropy and TOPSIS. Based on the results of Delphi questionnaires, 10 criteria were determined for ecotourism sustainable development of forest management plan VAZ2 Series. These criteria included slope, direction, elevation, soil logy, geology, road, typology, afforestation, view shed and hydrology. The results of weighting the criteria using the Entropy technique showed that slope with weight (0/168668), view shed with weight (0/092607), hydrology with weight (0/092478), road with weight (0.092437) have the highest weight among other criteria respectively. Also, the results of prioritization of the criteria using TOPSIS technique showed that geology, slope, and elevation, have higher priority compared to other criteria. Then, the layers were merged to creating plan VAZ2 Series ecological capability map. Finally, their outputs were prepared as capability maps in four classes including very inappropriate, inappropriate, appropriate and very suitable for ecological evaluation of VAZ2 Series. The results showed that 40% of this Series was in suitable class (837.6 ha), 30% in very suitable class (628.2 ha), 20% in very inadequate class (418.8 ha) and 10% is located on unsuitable class (209.4 ha). The results of this study indicated that the VAZ2 Series forestry plan has the potential to provide ecotourism services.
Full-Text [PDF 753 kb]   (137 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Forests & Meadows
Received: 2019/07/3 | Accepted: 2019/08/19 | Published: 2019/10/3

References
1. Ali Amal, A. (2005). Using the Delphi technique to searching for empirical measures of local planning agency power. Qualitative report, (10), 718- 44.
2. Bukneya J. (2012). Application of GIS in ecotourism decision. Evidence from the pearl of Africa. National resource economic program, West Virginia University Press.
3. Bunruamkaew Kh. (2012). Site suitability evaluation for ecotourism using GIS & AHP: A case study of Surat Thani Province, Thailand. PhD. Thesis, School of Life and Environmental Science, the University of Tsukuba. [DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.07.024]
4. Chen M, Tzeng G, H. and Ding C. G. (2003). Fuzzy MCDM approach to select service provider. IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems, 1, 572-577.
5. Cuhls K. (2001). Delphi method, Fraunhofer institute for systems and innovation research, Germany. 15p.
6. Dunham R. (1998). The Delphi Technique. University of Wisconsin School of Business.
7. Gul A. M, Orucu K and Oznur K. (2006). An approach for recreation suitability analysis to recreation planing in Golcuk Nature Park. Journal of Environmental Management, 1, 606- 625. [DOI:10.1007/s00267-004-0322-4] [PMID]
8. Howarth B.¬R & Farber S. (2002). Accounting for the value of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 41, 421 -429. [DOI:10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00091-5]
9. Hwang C.L & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications, Berlin: Springer -¬Verla. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9]
10. Karter F. (2003). Ecotourism and the empowerment of local communities Regina Scheyvens. Tourism management, 19, 357-368.
11. Keeney S., Hasson F., & Mckenna H. P. (2001). A critical review of Delphi technique as a research methodology for nursing. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 38(2), 195- 200. [DOI:10.1016/S0020-7489(00)00044-4]
12. Kotwalm, P. C., Omprakash M. D, Gairola S., & Dugaya D. (2007). Ecological indicators: Imperative to sustainable forest management, Ecological Indicators, 5(1), 104-107. [DOI:10.1016/j.ecolind.2007.01.004]
13. Lawal D.U, Matori A.N and Balogun A. L. (2011). A geographic information system and multi criteria decision analysis in proposing new recreational park sites in university technology Malaysia, Canadian center of science and education, Modern applied science, 5(3), 39-55. [DOI:10.5539/mas.v5n3p39]
14. MacCarthy, B.L & Atthirawong, W. (2003). Factor's affecting location decisions in international operations- a Delphi study. Int J Oper Prod Man, 23(7), 794- 818. [DOI:10.1108/01443570310481568]
15. Mitchell E. (2010). Criteria and indicators of sustainable rangeland management. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming extension publication No. SM-56. 227 p.
16. Munroe K. (2008). Monitoring landscape fragmentation in an inaccessible mountain area: Celaque national park, western Honduras, Journal of Environmental Management, 83(2- 3), 154- 167 [DOI:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.04.001]
17. Mociora E., & Kruse M. (2015). Educational values and services of ecosystems and landscapes - An overview. Ecological indicators, 60, 137-151. [DOI:10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.06.031]
18. Palomo I and Martn-lopez B. (2014). Deliberative mapping of ecosystem services within and around Donana national park (SW Spain) in relation to land use change. Reg environ change, 14, 237-251. [DOI:10.1007/s10113-013-0488-5]
19. Skulmoski G. J., Hartman F., & Krahn J. (2007). The Delphi method for graduate research. Journal of Information Technology Education, 6, 123- 132. [DOI:10.28945/199]
20. Surendran A., & Sekhar C. (2011). A comparative analysis on the socio-economic welfare of dependents of the Anamalai Tiger Reserve (ATR) in India. Margin. The Journal of Applied Economic Research, 5(3), 361-379. [DOI:10.1177/097380101100500304]
21. Tremblay P. (2006). Desert Tourism Scoping Study, Desert Knowledge CRC, Report 12, Australia, Charles Darwin University.
22. Vandermerwe, C. (2001). Management of Maliau basin conservation area project. Sabah, Malaysia, 22nd Asian Conference on Remote Sensing, Thailand, 7(2), 37- 52.
23. Wang T. C. & Chang T. H. (2007). Application of TOPSIS in evaluating initial training aircraft under a fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Applications, 33(4), 870- 880. [DOI:10.1016/j.eswa.2006.07.003]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

Send email to the article author