Structural Analysis of the Development Drivers Affecting the Realization of Multi-purpose Management of Summer Rangeland at Mazandaran Province Based on Future Studies Approach

Document Type : Original Research

Authors
G. Rahmati 1
S. K. mahdavi 2
M. R. Shahraki 3
M. Yousefian 4
1 Department of Range Management, Nour Branch, Islamic Azad University, Nour, Iran
2 Department of Natural Resource, Nour Branch,Islamic Azad University, Nour, Iran
3 Expert of Central Office for Natural Resources and Watershed, Golestan, Gorgan, Iran.
4 Assistant Prof., Research Division of Natural Resources, Mazandaran Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center (AREEO), Sari, Iran.
10.22034/ecopersia.11.4.349
Abstract
Aims: Preventing rangeland degradation and conserving them is a challenging task that necessitates targeted changes in rangeland policy and management systems. Planning should aim for the optimal utilization of rangelands while meeting the needs of stakeholders. One of the most crucial measures involves adopting a systemic approach to rangeland management, encompassing all resources, livelihood potentials, and income generated from rangelands through multi-purpose use. To effectively manage rangelands, it is crucial to take a comprehensive approach that considers all resources, livelihood opportunities, and income generated from these areas through multi-purpose use. This involves adopting a systemic approach to rangeland management, encompassing the identification and utilization of non-sustainable potentials within the content of multi-purpose exploitation of rangelands. Such an approach can have a significant impact on reducing the livelihood dependence of pastoralists. Since numerous factors influence its successful implementation in rangeland management, particularly in the summer season, this research was conducted to investigate the influential drivers affecting the development of multi-purpose management in the summer rangelands of Mazandaran Province, utilizing a future studies approach.

Materials & Methods: This descriptive-applied study employed a survey method. The study population comprised experts, deputy heads of departments, and members specializing in rangeland management. Through purposive judgment sampling, 50 individuals were selected from these populations within the natural resources domain in Sari, Mazandaran Province. Data was collected using a researcher-developed questionnaire, and the Cross-Impact Analysis technique was applied to analyze 21 extracted indices from individual and group interviews. The MicMac software facilitated this analysis.

Findings: The study revealed that the primary influential drivers for the advancement of multi-purpose rangeland management included “decentralization and stakeholder participation in the implementation process of multi-purpose plans,” “The results indicated that the indicators “ decentralization and stakeholder participation in the implementation process of multi-purpose plans,” “ generation of new employment prospects and strengthening of rural income potentials,” “ establishment and fortification of rural cooperatives and organizations,” “ governmental support and assistance,” and “ trust-building communication between stakeholders and the government” were the most significant drivers with the highest coefficients of 607, 596, 585, 585, and 564, respectively. These indicators influenced the multi-purpose utilization of the studied region’s rangelands.

Conclusion: Based on the obtained results, the paramount recommendation of this study, employing a forward-thinking approach, is the development of a long-term vision document encompassing economic, socio-cultural, and environmental dimensions. This strategic move is poised to catalyze the transformation of the multi-purpose rangeland management system in Mazandaran Province.

Keywords
drivers
Mazandaran
Multi-purpose Rangeland Management

Subjects

Mohammadi S., Barani H. Assessment of socio-economic impacts of range management plans in the Mashhad County. Iran. J. Range Desert Res. 2018; 25(3): 562-576. https://doi.org/10.22092/ijrdr.2018.117810. (In Persian).
2. Rahimi Dehcheraghi M., Arzani H., Azarnivand H., Jafari M., Zare Chahouki M. Optimal rangeland management to improve rangeland livelihood (Case study of Lar Absar Mazandaran rangeland). Iran. J. Range Desert Res. 2023; 30(1): 48-59. https://doi.org/ 10.22092/ijrdr.2023.128947. (In Persian)
3. Jara-Rojas R., Russy S., Roco L., Fleming-Muñoz D., Engler A. Factors affecting the adoption of agroforestry practices: insights from silvopastoral systems of Colombia. Forests. 2020; 11(6): 648. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11060648.
4. Keivan Behjou F., Esmailnejad Onari A., ghanbari S. Range management plans and production and economic of rangeland users (Case study: Nir rangelands, Ardebil Province). Iran. J. Range Desert Res.2021; 28(2), 252-265. https://doi.org/10.22092/ijrdr.2021.124163. (In Persian).
5. German L., King E., Unks R., Wachira N.P. This side of subdivision: Individualization and collectivization dynamics in a pastoralist group ranch held under collective title. J. Arid. Environ. 2017; 144: 139-155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2017.04.009.
6. Said M.Y., Ogutu J.O., Kifugo S.C., Makui O., Reid R.S., de Leeuw J. Effects of extreme land fragmentation on wildlife and livestock population abundance and distribution.J. Nat. Conserv. 2016; 34: 151-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2016.10.005.
7. Akbari M., Ownegh M., Asgari H., Sadoddin A., Khosravi H. Drought monitoring based on the SPI and RDI indices under climate change scenarios (case study: Semi-Arid areas of West Golestan province). ECOPERSIA 2016;4(4):1585-602. https://ecopersia.modares.ac.ir/article-24-7974-en.html
8. Behmanesh B., Shahraki M.R., Sherafatmandrad M., Mahdavi S.Kh. Nomadic Pastoralists and Drought in the Rangelands of Gonbad-e Kavous, Iran. ECOPERSIA 2021; 9(3): 207-214. https://ecopersia.modares.ac.ir/article-24-42326-en.html
9. Barbari M.J., Kalantari A., Raghfar H., Ghafari, G. The Impact of Natural Resources on the Development of Countries. Geogr Environ Sustain. 2017; 7(3): 81-96. http://ges.razi.ac.ir/article_826_ff952bb047324bfa42e85ded74fe7b0b.pdf. (In Persian).
10. Papadopoulou A., Ragkos A., Theodoridis A., Skordos D., Parissi Z., Abraham, E. Evaluation of the contribution of pastures on the economic sustainability of small ruminant farms in a typical Greek area. Agronomy. 2021; 11(1): 63. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11010063.
11. Pezeshgi M., Motamedi J., Alijanpour A., Souri M., Najibzadeh M., Arzani, H. Different approaches to determine the suitability of rangelands for medicinal plants exploitation (Case study: Mountain rangeland of Arshad Chaman, Sahand, East Azarbaijan). Iran. J. Medicinal Aromatic Plants Res. 2020; 36(1): 1-21. https://doi.org/10.22092/ijmapr.2019.126634.2581. (In Persian).
12. Moradi E., Heshmati G., Ghelishlee F., Mirdeylami S.Z. Analyzing the success and failure of range management plans in Golestan Province. J. Rangel. 2016; 9(3): 281-291. http://rangelandsrm.ir/article-1-261-en.html. (In Persian)
13. Karimi A., Sepehri A., Jafari, R. Analysis of multi-purpose utilization of Fereydunshahr pastures located in Isfahan province. The first scientific research congress for the development and promotion of agricultural sciences, natural resources and environment of Iran. Tehran. 19 September.2015; pp. 1-9. ISBN: 978-600-8045-05-2. Conference national id PDCONF01.
14. Mukhlis I., Rizaludin M.S., Hidayah I. Understanding Socio-Economic and Environmental Impacts of Agroforestry on Rural Communities. Forests. 2022; 13(4): 556. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13040556.
15. Ferreira D.J., Zanine A.M. Challenges Facing Pasture in the Context of Agricultural Multifunctionality in Brazil. "Am. J. Exp. Agric. 2014; 4(12): 1793. https://doi.org/10.9734/AJEA/2014/12597.
16. Kreutzmann H. Transformation of high altitude livestock-keeping in China”s mountainous western periphery. Etudes mongoles et sibériennes, centrasiatiques et tibétaines 2013; 43-44: 1–17. https://doi.org/10.4000/emscat.2141.
17. Schlecht E., Turner M.D., Hülsebusch C.G., Buerkert, A. Managing rangelands without herding? Insights from Africa and beyond. Front Sustain Food Syst.2020; 4: 549954. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.549954.
18. Maia A.G., dos Santos Eusebio G., Fasiaben M.D.C.R., Moraes A.S., Assad E.D. Pugliero V.S. The economic impacts of the diffusion of agroforestry in Brazil. Land Use Policy. 2021; 108: 105489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105489.
19. Duffy C., Toth G.G., Hagan R.P., McKeown P.C., Rahman S.A., Widyaningsih Y., Sunderland T.C.H., Spillane, C. Agroforestry contributions to smallholder farmer food security in Indonesia. Agroforest Syst. 2021; 95(6): 1109-1124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-021-00632-8.
20. Kiptot E., Franzel S., Degrande A. Gender, agroforestry and food security in Africa. Curr Opin Sust. 2014; 6: 104-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.10.019.
21. Hameed A., Tariq M., Buerkert A. Schlecht E. Constraints and prospects of utilising mountain pastures in Gilgit-Baltistan, Pakistan. Pastoralism. 2022; 12(1): 41. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13570-022-00253-5.
22. O”Faircheallaigh, C. Public participation and environmental impact assessment: Purposes, implications, and lessons for public policy making. Environ Impact Asses. 2010; 30(1): 19-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2009.05.001.
23. Bohnet I.C., Roberts B., Harding E., Haug K.J. A typology of graziers to inform a more targeted approach for developing natural resource management policies and agricultural extension programs. Land Use Policy. 2011; 28(3): 629-637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.12.003.
24. Brussels, A. New challenges and opportunities for pastoralism in ACP countries, Organized in partnership with the African :union: Commission. Brussels Development Briefing no. 26. 22nd February 2012; http://brusselsbriefings.net/brusselsbriefings.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/hh20en.pdf.
25. Reinhold-Hurek B., Hurek T. Living inside plants: bacterial endophytes. Curr. Opin. Plant. Biol. 2011; 14(4): 435-443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2011.04.004.
26. Corti M., Moranda G., Agostini S. Indicators for Alpine pastures multifunctional use. The case of estates of the regional agricultural and forestry services board of Lombardy. Ital. J. Agron. 2010; 5(1): 13-18. https://doi.org/10.4081/ija.2010.13.
27. Savian J.V., Neto A.B., de David D.B., Bremm C., Schons R.M.T., Genro T.C.M., do Amaral G.A., Gere J., McManus C.M., Bayer C., de Faccio Carvalho P.C. Grazing intensity and stocking methods on animal production and methane emission by grazing sheep: Implications for multi-purpose crop–livestock system. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 2014; 190: 112-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.02.008.
28. Nigus A. Pasture management and improvement strategies in Ethiopia. J. biol. agric. healthc. 2017; 7(1): 69-78. https://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JBAH/article/view/34973/35975.
29. Taylor B.M., Van Grieken M. Local institutions and farmer participation in agri-environmental schemes. J. Rural. Stud. 2015; 37: 10-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2014.11.011.
30. Kong T.M., Marsh S.E., van Rooyen A.F., Kellner K., Orr B.J. Assessing rangeland condition in the Kalahari Duneveld through local ecological knowledge of livestock farmers and remotely sensed data. J. Arid. Environ. 2015; 113: 77-86.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2014.10.003.
31. Aliyev B.H., Aliyev Z.H., Babayeva K.M. Problems of the desertification and pasture degradation in the conditions of Azerbaijan. Environ. Soil Sci. 2019; 2(2): 201-205. https://doi.org/ 10.32474/OAJESS.2019.02.000134.
32. Iskandar J., Iskandar B.S., Partasasmita R. Responses to environmental and socio-economic changes in the Karangwangi traditional agroforestry system, South Cianjur, West Java. Biodiversitas. 2016; 17(1): 332-341. https://doi.org/10.13057/biodiv/d170145.
33. Laudares S.S.D.A., Borges L.A.C., Ávila P.A.D., Oliveira A.L.D., Silva K.G.D., Laudares D.C.D.A. Sistemas Agroflorestais Como Alternativa Sustentável Para Regularização Ambiental de Ocupações Rurais Consolidadas. Cerne. 2017; 23(2): 161-174. https://doi.org/10.1590/01047760201723022240
34. Varela E., Olaizola A.M., Blasco I., Capdevila C., Lecegui A., Casasús I., Bernués A., Martín-Collado D. Unravelling opportunities, synergies, and barriers for enhancing silvopastoralism in the Mediterranean. Land Use Policy 2022; 118: 106140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106140.
35. Wafula W.M., Wasonga O.V., Koech O.K., Kibet S. Factors influencing migration and settlement of pastoralists in Nairobi City, Kenya. Pastoralism. 2022; 12(1): 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13570-021-00204-6.
36. Abiyu A., Teketay D., Gratzer G., Shete M. Tree planting by smallholder farmers in the upper catchment of Lake Tana Watershed, Northwest Ethiopia. Small-Scale for. 2016; 15(2): 199-212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-015-9317-7
37. Abedi Sarvestani A, Shahraki M R. Analysis of rangeland management drivers in Covid-19 pandemic in Golestan province. J. Plant. Ecosys. Conserv.2023; 11(22): 83-97. http://pec.gonbad.ac.ir/article-1-885-fa.html.(In Persian).
38. Syamsu J.A., Yusuf M. Sustainability status of pasture for cattle development area in Pinrang Regency, South Sulawesi. In IOP Conference Series: Earth. Env. Sci. 2019; 247(1): 012058. https://doi.org/ 10.1088/1755-1315/247/1/012058
39. Hakim L., Siswanto D., Rahardi B., Zayadi H. Fostering coffee agroforestry for agrotourism development in degraded land in a buffer zone of a national park: A case study from Poncokusumo, Malang, Indonesia. Eurasia. J. Biosci. 2019; 13: 1613–1620. http://repository.unisma.ac.id/handle/123456789/2338.
40. Cerda R., Avelino J., Harvey C.A., Gary C., Tixier P., Allinne C. Coffee agroforestry systems capable of reducing disease-induced yield and economic losses while providing multiple ecosystem services. Crop Protec. 2020; 134: 105149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2020.105149.
41. Farajollahi A., Asgari H.R., Ownagh M., Mahboubi M.R., Salman Mahini A. Socio-Economic factors influencing land-use changes in Maraveh Tappeh Region, Iran. ECOPERSIA. 2017; 5(1):1683-1697. https://ecopersia.modares.ac.ir/article-24-10900-en.html.
42. Heshmati M., Gheitury M. Entrepreneurial potential, food security, and environmental services of agriculture and natural resources in Kermanshah province, Iran. Cent. Asian J. Environ. Sci. Technol. Innov. 2022; 3(1): 1-9. https://www.caspress.com/article_143236_0d3106c7606edd0d9bce6caf10a92be8.pdf
43. Yeganeh H., Pournemati A., Zamani M., Farsi R., Biswas, A. A Study on the Level of Risk Taking and Willingness of Pastoralists to Use Rangeland Insurance in the North of Iran. Rangeland. Ecol. Manag. 2022; 82(7): 20-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rama.2022.01.007.
44. Islami I., Farajollahi A., Ghasemi Aryan Y. Improving rural livelihood based on natural resources potentials in Najafabad region, Kurdistan Province, Iran. ECOPERSIA. 2021; 9(4):251-263.
45. Mudzengi C., Kapembeza C.S., Dahwa E., Taderera L., Moyana S., Zimondi M. Ecological benefits of apiculture on savanna rangelands. Bee World. 2019; 97(1): 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/0005772X.2019.1701797.
46. Mitchell S.R., DeBano S.J., Rowland M.M., Morris L.R., Schmalz H., Burrows S., Lukas S.B. Phenologically Targeted Grazing: A Potential Sustainable Strategy for Native Bees in Semiarid Rangelands. Rangeland. Ecol. Manag. 2023; 90: 78-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rama.2023.06.001
47. Pueppke S.G., Nurtazin S., Ou W. Water and land as shared resources for agriculture and aquaculture: Insights from Asia. Water. 2020; 12(10): 2787. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12102787.
48. Ollinaho O.I., Kröger M. Agroforestry transitions: The good, the bad and the ugly. J.Rural Stud. 2021; 82: 210–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.01.016.
49. Popović V., Milijić S., Vuković, P. Sustainable tourism development in the Carpathian region in Serbia. Spatium 2012; 28: 45-52. https://doi.org/10.2298/SPAT1228045P.
50. Shemshad M., Malek Mohammadi I. Analysis of factor affecting the ecotourism development in pasture and forest cooperatives in Golestan province, Iran. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2013; 9(5): 1023-1034. Available online. http://www.ijat-aatsea.com/Past_v9_n5.html.
51. Kalate A., Ghelichipour Z., Akbari E. Modeling and Prioritizing Ecotourism Potential in National Park and Protected Area of Sarigol with Fuzzy-AHP in GIS. ECOPERSIA 2023;11(2):125-139. http://ecopersia.modares.ac.ir/article-24-66697-en.html.
52. KianiSadr M., Melhosseini Darani K., Golkarian H. Quantitative zoning of ecotourism potential in Oshtorankouh protected area using Delphi method, analytic hierarchy process, and weighted overlay methods. ECOPERSIA. 2019;7(2):115-123. http://ecopersia.modares.ac.ir/article-24-18755-en.html.
53. Vroege W., Dalhaus T., Finger R. Index insurances for grasslands–A review for Europe and North-America. Agr. Syst. 2019; 168: 101-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.10.009.
54. Mottet A., de Haan C., Falcucci A., Tempio G., Opio C., Gerber P. Livestock: On our plates or eating at our table? A new analysis of the feed/food debate. Glob. Food. Secur. 2017; 14: 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2017.01.001.
55. Rezaei R., Vedadi E., Mehrdoost K. Studying the Effective Factors on Participation of Rural People in Watershed Plans of Khomarak Basin (Case study: Deh Jalal village). J. Rural. Res. 2012; 3(9): 199-221. https://doi.org/10.22059/JRUR.2012.24729. (In Persian).
ECOPERSIA
Volume 11, Issue 4 - Serial Number 46
December 2023
Pages 349-368