Investigating of agricultural ecosystem functions and services in Northern Iran

Articles in Press

Document Type : Original Research

Authors
S. Hosseini 1
F. Karimpour 2
1 Assistant Professor, Department of Forestry, Faculty of Natural Resources, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran
2 Ph.D student of irrigation and drainage, Faculty of Agricultural Engineering, Sari University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Iran.
Abstract
The agricultural ecosystem provides various functions and services for humans. So, investigating their role and importance in the agricultural land programming and management is one of the goals research. In this research used Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) for the identification of the Agricultural Ecosystem Functions and Services (AEFS). Also, Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) models used for weighting and prioritizing of the AEFS like Step wise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis (SWARA) for calculating of their weight, and Simple Additive Weighting (SAW), Additive Ratio Assessment (ARAS), and Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) used for prioritization them. The research data extracted with field survey, random sampling and completing the Delphi questionnaire of the 40 agricultural specialist experts in the north of Iran. Also, the R2 coefficient was used to compare the AEFS prioritization models. The SWARA technique findings showed that provisioning, regulation, and cultural functions with weights of 0.0298, 0.0286 and 0.0250 have the highest weight, respectively. Also, the results indicated that the SAW model with the R2=0.90 was chosen as the prioritization appropriate model. Provisioning, regulation, and cultural functions with marginal weights of 0.6319, 0.5448, and 0.5092 were ranked the first to third priority respectively. Also, food supply, employment, genetic material supply, and educational and research services were important positive services of the agricultural ecosystem compared to other services. it is suggested that more appropriate programming and more research be done by relevant organizations for the sustainable management of agricultural ecosystems in northern Iran.

Keywords

Subjects

1. Ali Majeed R., Breesam H., 2021. Application of SWARA technique to find criteria weights for selecting landfill site in Baghdad governorate. IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 1090 012045. DOI 10.1088/1757-899X/1090/1/012045
2. Altieri, M.A. 2018. Agroecology: The science of sustainable agriculture. Westview Press; 2 edition (October 13, 1995).
3. Altieri, M.A., 2018. Agroecology: The Science of Sustainable Agriculture. Westview Press; 2 edition (October 13, 1995).
4. Amor, W., López, L., Frikha, H., 2022. A multigranular linguistic additive ratio
assessment model in group decision making. World academy of science, engineering and technology.
Int. j. comput. sci. eng.16 (8), 2022.
5. Assandri, G., Bogliani, G., Pedrini, P., Brambilla, M., 2018. Beautiful agricultural landscapes promote cultural ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation. Agriculture. 256, 200-210.
6. Ayan, B., Abacıo˘glu, S., Basilio, M.P. A., 2023. Comprehensive review of the novel weighting methods for multi-Criteria decision-making. Information 14, 285. https://doi.org/10.3390/info14050285.
7. Azaiez, N., Alleoua, A., Baazaoui, N., Qhtani, N., 2020. Assessment of soil loss in the Mirabah Basin: an overview of the potential of agricultural terraces as ancestral practices (Saudi Arabia). Open J Soil Sci 10,159–180. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojss.2020.105008
8. Bishop, J. T., 1999. Valuing forests: A Review of method and application in developing countries. International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). 53-67. London: WC1 ODD, U.K.
9. Chen, T., YU, S., 2022. Study on the risk level of food production enterprise based on TOPSIS method. Food Science and Technology. Food Sci. Technol, Campinas. 42, e29721. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/fst.29721
10. Czúcz, B., I., Arany, M., Potschin-Young, K., Bereczki, M., Kertész, M., Haines-Young, R., 2018. Where concepts meet the real world: A systematic review of ecosystem service indicators and their classification using CICES. Ecosyst. Serv. 29, 145-157 pp.
11. De Groot, R. S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., Willemen, L., 2010. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol. Complex. 7, 260–272.
12. De Groot, R., Brander, L., Ploeg, S., 2012. Estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosyst. Serv. 1, 50–61.
13. Debnath, B., Baria, M., Haqa, M., Pachecob, J., Khan. M., 2023. An integrated stepwise weight assessment ratio analysis and weighted aggregated sum product assessment framework for sustainable supplier selection in the healthcare supply chains. Supply Chain Analytics, 100001
14. Dick, J., Turkelboom, F., Woods, H., 2017. Iniesta-Arandia, I., Primmer, E., et al. 2018. Stakeholders’ perspectives on the operationalisation of the ecosystem service concept: results from 27 case studies. Ecosyst. Serv. 29, 552–565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.015.
15. Fan, J., Han, D., Wu, M., 2023. Picture fuzzy Additive Ratio Assessment Method (ARAS) and VIseKriterijumska Optimizes I Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR) method for multi-attribute decision problem and their application. Complex Intell. Syst. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40747-023-01007-5
16. Heinze, A., Bongers, F., Marcial, N., Barrios, L., Kuyper Th., 2022. Farm diversity and fine scales matter in the assessment of ecosystem services and land use scenarios. Agric. Syst. 196, 103329.
17. Hosseini, S., Amirnejad H., Azadi, H., 2024. Impacts of Hyrcanian forest ecosystem loss: the case of Northern Iran. Environment, Environ Dev Sustain, 22 pp. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-04408-1
18. Hosseini, S., Oladi, J., Amirnejad, H., 2021. The evaluation of environmental, economic and social services of national parks. Environ. Sci. Dev. 23, 9052-9075.
19. Jaukovic Jocic, K., Jocic. G., Karabasevic, D. et al., 2020. A novel integrated PIPRECIA‐interval‐valued triangular fuzzy ARAS model: E‐learning course selection. Symmetry (Basel).12 (6), 928, 2020.
20. Jia, Y., Liu, Y., Zhang, S., 2021. Evaluation of Agricultural Ecosystem Service Value in Arid and Semiarid Regions of Northwest China Based on the Equivalent Factor Method. Environmental Processes. 8,713–727. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40710-021-00514-2
21. Jia, Y., Liu, Y., Zhang, S., 2021. Evaluation of Agricultural Ecosystem Service Value in Arid and Semiarid Regions of Northwest China Based on the Equivalent Factor Method. Environ. Process. 8, 713–727 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40710-021-00514-2
22. MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington D.C.
23. Mengual-Andrés, S., Roig-Vila, R., Mira, J.B. 2016. Delphi study for the design and validation of a questionnaire about digital competences in higher education. Int J Educ Technol High Educ, 13, 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-016-0009-y
24. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C, 155P.
25. Prayogo, M. A., Suseno, J. E., Nugraheni, D. M. K., 2019.Selecting palm oil cultivation land using ARAS method,” in International Seminar on Research of Information Technology and Intelligent Systems (ISRITI). 358‐362.
26. Rabbinge, R., Bindraban P.S. 2012. Making more food available: Promoting sustainable agricultural production. Journal of Integrative Agriculture. 11: 1–8.
27. Ramón-Canul, L., Margarito-Carrizal, D., Limón-Rivera R., et al. 2020. Technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) method for the generation of external preference mapping using rapid sonometric techniques. J Sci Food Agric. 101 (8): 3298-3307. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.10959
28. Schmidt, M., Weißhuhn, P., Augustin, J., Funk, R., Häfner, K., König, H., Loft, L., Merz, C., Meyer, C., Piorr, A., Reutter, M., Stachow, U., Stein-Bachinger, K., Matzdorf, B. 2017. Evaluation of the ecosystem services approach in agricultural literature. One Ecosystem. 2: e11613. https://doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.2.e11613
29. Sohrabi S., Veisi H., Khoshbakht K.2021. A Comparative Analysis of Ecosystem Services Valuation in Alternative Agricultural Systems (Case of Dezful County, Khuzestan Province). Environmental Researches.11 (22):45-56.
30. Sun, Q., Qi, W., Yu, X., 2021. Impacts of land use change on ecosystem services in the intensive agricultural area of North China based on multi-scenario analysis. Alex. Eng. J. 60(1), 1703–1716. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/J.AEJ.2020.11.020.
31. Swinton, S.M., Jolejole-Foreman, C.B., Lupi, F., Ma, S., Zhang, W., Chen, H. 2015. Economic value of ecosystem services from agriculture. The Ecology of Agricultural Landscapes: Long-Term Research on the Path to Sustainability. Oxford University Press, New York, New York, USA.
32. Wang, Y., Liu, G., Cai, Y., Giannetti, B., Agostinho, Fet al., 2022. The Ecological Value of Typical Agricultural Products: An Emergy-Based Life-Cycle Assessment Framework. Front. Environ. Sci. 10:824275. Doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2022.824275
33. Yücenur, G.N., Ipekçi, A., 2021. SWARA/WASPAS methods for a marine current energy plant location selection problem, Renew. Energy, 163. 1287–1298
34. Zavadskas, E., & Turskis, Z., 2010. A new additive ratio assessment (ARAS) method in multicriteria decision‐making, Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 16(2), 159-172. DOI: 10.3846/tede.2010.10.
35. Zolfani S., Saparauskas J.2013. New application of SWARA method in prioritizing sustainability assessment indicators of energy system. INZ EKON. 24 (5).408-414. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.24.5.4526.
Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology

Articles in Press, Accepted Manuscript
Available Online from 01 January 2024