IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/endesu/v21y2019i1d10.1007_s10668-017-0035-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Livelihood alternatives model for sustainable rangeland management: a review of multi-criteria decision-making techniques

Author

Listed:
  • Hojatollah Khedrigharibvand

    (Ghent University
    Shahrekord University)

  • Hossein Azadi

    (Ghent University
    University of Liege)

  • Dereje Teklemariam

    (Ghent University
    Mekelle University)

  • Ehsan Houshyar

    (Jahrom University)

  • Philippe Maeyer

    (Ghent University)

  • Frank Witlox

    (Ghent University
    University of Tartu
    Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics (NUAA))

Abstract

Although a set of appropriate livelihood alternatives has already been developed to approach sustainable rangeland management (SRM), determining an appropriate livelihood model for supporting policy makers still remains to be a challenge. Livelihood alternatives are affected by multiple factors such as livelihood capital, vulnerability contexts as well as policies, institutions and processes which can be identified by stakeholders from different perspectives. Accordingly, determining appropriate livelihood alternatives is a multifaceted challenge that requires multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques. This paper aims to review MCDM methods that have the potential to be applied in SRM. It discusses how different MCDM techniques can be used and which techniques are well matched to determine appropriate livelihood alternatives. First, it justifies the need for decision support systems followed by an explanation of the most common MCDM techniques. Among them, two techniques, namely analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), are found to be the most suitable MCDM in the case of SRM. Furthermore, based on the reviews on different hybrid approaches, AHP–TOPSIS is introduced as a superior approach to select appropriate livelihood alternatives. Accordingly, AHP is introduced to elicit the relative importance of livelihood criteria and TOPSIS is employed to provide a score for livelihood alternatives. As a conclusion, the application of AHP–TOPSIS approach is proposed where many decision criteria, alternatives and stakeholders are involved. Subsequently, a methodological framework to determine a livelihood model is also developed. This study concludes that, as well as recognizing the theory of appropriate livelihood alternatives, the application of MCDM techniques can be further pursued toward devising a workable policy framework for SRM. At the end, we have elaborated future methodological issues to be considered when selecting feasible alternatives to resolve the current challenges in SRM.

Suggested Citation

  • Hojatollah Khedrigharibvand & Hossein Azadi & Dereje Teklemariam & Ehsan Houshyar & Philippe Maeyer & Frank Witlox, 2019. "Livelihood alternatives model for sustainable rangeland management: a review of multi-criteria decision-making techniques," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 11-36, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:21:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s10668-017-0035-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10668-017-0035-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10668-017-0035-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10668-017-0035-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brown, Katrina & Adger, W. Neil & Tompkins, Emma & Bacon, Peter & Shim, David & Young, Kathy, 2001. "Trade-off analysis for marine protected area management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 417-434, June.
    2. Samari, Davood & Azadi, Hossein & Zarafshani, Kiumars & Hosseininia, Gholamhossein & Witlox, Frank, 2012. "Determining appropriate forestry extension model: Application of AHP in the Zagros area, Iran," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 91-97.
    3. De Smet, Yves & Nemery, Philippe & Selvaraj, Ramkumar, 2012. "An exact algorithm for the multicriteria ordered clustering problem," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 861-869.
    4. Santanu Kumar Misra & Amitava Ray, 2013. "Integrated AHP-TOPSIS Model for Software Selection Under Multi-criteria Perspective," Springer Books, in: Chiranjit Mukhopadhyay & K B Akhilesh & R. Srinivasan & Anjula Gurtoo & Parthasarathy Ramachandran & (ed.), Driving the Economy through Innovation and Entrepreneurship, edition 127, pages 879-890, Springer.
    5. Scott, James A. & Ho, William & Dey, Prasanta K., 2012. "A review of multi-criteria decision-making methods for bioenergy systems," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 146-156.
    6. Wang, Jiang-Jiang & Jing, You-Yin & Zhang, Chun-Fa & Zhao, Jun-Hong, 2009. "Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(9), pages 2263-2278, December.
    7. Azimi, M. & Heshmati, Gh.A. & Farahpour, M. & Faramarzi, M. & Abbaspour, K.C., 2013. "Modeling the impact of rangeland management on forage production of sagebrush species in arid and semi-arid regions of Iran," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 250(C), pages 1-14.
    8. Hayashi, Kiyotada, 2000. "Multicriteria analysis for agricultural resource management: A critical survey and future perspectives," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 122(2), pages 486-500, April.
    9. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2009. "A critical review of multi-criteria decision making methods with special reference to forest management and planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 2535-2548, August.
    10. Prato, Tony, 2003. "Multiple-attribute evaluation of ecosystem management for the Missouri River system," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 297-309, June.
    11. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2004. "Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 445-455, July.
    12. Topcu, Y.I & Ulengin, F, 2004. "Energy for the future: An integrated decision aid for the case of Turkey," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 137-154.
    13. Oomen, Roelof J. & Ewert, Frank & Snyman, Hennie A., 2016. "Modelling rangeland productivity in response to degradation in a semi-arid climate," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 322(C), pages 54-70.
    14. Prato, Tony, 1999. "Multiple attribute decision analysis for ecosystem management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 207-222, August.
    15. Katie Steele & Yohay Carmel & Jean Cross & Chris Wilcox, 2009. "Uses and Misuses of Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) in Environmental Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(1), pages 26-33, January.
    16. TAVANA, Madjid & HATAMI-MARBINI, Adel, 2011. "A group AHP-TOPSIS framework for human spaceflight mission planning at NASA," LIDAM Reprints CORE 2362, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    17. Tiwari, D. N. & Loof, R. & Paudyal, G. N., 1999. "Environmental-economic decision-making in lowland irrigated agriculture using multi-criteria analysis techniques," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 99-112, May.
    18. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2007. "Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 178(2), pages 514-529, April.
    19. Cherni, Judith A. & Dyner, Isaac & Henao, Felipe & Jaramillo, Patricia & Smith, Ricardo & Font, Raul Olalde, 2007. "Energy supply for sustainable rural livelihoods. A multi-criteria decision-support system," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 1493-1504, March.
    20. Ho, William, 2008. "Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications - A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(1), pages 211-228, April.
    21. Pohekar, S. D. & Ramachandran, M., 2004. "Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning--A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 365-381, August.
    22. Mohamed Rabie, 2016. "A Theory of Sustainable Sociocultural and Economic Development," Palgrave Macmillan Books, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-1-137-57952-2, October.
    23. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2003. "The use of Analytic Hierarchy Process to incorporate stakeholder preferences into regional forest planning," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 13-26, January.
    24. Stefan Hajkowicz & Kerry Collins, 2007. "A Review of Multiple Criteria Analysis for Water Resource Planning and Management," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 21(9), pages 1553-1566, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Elibal, Kerem & Özceylan, Eren, 2022. "Comparing industry 4.0 maturity models in the perspective of TQM principles using Fuzzy MCDM methods," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    2. Ghazali, Samane & Zibaei, Mansour & Azadi, Hossein, 2023. "Impact of livelihood strategies and capitals on rangeland sustainability and nomads' poverty: A counterfactual analysis in Southwest Iran," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    3. N. Aktaş & N. Demirel, 2021. "A hybrid framework for evaluating corporate sustainability using multi-criteria decision making," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(10), pages 15591-15618, October.
    4. Fan, Shengyue & He, Miao & Zhang, Tianyu & Huo, Yajing & Fan, Di, 2022. "Credibility measurement as a tool for conserving nature: Chinese herders’ livelihood capitals and payment for grassland ecosystem services," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Govindan, Kannan & Jepsen, Martin Brandt, 2016. "ELECTRE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(1), pages 1-29.
    2. Karatas, Mumtaz & Sulukan, Egemen & Karacan, Ilknur, 2018. "Assessment of Turkey's energy management performance via a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making methodology," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 890-912.
    3. Stefan Hajkowicz & Kerry Collins, 2007. "A Review of Multiple Criteria Analysis for Water Resource Planning and Management," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 21(9), pages 1553-1566, September.
    4. Kaya, Tolga & Kahraman, Cengiz, 2010. "Multicriteria renewable energy planning using an integrated fuzzy VIKOR & AHP methodology: The case of Istanbul," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 2517-2527.
    5. Hajkowicz, Stefan & Higgins, Andrew, 2008. "A comparison of multiple criteria analysis techniques for water resource management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 184(1), pages 255-265, January.
    6. Sellak, Hamza & Ouhbi, Brahim & Frikh, Bouchra & Palomares, Iván, 2017. "Towards next-generation energy planning decision-making: An expert-based framework for intelligent decision support," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 1544-1577.
    7. Strantzali, Eleni & Aravossis, Konstantinos, 2016. "Decision making in renewable energy investments: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 885-898.
    8. Dalton Garcia Borges de Souza & Erivelton Antonio dos Santos & Nei Yoshihiro Soma & Carlos Eduardo Sanches da Silva, 2021. "MCDM-Based R&D Project Selection: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-34, October.
    9. Behzadian, Majid & Kazemzadeh, R.B. & Albadvi, A. & Aghdasi, M., 2010. "PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 200(1), pages 198-215, January.
    10. Lin, Sheng-Hau & Zhao, Xiaofeng & Wu, Jiuxing & Liang, Fachao & Li, Jia-Hsuan & Lai, Ren-Ji & Hsieh, Jing-Chzi & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2021. "An evaluation framework for developing green infrastructure by using a new hybrid multiple attribute decision-making model for promoting environmental sustainability," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    11. Domenech, B. & Ferrer-Martí, L. & Pastor, R., 2015. "Hierarchical methodology to optimize the design of stand-alone electrification systems for rural communities considering technical and social criteria," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 182-196.
    12. Serafim Opricovic, 2009. "A Compromise Solution in Water Resources Planning," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 23(8), pages 1549-1561, June.
    13. Villacreses, Geovanna & Gaona, Gabriel & Martínez-Gómez, Javier & Jijón, Diego Juan, 2017. "Wind farms suitability location using geographical information system (GIS), based on multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods: The case of continental Ecuador," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 275-286.
    14. Haji Vahabzadeh, Ali & Asiaei, Arash & Zailani, Suhaiza, 2015. "Reprint of “Green decision-making model in reverse logistics using FUZZY-VIKOR method”," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 104(PB), pages 334-347.
    15. Namık Kemal Erdoğan & Serpil Altınırmak & Çağlar Karamaşa, 2016. "Comparison of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) methods with respect to performance of food firms listed in BIST," Copernican Journal of Finance & Accounting, Uniwersytet Mikolaja Kopernika, vol. 5(1), pages 67-90.
    16. Nuraini Rahim & Lazim Abdullah & Binyamin Yusoff, 2020. "A Border Approximation Area Approach Considering Bipolar Neutrosophic Linguistic Variable for Sustainable Energy Selection," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-21, May.
    17. Stefan A. Hajkowicz, 2012. "For the Greater Good? A Test for Strategic Bias in Group Environmental Decisions," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 331-344, May.
    18. Wulf, David & Bertsch, Valentin, 2016. "A natural language generation approach to support understanding and traceability of multi-dimensional preferential sensitivity analysis in multi-criteria decision making," MPRA Paper 75025, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Haji Vahabzadeh, Ali & Asiaei, Arash & Zailani, Suhaiza, 2015. "Green decision-making model in reverse logistics using FUZZY-VIKOR method," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 125-138.
    20. Li, Chengjiang & Negnevitsky, Michael & Wang, Xiaolin & Yue, Wen Long & Zou, Xin, 2019. "Multi-criteria analysis of policies for implementing clean energy vehicles in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 826-840.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:21:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s10668-017-0035-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.