جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه
تکرار جستجوی کلیدواژه making methods در نشریات گروه علوم انسانی
making methods
در نشریات گروه جغرافیا
تکرار جستجوی کلیدواژه making methods در مقالات مجلات علمی
-
در مطالعه حاضر، با هدف شناسایی پهنه هایی با بیشترین حساسیت اکولوژیک و اولویت بالا در حفاظت، به زون بندی پارک ملی گلستان با استفاده از شاخص های مکانی و روش های تصمیم گیری چندمعیاره در قالب روابطی خطی اقدام شد. مطابق نتایج، این منطقه بر اساس نوع استفاده و اهداف مدیریتی دارای 6 زون اصلی از جمله زون 1، 2، 3، 4، 7، و 8 است. همچنین زون 9 به عنوان اندوختگاه زیست کره برای این پارک ملی در نظر گرفته شد. نتایج وزن دهی نشان داد در زون 1 شاخص های «دست نخوردگی زیستگاه» و «منحصربه فرد بودن زیستگاه»، در زون 2 «معرف بودن زیستگاه» و «حضور یا وابستگی گونه های حفاظتی» و «اهمیت زیستگاه»، در زون های 3 و 4 «منابع تفرجگاهی»، و در زون 7 «امکانات و زیرساخت ها» دارای بالاترین اولویت هستند. مطابق نتایج زون بندی، بیشترین وسعت به زون 1 (29%) و کمترین وسعت به زون 7 (1%) اختصاص یافته است. نتایج این مطالعه نشان داد پارک های ملی و مناطق تحت حفاظت را می توان بر پایه سه زون پهنه بندی کرد. در این منطقه زون امن (زون های 1 و 2) 55 درصد، زون توسعه غیرفیزیکی (3 و 8) 41 درصد، و زون توسعه فیزیکی (4 و 7) 4 درصد از وسعت پارک را شامل می شود.کلید واژگان: پارک ملی گلستان، روش های تصمیم گیری چندمعیاره، زون بندی، مناطق تحت حفاظتThe present study aims to identify areas with the highest ecological sensitivity and high priority in protection. In this context, Golestan national park was zoned using spatial indicators and multi-criteria decision-making methods based on linear relationships. Based on the characteristics (level of sensitivity, vulnerability and development capacity), the type of use and management goals, the region has six main zones, including Zone 1, Zone 2, Zone 3, Zone 4, Zone 7, and Zone 8. Additionally, Zone 9 was considered a biosphere reserve for this national park. The results of weighting and prioritization of indicators also indicate that in zone 1, the indicators of "habitat integrity" and "uniqueness of the habitat", in zone 2, the indicators of "representativeness of the habitat", "presence or dependence", “protected species," and "habitat importance" have the highest weight and priority. In zones 3 and 4, the focus is on the "recreational resources" index, and in zone 7, it is on the "facilities and infrastructures" index. Finally, the results of combining zones and zoning of the region showed that in Golestan National Park, the largest area of the region is allocated to zone 1 (29% of the park), while the smallest area is allocated to zone 7 (1% of the park). The results of this study showed that national parks and protected areas can be zoned based on three categories. In this area, the safe zone (zones 1 and 2) includes 55%, the non-physical development zone (3 and 8) encompasses 41%, and physical development zone (4 and 7) comprises 4% of the park area.Keywords: Golestan National Park, Multi-Criteria Decision, Making Methods, Protected Areas, Zoning
-
امروزه کوشش می شود با استفاده از روش ها و مدل های گوناگون، سطوح برخورداری مناطق مختلف سنجش شوند. این امکان وجود دارد که نتایج حاصل از به کارگیری این روش ها، متفاوت باشند. هدف از انجام پژوهش حاضر، به کارگیری روش های تصمیم گیری چندشاخصه در تعیین سطوح برخورداری دهستان های شهرستان کامیاران است. روش تحقیق توصیفی تحلیلی است و اطلاعات مورد نیاز به روش اسنادی گردآوری شده ا ند. نتایج حاصل از این پژوهش نشان دادند که جایگاه هریک از دهستان های مطالعه شده با روش های چندشاخصه SAW، TOPSIS و WSM یکسان نیست. بین روش های مذکور، روش های TOPSIS و WSM با 28/14 درصد، کمترین میزان تغییرات و روش SAW با 56/28 درصد، بیشترین میزان تغییر را در میان روش های مورد مطالعه داشتند. از نظر سطح برخورداری نیز، دهستان های گاورود، بیلوار و ژاورود در سطح فرابرخوردار، دهستان های امیرآباد و شاهو در سطح میان برخوردار، و دهستان های عوالان و سورسور در سطح فروبرخوردار قرار گرفتند.
کلید واژگان: توسعه، چندشاخصه، روش های ادغامی، روش های تصمیم گیری، سطح برخورداری، کامیارانIntroductionOne of the common ways to prioritize the options which has become increasingly developed in recent years, is using multi-criteria decision-making methods. In multi-criteria decision-making issues, the targeted options are prioritized with regard various indicators that may sometimes conflict with each other (Poortahery, 1393: 20). These methods provide simple and intuitive tools for decision-making about issues that involve non-conclusive, and mostly subjective data. In fact, these methods have developed since the early 1970s which today has become quite prevalent (Jin & lei, 2005,61-64). The reason can be seen in the fact that such techniques are easily understandable for different users. Moreover, unlike mathematical models of planning and decision-making that do not include qualitative variables in the modeling, these techniques have the ability to include both qualitative and quantitative variables simultaneously in the decision-making process which in turn expands the scope of application of these techniques (Ataei, 1385:87).MethodologyThe research method used in this research is descriptive-analytical. Documentary method has also been used for collecting the data in the study. The population of the study includes the districts of Kamyaran County in Kurdistan Province. On this basis, the theoretical principles related to the subject matter have been investigated using the secondary research method. In order for investigation and comparison of methods of assessing the level of availing, four methods of TOPSIS, taxonomy, simple analytic hierarchy process, and weighted sum model have been utilized. These methods have also been used to determine the degree of availing of the districts of Kamyaran County. To assess availing level of the districts of Kamyaran County, 16 indicators have been used.ResearchFindingsTo determine the level of availing of the districts of Kamyaran County, after doing the three aforementioned stages, the findings that resulted from these stages were analyzed using multi-criteria methods which were mentioned earlier. The findings resulted from the above methods are as follows:Table 1: Results of application of TOPSIS modelGavrood Avalan Sorsor Amirabad Shahou Chavrood Bilvar District0/475 0/262 0/311 0/382 0/377 0/702 0/443 Coefficient of expansion 2 7 6 4 5 1 3 Rank Table 2: Results of application of WSM modelGavrood Avalan Sorsor Amirabad Shahou Chavrood Bilvar District126/79 41/34 53/79 84/54 79/56 207/97 116/61 Coefficient of expansion 2 7 6 4 5 1 3 Rank Table 3: results of application of SAW modelGavrood Avalan Sorsor Amirabad Shahou Chavrood Bilvar District0/2163 0/0671 0/0848 0/0776 0/1331 0/2950 0/1406 Coefficient of expansion 2 7 5 6 4 1 3 RankThe results of applying multi-criteria methods in this study showed that regarding the ranking, the districts of Kamyaran County do not have fixed and similar positions.Prioritization Strategy In using different methods of prioritization, decision-maker may be confronted with a situation that in a real issue, a united ranking is not reached from application of various methods regarding alternatives. In that case, it is necessary for the decision-makers to use integrated approaches, such as mean of ranks, or Breda and Cap Land Methods for final decision making. In this study, mean of ranks method has been used for the final rating. Final rankings of the districts under study can be calculated using the mean of ranks method. Mean of ranks can be calculated from the sum of rankings and dividing them by the number of used methods (Poortahery, 1393,182).Table 5: Calculation of mean rank of multi-criteria methods under studyDistricts TOPSIS SAW WSM Mean RankGavrood 1 1 1 1Ghavrood 2 2 2 2Bilvar 3 3 3 3Amir Abad 4 6 4 4/66Shahou 5 4 5 4/66Sorsor 6 5 6 5/66Avalan 7 7 7 7Reference: author's calculationsConclusionThe results of applying four multi-criteria decision-making methods in this study indicated that the positions of the districts of Kamyaran County are not the same with regard to the availing; for example, the district of Amirabad in taxonomy and weighted sum models had the first rank whereas in TOPSIS and SAW models had the second rank. The results of this study have shown that the position of each of the districts studied by multi-criteria methods of Numerical Taxonomy, TOPSIS, WSM, and SAW, is not the same. Moreover, in the above mentioned methods, TOPSIS and simple WSM methods with 14/28 had the lowest percentage of changes and SAW method with 28/56 had the highest percentage of change among the methods under study. Regarding the level of availing, districts of Amirabad, Gavrood, Bilvar and Zhavrood are in the praprofiting level, district of AmirAbad and Shahou is in the mesoprfiting level, and the districts of Avalan and Sorsor are in unprofitinglevel.Keywords: develop, availing level, multi, criteria decision, making methods, meger technique, Kamyaran
نکته
- نتایج بر اساس تاریخ انتشار مرتب شدهاند.
- کلیدواژه مورد نظر شما تنها در فیلد کلیدواژگان مقالات جستجو شدهاست. به منظور حذف نتایج غیر مرتبط، جستجو تنها در مقالات مجلاتی انجام شده که با مجله ماخذ هم موضوع هستند.
- در صورتی که میخواهید جستجو را در همه موضوعات و با شرایط دیگر تکرار کنید به صفحه جستجوی پیشرفته مجلات مراجعه کنید.