Sustainable rangeland management in southwest Iran: application of the AHP-TOPSIS approach in ranking livelihood alternatives

Abstract

This paper reports the continuation of a line of research exploring livelihood alternatives employing sustainable rangeland management (SRM). Determining appropriate alternatives was a multifaceted task, so multi-attribute decision-making (MADM) techniques were applied to a framework that incorporated livelihood alternatives and their relevant criteria. The livelihood alternatives promote balance between humans, livestock and the rangelands, and the livelihood criteria include livelihood capital and vulnerability contexts, as well as the policies, institutions and processes (PIPs) that affect each livelihood alternative and SRM as a whole. The livelihood alternatives were ranked according to SRM potential, and the most appropriate ones for the Bazoft region of south-west Iran were determined. Through a hierarchical process, nine livelihood alternatives were initially considered as being potentially suitable for SRM, based on the weights of predefined criteria. Using a collaborative process, various groups (local informants, local and regional practitioners and scientists) were asked to develop a list of livelihood criteria in order to identify appropriate livelihood alternatives. Initially, 20 experts were selected for undertaking criteria weighting, and subsequently 10 experts were selected to rank the alternatives for final decision-making. The weights of the criteria were determined by the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) technique, and the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) was used to rank the alternatives. A non-resource-based livelihood was ranked as the most suitable alternative, followed by pastoralism with adaptation of various production systems. The application of the AHP-TOPSIS approach showed how criteria weightings influence the suitability of livelihood alternatives. Thus, the livelihood model enabled visualisation of the consequences of appropriate and/or inappropriate livelihoods for SRM. This study found that even the livelihood alternatives with the lowest values were worthy of consideration in planning for SRM, but they might need to be supported. Finally, the study suggested that the application of decision support models to the identification of users’ livelihood alternatives and to structuring the criteria for adoption of the various alternatives enhances informed decision-making within the context of SRM.