Advertisement

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

  • Hojatollah Khedrigharibvand
  • Hossein Azadi
  • Dereje Teklemariam
  • Ehsan Houshyar
  • Philippe De Maeyer
  • Frank Witlox
Review

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.

Keywords

Livelihood alternatives Policy makers Decision tool Livelihood alternatives decision making AHP–TOPSIS approach 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Iran’s Ministry of Science, Research and Technology (MSRT) and Shaherkord University for supporting this study. Some of the ideas about the development of the methodological framework of the study were explored during discussions with notable scientists and academic researchers; in this regard, thanks to Mr. Zbelo Tesfamariam a PhD student, from Ghent University.

References

  1. Aghajani Bazzazi, A. A., Osanloo, M., & Karimi, B. (2011). Deriving preference order of open pit mines equipment through MADM methods: Application of modified VIKOR method. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(3), 2550–2556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmadi Mirghaed, F., Souri, B., & Pir, B. M. (2013). Environmental capability evaluation of land to develop range management plan (Case study: Parcel A of Gheshlagh dam watershed). Iranian Journal of Natural Resources, 66(3), 321–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Al Maliki, A., Owen, G., & Bruce, D. (2012). Combining AHP and TOPSIS approaches to support site selection for a lead pollution study (Doctoral dissertation, IACSIT Press).Google Scholar
  4. Ananda, J., & Herath, G. (2003). The use of Analytic Hierarchy Process to incorporate stakeholder preferences into regional forest planning. Forest Policy and Economics, 5(1), 13–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ananda, J., & Herath, G. (2009). A critical review of multi-criteria decision making methods with special reference to forest management and planning. Ecological Economics, 68(10), 2535–2548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Andalecio, M. N. (2010). Multi-criteria decision models for management of tropical coastal fisheries. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 30(3), 557–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Aruldoss, M., Lakshmi, T. M., & Venkatesan, V. P. (2013). A survey on multi criteria decision making methods and its applications. American Journal of Information Systems, 1(1), 31–43.Google Scholar
  8. Azadi, H., Berg, J. V. D., Ho, P., & Hosseininia, G. (2009). Sustainability in rangeland systems: Introduction of fuzzy multi objective decision making. Current World Environment, 4(1), 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Azimi, M., Heshmati, G., 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, 250, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Baykasoğlu, A., & Gölcük, İ. (2015). Strategy selection via hierarchical type-2 fuzzy TOPSIS-DEMATEL approach. In FUZZYSS’15: 4th international fuzzy systems symposium, İstanbul, Turkey (pp. 248–254).Google Scholar
  11. Behnke, R. H. J. (2008). The drivers of fragmentation in arid and semi-arid landscapes. In K. A. Galvin, R. S. Reid, R. H. J. Behnke, & N. T. Hobbs (Eds.), Fragmentation in semi-arid and arid landscapes: Consequences for human and natural systems. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Belton, V., & Stewart, T. (2002). Multiple criteria decision analysis: An integrated approach. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Briske, D. D., Fuhlendorf, S. D., & Smeins, F. E. (2003). Vegetation dynamics on rangelands: A critique of the current paradigms. Journal of Applied Ecology, 40(4), 601–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brown, K., Adger, W. N., Tompkins, E., Bacon, P., Shim, D., & Young, K. (2001). Trade-off analysis for marine protected area management. Ecological Economics, 37(3), 417–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brunson, M. W. (2012). The elusive promise of social–ecological approaches to rangeland management. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 65(6), 632–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chang, H. Y., & Chen, S. Y. (2011). Applying analytic hierarchy process–technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (AHP–TOPSIS) model to evaluate individual investment performance of retirement planning policy. African Journal of Business Management, 5(24), 10044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chang, T. H. (2014). Fuzzy VIKOR method: A case study of the hospital service evaluation in Taiwan. Information Sciences, 271, 196–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cherni, J. A., Dyner, I., Henao, F., Jaramillo, P., Smith, R., & Font, R. O. (2007). Energy supply for sustainable rural livelihoods. A multi-criteria decision-support system. Energy Policy, 35(3), 1493–1504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cherni, J. A., & Kalas, N. (2010). A multi-criteria decision-support approach to sustainable rural energy in developing countries. In L. C. Jain & C. P. Lim (Eds.), Handbook on decision making. Intelligent systems reference library, (Vol. 4, pp. 143–162). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Chesson, J., Clayton, H., & Whitworth, B. (1999). Evaluation of fisheries—management systems with respect to sustainable development. ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil, 56(6), 980–984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. de Brito, M. M., & Evers, M. (2016). Multi-criteria decision-making for flood risk management: A survey of the current state of the art. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 16(4), 1019–1033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. De Smet, Y., Nemery, P., & Selvaraj, R. (2012). An exact algorithm for the multi-criteria ordered clustering problem. Omega, 40, 861–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Derner, J. D., Augustine, D. J., Ascough, J. C., & Ahuja, L. R. (2012). Opportunities for increasing utility of models for rangeland management. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 65(6), 623–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fuhlendorf, S. D., Engle, D. M., Elmore, R. D., Limb, R. F., & Bidwell, T. G. (2012). Conservation of pattern and process: Developing an alternative paradigm of rangeland management. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 65(6), 579–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ghanbarpour, M. R., & Hipel, K. W. (2011). Multi-criteria planning approach for ranking of land management alternatives at different spatial scales. Research Journal of Environmental and Earth Sciences, 3(2), 167–176.Google Scholar
  26. Hajkowicz, S., & Collins, K. (2007). A review of multiple criteria analysis for water resource planning and management. Water Resources Management, 21(9), 1553–1566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hanine, M., Boutkhoum, O., Tikniouine, A., & Agouti, T. (2016). A new web-based framework development for fuzzy multi-criteria group decision-making. Springerplus, 5(1), 601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hanson, C. L., Wight, J. R., Slaughter, C. W., Pierson, F. B., & Spaeth, K. (1999). Simulation models and management of rangeland ecosystems: Past, present, and future. Rangelands, 21(4), 32–38.Google Scholar
  29. Hanson, J. D., Skiles, J. W., & Parton, W. J. (1998). A multi-species model for rangeland plant communities. Ecological Modelling, 44, 89–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hayashi, K. (2000). Multicriteria analysis for agricultural resource management: A critical survey and future perspectives. European Journal of Operational Research, 122(2), 486–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Herath, G., & Prato, T. (2006). Role of multi-criteria decision making in natural resource management. Using multi-criteria decision analysis in natural resource management (pp. 1–10). Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  32. Hermans, C., Erickson, J., Noordewier, T., Sheldon, A., & Kline, M. (2007). Collaborative environmental planning in river management: An application of multicriteria decision analysis in the White River Watershed in Vermont. Journal of Environmental Management, 84(4), 534–546. Steele.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ho, W. (2008). Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications – A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, 186(1), 211–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Joyce, L. A., Briske, D. D., Brown, J. R., Polley, H. W., McCarl, B. A., & Bailey, D. W. (2013). Climate change and North American rangelands: Assessment of mitigation and adaptation strategies. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 66(5), 512–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kaboli, S. H., Azarnivand, H., Mehrabi, A., Arzani, H., & Heshmatolvaezin, S. M. (2016). Determining the effective determinants of rangeland performance using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) (Case study: Range manager community in the winter pastures of Semnan province). Journal of Range and Watershed Management, 68(4), 1.Google Scholar
  36. Kangas, J., & Kangas, A. (2005). Multiple criteria decision support in forest management: The approach, methods applied, and experiences gained. Forest Ecology and Management, 207(1), 133–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Khedri Gharibvand, H., Azadi, H., & Witlox, F. (2015). Exploring appropriate livelihood alternatives for sustainable rangeland management. The Rangeland Journal, 37, 345–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kiker, G. A., Bridges, T. S., Varghese, A., Seager, T. P., & Linkov, I. (2005). Application of multicriteria decision analysis in environmental decision making. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 1(2), 95–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kou, G., Shi, Y., & Wang, S. (2011). Multiple criteria decision making and decision support systems: Guest editor’s introduction. Decision Support Systems, 51(2), 247–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Levy, J. K. (2005). Multiple criteria decision making and decision support systems for flood risk management. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 19(6), 438–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Liu, H. C., You, J. X., Chen, Y. Z., & Fan, X. J. (2014). Site selection in municipal solid waste management with extended VIKOR method under fuzzy environment. Environmental Earth Sciences, 72(10), 4179–4189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Liu, P., & Jin, F. (2012). Methods for aggregating intuitionistic uncertain linguistic variables and their application to group decision making. Information Sciences, 205, 58–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Løken, E. (2007). Use of multicriteria decision analysis methods for energy planning problems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 11(7), 1584–1595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Majumdar, A., Mangla, R., & Gupta, A. (2010). Developing a decision support system software for cotton fibre grading and selection. Indian Journal of Fibre & Textile Research, 35(3), 195.Google Scholar
  45. Majumdar, A., Sarkar, B., & Majumdar, P. K. (2005). Determination of quality value of cotton fibre using hybrid AHP–TOPSIS method of multi-criteria decision-making. Journal of the Textile Institute, 96(5), 303–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Maldonado, R. E., Delabastita, W., Wijffels, A., & Van Orshoven, J. (2012). Comparison of discrete multi-criteria decision making methods for selection of afforestation sites. In Actes de la Conférence internationale de Géomatique et Analyse Spatiale 2012 (p. 182).Google Scholar
  47. Malekmohammadi, B., & Blouchi, L. R. (2014). Ecological risk assessment of wetland ecosystems using multi criteria decision making and geographic information system. Ecological Indicators, 41, 133–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mardle, S., & Pascoe, S. (1999). A review of applications of multiple-criteria decision-making techniques to fisheries. Marine Resource Economics, 14, 41–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Maroto, C. M., Segura, M., Ginestar, C., Uriol, J., & Segura, B. (2013). Sustainable forest management in a mediterranean region: Social preferences. Forest Systems, 22(3), 546–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Martowibowo, S. Y., & Riyanto, H. (2011). Suitable multi criteria decision analysis tool for selecting municipal solid waste treatment in the city of Bandung. Journal of KONES, 18, 273–280.Google Scholar
  51. Mendoza, G. A., & Martins, H. (2006). Multi-criteria decision analysis in natural resource management: A critical review of methods and new modelling paradigms. Forest Ecology and Management, 230(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Miller, D. J. (1999). Normads of the Tibetan Plateau rangelands in western China. Part three. Pastoral development and future challenges. Rangelands Archives, 21(2), 17–20.Google Scholar
  53. Misra, S. K., & Ray, A. (2013). Integrated AHP-TOPSIS model for software selection under multi-criteria perspective. In Driving the economy through innovation and entrepreneurship (pp. 879–890). Springer India.Google Scholar
  54. Moghaddam, N. B., Nasiri, M., & Mousavi, S. M. (2011). An appropriate multiple criteria decision making method for solving electricity planning problems, addressing sustainability issue. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 8(3), 605–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Naga, A. A., Hassan, F., Rafea, A., Metawi, H. R., El-Azhari, E. S., Osman, M. A., et al. (2011). Development of decision support system for sheep and goats in the hot/dry area of the north costal zone of Egypt. In A. Bernués, J. P. Boutonnet, I. Casasús et al. (Eds.), Economic, social and environmental sustainability in sheep and goat production systems (pp. 37–43). Zaragoza.Google Scholar
  56. Ocampo-Melgar, A. (2013). Participatory multi-criteria assessment for monitoring actions and supporting decision making to combat desertification in the San Simon watershed (Arizona).Google Scholar
  57. Oomen, R. J., Ewert, F., & Snyman, H. A. (2016). Modelling rangeland productivity in response to degradation in a semi-arid climate. Ecological Modelling, 322, 54–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G. H. (2004). Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational Research, 156(2), 445–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G. H. (2007). Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 178(2), 514–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pierson, F. B., Spaeth, K. E., & Weltz, M. A. (1996). The use of models as rangeland management decision aids. Grazingland Hydrology Issues: Perspectives for the 21st Century, 21, 117–124.Google Scholar
  61. Pirdashti, M., Ghadi, A., Mohammadi, M., & Shojatalab, G. (2009). Multi-criteria decision-making selection model with application to chemical engineering management decisions. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 49, 54–59.Google Scholar
  62. Pohekar, S. D., & Ramachandran, M. (2004). Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 8(4), 365–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Prato, T. (1999). Multiple attribute decision analysis for ecosystem management. Ecological Economics, 30(2), 207–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Prato, T. (2003). Multiple-attribute evaluation of ecosystem management for the Missouri River system. Ecological Economics, 45(2), 297–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rabie, M. (2016). A theory of sustainable sociocultural and economic development. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sadeghi Ravesh, M. H., & Zehtabian, G. H. (2013). Combat desertification alternatives classification with using of Multi Attribute Decision Making (MADM) view point and Weighted Sum Model (WSM) (Case study: Khezrabad region, Yazd province). Whatershed Management Research, 100, 2–11.Google Scholar
  67. Samari, D., Azadi, H., Zarafshani, K., Hosseininia, G., & Witlox, F. (2012). Determining appropriate forestry extension model: Application of AHP in the Zagros area, Iran. Forest Policy and Economics, 15, 91–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. San Cristóbal, J. R. (2011). Multi-criteria decision-making in the selection of a renewable energy project in spain: The Vikor method. Renewable Energy, 36(2), 498–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sayre, N. F., Carlisle, L., Huntsinger, L., Fisher, G., & Shattuck, A. (2012a). The role of rangelands in diversified farming systems: Innovations, obstacles, and opportunities in the USA. Ecology and Society, 17(4), 43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sayre, N. F., de Buys, W., Bestelmeyer, B. T., & Havstad, K. M. (2012b). The range problem after a century of rangeland science: New research themes for altered landscapes. Rangeland Ecology and Management, 65, 545–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sayre, N. F., & Fernandez-Gimenez, M. (2003). The genesis of range science, with implications for current development policies. In N. Allsopp, A. R. Palmer, S. J. Milton, K. P. Kirkman & G. I. H. Kerley (Eds.), Proceeding of VIIth international rangelands congress, 26 July–1 August 2003, (pp. 1976–1985). Durban.Google Scholar
  72. Sayre, N. F., McAllister, R. R., Bestelmeyer, B. T., Moritz, M., & Turner, M. D. (2013). Earth Stewardship of rangelands: coping with ecological, economic, and political marginality. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11(7), 348–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Scott, J. A., Ho, W., & Dey, P. K. (2012). A review of multi-criteria decision-making methods for bioenergy systems. Energy, 42(1), 146–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Shadifar, M., Karimi, A., & Esfandiari, M. (2016). Evaluation and classification the effective socio-cultural factors in urban tourism that impacts on local life: Case study (Sabzevar) based on. World Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 2(1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sharifiyan Bahraman, A., Barani, H., Abedi Sarvestani, A., & Haji Mollahoseini, A. (2014). Analyzing effective factors on rangeland exploitation by using A’WOT (case study: Aq Qala Rangelands, Golestan, Iran). Journal of Rangeland Science, 4(2), 159–170.Google Scholar
  76. Soltanmohammadi, H., Osanloo, M., & Aghajani, A. (2008). Developing a fifty-attribute framework for mined land suitability analysis using AHP–TOPSIS approach. In Proceedings of post-mining symposium, Nancy, France (pp. 1–12).Google Scholar
  77. Soltanmohammadi, H., Osanloo, M., & Bazzazi, A. A. (2009). Deriving preference order of post-mining land-uses through MLSA framework: Application of an outranking technique. Environmental Geology, 58(4), 877–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Soltanmohammadi, H., Osanloo, M., & Bazzazi, A. A. (2010). An analytical approach with a reliable logic and a ranking policy for post-mining land-use determination. Land Use Policy, 27(2), 364–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Šporčić, M. (2012). Application of multi-criteria methods in natural resource management: A focus on forestry. In Sustainable forest management: Current research. INTECH Open Science/Open Minds.Google Scholar
  80. Stafford Smith, M., Abel, N. O., Walker, B. H., & Chapin, F. S. (2009). Drylands: Coping with uncertainty, thresholds, and changes in state. In F. S. Chapin III, G. P. Kofinas, & C. Folke (Eds.), Principles of ecosystem stewardship: Resilience-based natural resource management in a changing world (pp. 171–195). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Stafford Smith, M., Morton, S. R., & Ash, A. J. (2000). Towards sustainable pastoralism in Australia’s rangelands. Australian Journal of Environmental Management, 7(4), 190–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Steele, K., Carmel, Y., Cross, J., & Wilcox, C. (2009). Uses and misuses of multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) in environmental decision making. Risk Analysis, 29(1), 26–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Su, F., & Shang, H. (2012). Relationship analysis between livelihood assets and liveli-hood strategies: A heihe river basin example. Sciences in Cold and Arid Regions, 4(3), 0265–0274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Taha, R. A., & Daim, T. (2013). Multi-criteria applications in renewable energy analysis, a literature review. In T. Daim, T. Oliver, & J. Kim (Eds.), Research and technology management in the electricity industry. Green energy and technology. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  85. Tavana, M., & Hatami-Marbini, A. (2011). A group AHP–TOPSIS framework for human spaceflight mission planning at NASA. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(11), 13588–13603.Google Scholar
  86. Taylor, M. (2009). What is sensitivity analysis? www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/painres/download/whatis/What_is_sens_analy.pdf. Accessed May 2012.
  87. Thor, J., Ding, S. H., & Kamaruddin, S. (2013). Comparison of multi criteria decision making methods from the maintenance alternative selection perspective. The International Journal of Engineering and Science, 2(6), 27–34.Google Scholar
  88. Tiwari, D. N., Loof, R., & Paudyal, G. N. (1999). Environmental-economic decision-making in lowland irrigated agriculture using multi-criteria analysis techniques. Agricultural Systems, 60, 99–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Topcu, Y. I., & Ulengin, F. (2004). Energy for the future: An integrated decision aid for the case of Turkey. Energy, 29(1), 137–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Triantaphyllou, E., & Sánchez, A. (1997). A sensitivity analysis approach for some deterministic multi-criteria decision making methods. Decision Sciences, 28(1), 151–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Tzeng, G. H., Chiang, C. H., & Li, C. W. (2007). Evaluating intertwined effects in e-learning programs: A novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and DEMATEL. Expert Systems with Applications, 32(4), 1028–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., & Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 9, 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Wang, J. J., Jing, Y. Y., Zhang, C. F., & Zhao, J. H. (2009). Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(9), 2263–2278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Xue, M., Tang, X., & Feng, N. (2016). An extended VIKOR method for multiple attribute decision analysis with bidimensional dual hesitant fuzzy information. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2016, 1–16.Google Scholar
  95. Yücenur, G. N., & Demirel, N. Ç. (2012). Group decision making process for insurance company selection problem with extended VIKOR method under fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(3), 3702–3707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Zardari, N. H., Ahmed, K., Shirazi, S. M., & Yusop, Z. B. (2014). Weighting methods and their effects on multi-criteria decision making model outcomes in water resources management. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  97. Zendehdel, K., Rademaker, M., De Baets, B., & Van Huylenbroeck, G. (2010). Environmental decision making with conflicting social groups: A case study of the Lar rangeland in Iran. Journal of Arid Environments, 74(3), 394–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hojatollah Khedrigharibvand
    • 1
    • 2
  • Hossein Azadi
    • 1
    • 3
  • Dereje Teklemariam
    • 1
    • 5
  • Ehsan Houshyar
    • 4
  • Philippe De Maeyer
    • 1
  • Frank Witlox
    • 1
    • 6
    • 7
  1. 1.Department of GeographyGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  2. 2.Faculty of Natural Resources and GeosciencesShahrekord UniversityShahrekordIran
  3. 3.Economics Rural Development, Gembloux Agro-Bio TechUniversity of LiegeLiègeBelgium
  4. 4.Department of Mechanical Engineering of Biosystems, College of AgricultureJahrom UniversityJahromIran
  5. 5.Department of ManagementMekelle UniversityMekelleEthiopia
  6. 6.Department of GeographyUniversity of TartuTartuEstonia
  7. 7.College of Civil AviationNanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics (NUAA)NanjingChina

Personalised recommendations