Persian
Language
Geographical Research is Published in Persian Fulltext.
Volume 34, Issue 3 (2019)
GeoRes 2019, 34(3): 323-332 |
Back to browse issues page
Article Type:
Subject:
History
Received: 2019/02/16 | Accepted: 2019/07/20 | Published: 2019/09/7
Received: 2019/02/16 | Accepted: 2019/07/20 | Published: 2019/09/7
How to cite this article
Goodarzi M R, Piryaei R, Mousavi M R. Barriers to Decision-Making about Water, Food and Energy Resources According to Climate Changes; Applying the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process Method. GeoRes 2019; 34 (3) :323-332
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-706-en.html
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-706-en.html
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Rights and permissions
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
1- Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran , goodarzimr@yazd.ac.ir
2- Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran
3- Department of Civil, Faculty of Engineering, Ayatolah Boroujerdi University, Boroujerd, Iran
2- Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran
3- Department of Civil, Faculty of Engineering, Ayatolah Boroujerdi University, Boroujerd, Iran
Abstract (4177 Views)
Aims & Backgrounds: The connections (Nexus) among Water, Food and Energy respresent a number of interdisciplinary and multi-sectoral complexities and challenges. Water, Food and Energy resources are affected by climate change. The present study aims at evaluating the impact of climate change on decision making regarding Water, Food and Energy using Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process Method.
Methodology: The main purpose of this research is to prioritize decision barriers using multi-criteria decision-making techniques. The purpose of the present study is in the field of applied research. Fuzzy hierarchical analysis technique was used to prioritize the elements. Questionnaires based on paired comparison from the experts' point of view were used for data collection.
Findings: The results suggest that water resource is put in the first priority with the normal weight of 0.591, food with the normal weight of 0.304, and energy with the normal weight of 0.105 are in the second and third priority respectively. Furthermore, a new approach to the integrated management of sustainable development is recognized as the most important barrier to making decisions on the measures of water, food and energy with the normal weights of 0.256, 0.261 & 0.292. The last important barriers are identified as cooperation and communication, the nature of response to communicational shocks, and cooperation and communication with the normal weights of 0.069, 0.087 and 0.071, respectivelly. With respect to the final prioritization, the new approach to the integrated management of sustainable development and the measure of cooperation and communication are acknowledged as the most and least important barriers, respectively, with the normal weights of 0.292 and 0.071.
Conclusion: water, food and energy resource are ranked first, second and third respectively. The most important barrier for decision making regarding water, food and energy was “the new approach for managing and organizing considering sustainable development” and the least important one is “communication and collaboration”.
Methodology: The main purpose of this research is to prioritize decision barriers using multi-criteria decision-making techniques. The purpose of the present study is in the field of applied research. Fuzzy hierarchical analysis technique was used to prioritize the elements. Questionnaires based on paired comparison from the experts' point of view were used for data collection.
Findings: The results suggest that water resource is put in the first priority with the normal weight of 0.591, food with the normal weight of 0.304, and energy with the normal weight of 0.105 are in the second and third priority respectively. Furthermore, a new approach to the integrated management of sustainable development is recognized as the most important barrier to making decisions on the measures of water, food and energy with the normal weights of 0.256, 0.261 & 0.292. The last important barriers are identified as cooperation and communication, the nature of response to communicational shocks, and cooperation and communication with the normal weights of 0.069, 0.087 and 0.071, respectivelly. With respect to the final prioritization, the new approach to the integrated management of sustainable development and the measure of cooperation and communication are acknowledged as the most and least important barriers, respectively, with the normal weights of 0.292 and 0.071.
Conclusion: water, food and energy resource are ranked first, second and third respectively. The most important barrier for decision making regarding water, food and energy was “the new approach for managing and organizing considering sustainable development” and the least important one is “communication and collaboration”.
References
1. Audet R (2014). The double hermeneutic of sustainability transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions. 11:46-49. [DOI:10.1016/j.eist.2014.02.001]
2. Biggs EM, Bruce E, Boruff B, Duncan JMA, Horsley J, Pauli N, et al (2015). Sustainable development and the water-energy-food nexus: A perspective on livelihoods. Environmental Science & Policy. 54:389-397. [DOI:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.08.002]
3. Cai X, Wallington K, Shafiee-Jood M, Marston L (2018). Understanding and managing the food-energy-water nexus-opportunities for water resources research. Advances in Water Resources. 111:259-273. [DOI:10.1016/j.advwatres.2017.11.014]
4. Ely A, Smith A, Stirling A, Leach M, Scoones I (2013). Innovation politics post-Rio+20: Hybrid pathways to sustainability?. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space. 31(6):1063-1081. [DOI:10.1068/c12285j]
5. Endo A, Tsurita I, Burnett K, Orencio PM (2017). A review of the current state of research on the water, energy, and food nexus. Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies. 11:20-30. [DOI:10.1016/j.ejrh.2015.11.010]
6. Hallegatte S, Bangalore M, Bonzanigo L, Fay M, Kane T, Narloch U, et al (2015). Shock waves: Managing the impacts of climate change on poverty. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications. [DOI:10.1596/978-1-4648-0673-5] [PMID]
7. Hoff H (2011). Understanding the nexus. Background paper for the Bonn 2011 Nexus Conference: The Water, Energy and Food Security Nexus. 2011,16-18 November: Stockholm.
8. Howarth C, Monasterolo I (2016). Understanding barriers to decision making in the UK energy-food-water nexus: The added value of interdisciplinary approaches. Environmental Science & Policy. 61:53-60. [DOI:10.1016/j.envsci.2016.03.014]
9. Hsiang SM, Meng KC, Cane MA (2011). Civil conflicts are associated with the global climate. Nature. 476:438-441. [DOI:10.1038/nature10311] [PMID]
10. Hussey K, Pittock J (2012). The energy-water nexus: Managing the links between energy and water for a sustainable future. Ecology and Society. 17(1). [DOI:10.5751/ES-04641-170131]
11. International Energy Agency (2011). World energy outlook 2011. Paris: International Energy Agency. [DOI:10.1787/weo-2011-en]
12. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014). Climate change 2014: Synthesis report: Longer report. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9781107415416]
13. Kahraman C, editor (2008). Fuzzy multi-criteria decision making: Theory and applications with recent developments. 16th ed . Berlin: Springer. [DOI:10.1007/978-0-387-76813-7]
14. Kelley C, Mohtadi Sh, Cane MA, Seager R, Kushnir Y (2015). Climate change in the Fertile Crescent and implications of the recent Syrian drought. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of The United States of America (PNAS). 112(11):3241-3246. [DOI:10.1073/pnas.1421533112] [PMID] [PMCID]
15. Kurian M, Ardakanian R (2014). Institutional arrangements and goverance structures that advance the nexus approach to management of environmental resources. In: Hülsmann S, Ardakanian R, editors. White Book on Advancing a Nexus Approach to the Sustainable Management of Water. Soil and Waste. Dresden: UNU-FLORES. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-05747-7_1]
16. Leach M, Rockström J, Raskin P, Scoones I, Stirling AC,
17. Smith A, et al (2012). Transforming innovation for sustainability. Ecology and Society. 17(2):11. [DOI:10.5751/ES-04933-170211]
18. Lee RD, Mason A, editors (2011). Population aging and the generational economy: A global perspective. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. [DOI:10.4337/9780857930583]
19. Meybeck A, Lankoski J, Redfern S, Azzu N, Gitz V, editors (2012). Building resilience for adaptation to climate change in the agriculture sector. Proceedings of a Joint FAO/OECD Workshop. 2012, 23-24 April: Rome.
20. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being- biodiversity synthesis. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
21. Münchener Rück Stiftung (2012). Natural catastrophes 2011: Analyses, assessments, positions. Munich: Munich-Re.
22. OECD (2012). OECD environmental outlook to 2050: The consequences of inaction. Paris: OECD Publishing. [DOI:10.1787/9789264122246-en]
23. Philip SA, United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment Programme, World Bank, World Resources Institute (2011). Decision making in a changing climate-Adaptation challenges and choices. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
24. Rasul G (2014). Food, water, and energy security in South Asia: A nexus perspective from the Hindu Kush Himalayan region. Environmental Science & Policy. 39:35-48. [DOI:10.1016/j.envsci.2014.01.010]
25. Rasul G, Sharma B (2016). The nexus approach to water-energy-food security: An option for adaptation to climate change. Climate Policy. 16(6):682-702. [DOI:10.1080/14693062.2015.1029865]
26. Rees W, Wackernagel M (1996). Urban ecological footprints: Why cities cannot be sustainable-and why they are a key to sustainability. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 16(4-6):223-248. [DOI:10.1016/S0195-9255(96)00022-4]
27. Roberts E, Finnegan L (2013). Building Peace around water, land and food: Policy and practice for preventing conflict. Geneva: Quaker United Nations Office.
28. Smajgl A, Ward J, Pluschke L (2016). The water-food-energy Nexus-Realising a new paradigm. Journal of Hydrology. 533:533-540. [DOI:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.12.033]
29. Smith P, Clark H, Dong H, Elsiddig EA, Haberl H, Harper R, et al (2014). Agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU). In: PCC Working Group III Contribution to AR5. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30. Teng JY, Tzeng GH (1998). Transportation investment project selection with fuzzy multiobjectives programming. Fuzzy Sets and Systems. 96(3):259-280. [DOI:10.1016/S0165-0114(96)00330-2]
31. The World Economic Forum Water Initiative (2011). Water security: The water-food-energy-climate nexus. Washington, DC: Island Press.
32. World Bank Group (2013). Turn down the heat: Climate extremes, regional impacts, and the case for resilience. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications.
33. World Business Council for Sustainable Development (2014). Co-optimizing Solutions: Water and energy for food, feed and fiber. Geneva: World Business Council for Sustainable Development.
34. Yumkella KK, Yillia PT (2015). Framing the water-energy nexus for the post-2015 development agenda. Aquatic Procedia. 5:8-12. [DOI:10.1016/j.aqpro.2015.10.003]