Related Links
Land Subsidence Risk Management Solutions in Seydan-Farooq Plain of Fars Province with the Driving Force-Pressure-State-Impact-Response Approach | ||
| پژوهش های آبخیزداری | ||
| Article 5, Volume 36, Issue 1 - Serial Number 138, March 2023, Pages 50-65 PDF (1.66 M) | ||
| Document Type: Research | ||
| DOI: 10.22092/wmrj.2022.358262.1465 | ||
| Authors | ||
| Seyed Masoud Soleimanpour* 1; Amin Salehpour Jam2; Jamal Mosaffaie2; Kheyrollah Noroozie3 | ||
| 1Associate Professor, Soil Conservation and Watershed Management Research Department, Fars Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Shiraz, Iran | ||
| 2Associate Professor, Soil Conservation and Watershed Management Research Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Tehran, Iran | ||
| 3M.Sc., Soil Conservation and Watershed Management Research Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Tehran, Iran | ||
| Abstract | ||
| Introduction and Objective One of the important natural hazards is land subsidence. This phenomenon has also been observed in Iran due to the indiscriminate extraction of underground water resources, and unfortunately, more areas are exposed to it. The DPSIR tool or Driving Force, Pressure, State, Impact, Response framework is a tool that describes environmental problems through cause and effect relationships between human activities and the environment. This framework provides a background to combine different types of indicators and considers not only the environmental effects but also the economic and social effects resulting from changes in the status of ecosystems. The purpose of this research is to present the cause and effect relationships for the most important issues and problems of the risk of land subsidence in one of the important and critical plains of Fars province (Seydan-Farooq) and the most appropriate management responses using the DPSIR tool. and provide non-management to improve the current situation. Materials and Methods First, the problems of Seydan-Farooq Plain were determined based on library studies, asking experts and referring to the region, and based on this, possible strategies were determined. Then, the DPSIR tool was used to identify the cause and effect relationship analysis between the factors that determine the characteristics affecting land subsidence in the plain, and the DPSIR table was prepared for the risk of land subsidence in this plain. In order to prioritize and determine the importance of the problems, pressures and management strategies of the plain, a Likert scale questionnaire was used as a measurement tool and 40 experts were surveyed. Friedman's test was used to rank the items and Cronbach's alpha method was used to check the reliability of the questionnaire using SPSS version 22 software. Then Friedman's test was used for two-way analysis of variance by ranking and also comparing the average ranking of different groups using SPSS software. Results and Discussion The ranking of the items of the driving force component in Seydan-Farooq plain of Fars province showed that the range of the average values of the ratings varies from 1.86 to 4.45. The ranking of the items shows a significant difference in the items of the driving force component, so that the item "Population" with an average rating of 4.45 and also the item "Development of Industries" with an average rating of 1/86, it has been ranked first and fifth respectively. Therefore, in the "driving force" component, according to the factors: population, agricultural development, garden development, climate change and industrial development, the highest priority in intensifying the risk of land subsidence in this plain. assigned Regarding the ranking of the pressure component items, the range of the difference in the average values of the ratings in the pressure component varies from 1.25 to 5.40. The ranking of the items showed a significant difference in the items of the pressure component, so that the item "withdrawal from the underground water table in the agricultural sector" with an average rating of 5.40 and also the item "withdrawal from "Underground water table in the domestic sector" with an average rating of 1.25 has been ranked first and sixth respectively. Therefore, in the "pressure" component, according to the factors: withdrawal from the underground water table in the agricultural sector, failure to comply with the environmental rights of the aquifer, decrease in rainfall, withdrawal from the underground water table in the garden sector, From the underground water table in the industrial sector and the withdrawal from the underground water table in the domestic sector, they have assigned the highest priority in intensifying the risk of land subsidence in this plain. The average values of the ranks in the response component vary from 2.35 to 5.75. The ranking in the items of the response component also shows a significant difference, so that the item "increasing irrigation efficiency" with an average rating of 5.75 and also the item "nutrition" Point of water in the plain" with an average rating of 2.35 has taken the first and sixth place, respectively. Therefore, in the "response" component, in the order of the factors: increasing irrigation efficiency, changing the cultivation pattern, controlling the harvesting of authorized wells, aquifer operations, blocking unauthorized wells, cultural measures and spot nutrition. Water in the plain has the highest priority in reducing the risk of land subsidence in this plain. Conclusion and Suggestions Five driving forces (D) have caused six pressures (P) on the water resources of this plain, the most important of which are "withdrawal from the underground water table in the agricultural sector" and "not respecting the environmental rights of the aquifer". are The pressures, in turn, have created a disordered (S) situation (dropping of the water table) in this plain. This situation has two adverse effects (I) "land destruction" and "aquifer destruction". In order to improve the situation, seven management responses (R) were presented, the most important of which are "increasing irrigation efficiency" and "changing the cultivation pattern". In the current situation, it is not possible to stop the pressures; However, their adjustment and modification should be specially considered by planners and managers. It is worth mentioning that if these cases are not corrected, there will still be pressures (P) and will lead to more critical conditions than the existing situation (S) and finally, its effect (I), destruction of lands, aquifers. and the destruction of water and soil resources of this plain will be more. Due to the fact that the executive structure of the country's natural resources management is more in line with the components of pressure (P) and situation (S); It is suggested to develop suitable, practical and operational answers (R). It is also necessary to pay serious attention to the preventive approach in reducing the risk of land subsidence; Because, unfortunately, this matter has not been paid attention to in the country. Therefore, it is suggested to consider and implement a preventive approach that both understands the driving forces (D) and prevents the implementation of policies that cause pressure. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| Cause and effect analysis; DPSIR; Fars; land subsidence; management; prioritization | ||
| References | ||
|
Akbari M, Memarian H, Neamatollahi E, Jafari Shalamzari M, Alizadeh Noughani M, Zakeri D. 2021. Prioritizing policies and strategies for desertification risk management using MCDM–DPSIR approach in northeastern Iran. Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, 23(2): 2503–2523. Bell S. 2012. DPSIR a problem structuring method? An exploration from the ‘‘Imagine’’ approach. European Journal Operational Research, 222: 350-360. Dash P, Punia M. 2019. Governance and disaster: Analysis of land use policy with reference to Uttarakhand flood 2013, India. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 36: 1-25. European Environment Agency. 2003. Environmental Indicators: Typology and Use in Reporting, 20 p. Gari SR, Guerrero CEO, Uribe B, Icely JD, Newton A. 2018. A DPSIR-analysis of water uses and related water quality issues inthe Colombian Alto and Medio Dagua Community Council. Water Science, 32: 318–337. Gregory AJ, Atkins JP, Burdon D, Elliot M. 2005. A problem structuring method for ecosystem-based management: The DPSIR modeling process. European Journal of Operational Research, 227: 558–569. Hu RL. 2006. Urban land subsidence in China. The Geological Society of London, 786: 1-8. Hu RL, Yue ZQ, Wang LC, Wang SJ. 2004. Review on current status and challenging issues of land subsidence in China. Engineering Geology, 76(1): 65–77. Hungerford H, Smiley SL, Blair T, Beutler S, Bowers N, Cadet E. 2019. Coping with floods in Pikine, Senegal: An exploration of household impacts and prevention efforts. Urban Science, 3(2): 54–64. Jazi H, Karkehabadi Z, Kamyabi S. 2018. Sustainable development strategies in upper basin watershed cities, Case study: Garmsar City. Watershed Engineering and Management, 9(4): 426–440. (In Persian(. Joybari J, Kavian A, Mosaffaie J. 2015. Evaluation the effect of precipitation characteristics on the spatial and temporal variation of landslide movement (Case study: Tavan landslide of Qazvin Province). Geography and Environmental Hazards, 4 (16): 75–86. (In Persian(. Karimi Sangchini E, Salehpour Jam A, Mosaffaie J, Payamani K. 2021. Evaluating the solutions for flood risk management in Khorram Abad Watershed using DPSIR framework. Final Project Report, Soil Conservation and Watershed Management Research Institute, Tehran, 78 p. (In Persian). Kristensen P. 2004. The DPSIR framework. Paper presented at the 27–29 September 2004 workshop on a comprehensive / detailed assessment of the vulnerability of water resources to environmental change in Africa usingriver basin approach. UNEP Headquarters, Nairobi, Kenya. Lashkaripour GR, Ghafoori M, Mossavi Maddah SM. 2014. An investigation on the mechanism of land subsidence in the northwest of mashhad city, NE Iran. Journal of Biodiversity and Environmental Sciences, 5(3): 321-327. Mansourfar K. 2006. Advanced methods of statistics with computer programs, University of Tehran Press, Tehran. 480 p. (In Persian). Maxim L, Spangenberg JH, O'Connor M. 2009. An analysis of risks for biodiversity under the DPSIR framework. Ecological Economics, 69(1): 12-23 . Merikhpour MH, Mousavi M, Safari Kamil M. 2012. Investigation of the phenomenon of land subsidence and subsidence due to the decrease of groundwater level in Kaboudar Ahang plain of Hamadan. Proceedings of the National Conference on Water and Wastewater Engineering, Kerman, Graduate University of Industrial and Advanced Technology. (In Persian). Mosaffaie J, Salehpour Jam A. 2018. Economic assessment of the investment in soil and water conservation projects of watershed management. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 11(368): 1–10. DOI: 10.1007/s12517-018-3706-0. Mosaffaie J, Salehpour Jam A, Tabatabaei MR, Kousari MR. 2021a. Developing resources management responses in gorganroud watershed using driving force, pressure, state, impact, response (DPSIR) software. Watershed Management Research, 34(1): 93–111. (In Persian). Mosaffaie J, Salehpour Jam A, Tabatabaei MR, Kousari MR. 2021b. Trend assessment of the watershed health based on DPSIR framework. Land Use Policy, 100: 104911. Mosaffaie J, Nikkami D, SalehPour jam A. 2019. Watershed Management in Iran: History, Evolution and Future Needs. Journal of Watershed Engineering and Management, 11 (2): 283-300. (In Persian). Namaalwa S, Van dam AA, Funk A, Ajie GS, Kaggwa RC. 2013. A characterization of the drivers, pressures, ecosystem functions and services of Namatala wetland, Uganda. Environmental Science & Policy, 34: 44–57. Ningal T, Hartemink AE, Bregt AK. 2008. Land use change and population growth in the Morobe Province of Papua New Guinea between 1975 and 2000. Journal of Environmental Management, 87(1): 117-124. Popadić SN. 2021. Flood prevention in Serbia and legal challenges in obtaining the land for flood risk management. Environmental Science and Policy, 116: 213-219. Sadoddin A, Sheikh VB, Ownegh M, Najafi Nejad A, Sadeghi HR. 2016. Development of a National Mega Research Project on the Integrated Watershed Management for Iran. Environmental Resources Research, 4(2): 231-238. Salehpour Jam A, Mosaffaie J, Tabatabaei MR. 2021a. Assessment of comprehensiveness of soil conservation measures using the DPSIR framework. Environmental Monitoring & Assessment, 193(1): 1–9. Salehpour Jam A, Mosaffaie J, Tabatabaei MR. 2021b. Management responses for Chehel-Chay Watershed health improvement using the DPSIR framework. Journal of Agricultural Science & Technology, 23(4): 797-811. Shao C, Guan Y, Chu C, Shi R, Ju M, Shi J. 2014. Trends analysis of ecological environment security based on DPSIR model in the coastal zone: A survey study in Tianjin, China. International Journal of Environment Research, 8(3): 765-778. Sheikh V, Zare Garizi A, Alvandi E, Asadi Nalivan O, Khosravi Gh, Sadoddin A, Ownegh M. 2020. Participatory site selection for the proposed options in the management of the Hable-Roud Basin. Watershed Management Research, 32 (4): 2-18. (In Persian). Soleimanpour SM, Ghahari GR, Salehpour Jam A, Tabatabaei MR, Hedayatfard M. 2021. Prioritization of factors affecting the non-participation of exploiters in watershed management projects (Case study: Chikan and Morzian Watershed of Sepidan, Fars Province). Journal of Geographic Space, 21(73): 87-102. (In Persian). Soleimanpour SM, Salehpour Jam A, Mosaffaie J, Noroozie Kh. 2022. Investigation of land subsidence risk management solutions by DPSIR approach in Fars Province. Final Project Report, Soil Conservation and Watershed Management Research Institute, Tehran, 95 p. (In Persian). Soleimanpour SM, Salehpour Jam A, Noroozi AA, Khalili N, Keshavarzi H. 2019. Experts' viewpoint on prioritizing factors affecting lack of sustainable participation of rural communities in watershed management projects on the Moradabad Watershed, Meymand the Province of Fars. Watershed Management Research, 32(3): 53-62. (In Persian). | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 908 PDF Download: 776 |
||
Journal management system. designed by sinaweb