Journal of Rangeland Science, 2017, Vol. 7, No. 3 Rouhi-Moghaddam et al.,/ 232

Contents available at ISC and SID

Journal homepage: www.rangeland.ir

Research and Full Length Article: Determining Range Suitability Using Fuzzy and Hierarchical Method (Case Study: Bagheran Watershed, South , )

Einollah Rouhi-MoghaddamA*, Halimeh JoloroB, Hadi MemarianC AAssociate Professor, Faculty of Water and Soil, University of Zabol, Zabol, Iran, *(Corresponding Author), Email: [email protected] BFormer M.Sc. Student of Range Management, University of Zabol, Zabol, Iran CAssistant Professor, Faculty of Natural Resources, University of Birjand, Birjand, Iran

Received on: 01/01/2016 Accepted on: 24/11/2016

Abstract. Evaluating rangelands means to identify and create potential and actual rangelands in order to utilize this valuable natural resource properly. Hence, one of the important factors in rangeland management is to determine range suitability and recognize factors affecting it. Weighted Linear Combination Method (WLC) is one of the most common methods used for locating and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method is one of the most used methods of criteria prioritization and weighting. The purpose of this study was to evaluate range suitability of Bagheran Birjand watershed area in Southern Khorasan Province, Iran using AHP-Fuzzy method in a region with an area of 11879 ha in 2014. For this propose, in the environment of Geographical Information System (GIS), the maps of factors affecting the suitability (slope, production, erosion, quality of water resources, water need estimation percent and distance from water sources) were prepared. Data were standardized using fuzzy method and for weighting the criteria, the Analytic Hierarchy Process method was used. The results of AHP-Fuzzy model based on the weighted linear combination showed that 55.43% of rangelands were in suitability class of moderate suitability (S2), 9.55% of the lands were in suitability class of low suitability (S3) and 6.21% of the landsArchive were in non-suitability (N) class. ofSo, the l imitingSID factors in this model for sheep grazing in the study area are water resources, high slope and vegetation.

Key words: Range suitability, Weighted linear combination method, AHP and fuzzy method, Bagheran Birjand watershed

www.SID.ir

J. of Range. Sci., 2017, Vol. 7, No. 3 Determining Range …/ 233

Introduction limit the range use in the coming years Range ecosystems are considered as one (Moghadam, 2009). The definition of of the most complex ecosystems and range suitability should be revised precise relationships are found between because rangelands are not used only for the components. This requires that livestock grazing and also other aspects available range resources in each region of range use should be considered should be evaluated properly for a variety (Arzani et al., 2014). of utilizations and lands' suitability Noting that all factors of should be specified for each user type. ecosystem have a role in the animal Correct programming for suitable grazing and there is no possibility to utilization from those not only decreases recognize all of them; so, the recognition rangeland degradation but also causes the of the most important factors and conservation and improvement of those. selection of them to use by the abilities of Thus, one of the most important and also GIS to decrease time and increase the difficult factors in the analysis and accuracy for the preparation of evaluation of rangelands is the utilization information layers and integration of based on those potentials and abilities. them are necessary. The kind of animals Recognition of factors affects those, and which uses the rangeland can be different has a special importance to desirable use according to physical factors such as and suitable management of rangeland slope, dimension of range, natural (Ariapour et al., 2013). barriers, water resource spreading, soil Historical evidence has shown that properties, soil sustainability, soil rangelands were manipulated in the past sensitivity to erosion, percent of plant and this trend has continued to the coverage, soil coverage and forage present time that it resulted in the production (Moghadam, 2009). destruction of ranges. Nowadays, Presently, a portion of methods is rangelands have been utilized regardless applied to analyze environmental of the capabilities and talents; now, many vulnerability (Chen et al., 2015). The rangelands have been widely destructed Land Suitability Index (LSI) assessment regardless of other available capabilities tool (Marull et al., 2007) presented the and resources relying on single-use integrity and hierarchy of the land (Mohtashamnia, 2000). suitability assessment system; yet, it may In the past, rangelands were used for simplify questions and be unable to livestock grazing, but with the increased express the non-linear characteristics of people knowledge, various aspects of land suitability (Shao et al., 2016). GIS ranges' usefulness have been considered. Hence, contrary to range public record application to analyze the grazing with the aim ofArchive informing on how to have capabilityof atSID a landscape scale is not a a stable harvest and ranges' good yield by new concept (Mehrabi et al., 2012). livestock, four issues have been raised Amiri (2009) utilized GIS to portray including the maintenance and protection rangelands suitable for sheep grazing in of basic resources, multi-purpose use, the the semi-arid landscapes of Iran. In order importance of social and economic to classify the goat grazing suitability processes in the management of resources using GIS, a study was conducted in and interactions (Fadaie et al., 2014). middle Taleghan rangelands (Sour et al., Range suitability is a case that 2013). The findings indicated that no rangeland can be used for livestock vegetation type was classified in S1 grazing for many years without (High suitability) and N (Non suitability) destructing its vegetation and soil as well classes and most of the studied types as the adjacent areas and this does not were grouped into the class S2 (Moderate

www.SID.ir

Journal of Rangeland Science, 2017, Vol. 7, No. 3 Rouhi-Moghaddam et al.,/ 234

suitability). In examining water temperature is 13.5C. According to a resources' suitability for sheep grazing in survey of studies conducted within the Sarab Sefid area, it was found that slope scope of Bagheran Birjand area on is the main and important factor limiting vegetation generally in the studied area, range suitability of Sarab Sefid area 138 species from 31 plant families were (Ariapour et al., 2013). Rostami et al. identified.

(2014) determined the rangeland Research method suitability for sheep grazing in the In this study, first initial map of 6 watershed of Sadegh Abad, Kermanshah influential criteria was raster on Province, Iran. Three sub-models namely suitability in GIS environment. Fuzzy- forage production model, water AHP model was used for preparing suitability model (quantity, quality and suitability map in software Idrisi after distance of water resources) and erosion converting the studied raster maps (slope, sensibility which formed the components erosion, distance from water resources, of the final studied model. The findings quality, percent, and creation) in the indicated two separate classes including environment of GIS in ASCII format of low suitability (S3) and non-suitability the files in Idrisi software. Then, the (N) with the contributions of 68.65 and given map was interpreted. Fuzzy 31.34% rangeland area, respectively. The membership function is for the studied linear criteria and the state is incremental purpose of this study is to evaluate range for some criteria and for others, it is suitability of Bagheran Birjand watershed decreasing (Table 1). Using fuzzy area in South Khorasan Province, Iran membership functions, maps were using AHP-Fuzzy method. standardized. Then, using Weighted Materials and Methods Linear Combination (WLC) method, Study area factors' weight was obtained (Table 2). Geographical characteristic of studied Finally, because each of used parameters area: Bagheran mountain region with an (slope, distance from water resources, area of 11879 ha and in geographical water quality, percent, erosion, and location of 585'48" to 5911'02" creation) had a different effect on range longitude and 3243'14" to 3251'31" suitability, it required each element that latitude is located in the southwest of was valued based on the degree of Birjand in Southern Khorasan Province, importance (Table 3). For this purpose, Iran (Fig. 1). The mean annual rainfall of Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) was area is 188 mm Archive and the mean annual used. of SID

Fig. 1. The region geographical location, South Khorasan Province, Iran

www.SID.ir

J. of Range. Sci., 2017, Vol. 7, No. 3 Determining Range …/ 235

Multi-criteria evaluation using should be defined and specified that WLC based on them, the given objective can be Weighted Linear Combination (WLC) achieved. In the present study, range technique is one of the most common and suitability criteria include 6 criteria of simplest methods in multi-criteria land slope, erosion, creation, quality of decision-making (Karam, 2005). The water resources, distance from water technique that is also called scoring resources and water percent. Mentioned method is on the basis of the weighted criteria become criterion maps in GIS average concept. An analyst or decision environment. In order to synchronize the maker directly gives weights to criteria measurement scales and convert them to based on relative importance of each comparable units, criteria standardization studied criterion. Then, through process was used. multiplying the relative weight by the In this study, fuzzy method was feature value, a final value was obtained used to normalize the data. for each option. Then, final values of Standardization of data converts all each option was determined, options with values of map layers to the same domain the highest values would be considered as for example between zero and one or zero the most suitable option for the given to 255. Standardization process in fuzzy objective (Shahabi and Niyazi, 2009). method is done through reforming values In water resources' quality map, in the form of a membership set. In this three factors of Mg, Total Dissolved case, the maximum value namely 1 Solids (TDS), and EC were examined; belongs to maximum membership and three factors according to the opinion of minimum value; namely, zero belongs to experts of Natural Resources minimum membership (Sui, 1999). In Organization were scored in software fuzzy normalization method, values' Idrisi through WLC method so that the reforming usually uses different functions sum of these three factors' scores were 1. such as S-shaped, J-shaped and linear. In Based on the degree of importance, TDS the present study, criterion maps were was scored 0.5, Mg was scored 0.3 and standardized using fuzzy linear functions EC was scored 0.2. in software environment Idrisi (Table 1) and their values were converted to Evaluation and standardization of comparable units from zero to one. criteria by Fuzzy method In multi-criteria evaluation, in order to achieve a certain objective, some indices

Table 1. Threshold limit and fuzzy function type to standardize criterion maps in fuzzy logic No. CriterionArchive Control points (threshold values) Fuzzyof function SIDtype Fuzzy function name a b 1 Vegetation 50 200 Increasing Linear 2 Percent 20 100 Increasing Linear 3 Distance 0.0 4100 Decreasing Linear 4 Erosion 0.28 1.00 Decreasing Linear 5 Slope 10 60 Decreasing Linear 6 TDS 0.0 12900 Decreasing Linear 7 Mg 0.0 235 Decreasing Linear 8 EC 0.0 16000 Decreasing Linear determined in relation to the given Weighting method objective. In this study, Analytic After converting the evaluation criteria to Hierarchy Process (AHP) method has comparable and standard scales, each been used to determine the relative weight and relative importance should be weight of each specific criteria (Satty, 1980). AHP is a mathematical method to www.SID.ir

Journal of Rangeland Science, 2017, Vol. 7, No. 3 Rouhi-Moghaddam et al.,/ 236

determine the importance and priority of Criteria and relative weights obtained for criteria in the process of analysis and each criterion are the main input data for evaluation. Mentioned method has three the analysis of multi-criteria evaluation in main stages as follows. GIS environment. In order to determine 1. Criteria definition and organization in the degree of accuracy of weighting, a hierarchy (forming matrix of consistency index is used (Satty, 1980) if criteria) consistency index equals to 0.1 or less 2. Evaluation and pairwise comparison weighting is correct; otherwise, relative of relative importance of elements in weights given to the criteria should be each hierarchical level changed and weighting should be done 3. Institutionalization and synthesis again. According to the above method, weighting for each criterion was done using pairwise comparison results' and the results are listed in Table 2; solving algorithm at all levels of consistency index obtained for weighting hierarchy 6 criteria is also equivalent to 0.03 and In this method, a series of pairwise represents the consistency acceptance. comparisons was obtained from criteria After determining each criterion weight, relative importance for the given final map of Bagheran range suitability evaluation. The pairwise comparisons are was prepared. analyzed to create a series of weights (the sum is 1) (Taghvaei and Ghafarri, 2006).

Table 2. Weight obtained from hierarchical method for each criterion Vegetation Distance from water resources (%) Slope (%) Erosion (%) Percent (%) Quality (%) 0.4183 0.0771 0.0547 0.0426 0.0203 0.0203

Table 3. Criteria pair wise comparison matrix Vegetation Distance Erosion Slope Percent Quality Vegetation 1 - - - - - Distance 1.5 1 - - - - Erosion 1.7 1.3 1 - - - Slope 1.5 1 1 1 - - Percent 1.3 3 5 5 1 - Quality 1.3 3 5 5 1 1

Results transferred to GIS environment and a Output Map obtained from the weighted classified map was prepared according to linear combination method and Fig.9 that the area is classified in three hierarchical methodArchive for evaluating classes of of S2, S3,SID and N. The results of suitability in Birjand watershed area is a this map given in Table 4 show that combined map with raster format and a 55.43% equaling to 6585 ha was combination of slop (Fig. 2), vegetation considered as moderate suitability (S2) (Fig. 3), water resources percent (Fig. 4), class, 9.55% (1135 ha) was considered as distance from water resources (Fig. 5), low suitability (S3) class and 6.21% (736 erosion (Fig. 6) and water resources ha) was considered as non-suitability (N) quality (Fig. 7) maps. Values are class. Of course, some parts of that area between zero and 255. Higher values (to that are not rangelands were considered 255) in the map indicate greater as non- rangelands. suitability for sheep grazing and lower Class N that is the lack of suitability values (to zero) indicate less grazing is mostly on the parts of the area with suitability. After drawing the output map high steep and erosion as well as low (Fig. 8), the mentioned map was water resources and access to it. Also, the www.SID.ir

J. of Range. Sci., 2017, Vol. 7, No. 3 Determining Range …/ 237

regional coverage in some parts of given that is considered the most important area was partly considered as Bagheran factor in range suitability. So, it can be watershed area limit. Using the weighting concluded that this model limit for sheep method (Table 2), it was found that slope grazing in Birjand Bagheran watershed and erosion had minimum weight and area is related to the area water resources score and creation had the highest score and high slope as well as vegetation.

Table 4. Area and percent of final suitability classes of AHP- Fuzzy model Suitability class Area (ha) Area (%) High suitability (S1) 0 0 Moderate suitability (S2) 6585 55.43 Low suitability (S3) 1135 9.55 Non-suitability (N) 736 6.21 Non- range lands 3421 28.81 Total 11879 100

Fig. 2. Bagheran range slop map Fig. 3. Bagheran range vegetation map Archive of SID

Fig. 4. Bagheran range water resources percent map Fig. 5. Bagheran range distance from water resources

www.SID.ir

Journal of Rangeland Science, 2017, Vol. 7, No. 3 Rouhi-Moghaddam et al.,/ 238

Fig. 6. Bagheran range erosion map Fig. 7. Bagheran range water resources quality map

Fig. 8. Bagheran range suitability final map Fig. 9. Bagheran range suitability classified final map

Discussion Holechek (1998) considered high slopes Range suitability classification and up to 60% as unusable for livestock. rangelands evaluation to understand their Arzani et al. (2006) in studying Taleghan potential properly, particularly for the ranges' suitability in Iran considered high exploitation of arid and semi-arid slope, range conversion to dry land, early rangelands whereArchive rangeland ecosystems grazing, of the presenceSID of stones sensitive are very fragile are essential and to erosion and low vegetation as sustainable development factors. In the important factors limiting the rangelands. field of rangelands' suitability using Amiri and Arzani (2012) in prioritizing multi-criteria decision-making methods proper locations for beekeeping using in the world, few studies have been AHP found that the importance degree of conducted. According to the results of the vegetation index value (weight of 0.687) model of sensitivity to erosion, the most is higher than that of environmental and important factors reducing range physical factors (weight of 0.244) and suitability of studied area (Bagheran access to water resources (weight of Birjand) included the area with high 0.069). Similarly, in Iran, Mohtashamnia slope and grazing that had caused loss of (2000), Tahmasbi (2001), Aghamohseni vegetation in some parts of studied area. Fashami (2002), Yousefi (2005), Rafaei

www.SID.ir

J. of Range. Sci., 2017, Vol. 7, No. 3 Determining Range …/ 239

(2006) and Ariapour et al. (2013) in their variables, vast areas, traditional studied areas considered slope as the cartography problems, several errors, most important factor reducing range large amount of information and etc. have suitability. According to Mohtashamnia high costs and prolonged research lack (2002) in Dasht-e-Bakan, slope, necessary accuracy. In this study, in order elevation, distribution of water resources to determine range suitability, AHP and and natural obstacles were introduced as GIS combination methods were used. factors limiting and reducing the range AHP method advantages are the use of suitability for sheep grazing. According experts' opinions in evaluation process, to Tahmasbi (2001) in Sabzkouh area, flexibility and several criteria and sub- steep and sensitive to erosion were criteria. Although GIS and Multi-Criteria introduced as factors limiting and Decision-Making methods (MCDM) are reducing the range suitability for sheep two distinct areas of research and study, grazing and Aghamohseni Fashami they can easily benefit from the (2002) in Lar area introduced high slope, advantages and capabilities of each other cliff, stone and soil sensitivity to erosion because on one hand, GIS has a great and land utilization pattern as factors ability in decision-making data and limiting and reducing the range suitability spatial information creation, storage, for grazing sheep. Yousefi (2005) in their retrieval, modification, manipulation and studies considered the following factors evaluation and as a result, the analysis of as the most important factors reducing problems based on MCDM and on the the range suitability in Taleghan area in other hand MCDM methods including order of importance: range conversion to AHP can be combined with spatial data, dry land, early grazing, the presence of preferences and experiences of decision- erosion-sensitive stones and available makers and experts in the form of erosion in the area while proper coverage decision options and provide a valuable of rocks and pebbles, proper rainfall, the set of criteria to show priorities of presence of perennial plants were factors decision-makers and their combination affecting reducing sensitivity to erosion, with GIS (Malczewski, 1999 and Nekhay and as a result increasing final suitability. et al., 2009). Finally, considering the Rostami et al. (2014) illustrated that low grazing capacity and applying the suitability for sheep grazing in the correction programs in rangelands can watershed of Sadegh Abad, Kermanshah affect the increase of range suitability for Province was due to soil erosion grazing sheep. sensitivity and limited standard exploitation of forage. References Final map of rangelands' suitability Aghamohseni Fashami, M., 2002. Investigation of in some parts Archive had no needed conditions ofrangeland suitabilitySID in Lar rangelands using for sheep grazing and shows the priority GIS. M.Sc. thesis in range management, Faculty for protective measures' implementation of Natural Resources and Marine Science, Tarbiat Modarres University, Iran, 91 p. (In that sheep grazing should be avoided. Persian). Such a map can be considered as one of bases of determining future range Amiri, F., 2009. A model for classification of range suitability for sheep grazing in semi-arid suitability in programs of range . Livestock Research for Rural management of local office of Natural Development, 21(5): 241-266. (In Persian). Resources Office in Southern Khorasan Amiri, F. and Arzani, H., 2012. Determination of Province and is used by the related site priority for apiculture by using Analytical organizations. Traditional methods of Hierarchy Process (AHP) method, Iran. Jour. combining maps and multi-criteria Range Desert Research, 19(1): 159-177. (In evaluations often due to large number of Persian).

www.SID.ir

Journal of Rangeland Science, 2017, Vol. 7, No. 3 Rouhi-Moghaddam et al.,/ 240

Ariapour A., Hadidi M., Karami K. and Amiri F., olive plantations for wildlife habitat restoration. 2013. Water resources suitability model by Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 65: using GIS (Case Study: Boroujerd Rangeland, 49-64. Sarab Sefid). Jour. Rangeland Science, 3(2): Rafaei, M., 2006. Determination of range 177-188. (In Persian). suitability for sheep grazing using GIS in semi- Arzani, H., Mousavi, S.A., Jafari, M. and Ajdary, arid regions of Isfahan. M.Sc. thesis in range G., 2014. Range Suitability Model for Livestock management, Islamic Azad University, Science Grazing. Inter. Jour. Sustainable Development, and Research Branch, Tehran, 100 p. (In 7(50): 105-112. (In Persian). Persian). Arzani, H., Yousefi, S., Jafari, M. and Farahpour, Rostami, E., Mehrabe, H. and Farahpour, M., M., 2006. Production range suitability map for 2014. Determining Rangeland Suitability for sheep grazing using GIS (Case study: Taleghan Sheep Grazing Using GIS (Case Study: Sadegh Region in ). Jour. Abad Watershed, , Iran). Environmental Studies, 37: 59-68. (In Persian). Jour. Rangeland Science, 4(4): 319-329. (In Persian). Chen, L., Yang, X., Chen, L. and Li, L., 2015. Impact assessment of land use planning driving Saaty, T. L., 1980. The analytical hierarchical forces on environment. Environ. Impact Assess. process: planning, priority setting, resource Rev. 55: 126–135. allocation. New York: Mc Graw-Hill. 287p. Fadaie, S.H., Arzani, H., Azarnivand, H., Nehzati, Shahabi, H. and Niyazi, C., 2009. Evaluation of G.H., Kaboli, S.H. and Amiri, F., 2014. A study factors affecting the location of rescue stations of range suitability model for apiculture by in Saqqez–Sanandaj Road using WLC. using GIS (Case Study: Taleghan Rangelands). Geomatics Conference. Tehran. (In Persian). Jour. RS and GIS for Natural Resources, 5(3): Shao, H., Sun, X., Wang, H., Zhang, X., Xiang, 29-44. (In Persian). Z., Tan, R., Chen, X., Xian, W. and Oi, J., 2016. Holechek, J.K., 1998. An approach for setting the A method to the impact assessment of the stocking. Rangeland, 10:10-14. returning grazing land to grassland project on regional eco-environmental vulnerability. Karam, A., 2005. Analysis of land suitability for Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 56: 155–167. physical development in the North West of Shiraz using multi-criteria assessment approach Sour, A., Arzani, H., Feizizadeh, B. Tavili, A. and in GIS. Jour. Geographical Researches, 54: 93- Alizadeh, E., 2013. GIS Multi-Criteria 106 Evolution for Determination of Rangelands Suitability for Goat Grazing in the Middle Malczewski, J., 1999. GIS and Multi criteria Taleghan Rangelands. Inter. Jour. Agronomy Decision Analysis. John Wiley and Sons, New Plant Production, 4(7): 1499-1510. York, NY, 392 pp. Sui, D.Z., 1999. A Fuzzy GIS Modeling Marull, J., Pino, J., Mallarach, J.M. and Approach for Urban land, Evaluation. Cordobilla, M.J., 2007. A land suitability index Computer, Environment, and Urban systems, for strategic environmental assessment in 16: 101-115. metropolitan areas. Landsc. Urban Plan. 81 (3): 200–212. Taghvaei, M. and Ghafarri, S. R., 2006. Prioritizing crisis in rural settlements by Using Mehrabi, H. R., Zeinivand, H., Hadidi, M., 2012. AHP (Case Study: Bazft). Jour. Isfahan Site selection for groundwaterArchive artificial recharge of SID University (Humanities), 20(1): 34-43. (In in Silakhor Rangelands Using GIS Technique. Persian). Jour. Rangeland Sci., 2(4): 687-696. (In Persian). Tahmasbi, P., 2001. Determination of the suitability of the semi – steppe rangeland of Moghadam, M.R., 2009. Range and Range Sabzkooh in the province of Chaharmahal and management. University of Tehran Pub., Bakhtiari using GIS. M.Sc. thesis in range Tehran, 470 p. (In Persian). management, the College of Natural Resources Mohtashamnia, S., 2000. Determination of Semi- of Tarbiyat Modarres University, Iran, 112 p. steppe Rangeland suitability in (In Persian). using GIS. M.Sc. thesis in range management. Yousefi, N., 2005. A model for competence Faculty of Natural Resources. Tarbiat Modarres pastures for sheep grazing using GIS. Case University. 184 p. (In Persian). Study Taleghan, Tehran. M.Sc. thesis in range Nekhay, O., Arriaza, M. and Guzmán - Álvarez, management, University of Tehran. (In Persian). J.R., 2009. Spatial analysis of the suitability of

www.SID.ir

J. of Range. Sci., 2017, Vol. 7, No. 3 Determining Range …/ 241

تعیین شایستگی مرتع حوزه آبخیز باقران بیرجند به روش فازی و سلسله مراتبی

عین اله روحیمقدمالف*، حلیمه جلوروب ، هادی معماریانج الفدانشیار، دانشکده آب و خاک، دانشگاه زابل، زابل، *)نگارنده مسئول(. پست الکترونیک: [email protected] بدانش آموخته کارشناسی ارشد رشته مرتعداری، دانشکده آب و خاک، دانشگاه زابل، زابل جاستادیار، دانشکده منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه بیرجند، بیرجند

تاریخ دریافت: 9311/96/99 تاریخ پذیرش: 9315/61/61

چکیده. ارزیابی اراضی مرتعی به معنی شناسایی و تولید بالفعل و بالقوه مراتع به منظور بهرهبرداری صحیح از این منبع با ارزش طبیعی است. از این رو یکی از عوامل مهمی که در مدیریت مراتع اهمیت دارد، تعیین شایستگی مرتع و شناخت عوامل موثر بر آن میباشد. روش ترکیب خطی وزندهی شده )WLC( یکی از معمولترین روشهای مورد استفاده برای مکانیابی و روش تحلیل سلسله مراتبی )AHP( از پرکاربردترین روشهای اولویتبندی و وزندهی معیارها است. هدف از این تحقیق ارزیابی شایستگی مرتع حوزه آبخیز باقران بیرجند در منطقهای با وسعت 99071 هکتار با روش AHP-Fuzzy میباشد که در سال 9313 در منطقهای با وسعت 99071 هکتار انجام گرفته است. بدین منظور در این تحقیق در محیط سیستم اطالعات جغرافیایی نقشه فاکتورهای تاثیرگذار شایستگی )شیب، تولید، فرسایش، کیفیت منابع آب، درصد برآورد نیاز آبی و فاصله از منابع آبی( تهیه گردید. برای استانداردسازی دادهها از روش فازی و برای وزندهی به معیارها از روش تحلیل سلسله مراتبی استفاده شد. نتاج حاصل از مدل -AHP Fuzzy به کمک ترکیب خطی وزنی نشان داد که 13/55 درصد اراضی مرتعی در کالس شایستگی متوسط S2، 55/1 درصد اراضی در کالس شایستگی کم S3 و 09/0 درصد اراضی در طبقه غیرشایسته قرار گرفتند. بنابراین عامل محدودیت در این مدل برای چرای گوسفند در منطقه مورد مطالعه مربوط به منابع آب و شیب زیاد حوزه و همچنین پوشش گیاهی می باشد.

کلمات کلیدی: شایستگی مرتع، روش ترکیب خطی وزندهی شده، روش سلسله مراتبی و فازی، حوزه آبخیز باقران Archive of SID

www.SID.ir