Pollution, 5(3): 597-610, Summer 2019 DOI: 10.22059/poll.2018.262881.486 Print ISSN: 2383-451X Online ISSN: 2383-4501 Web Page: https://jpoll.ut.ac.ir, Email: [email protected]

Evaluation of Ecological Vulnerability in Chelgard Mountainous Landscape

Darabi, H.*, Islami Farsani S., Irani Behbahani H.

School of Environment, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran,

Received: 28.06.2018 Accepted: 15.11.2018

ABSTRACT: Although complexity and vulnerability assessment of mountain landscapes is increasingly taken into consideration, less attention is paid to ecophronesis-based solutions so as to reduce the fragile ecosystem vulnerability. The main propose of this study is to provide an insight of mountain complex landscape vulnerability and propose ecophronesis-based solutions in strategic planning framework for reduction of vulnerability. The study has been carried out by following five steps in Chelgard Mountain landscapes (center of Iran): First, it determines the evaluation framework on basis of rapid literature review. Second, the vulnerability is assessed, using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), in accordance with experts’ opinion. In the third step, the results provide a zoning map of vulnerability. Afterwards, the study suggests a strategic plan to manage the area environmentally and, finally, the solutions are proposed, based on ecophronesis, in order to not only solve the plight but also reduce the vulnerability. Results from the vulnerability assessment indicate that anthropogenic stressors intensify the vulnerability. While local ecological wisdom is shaped over time in the area, its application faces challenges as a result of rapid and immense socio-economic changes. It seems that sustainability of mountain ecosystem needs to regenerate social structures on basis of socio-ecological capital. Main characteristics of these adopted social structures include their balance with the ecosystem and adoption with new lifestyles. Keywords: Ecological Vulnerability, Vulnerability assessment, mountainous landscape, Ecological wisdom, Iran.

INTRODUCTION mountain landscapes has a variety of Mountainous landscapes are extremely negative impacts on their ecosystem (Fang, sensitive and vulnerable to natural and et al., 2009; Godde, 2000). Thus, before human stressors, which can indeed cause promoting any development activity in severe degradation (Beroya-Eitner, 2016; mountainous landscapes, it is necessary to Macchi, 2010; Tse-ring, ET, 2010). In hot identify the adverse factors, evaluate the and dry regions, the exotic and secluded possible vulnerabilities, appropriate site nature of mountainous landscapes turns selection, and make sure that the activity them into a hub of economic activities, matches the capacity of the environment. especially in tourism and hospitality sector. Following this guideline, it is possible to Increased human presence as well as growth exploit a mountainous landscape without of tourism and competitive activities in undermining its’ sustainability. Deep understanding of the vulnerability concept and vulnerability assessment regards as the * Corresponding Author Email: [email protected]

597 Darabi, H., et al. first prerequisite for effective management characteristics in the organisms of an and sustainable development of mountain ecosystem, enabling them to cope with landscape (Fang et al., 2009; Metzger, et al., environmental changes and survive in new 2006). conditions (Fang et al., 2009; Hong et al., Vulnerability is associated with concepts 2016). Self-regulation and reconstruction like risk, sensitivity, susceptibility, abilities of an ecosystem depend on its flexibility, compatibility, stability, and component characteristic. In view of what adaptive capacity, all of which give the idea is mentioned above, indicators can be of an ecosystem’s fragility (Beroya-Eitner, grouped into three sub classes: vital, 2016). While, vulnerability is defined structural, and performance indicators. differently (Berrouet, et al., 2018; Darabi, et Structural indicators are the ones, related to al., 2018; De Lange, et al., 2010; Füssel, species composition, system structure, 2007; Kok et al., 2016), it generally refers to inter-species relations, and also vegetation the ability of an ecosystem to adapt its and moisture. Performance indicators are responses to stressors within certain those that involve supply, regulation, temporal and spatial domains (Beroya- protection, and ecosystem's culture. And Eitner, 2016). The interactions between finally, vital indicators pertain to system’s environment and socioeconomic systems production capacity and represent soil influence the sensitivity of the landscape. fertility (Apul, 2010). On this basis, an indicators of these Socio-ecological pressure concerns interactions can be regarded as basic tools to external disturbances and all factors that understand key processes that affect affect the ecosystem’s stability. In this vulnerability and identify the response study they included land use, access, strategies, accordingly (Kok et al., 2016; facilities, population, and tourist density Shukla, et al., 2016). Vulnerability (Beroya-Eitner, 2016; Guoba, et al., 2010). assessments of mountainous landscapes Finally, it is worth mentioning that while require a set of specific indicators. the traditional approach to vulnerability Normally, the indicators are classified into assessment tries to identify the affected three major groups of ecological sensitivity, areas, newer approaches are more focused flexibility, and socio-ecological pressure, on reasons behind the vulnerability, while which constitute the basis of this study as acknowledging that vulnerability is not well. always an observable phenomenon. Ecological sensitivity is a measure of In terms of approach, the literature on ecological instability or resistance to ecological vulnerability assessment can be change (Hong et al., 2016; Thiault et al., categorized into three groups. In the first, 2018). In mountainous areas, ecological the focus is on risk assessment to sensitivity is mainly expressed by physical understand the system’s response to threats factors such as slope angle and aspect (Papadopoulos, 2016; Ribeiro, et al., 2016; along with elevation. Ecological Zabeo et al., 2011). The second one not adaptability represents the ecosystem’s only considers the issue of ecology and ability to adapt itself with disturbances and natural threats but also the socioeconomic to cope with the consequences of changes issues that may affect the research subject (Kok et al., 2016). Overall, these translate (Berrouet et al., 2018; Liu, et al., 2016; into the system’s ability to resist Maikhuri et al., 2017; Pandey, et al., 2011; interference while maintaining its structure Sowman and Raemaekers, 2018). Finally, and performance. In this discussion, the the third approach utilizes theoretical term ―adaptability‖ refers to the frameworks like ecosystem services or development of genetic and behavioral resilience in an attempt to make an

598 Pollution, 5(3): 597-610, Summer 2019 integrated evaluation within these environmental changes. Here, theoretical structures (Beier, et al., 2008; environmental and social factors were Metzger et al., 2006; Metzger and Schröter, taken into consideration as key study 2006; Schröter et al., 2005). There is also variables, thanks to their decisive role in another emerging approach that applies adaptability and vulnerability discussion. ecological wisdom in vulnerability Another study assessed the ecological assessment, the weak signals of which are vulnerability of Kenyan Coast, with identifiable. An example of this approach is intertwined social and ecological the study of urban design principles for dimensions considered as the basis of flood resilience, based on ecological evaluation. The results of this study wisdom learned from floods in the indicated that the intensity of vulnerability Vietnamese Mekong Delta (Liao and was correlated with the social conditions Nguyen, 2016). Another instance can be (Meneses, 2002). Abson (2012) used an found in the study of environmental integrated socio-ecological vulnerability solutions, in accordance with some framework to assess the vulnerability of reverence for nature, as derived from rural communities in south Africa (Orams, ecological wisdom in Beijing, China 2002). Another study developed a (Zhang, et al., 2016). This approach tries to vulnerability assessment framework in break the dichotomy between nature and which it was assumed that ecological and humans and instead introduces an integrated social systems were intertwined and system where analyses focus on wisdom provided a vulnerability reduction process rather than knowledge (Patten, 2016; Wang (Berrouet et al., 2018). et al., 2016; Xiang, 2016). The notable studies, using the third The studies, using the first approach, approach, include the one by Metszger include the research by De Lange et al. (2006), which assessed the vulnerability of (2010), wherein they developed an ecosystem services due to land use ecological vulnerability assessment conversions (Miral, et al., 2013). Another framework emphasizing the risks that can study assessed the vulnerability of threaten an ecosystem. This framework, ecosystem services, based on possible which is based on three aspects of socioeconomic changes caused by global environmental conditions, system recovery trends (Metzger and Schröter, 2006). capability, and exposure to risk, attempts to Furthermore, analysis of ecological and provide an overall picture of the risk and ecosystem resilience and their relation to exposure (De Lange et al., 2010). Barnett vulnerability made another valid et al. (2008) examined the vulnerability framework for ecosystem management assessment indicators as well as four key (Molloy, et al., 1999), e.g., in a study in aspects of evaluation, ultimately Cambodia, a vulnerability and resilience underscoring the importance of taking heed assessment was conducted to evaluate of the risk of assets during the evaluation public knowledge about the effects of (Barnett, et al., 2008). In another study, the climate change (Moore and Brooks, 1996). vulnerability indicators were used to The present study aims at assessing identify the environmental risk in South the vulnerability of Chelgard Mountain Wales in order to determine the risk of landscapes, located in Chaharmahal- asset and infrastructure vulnerability, Bakhtiari Province, Iran, which are thereby improving the adaptive capacity of exposed to natural stressors as well as the community (Denner, et al., 2015). human interference in form of ski resort, In the second group of studies, Adger tourism, and other economic activities. (2006) investigated the vulnerability to Initially, the literature has been reviewed to

599 Darabi, H., et al. identify a set of suitable indicators for the at a latitude of 32°17′ vulnerability assessment. Once the factors to 32°25′ and longitude of 48°25′to 49°58′, threatening the mountainous landscapes are with about 36,651 inhabitants (Figure 2) identified, the study area is zoned in terms (Statistical Center of Iran, 2012). Having a of vulnerability as defined by socio- mean height of 2350 meters above sea level, ecological approach. Finally, the paper is one of the most elevated and provides a number of management most mountainous counties of the province, solutions, derived from ecological wisdom enjoying a humid and temperate climate to reduce vulnerability. Figure 1 illustrates with very cold winters and semi-steppe- the conceptual model of this study. The astragalus vegetation. Geologically, study assumes that vulnerability is a result Koohrang is located in the thrust zone of of natural and human factors; therefore, Zagros Mountains, also known as high vulnerability is carried out on base of Zagros. The economy of the area socio-ecological system approach. The significantly depends on agriculture and vulnerability reduction is the main goal of animal husbandry and positioned in high the study which is achievable through mountains in the path of favorable integration of vulnerability assessment, Mediterranean winds, the region enjoys strategic planning, and presentation of significant precipitation and is the source of solutions, based on ecophronesis as an three major Iranian rivers, namely , integrated system (Figure 1). Zayanderud, and Dez. Gifted with bountiful water springs and lush mountainsides and MATERIALS AND METHODS valleys, the area is a natural tourist The study took place in Koohrang County, attraction, which hosts a large number of located in the west of Shahre Kord, the visitors in all seasons of the year. capital of Chaharmahal-Bakhtiari Province in central Iran. It is situated in the hearth of

Fig. 1. Conceptual model of the research

600 Pollution, 5(3): 597-610, Summer 2019

Fig. 2. Location of the study area

The research was carried out in three received a higher weight). The information steps: The first one involved scoping, maps of the area got prepared by means of wherein the literature was reviewed in aerial photos and field surveys. Using the order to identify the indicators of GIS software, the weights were applied to ecological vulnerability assessment; the produce the required layer, based on second step included system definition and identified indicators. evaluation; and the third concerned the The software program employed the analysis of outcomes, simultaneously following formula so as to overlay the layers: addressing the vulnerability challenges for planning and management line, on basis of ∑ ecological wisdom approach. Accordingly, a sum of 24 published Where EVI is an integrated ecological articles, dating from 2003 to 2016, about vulnerability; EVIi, the value of the vulnerability assessment got reviewed, standardized indicator I; and Wi, the leading to the preparation of a primary list of weight of this indicator (Hong et al., 2016). indicators, which was then reviewed to Afterwards, the produced layers got identify suitable indicators to measure overlaid, based on the weights that were vulnerability of mountainous landscape. attained from AHP process as well as the Finally, an integrated system of ecological aforementioned equation. The output led to vulnerability indicators was developed based the production of vulnerability zoning. on the conceptual model of sensitivity, Finally, ecological wisdom and flexibility, and pressure as well as the real indigenous knowledge were employed to condition of the study area in terms of soil, provide managerial and planning solutions habitat, climate, and vegetation. in accordance with vulnerability zoning. In the second step, the ecological Using the strategic orientation, proposed vulnerability indicators got evaluated, using by Ahern (2006), the final outputs were the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and divided into four groups of protective, the Expert Choice Software, v. 11. The defensive, offensive, and opportunistic former helped weighting the chosen classes, each representing a planning indicators based on the intensity of their approach in response to the change in the effects (the indicators associated with more landscape (Ahern, 2006). damage to the mountainous landscape

601 Darabi, H., et al.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION indicators and the frequency of use for The rapid literature review included 24 each indicator was identified in the articles about ecological vulnerability, literature (Table 1). The most frequently published between 2003 and 2016. By used indicators turned out to be the height, examining these articles, the related temperature, rainfall, and population. Table 1. Frequency of vulnerability indicators in related literature Frequency Main Frequency Main Category indicators indicators percent Category percent Aspect 2.20 Endangered species 0.55 Topography Elevation 6.59 Fragmentation 0.55 Slope 7.14 Degradation 0.55 Flore Geological condition 0.55 Number of species 0.55 Geology Geological pattern 0.55 Extinctions 0.55 Glacial 0.55 Isolation 0.55 Temperature 6.6 Tourism 0.55 Wet period 0.55 Population rate 6.04 Growth of Dry period 2.74 1.09 population Social Climate Hot period 0.55 Human activity 0.55 Cold period 0.55 Female activity rate 0.55 Humidity index 1.64 Age structure 0.55 Precipitation 7.69 Literacy index 0.55 Wind 1.09 Agriculture 4.94 Depth to water table 0.55 Pasture 0.55 Aquifer media 0.55 Built-up area 0.55 Hydraulic conductivity 0.55 Land use Mining area 0.55 LUCC (Land Surface runoff depth 0.55 3.3 use/Land cover) Water area proportion 0.55 Land area 0.55 Flood-waterlogging area 0.55 From road 1.09 Hydrology proportion NDWI (normalized 1.09 Distance From market 0.55 difference water index) Distances from 0.55 From residential 0.55 hydrological network Water conservation 0.55 Earthquakes 1.64 Renewable water 0.55 Volcanoes 0.55 Drainage 1.09 Tsunamis 0.55 Disaster Soil type 2.74 Flooding 0.55 Soil texture 2.74 Fire risk 1.64 Soil Soil erosion 2.19 Desertification 0.55 Soil fertility 1.64 Soil pollution 2.19 Vegetation type 1.64 Vegetation cover 3.3 Diversity 1.64 Forest canopy/type 1.64 Vegetation NDVI (normalized difference vegetation 1.09 index) Endemic 0.55 Introduced 0.55 (Beroya-Eitner, 2016; De Lange et al., 2010; Eakin and Luers, 2006; Hong et al., 2016; Ippolito, et al., 2010; Kurniawan, et al., 2016; Li, et al., 2006; Li et al., 2009; Nandy, et al., 2015; Nguyen, et al., 2016; Papathoma-Köhle, et al., 2011; Qiao, et al., 2013; Sahoo, et al., 2016; Schroter, et al., 2004; Skondras et al., 2011; Guoba et al., 2010; Guobao et al., 2015; Villa and McLEOD, 2002; Xu et al., 2016; Yang, et al., 2015; Ying et al., 2007; Zhang, et al., 2012)

602 Pollution, 5(3): 597-610, Summer 2019

Afterwards, the site-specific index degrees. The slope for most mountainous framework should be constructed. Thus, the parts of the study area was between 22 and list of indicators was presented to the experts. 46 degrees, with a small percentage of these The site-specific indicators were selected, lands having a slope of more than 46 based on mountainous features of the study degrees. As aforementioned, the study area area. These indicators are depicted in Table was located in the thrust zone of Zagros 2. Following the Delphi method procedure, Mountains, also known as high Zagros. the obtained indicators and sub-indicators Considering erosion and sedimentation were shared with a panel of environmental factors, the area had two zones of 1) erosion experts, asked to rank them in terms of their sensitivity, i.e., cretaceous calcareous impact on vulnerability, while taking the formations which enjoyed high resistance mountainous and touristic nature of the and low sensitivity, and 2) highly sensitive region into consideration (the indicators with quaternary formation. The area lacks greater impacts received higher ranks). significant forest cover, its vegetation Finally, the ranked indicators were weighted generally consisted of rangeland plants and using the AHP method in the Expert Choice grasses. Access to the area is provided software. In the analytic hierarchy process, through Shahrekord-Farsan-Chelgard road. each indicator’s weight was calculated Furthermore, the town of Chelgard and through pairwise comparison of its ranking several residential, commercial, and in different categories (Table 2). industrial zones are also located in the study For each indicator, the information layer area, a large part of which is composed of of the study area was extracted from the agricultural lands surrounded by residential existing maps of the region, and got zones. The Chelgard ski resort is located in updated with the help of aerial photos or the western part of the area on the slopes of through field inspections. The output of Karkonan Mountain. Having a gently-sloped, this process was a series of data layers, 800m-long trail in two separate segments namely the maps of vegetation, geology, with a lift system, Chelgard is one of the soil, roads, topography, slope and aspect, most famous ski resorts in the Zagros region. hydrology, erosion, land use, and facilities The desirable quality of snow, easy access, (Figure 3). and convenient location in Koohgrang Regarding the altitude, the study area was touristic area, along with sunny weather and at least 2260 meters and a at most 2770 peacefulness of the resort in most winter meters above the sea level, with the central days are the reasons why this resort is a parts of the study area, mostly dedicated to likely choice for many tourists and athletes. agriculture, having a maximum slope of 22

Table 2. The site-specific indicators and their weights, using the AHP method Main Indicators Inconsistency Rate Sub Indicators Weight Aspect 0.026

Elevation 0.048

Slope 0.026

Hydrology 0.034

Geology 0.088 0.05 Soil type 0.105 Ecological Sensitivity Soil erosion 0.28

Vegetation cover 0.093 Land use 0.501

Tourism utilities 0.264

Population rate 0.132 Society and 0.05 Access network 0.066 Economics Pressure Installations 0.037 Vegetation 0.6 Ecological Resilience 0.17 Organic Soil 0.4

603 Darabi, H., et al.

Fig. 3. The different layers of the study area

In GIS software program, the obtained agricultural lands located in the central parts maps got overlaid in accordance with the of the area. The residential zones act as the assigned weights. This was done via center of population and human activities, Weighted Overlay tool along with the with the areas undergoing urban formula mentioned in the previous section. development, thus being subject to high The result of this process was the vulnerability. A moderate vulnerability was vulnerability map, illustrated in Figure 3, observed in rangelands and mountainsides, where the area is classified into four zones located at the periphery of the area. The low based on the severity of the vulnerability vulnerability zones were mostly in high (very high, high, moderate, and low). altitude mountains, i.e., intact and secluded The highest vulnerability, observed in the areas with very low human presence.

Fig. 4. The resultant map of vulnerability assessment of Koohrang area

604 Pollution, 5(3): 597-610, Summer 2019

According to the results, the agricultural of strategic planning, presented by Ahrens zone, located in the central parts of the site, (2006), proposed four strategy groups: enjoyed the lion’s share of vulnerability protective, defensive, offensive, and level. While the residential zones were opportunistic. This framework was adopted highly vulnerable, the periphery to meet the strong policymaking mountainsides were less vulnerable and requirements. high-altitude mountainous regions had the Protective strategy means defining a lowest level of vulnerability. In the desirable landscape and preventing any agricultural zone, vulnerability got change that threatens this goal. In the study intensified by blending agricultural and area, this strategy was suitable for construction activities. The major challenges protecting the sustainable patterns and of this zone were the rise of agricultural land processes of less vulnerable high-altitude cover, land use conversion, increased soil mountainous regions. It also can be helpful erosion, collapse of natural waterways, to prevent both unregulated tourist access reduced environmental resistance, and and overgrazing in order to preserve the disruption in natural processes, caused by existing vegetation cover; therefore, this poor agricultural practices, misuse and over strategy was applicable in all low exploitation of resources, pollution, and poor vulnerability areas, restricting human management which were in line with the activities there. findings of Berrouet et al. (2018). The defensive strategy means limiting Considering the extremely high the damage of an inevitable change of vulnerability of this zone, it is vital for the landscape on the nature. This strategy is future of this area to enforce environmental suitable for medium vulnerability areas. and development laws and prohibit Due to strong presence of tourists, these environment-damaging development areas were on the verge of fragmentation activities more strictly. Inappropriately, this which, if not properly managed, can inflict area is experiencing a rapid trend of land use irreparable damages to the landscape in conversion, to which local authorities and near future. institutions have failed to make any serious The offensive strategy involves response. The Chelgard residential zone also reconstructing previously damaged suffers from high vulnerability due to elements or restoring the fragmented pollution and land use conversion, resulting natural landscapes. It should be employed from its status as the area’s center of in the agricultural zone of the study area, population and transportation. The where over exploitation of the land vulnerability of this area is directly correlated necessitated stronger efforts to restore the with population density, construction devastated landscape. This can be achieved activity, road building, and degradation of by reintroducing indigenous plant species natural spaces, in turn leading to severe loss to the fragmented agricultural lands and of environmental services and land curbing with unregulated agricultural land deprivation, as mentioned by Nyguen et al. development. (2016). The opportunistic strategy means Ecological management could be the acknowledging and identifying the key instrument to achieve sustainable available opportunities to add other development in mountainous landscapes. functions to the landscape and support the To reduce the vulnerability of this area, a ecological and cultural processes, strategic plan is needed (Nouri et al., beneficial for the region. This strategy 2008), which regulates human pressure on refers to extremely vulnerable areas and mountainous landscapes. The framework ought to prevent construction activities in

605 Darabi, H., et al. natural areas, limit unregulated expansion a result, land management rules have lost of urban and industrial spaces, and their functions mainly and increased the encourage ecological construction. The pressure on common resources. Moreover, vulnerability of area can be reduced by the local community adopted some adopting effective vulnerability control behaviors to protect the ecosystems, e.g., measures. grazing the sheep early in rangelands at the Poorly managed tourism development in end of spring. Since the roots of the plants mountainous landscapes could create are tight in the earth and plants suffer less significant ecological pressure, turning into a damage from grazing in this period of year. source of environmental concern. Hence, the Other sample actions are as follows: development of mountain tourism needs to  Construction of a strain in form of a manage and plan the way of reaching ditch to guide the flood route, sustainable preservation as well as the  Proper drainage to lessen the erosion, manner of using mountain ecosystem.  Construction of a canal around Overall, the vulnerability of the area is marshy grounds to get extra water directly related to human presence along from the ground, with the type of activity undertaken, which  Planting vegetation in traditional occurs on sensitive mountainous areas, as manners such as sowing plant seeds Sahoo et al. (2016) also acknowledged it. It in the spring, seems that ―ecophronesis‖ is capable of  Spring and autumn crop rotation, providing wise solutions to such challenges.  Separation of different types of Ecological wisdom, called livestock like sheep and goats and ―ecophronesis‖, is the ability of upright utilization of different livestock judgment about reality and apply compositions, appropriate solutions, based on knowledge  Determining the appropriate time for and experiences (Liao and Chan, 2016; grazing and the time out of the Xiang, 2016). Schwartz and Sharpe (2010) rangeland, described it as: ―reasoning to provide the  Seeding in different ways, right way to do the right thing‖. Ecophronesis is rooted in ecosophy,  Applicatoon of range classification developed by Arne Næss to reduce the systems and their utilization, based duality between humans and the on this classification, environment (Naess, 1989), while, Xiang  Identification of unobtrusive areas (2016) defined it as: ―the master skill par and defining restrictions accordingly, excellence of moral improvisation to make  Grazing limitation at flowering time, and act well upon, right choices in any and given circumstance of ecological practice;  Planting indigenous species. motivated by human beings’ enlightened All samples indicate that while people self-interest, it is developed through knew what they should do, they should only reflective ecological practice‖ (P 55). be encouraged to act appropriately (Darabi, The ecological wisdom defines some 2010, Darabi and Saidi, 2013, Assar Khaniki socio ecological rules that lessen the et al., 2015); however, knowledge severity of vulnerability. The main implication faced some challenges since the historical practice was the controlling use local community experienced rapid and of common resources, mainly rangelands, major changes in social structure, thus the on basis of social structure (Beck, 1998; lessened social control. Concurrently, Ghorbani et al., 2013), which has recently increase in the intensity of government been the subject of enormous changes. As intervention diminished self-reliance of local

606 Pollution, 5(3): 597-610, Summer 2019 community, which worsened the situation. REFERENCES Therefore, application of ecophronesis needs Adger, W. N. (2006). Vulnerability. Glob Environ a new and acceptable social structure for Change, 16(3), 268-281. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.006 implementation. The vulnerability of areas will increase through human activities Ahern, J. (2006). Theories ،methods and strategies for sustainable landscape planning. In B. Tress without paying any attention to (Ed.), From Landscape Research to Landscape environmental considerations and Planning: Aspects of Integration, Education and ecophronesis solutions. Hence, it is essential Application (pp. 119-131): Springer. to consider the carrying capacity in Assar Khaniki, Z., Darabi, H. and Irani-Behbahani, conjunction with ecophronesis solutions in H. (2015). Integrated Analysis of Urban Landscape order to get access to sustainable Fragmentation (Case Study: Historical-Religious development of mountainous landscape City of Ray). Int. J. Environ. Stud., 9(2), 511-522. which require confident management and Barnett, J., Lambert, S. and Fry, I. (2008). The planning in harmony with the existing Hazards of Indicators: Insights from the environment. Environmental Vulnerability Index. Ann Am Assoc Geogr., 98(1), 102-119. doi: CONCLUSION 10.1080/00045600701734315 The vulnerability of mountain ecosystems Beck, L. (1998). Use of land by nomadic increases as climate change trends intensify pastoralists in Iran: 1970-1998. Bulletin Series Yale and human and tourism activities grow; School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 103, 58-80. therefore, it is a high priority in hot and dry areas to lessen the vulnerability of Beier, C. M., Patterson, T. M. and Chapin, F. S. (2008). Ecosystem services and emergent vulnerability mountainous landscapes. The socio- in managed ecosystems: a geospatial decision-support ecological vulnerability assessment tool. ECOSYSTEMS, 11(6), 923-938. provides a comprehensive recognition of Beroya-Eitner, M. A. (2016). Ecological area circumstances, considering ecological vulnerability indicators. Ecol Indic., 60, 329-334. and social stressors concurrently. The Berrouet, L. M., Machado, J. and Villegas-Palacio, strategic planning presented diagnostic C. (2018). Vulnerability of socio—Ecological framework. Afterwards, the use of strategic systems: A conceptual Framework. Ecol Indic., 84, framework on basis of zoning, provided 632-647. from vulnerability assessment, is able to Center for Statistics of Iran (1395). Chelgerd not only reduce the vulnerability but also Population Census 1390, Center for Statistics of reinforce undisrupted ecosystems. The use Iran. of ecophronesis enriches strategic Darabi, H. (2010). Participatory Design in Rural planning, yet its establishment necessitates Environment. Journal of Environmental some requirements: first, a comprehensive Studies,35(52) , 111-124 (In persian). recognition of ecological knowledge and Darabi, H., Ehsani, A. and Kafi, M. (2018). Rapid second, a social and innovative structure Vulnerability Assessment of Lavizan Urban Forest for implementation by different Park. Pollution, 4(3), 417-428. stakeholders. Darabi, H. and Saeedi I. (2013). Ecological Design The combination of ecophronesis and of Urban Forest Park Case Study: Shahid Beshti vulnerability assessment provides an Forest park in Brojerd. Journal of Environmental adoptive and innovative framework to Studies, 39 (266), 1-10 (In persian). reduce brittleness of mountainous De Lange, H. J., Sala, S., Vighi, M. and Faber, J. H. landscapes. As such, further studies can (2010). Ecological vulnerability in risk assessment — A review and perspectives. Sci Total Environ., aim at application of ecophronesis 408(18), 3871-3879. doi: solutions in practice as well as assessment https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.11.009. of the results from such practices.

607 Darabi, H., et al.

Defne Apul. (2010). Ecological Design Principles mountainous region using remote sensing and and Their Implications on Water Infrastructure GIS—a case study in the upper reaches of Minjiang Engineering. Journal of Green Building, 5(3), 147- River, China. Ecol Modell. 192(1-2), 175-187. 164. doi: doi:10.3992/jgb.5.3.147. Li, L., Shi, Z.H., Yin, W., Zhu, D., Ng, S. L., Cai, Denner, K., Phillips, M. R., Jenkins, R. E. and C. F. and Lei, A.-L. (2009). A fuzzy analytic Thomas, T. (2015). A coastal vulnerability and hierarchy process (FAHP) approach to eco- environmental risk assessment of Loughor Estuary, environmental vulnerability assessment for the South Wales. OCEAN COAST MANAGE., 116, danjiangkou reservoir area, China. Ecol Modell., 478-490. doi: 220(23), 3439-3447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.09.002 Liao, K. H. and Chan, J. K. H. (2016). What is Eakin, H. and Luers, A. L. (2006). Assessing the ecological wisdom and how does it relate to vulnerability of social-environmental systems. ecological knowledge? Landsc. Urban Plan, 155, Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 31, 365-394. 111-113. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.07.006 Fang, Y., Qin, D., Ding, Y. and Yang, J. (2009). Adaptation management of mountain tourism Liao, K. H., Le, T. A. and Nguyen, K. V. (2016). service: the case of the source regions of the Urban design principles for flood resilience: Yangtze and Yellow River. J MT SCI-ENGL, 6(3), Learning from the ecological wisdom of living with 299-310. doi: 10.1007/s11629-009-0202-8 floods in the Vietnamese Mekong Delta. Landsc. Urban Plan, 155, 69-78. doi: Füssel, H. M. (2007). Vulnerability: A generally https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.01.014 applicable conceptual framework for climate change research. GLOBAL ENVIRON CHANG, Liu, H. L., Willems, P., Bao, A. M., Wang, L. and 17(2), 155-167. doi: Chen, X. (2016). Effect of climate change on the http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.05.002 vulnerability of a socio-ecological system in an arid area. Glob Planet Change., 137, 1-9. doi: Ghorbani, M., Azarnivand, H., Mehrabi, A. A., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2015.12.014 Jafari, M., Nayebi, H. and Seeland, K. (2013). The role of indigenous ecological knowledge in Macchi, M. (2010). Mountains of the World: managing rangelands sustainably in Northern Iran. ecosystem services in a time of global and climate Ecol Soc., 18(2). change. Seizing opportunities: meeting challenges. Paper presented at the Mountains of the World: Godde, P. (2000). Tourism and development in ecosystem services in a time of global and climate mountain regions: CABI. change. Seizing opportunities: meeting challenges. Hong, W., Jiang, R., Yang, C., Zhang, F., Su, M. Maikhuri, R. K., Nautiyal, A., Jha, N. K., Rawat, L. and Liao, Q. (2016). Establishing an ecological S., Maletha, A., Phondani, P. C., . . . Bhatt, G. C. vulnerability assessment indicator system for spatial (2017). Socio-ecological vulnerability: Assessment recognition and management of ecologically and coping strategy to environmental disaster in vulnerable areas in highly urbanized regions: A case Kedarnath valley, Uttarakhand, Indian Himalayan study of Shenzhen, China. Ecol Indic., 69, 540-547. Region. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct, 25, 111-124. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.05.028 doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.09.002 Ippolito, A., Sala, S., Faber, J. and Vighi, M. (2010). Meneses, U. T. B. (2002). Os ―usos culturais‖ da Ecological vulnerability analysis: A river basin case cultura: contribuição para uma abordagem crítica study. Sci Total Environ., 408(18), 3880-3890. das práticas e políticas culturais. In E. Yázigi (Ed.), Kok, M., Lüdeke, M., Lucas, P., Sterzel, T., Turismo, Espaço, Paisagem e Cultura. Sao Paulo: Walther, C., Janssen, P., . . . de Soysa, I. (2016). A Hucitec. new method for analysing socio-ecological patterns Metzger, M. J., Rounsevell, M. D. A., Acosta- of vulnerability. REG ENVIRON CHANGE., Michlik, L., Leemans, R. and Schröter, D. (2006). 16(1), 229-243. The vulnerability of ecosystem services to land use Kurniawan, F., Adrianto, L., Bengen, D. G. and change. AGR ECOSYST ENVIRON, 114(1), 69- Prasetyo, L. B. (2016). Vulnerability assessment of 85. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2005.11.025 small islands to tourism: The case of the Marine Metzger, M. J. and Schröter, D. (2006). Towards a Tourism Park of the Gili Matra Islands, Indonesia. spatially explicit and quantitative vulnerability Glob Ecol Conserv., 6, 308-326. assessment of environmental change in Europe. Li, A., Wang, A., Liang, S. and Zhou, W. (2006). REG ENVIRON CHANGE., 6(4), 201-216. doi: Eco-environmental vulnerability evaluation in 10.1007/s10113-006-0020-2

608 Pollution, 5(3): 597-610, Summer 2019

Miral, C., Kaygalak, S. and Ersoy, R. (2013). A estuarine systems for use in ecological risk casa study of ethnic minorities as tourism assessment. OCEAN COAST MANAGE., 119, entrepreneurs: their involvement in sustainable 267-277. doi: tourism development. Turizam, 17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.05.022 Molloy, A., McFeely, C. and Connolly, E. (1999). Sahoo, S., Dhar, A. and Kar, A. (2016). Building a social economy for the new millenium. Environmental vulnerability assessment using Grey Derry Northern Ireland: Guildhall Press. Analytic Hierarchy Process based model. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev., 56, 145-154. Moore, A. and Brooks, R. (1996). Community learning organisations. In K. Watkins and V. Schröter, D., Cramer, W., Leemans, R., Prentice, I. Marsick (Eds.), Creating the learning organisation. C., Araújo, M. B., Arnell, N. W., . . . Gracia, C. A. Virginia: American Society for Training and (2005). Ecosystem service supply and vulnerability Development. to global change in Europe. Science, 310(5752), 1333-1337. Nandy, S., Singh, C., Das, K., Kingma, N. and Kushwaha, S. (2015). Environmental vulnerability Schroter, D., Metzger, M. J., Cramer, W. and assessment of eco-development zone of Great Leemans, R. (2004). Vulnerability assessment- Himalayan National Park, Himachal Pradesh, India. analysing the human-environment system in the Ecol Indic., 57, 182-195. face of global environmental change. ESS Bulletin, 2(2), 11-17. Nguyen, A. K., Liou, Y. A., Li, M. H. and Tran, T. A. (2016). Zoning eco-environmental vulnerability Shukla, R., Sachdeva, K. and Joshi, P. (2016). Inherent for environmental management and protection. Ecol vulnerability of agricultural communities in Himalaya: Indic, 69, 100-117. A village-level hotspot analysis in the Uttarakhand state of India. Appl. Geogr., 74, 182-198. Nouri J., Karbassi A. R., Mirkia S. (2008) Environmental management of coastal regions in Skondras, N. A., Karavitis, C. A., Gkotsis, I. I., Scott, P., the , INT J ENVIRON SCI TE. 5(1), Kaly, U. L. and Alexandris, S. G. (2011). Application 43-52. and assessment of the Environmental Vulnerability Index in Greece. Ecol Indic, 11(6), 1699-1706. Orams, M. B. (2002). Marine ecotourism as a potential agent for sustainable development in Song, G., Chen, Y., Tian, M., Lv, S., Zhang, S. and Kaikoura, New Zealand. Int J Sustain Dev, 5. doi: Liu, S. (2010). The ecological vulnerability 10.1504/ijsd.2002.003757 evaluation in southwestern mountain region of China based on GIS and AHP method. Procedia Pandey, D., Agrawal, M. and Pandey, J. (2011). Environ Sci, 2, 465-475. Carbon footprint: current methods of estimation. Environ Monit Assess., 178(1-4), 135-160. doi: Song, G., Li, Z., Yang, Y., Semakula, H. M. and 10.1007/s10661-010-1678-y Zhang, S. (2015). Assessment of ecological vulnerability and decision-making application for Papadopoulos, G. (2016). Chapter 6 - Hazard, prioritizing roadside ecological restoration: A Vulnerability, and Risk Assessment Tsunamis in the method combining geographic information system, European-Mediterranean Region (pp. 137-178). Delphi survey and Monte Carlo simulation. Ecol Boston: Elsevier. Indic., 52, 57-65. Papathoma-Köhle, M., Kappes, M., Keiler, M. and Sowman, M. and Raemaekers, S. (2018). Socio- Glade, T. (2011). Physical vulnerability assessment ecological vulnerability assessment in coastal for alpine hazards: state of the art and future needs. communities in the BCLME region. J MARINE Nat Hazards, 58(2), 645-680. SYST., doi: Patten, D. T. (2016). The role of ecological wisdom https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2018.01.008 in managing for sustainable interdependent urban Thiault, L., Marshall, P., Gelcich, S., Collin, A., and natural ecosystems. Landsc. Urban Plan, 155, Chlous, F. and Claudet, J. (2018). Mapping social– 3-10. ecological vulnerability to inform local decision Qiao, Z., Yang, X., Liu, J. and Xu, X. (2013). making. Conserv. Biol., 32(2), 447-456. Ecological vulnerability assessment integrating the Tse-ring, K., Sharma, E., Chettri, N. and Shrestha, spatial analysis technology with algorithms: a case A. B. (2010). Climate change vulnerability of of the wood-grass ecotone of northeast China. Paper mountain ecosystems in the Eastern Himalayas: presented at the Abstract and Applied Analysis. International centre for integrated mountain Ribeiro, D. C., Costa, S. and Guilhermino, L. development (ICIMOD). (2016). A framework to assess the vulnerability of

609 Darabi, H., et al.

Villa, F. and McLEOD, H. (2002). Environmental Ying, X., Zeng, G. M., Chen, G. Q., Tang, L., vulnerability indicators for environmental planning Wang, K. L. and Huang, D.-Y. (2007). Combining and decision-making: guidelines and applications. AHP with GIS in synthetic evaluation of eco- Environ. Manage., 29(3), 335-348. environment quality—a case study of Hunan Province, China. Ecol Modell., 209(2-4), 97-109. Wang, X., Palazzo, D. and Carper, M. (2016). Ecological wisdom as an emerging field of Zabeo, A., Pizzol, L., Agostini, P., Critto, A., scholarly inquiry in urban planning and Giove, S. and Marcomini, A. (2011). Regional risk design. Landsc. Urban Plan, 155, 100-107. assessment for contaminated sites Part 1: Vulnerability assessment by multicriteria decision Xiang, W. N. (2016). Ecophronesis: The ecological analysis. Environ. Int., 37(8), 1295-1306. doi: practical wisdom for and from ecological https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2011.05.005 practice. Landsc. Urban Plan, 155, 53-60. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.07.005 Zhang, J. T., Xiang, C. and Li, M. (2012). Integrative ecological sensitivity (IES) applied to Xu, Y., Shen, Z. H., Ying, L.X., Ciais, P., Liu, assessment of eco-tourism impact on forest H.Y., Piao, S. L., . . . Jiang, Y. X. (2016). The vegetation landscape: A case from the Baihua exposure, sensitivity and vulnerability of natural Mountain Reserve of Beijing, China. Ecol Indic., vegetation in China to climate thermal variability 18, 365-370. (1901–2013): An indicator-based approach. Ecol Indic., 63, 258-272. Zhang, L., Yang, Z., Voinov, A. and Gao, S. (2016). Nature-inspired stormwater management practice: The Yang, J. P., Ding, Y. J., Liu, S. Y. and Tan, C.-P. ecological wisdom underlying the Tuanchen drainage (2015). Vulnerability of mountain glaciers in China system in Beijing, China and its contemporary to climate change. Adv. Clim. Change Res, 6(3-4), relevance. Landsc. Urban Plan, 155, 11-20. doi: 171-180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.06.015

Pollution is licensed under a "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY 4.0)" 610