IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2019i1p185-d301776.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

GIS-Based Multicriteria Evaluation of Land Suitability for Grasslands Conservation in Chihuahua, Mexico

Author

Listed:
  • Griselda Vázquez-Quintero

    (Facultad de Ciencias Agrotecnológicas, Universidad Autónoma de Chihuahua, Ave. Pascual Orozco s/n, Campus 1, Chihuahua, Chihuahua 31350, Mexico)

  • Jesús A. Prieto-Amparán

    (Facultad de Zootecnia y Ecología, Universidad Autónoma de Chihuahua, Periférico Francisco R. Almada Km 1, Chihuahua, Chihuahua 31453, Mexico)

  • Alfredo Pinedo-Alvarez

    (Facultad de Zootecnia y Ecología, Universidad Autónoma de Chihuahua, Periférico Francisco R. Almada Km 1, Chihuahua, Chihuahua 31453, Mexico)

  • María C. Valles-Aragón

    (Facultad de Ciencias Agrotecnológicas, Universidad Autónoma de Chihuahua, Ave. Pascual Orozco s/n, Campus 1, Chihuahua, Chihuahua 31350, Mexico)

  • Carlos R. Morales-Nieto

    (Facultad de Zootecnia y Ecología, Universidad Autónoma de Chihuahua, Periférico Francisco R. Almada Km 1, Chihuahua, Chihuahua 31453, Mexico)

  • Federico Villarreal-Guerrero

    (Facultad de Zootecnia y Ecología, Universidad Autónoma de Chihuahua, Periférico Francisco R. Almada Km 1, Chihuahua, Chihuahua 31453, Mexico)

Abstract

This study developed a GIS-based framework for the zoning of land suitability for grassland conservation (LSGC) in the Central Valleys of Chihuahua, México. For that, a Geographic Information Systems (GIS)-based multicriteria evaluation techniques with weighted overlay (MCE-WO), and a fragmentation analysis were performed. The framework for LSGC consisted in the development of four scenarios: Nonintensive Agriculture, Intensive Agriculture, Urban, and Rural. The LSGC classes defined with the MCE-WO technique were: Very high, High, Moderate, Low, and Very low land suitability. Results showed that the zone with a high suitability covered the largest area in the four scenarios with a surface of 44,264 km 2 . The zones with low and very low suitability were concentrated mainly in the central region of the study area. At the landscape level, fragmentation of LSGC showed the Nonintensive Agriculture and the Rural scenarios with the highest Number of patches (54,640 and 46,210, respectively). The fragmentation of LSGC, under the scenarios evaluated, was mainly due to land opening for agriculture and to the influence of rural communities. The integration of GIS with MCE-WO is useful and effective for the evaluation of LSGC. This tool can provide a solid source of information for decision-makers regarding planning of land use to mitigate grasslands degradation.

Suggested Citation

  • Griselda Vázquez-Quintero & Jesús A. Prieto-Amparán & Alfredo Pinedo-Alvarez & María C. Valles-Aragón & Carlos R. Morales-Nieto & Federico Villarreal-Guerrero, 2019. "GIS-Based Multicriteria Evaluation of Land Suitability for Grasslands Conservation in Chihuahua, Mexico," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-19, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2019:i:1:p:185-:d:301776
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/1/185/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/1/185/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hamid Pourghasemi & Biswajeet Pradhan & Candan Gokceoglu, 2012. "Application of fuzzy logic and analytical hierarchy process (AHP) to landslide susceptibility mapping at Haraz watershed, Iran," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 63(2), pages 965-996, September.
    2. Garmendia, Eneko & Gamboa, Gonzalo, 2012. "Weighting social preferences in participatory multi-criteria evaluations: A case study on sustainable natural resource management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 110-120.
    3. C. R. Margules & R. L. Pressey, 2000. "Systematic conservation planning," Nature, Nature, vol. 405(6783), pages 243-253, May.
    4. Eneko Garmendia & Gonzalo Gamboa, 2012. "Weighting social preferences in participatory multi-criteria evaluations: a case study on sustainable natural resource management," Working Papers 2012-06, BC3.
    5. Amal Aldababseh & Marouane Temimi & Praveen Maghelal & Oliver Branch & Volker Wulfmeyer, 2018. "Multi-Criteria Evaluation of Irrigated Agriculture Suitability to Achieve Food Security in an Arid Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-33, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michailidou, Alexandra V. & Vlachokostas, Christos & Moussiopoulos, Νicolas, 2016. "Interactions between climate change and the tourism sector: Multiple-criteria decision analysis to assess mitigation and adaptation options in tourism areas," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 1-12.
    2. Gonzalo Gamboa & Zora Kovacic & Marina Di Masso & Sara Mingorría & Tiziano Gomiero & Marta Rivera-Ferré & Mario Giampietro, 2016. "The Complexity of Food Systems: Defining Relevant Attributes and Indicators for the Evaluation of Food Supply Chains in Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-23, May.
    3. Andonegi, Aitor & Garmendia, Eneko & Aldezabal, Arantza, 2021. "Social multi-criteria evaluation for managing biodiversity conservation conflicts," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    4. Walther Zeug & Alberto Bezama & Urs Moesenfechtel & Anne Jähkel & Daniela Thrän, 2019. "Stakeholders’ Interests and Perceptions of Bioeconomy Monitoring Using a Sustainable Development Goal Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-24, March.
    5. Benítez-Fernández, Amalia & Ruiz, Francisco, 2020. "A Meta-Goal Programming approach to cardinal preferences aggregation in multicriteria problems," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    6. Etxano, Iker & Villalba-Eguiluz, Unai, 2021. "Twenty-five years of social multi-criteria evaluation (SMCE) in the search for sustainability: Analysis of case studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    7. Schaafsma, M. & van Beukering, P.J.H. & Oskolokaite, I., 2017. "Combining focus group discussions and choice experiments for economic valuation of peatland restoration: A case study in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 27(PA), pages 150-160.
    8. Allain, Sandrine & Salliou, Nicolas, 2022. "Making differences legible: Incommensurability as a vehicle for sustainable landscape management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    9. Venter, Zander S. & Barton, David N. & Martinez-Izquierdo, Laura & Langemeyer, Johannes & Baró, Francesc & McPhearson, Timon, 2021. "Interactive spatial planning of urban green infrastructure – Retrofitting green roofs where ecosystem services are most needed in Oslo," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    10. Bottero Marta & Datola Giulia, 2020. "Addressing Social Sustainability in Urban Regeneration Processes. An Application of the Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-20, September.
    11. Luis Javier R. Barron & Aitor Andonegi & Gonzalo Gamboa & Eneko Garmendia & Oihana García & Noelia Aldai & Arantza Aldezabal, 2021. "Sustainability Assessment of Pasture-Based Dairy Sheep Systems: A Multidisciplinary and Multiscale Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-17, April.
    12. Rosalie Callway & Helen Pineo & Gemma Moore, 2020. "Understanding the Role of Standards in the Negotiation of a Healthy Built Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-26, November.
    13. Jesús A. Prieto-Amparán & Alfredo Pinedo-Alvarez & Carlos R. Morales-Nieto & María C. Valles-Aragón & Alan Álvarez-Holguín & Federico Villarreal-Guerrero, 2021. "A Regional GIS-Assisted Multi-Criteria Evaluation of Site-Suitability for the Development of Solar Farms," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-19, February.
    14. Saarikoski, Heli & Mustajoki, Jyri & Hjerppe, Turo & Aapala, Kaisu, 2019. "Participatory multi-criteria decision analysis in valuing peatland ecosystem services—Trade-offs related to peat extraction vs. pristine peatlands in Southern Finland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 17-28.
    15. Saarikoski, Heli & Mustajoki, Jyri & Barton, David N. & Geneletti, Davide & Langemeyer, Johannes & Gomez-Baggethun, Erik & Marttunen, Mika & Antunes, Paula & Keune, Hans & Santos, Rui, 2016. "Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis and Cost-Benefit Analysis: Comparing alternative frameworks for integrated valuation of ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 238-249.
    16. Iker Etxano & Eneko Garmendia & Unai Pascual & David Hoyos & María-à ngeles Díez & José A. Cadiñanos & Pedro J. Lozano, 2015. "A participatory integrated assessment approach for Natura 2000 network sites," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 33(5), pages 1207-1232, October.
    17. Mehmet Pinar, 2019. "Multidimensional Well-Being and Inequality Across the European Regions with Alternative Interactions Between the Well-Being Dimensions," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 144(1), pages 31-72, July.
    18. Kolinjivadi, Vijay & Gamboa, Gonzalo & Adamowski, Jan & Kosoy, Nicolás, 2015. "Capabilities as justice: Analysing the acceptability of payments for ecosystem services (PES) through ‘social multi-criteria evaluation’," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 99-113.
    19. Gamboa, Gonzalo & Mingorría, Sara & Scheidel, Arnim, 2020. "The meaning of poverty matters: Trade-offs in poverty reduction programmes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    20. Itziar Barinaga-Rementeria & Artitzar Erauskin-Tolosa & Pedro José Lozano & Itxaro Latasa, 2019. "Individual and Social Preferences in Participatory Multi-Criteria Evaluation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-18, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2019:i:1:p:185-:d:301776. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.