IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v12y2023i12p2183-d1302203.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Geospatial Approach to Identify and Evaluate Ecological Restoration Sites in Post-Fire Landscapes

Author

Listed:
  • Stefanos Dosis

    (Department of Geography, Harokopio University of Athens, El. Venizelou 70, 17676 Athens, Greece)

  • George P. Petropoulos

    (Department of Geography, Harokopio University of Athens, El. Venizelou 70, 17676 Athens, Greece)

  • Kleomenis Kalogeropoulos

    (Department of Surveying and Geoinformatics Engineering, University of West Attica, Ag. Spyridonos Str., 12243 Athens, Greece)

Abstract

Wildfires are a pervasive natural phenomenon in Mediterranean forest ecosystems, causing significant ecological imbalances that demand immediate restoration efforts. The intricacy of reinstating the ecological balance necessitates a proactive approach to identifying and assessing suitable restoration sites. The assessment and investigation of the most suitable restoration sites is of particular importance both for the relevant authorities and for planning and decision making by the state. This study proposes the development of a user-friendly model for evaluating and identifying the most suitable restoration sites immediately after a fire, using geoinformation technologies. For the purposes of demonstrating the method’s applicability, the 2016 fire of “Prinos”, Thasos, Greece, an area that has been repeatedly affected by forest fires, was chosen as a case study. The methodology evaluation was carried out by applying the weighted multicriteria decision analysis method (MCDAM) and was based on a number of variables. The analysis, processing and extraction of the results were performed using primarily remote sensing datasets in a geographical information system (GIS) environment. The methodology proposed herein includes the classification of the individual criteria and their synthesis based on different weighting factors. In the final results, the restoration suitability maps are presented in five suitability zones based on two different scenarios. Based on this study, the integration of geospatial and remote sensing data offers a valuable and cost-effective means for promptly assessing post-fire landscapes, with the aim of identifying suitable restoration sites.

Suggested Citation

  • Stefanos Dosis & George P. Petropoulos & Kleomenis Kalogeropoulos, 2023. "A Geospatial Approach to Identify and Evaluate Ecological Restoration Sites in Post-Fire Landscapes," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-23, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:12:p:2183-:d:1302203
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/12/2183/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/12/12/2183/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Saad Mazhar Khan & Imran Shafi & Wasi Haider Butt & Isabel de la Torre Diez & Miguel Angel López Flores & Juan Castanedo Galán & Imran Ashraf, 2023. "A Systematic Review of Disaster Management Systems: Approaches, Challenges, and Future Directions," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-37, July.
    2. Marta Milczarek & Sebastian Aleksandrowicz & Afroditi Kita & Rizos-Theodoros Chadoulis & Ioannis Manakos & Edyta Woźniak, 2023. "Object- Versus Pixel-Based Unsupervised Fire Burn Scar Mapping under Different Biogeographical Conditions in Europe," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-18, May.
    3. Zoi M. Parissi & Apostolos P. Kyriazopoulos & Theodora Apostolia Drakopoulou & Georgios Korakis & Eleni M. Abraham, 2023. "Wildfire Effects on Rangeland Health in Three Thermo-Mediterranean Vegetation Types in a Small Islet of Eastern Aegean Sea," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-19, July.
    4. Saaty, Thomas L. & Vargas, Luis G., 1987. "Uncertainty and rank order in the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 107-117, October.
    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. Mohammed A. Al-Ghamdi & Khalid S. Al-Gahtani, 2022. "Integrated Value Engineering and Life Cycle Cost Modeling for HVAC System Selection," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-30, February.
    2. Maciej Nowak, 2010. "Interactive Multicriteria Decision Aiding Under Risk—Methods and Applications," Journal of Business Economics and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(1), pages 69-91, October.
    3. Mikhailov, L., 2004. "A fuzzy approach to deriving priorities from interval pairwise comparison judgements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 159(3), pages 687-704, December.
    4. Wang, Ying-Ming & Elhag, Taha M.S., 2007. "A goal programming method for obtaining interval weights from an interval comparison matrix," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(1), pages 458-471, February.
    5. Ji-Hee Lee & Woo-Young Chun & Jun-Ho Choi, 2021. "Weighting the Attributes of Human-Related Activities for Fire Safety Measures in Historic Villages," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-12, March.
    6. Zeshui Xu, 2013. "Compatibility Analysis of Intuitionistic Fuzzy Preference Relations in Group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 463-482, May.
    7. Levary, Reuven R. & Wan, Ke, 1999. "An analytic hierarchy process based simulation model for entry mode decision regarding foreign direct investment," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 661-677, December.
    8. Zaras, Kazimierz, 2001. "Rough approximation of a preference relation by a multi-attribute stochastic dominance for determinist and stochastic evaluation problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(2), pages 305-314, April.
    9. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Stochastic preference analysis in numerical preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 237(2), pages 628-633.
    10. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui & Zhang, Ren & Hong, Mei, 2016. "Hesitant analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(2), pages 602-614.
    11. Jodlbauer, Herbert & Tripathi, Shailesh & Brunner, Manuel & Bachmann, Nadine, 2022. "Stability of cross impact matrices," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    12. Lucas, Rochelle Irene & Promentilla, Michael Angelo & Ubando, Aristotle & Tan, Raymond Girard & Aviso, Kathleen & Yu, Krista Danielle, 2017. "An AHP-based evaluation method for teacher training workshop on information and communication technology," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 93-100.
    13. Yulan Wang & Huayou Chen & Ligang Zhou, 2013. "Logarithm Compatibility of Interval Multiplicative Preference Relations with an Application to Determining the Optimal Weights of Experts in the Group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 759-772, July.
    14. Hahn, Eugene D., 2006. "Link function selection in stochastic multicriteria decision making models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 172(1), pages 86-100, July.
    15. Paweł Karczmarek & Witold Pedrycz & Adam Kiersztyn, 2021. "Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process in a Graphical Approach," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 463-481, April.
    16. Şebnem Karul Tonka & Ismail Ekmekci, 2022. "A Model Proposal for Occupational Health and Safety Performance Measurement in Geothermal Drilling Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-24, November.
    17. Huimin Zhang & Meng Li & Wen Chen, 2023. "Assessing Competitiveness in New Energy Vehicle Enterprises: A Group Decision Model with Interval Multiplicative Preference Relations," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-21, December.
    18. Kim, Soung Hie & Han, Chang Hee, 2000. "Establishing dominance between alternatives with incomplete information in a hierarchically structured attribute tree," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 122(1), pages 79-90, April.
    19. Jie Tang & Qingxian An & Fanyong Meng & Xiaohong Chen, 2017. "A Natural Method for Ranking Objects from Hesitant Fuzzy Preference Relations," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(06), pages 1611-1646, November.
    20. Kim, Deok-Hwan & Kim, Kwang-Jae & Sam Park, K., 2010. "Compromising prioritization from pairwise comparisons considering type I and II errors," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 204(2), pages 285-293, July.

    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:jlands:v:12:y:2023:i:12:p:2183-:d:1302203. 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.