Explanation of Effective Drivers in Environmental Management of South Khorasan Province Using Structural AnalysisExplanation of Effective Drivers in Environmental Management of South Khorasan Province Using Structural Analysis

Document Type : Original Research

Authors
1 Assistance professor, faculty of environment, university of Birjand
2 Assistance professor, faculty of environment, university of Zabol
3 Assistance professor, faculty of environment, university of Birjand, Iran.
Abstract
Introduction

In Iran,time is limited and it is always too late to modify management attitudes in the fields of environment. On the one hand, the relevant agencies do not even know their priorities separately or are unaware relationship of their priorities with other agencies, while at the macro level, they are unaware of the province's development plan. So, important drivers in the field of environment are the first and most important steps in guiding scenarios of proper management.

Methodology

First, a list of effective drivers of environmental management in the South Khorasan province was collected from some specialist and experts using Delphi, followed by two-dimensional matrices containing quantitative matrices to quantify the driver’s relationships and interpretations. The axes of influence and dependence are were used. Therefore, according to the position of each driver with these two criteria in the matrix, five types of drivers are defined. Drivers screening based on the degree of influence and dependence of other drivers as effective , key and independent drivers in the field of environmental management in South Khorasan province were studied. The method used was MicMac Structural Analysis, which was used by academic experts and related executives. In so doing, the team created a common language which will served them as the process continued. In most cases, it also allowed the team to redefine certain variables and refine the analysis of the system. Lastly, experience shows that the ideal percentage of the matrix to be filled-in is around 20%.

Comparing the rankings of the variables from the various classifications (direct, indirect and potential) is a rich source of information. It allows the team to confirm the importance of certain variables as well as to reveal those variables which play a dominant role in the system, and which would have remained undetected if they had only been compared directly. The information obtained by influence and dependence of each of the variables can be displayed in two-dimensional diagrams containing the vertical (affective) and horizontal (affective) axes. This method can identify the most effective drivers in the system and study the different roles played by these drivers (Godet & Durance, 2011).

Results and discussion

By aggregating and analyzing the views of a panel of experts in the field who know the topic in MicMac 39 software, drivers were identified as key, effective, effective and dependence drivers. The comments were considered as MicMac inputs, with a filling rate of 23.86% including 153 one (weak influence), 113 two (moderate influence), 89 three (strong influence) and 8 to P (possible influence). The sum of direct and indirect and probable influence of drivers were estimated to be 3007, 2805, 2135, 1938 and 1572, respectively. This matrix has 100% stability with two replications which shows high validity of the questionnaire and its answers. The direct influence (a) and indirect (b) influence of the drivers on each other are shown in Fig. 1.

Driver 5 (D5: creating environmental law enforcement and warranties) and D1 (co-operation between related agencies to prevent any re-work) in four ways are among the most effective and determining factors. In the next step, the influence of the drivers of the free flow of information and sharing the results of studies of all environmental-related organizations to public or academic expertise (D33), changing the real attitude of decision-makers in embracing intellectual physical potential, and creative indigenous peoples of the region (D29) and the environmental agency's correct placement in decision making (before doing the project and any action not after it is finalized or completed!) (D6) were more influence drivers respectively.

Given that the distribution of drivers is in the axis of influence and dependency as L shape, the system under study is balanced and it is possible to make planning for such a system (Arcade et al., 1999; Erfani and Mircheraghkhani, 2018)

Conclusion

Five main and key drivers of the system under study were identified, the first two of which relate to political and institutional domains that are in line with Erfani and Mircheraghkhani’s (2018) study. In this study, monitoring of nine identified response drivers is the main indicator for revealing the province’s environmental management status, which is recommended for future studies. These indicators can explain the environmental status of the province and can be considered as a criterion for determining the actual performance and efficiency of the agencies. It is also recommended to continue the present study and to complete four more steps from the LIPSOR School to identify conflicts of interest between relevant stakeholders, scenarios building and predict the future.

Each year, the performance statistics of the agencies are presented based on the indicators set by the agencies themselves and the overhead agencies, and they are more likely to be defined in a way that may not adequately represent the agencies’ performance, and thus make the agencies less judgmental to fall. For example, the index of mountain tenure has clearly increased over the last few years. Combating mountain tenure alone does not indicate management efficiency, but rather the absence of mountain tenure and the return of shifting areas given to conditions close to the baseline status is effective either. Therefore, change in decision makers' attitudes (D6) and efforts in problem solving have been introduced as one of the key drivers in this study (Fig. 1).

Keywords

Subjects


Aftab, A., Taghiloo, A. A.,Houshmand, A. “Urban settlement planning with baseline scenario approach (case study: West Azarbaijan)", Journal of Spatial Planning, 169-199. 23(1). 2019.
Taghvaei, M., Beik Mohammadi, H., zali, N., kasaei, M. “The study of the effective factors in Executive Approach of spatial Planning ؛ Qom province.” Journal of Spatial Planning; 21 (1). 73-94. 2017.
Zali, N., Sajjadi Asl, S.A. “Identification the main affective factors on regional undevelopment (Case Study: Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad Province)”, Journal of Zonal Planning 7(26). 25-40. magiran.com/p1718266
Salehi I., Pourasghar Sangachin, F. “Analysis of the obstacles facing land use planning in Iran”. Strategic Quarterly, 52 (8).149-181. 1388.

Erfani, M., Mircherghkhani, Y. “Determining drivers of natural and cultural tourism development by ‎Structural Analysis in Sistan”, Journal of Natural Environment, 72(1), 97-111. 2019. magiran.com/p1958827
Kasai, M., Razavi, S. R. “Investigating the Factors Affecting in the Executive Approach of Semnan Province Land use Planning”. Quarterly Journal of Human Geography. 11(1). 2018.
Maroufi, A., Rahnama, M.R. “A Study of Bokan City's Spatial-Physical Development Scenarios", Journal of Spatial Planning, 125-146. 18(3). 2014.
Arcade, , J., M. Godet, M., F. Meunier., F. Roubelat . StructuralAnalysis with the MICMAC Method and Actor's Strategy with MACTOR Method, in :Futures Research Methodology, American Council for the United Nations University: The Millennium Project, pp.1-69. 1999.
Ballesteros Riveros, D. P., & Ballesteros Silva, P. P. Análisis estructural prospectivo aplicado al sistema logístico. Scientia Technica Año, XIV, 194–199. 2008.
Baker, S. “Sustainable development”. London: Routledge. 2006.
Barati, A.A., Azadi, H., Dehghani Pour, M., Lebailly, P., &Qafori, M. Determining Key Agricultural Strategic Factors Using AHP-MICMAC. Sustainability. 2019, 11, 3947.
Chatziioannou, I., & Alvarez-Icaza, L. A structural analysis method for the management of urban transportation infrastructure and its urban surroundings. Cogent Engineering. 2017. http://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2017.1326548
Delgado-Serrano, M. del M., Vanwildemeersch, P., London, S., Ortiz-Guerrero, C. E., Escalante Semerena, R., & Rojas, M. “Adapting prospective structural analysis to strengthen sustainable management and capacity building in community-based natural resource management contexts”. Ecology and Society, 21(2), art36. 2016. http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08505-210236
Fierro, G. G. (2015). “Strategic prospective methodology to explore sustainable futures”. Journal of Modern Accounting and Auditing, 11(11), 606-614. 2015.
Glenn, J. C., & Gordon, T. J. Futures Research Methodology–V2. 0. CD ROM, the Millennium Project, American Council for the United Nations University. 2003.
Godet, M. “How to be rigorous with scenario planning”. Foresight, 2(1), 5–9. 2000.
Godet, M. Manuel of Strategic forecasting. Volume 2 (Manuel de Prospective Stratégique. Tome 2); Dunod: Berlin,France, 1997
Godet, M., & Durance, P. Strategic Foresight: for coporate and regional development. Strategic Foresight for Corporate and Regional Development. 2011
Gordon, T. J., Glenn, J. C., & Jakil, A. “Frontiers of futures research: What's next?”. Technological forecasting and social change, 72(9), 1064-1069. 2005
Justice and Environment. “Public Participation in Spatial Planning Procedures”, Comparative Study of Six EU Member States. www.justiceandenvironment.org. 2013.
Kim, J. H., & Barnett, G. A. “A Structural Analysis of International Conflict: From a Communication Perspective”. International Interactions, 33(2), 135–165. 2007.
http://doi.org/10.1080/03050620701277764
Mannan, B., Khurana, S., & Haleem, A. Modeling of critical factors for integrating sustainability with innovation for Indian small- and medium-scale manufacturing enterprises: An ISM and MICMAC approach. Cogent Business & Management , 3(1): 1-15. 2016.
Markmann, C., Darkow, I. L., & von der Gracht, H. “A Delphi-based risk analysis-Identifying and assessing future challenges for supply chain security in a multi-stakeholder environment”. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(9), 1815-1833. 2013.
Mirakyan, A.; De Guio, R. Three Domain Modelling and Uncertainty Analysis: Applications in Long Range Infrastructure Planning; Springer: Germany, Switzerland, 2015.
Omran, A., Agami, N., Saleh, M., & El-Shishiny, H. Integration strategic planning and futures studies: theoretical justifications. INFOS. 2008.
Omran, A., Khorish, M., & Saleh, M. “Structural analysis with knowledge-based MICMAC approach”. International Journal of Computer Applications, 86(5). 2014.
Puglisi, M. & Marvin, S. “Developing urban and regional foresight: exploring capacities and identifying needs in the North West”. Journal Futures, 34, pp: 761-777. 2002.
SeyedRezaei, M.Y., and Aghajani, R. “Analysis of the regional development policy of the country”. Fourth conference of Islamic-Iranian model of progress, Iran's progress, past, present, future, Tehran. 2015.
Ruben, B., Vinodh, S., & Asokan. P., A. ISM and Fuzzy MICMAC application for analysis of Lean Six Sigma barriers with environmental considerations, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 64-90. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1108IJLSS-11-2016-0071
Singh, A., Panackal, N., Sharma, A. A study of environmental factors affecting industrial sustainability using ISM and MICMAC methodology. International Journal of Applied Engineering Research. 11, Number 4 (2016) pp 2291-2297.