Skip to Main Content

Then, using this map (Figure 12) and the developed LSMIs (Figures 6 and 8), we calculated the total area (ha) and percentages of developed priority zones in lands under existing IR systems (Table 8). The obtained results were satisfactory. For the final LSMI (all factors are included, Figure 6) 68% of all land under IR systems were located in the two zones with the highest priority (the last row of Table 8). We found a similar outcome for the second LSMI (only natural resource factors are included, Figure 8, Case 1) where 62% of all land under IR systems was located in the two zones with the highest priority. The largest compatibility was within the third LSMI (only economic–IN resources factors are included, Figure 8, Case 2), where 82% of all land under IR systems was located in the two zones with the highest priority. These results lead to the conclusion that often economic factors had more influence on real-life decisions than other factors which are more important for experts. For example, in this case study we found the sum of all weights of economic–IN factors was only 0.288 (see Figure 4). This is why we think that sometimes experts’ opinions are not enough (expert opinions are usually based on scientific facts whereas real-life decision-making is often based on economic or political factors). This is the reason why we included Stage B (Policy-makers’ approach) in the presented methodology.

Table 8

Total area (ha) and percentages of developed priority zones in lands under existing IR systems

Priority zonesLSMI: final (all factors)LSMI: natural resources factorsLSMI: economic–IN resource factors
778 ha (1%) 882 ha (1%) 62 ha (0.1%) 
9,049 ha (12%) 15,311 ha (20%) 2,498 ha (3%) 
14,383 ha (19%) 13,299 ha (18%) 10,985 ha (15%) 
41,183 ha (55%) 34,383 ha (46%) 33,452 ha (44%) 
9,920 ha (13%) 11,742 ha (16%) 28,317 ha (38%) 
∑(4 + 5) 51,103 ha (68%) 46,1256 ha (62%) 61,769 ha (82%) 
Priority zonesLSMI: final (all factors)LSMI: natural resources factorsLSMI: economic–IN resource factors
778 ha (1%) 882 ha (1%) 62 ha (0.1%) 
9,049 ha (12%) 15,311 ha (20%) 2,498 ha (3%) 
14,383 ha (19%) 13,299 ha (18%) 10,985 ha (15%) 
41,183 ha (55%) 34,383 ha (46%) 33,452 ha (44%) 
9,920 ha (13%) 11,742 ha (16%) 28,317 ha (38%) 
∑(4 + 5) 51,103 ha (68%) 46,1256 ha (62%) 61,769 ha (82%) 

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal