socio-economic, cultural, physical and ecological impact … · 2021. 2. 17. · abstract:...

Int. J. Hum. Capital Urban Manage., 2(4): 267-280, Autumn 2017

267

Int. J. Hum. Capital Urban Manage., 2(4): 267-280, Autumn 2017DOI: 10.22034/ijhcum.2017.02.04.003

*Corresponding Author Email: [email protected].: +98 915 1867 217; Fax: +98 21 4829 2200

Socio-economic, cultural, physical and ecological impact assessment

of Kavar irrigation and drainage network in Iran

N. Izadi 1, A. Norouzi 2, P. Ataei 3,*

1Department of Agricultural Extension and Education, Faculty of Agriculture, Bu-Ali SinaUniversity, Hamedan, Iran

2Department of Industrial Design, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran3Department of Agricultural Extension and Education, College of Agriculture, Tarbiat

Modares University (TMU), Tehran, Iran

ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPER

Received 5 July 2017; revised 21 August 2017; accepted 24 Semptember 2017; available online 1 October 2017

ABSTRACT: Environmental impacts assessment may be some measures to offset the impact to an acceptable level orexplore new solutions. The research was conducted with the aim of assessing the socio-economic, cultural, physical andecological impacts of Kavar irrigation and drainage network in Fars Province (Iran). In this study, Environmental impactsassessment was undertaken by ICOLD matrix. The ICOLD matrix is one of the flexible methods that convertedqualitative data into quantitative data. In this method, the effect of the project activities on the environmental componentswere assessed in two stages; project construction and operation based on physical, ecological, socio-economic andcultural aspects. The findings indicated that positive effects will be generally exerted on the region environment byestablishing and operating irrigation and drainage network in Kavar plain. In other words, substantial positive impactswill be seen in the region consequently; such as improving the average level of aquifer, enhancement of agricultural wells,and agriculture development in the region. However, in order to alleviate the negative impacts of the projects processes,it is suggested that presented environmental training to farmers, collaborating and further communicating with otherrelevant organizations and institutions.

KEYWORDS: Environmental impact assessment (EIA); Irrigation and drainage network; Rural development; Sustainabledevelopment

INTRODUCTIONIn past centuries, human made changes in the

environment with the slow process, but there is strongevidence that recently human behavior has createdcritical ecological problems. For example, researchshowed that people made changes nature faster andmore extensive than the same time period in the history,in during recent 50 years (Millennium EcosystemAssessment, 2005). Global ecological problems such

as depletion of natural resources, increased pollutionand population are challenges that needed to moreponder. Human was believed that can achieve todevelopment by maximizing economic growth andincreasing consumption of available resources. But,the emergence of the crisis of unemployment, povertyand social inequality revealed that attention to socialand environmental dimensions of development isinevitable. For example, Green Revolution emerged withthe aim of agriculture transition toward self-sufficiency


268

and development, but soil erosion, ecologicalinstability, poverty, unemployment and socialinequality were important consequences of GreenRevolution (Moinoddin, 2006; He et al., 2016;Zeleòáková and Zvijáková, 2017).

In recent decades, environmental impactassessments during process of planning projects,created considerable awareness about the benefitsinvolved in sustainable development andenvironmental protection worldwide (Gilbuena et al.,2013; Jiang et al., 2017; Aguilar-Støen and Hirsch, 2017;Ataei et al., 2018) and its’ identified the type, importance,and severity of the environmental consequences ofhuman activities (Ashofteh et al., 2016; Toniolo et al.,2017). Researchers believe that the main causes ofweakness in a conducting and applying environmentalimpact assessment and their inefficiency are associatedwith political rules (Zhu et al., 2015; Borioni et al., 2017),encouraging mechanisms, organizational discipline andorder, and lack of proper methodology (Ren, 2013; Kimand Tae, 2016).

Inclusion of environmental and social components,suggestions and analysis of different projectinterventions ensuring local people participation arethe key strengths of the environmental impactassessments (Lilley, 2016). EIA is a compulsoryevaluation instrument for environmental managementand decision making processes and applies to differentphases of activities (plans, programs, projects and/orexisting production or services), because it can measurethe natural and anthropogenic activities effects on theenvironment. These impacts may affect the cultural,biodiversity, social-economic conditions and humanhealth as well as the ecosystem equilibrium (Robu etal., 2015; Yaghoubi Farani et al., 2016; Ataei andKarimghasemi, 2017). EIA is a main tool to waterresources management (Le Clerc and Galet-Lalande,2011; Karami et al., 2017). The environmental impactassessment of the implementation related to thesignificant issues of regional ecological security,sustainable economic development and sustainablesocial development (Liu et al., 2015). The regulation ofEIA gives responsibilities to the corporations,installations and enterprises by law to prepare an “EIAReport” for the each activity that can causeenvironmental problems. Thus, it can be said that effectiveand efficient EIA process is very important in terms ofoutstanding issues such as conservation of biodiversityand socio-economic conditions (Ozcan and Strauss, 2014).

Due to recently drought and the increasingimportance of water in different aspects of human life,most countries (such as Iran) have done extensiveinvestment programs in order to control and managewater and irrigation practices and change irrigationmethods by the construction of engineering structures,especially irrigation and drainage networks. Modernirrigation and drainage network can improveagricultural water efficiency and agriculturedevelopment (Ataei and Izadi, 2014a; 2014b). Modernirrigation and drainage networks are building in FarsProvince, Iran with a lot of investment that attention tothe environmental aspects of the projects before theirimplementation is necessary. Therefore, given thegrowing problem of environmental issues and overheadcosts to the various activities on the quality of theirenvironment, attention to environmental componentsand further evaluation should be considered.

Several studies mentioned to the environmentalimpact assessment of plans and projects. For instance,Mousavi et al., (2011) used LEOPOLD matrix andICOLD for Environmental Impact Assessment of KorDam in Sistan and Baluchestan province (Iran) andconcluded that most negative impacts are related tophysical environment in the construction phase andthe most positive impacts are related to socio-economicenvironment in the operation phase. Paply Yazdi andShateri (2003) concluded that deep and semi-deep wellshave positive and negative consequences havefollowed a negative impact mainly on environmentalissues. Malek Hosseini and Mirak Zadeh (2014) carriedout a research about social impact assessment ofSoleimanshah dam in Iran. Their results indicated thatSoleimanshah Dam had the positive and negativeeffects on the villagers. They categorized impacts in10 categories of increasing life expectancy, improvingsecurity in the region, developing tourism, increasingemployment, reducing poverty, unity and socialcohesion, strengthening social capital, unevendevelopment and fundamental rights violations can besummarized. Jalili kenari and Salehi (2014) stated thatusing chemicals in farms have negative impacts on theenvironment (the impact on water resources,agricultural waste) and social aspect (health,employment and tourism).

Ashofteh et al. (2016) performed an EIA of theShahriar Dam in Iran. In their study physical, biological,and socio-economic aspects are assessed in the shortand long terms periods by the Leopold matrix method.

N. Izadi et al.


269

Their results showed that implementation of the projecthas most negative impact in the biological aspect (“48score) in short-term period, while it will most positiveimpact the socio-economic aspect in long-term period(+233 score). Ahmadvand et al. (2009) assessed theimpact of agricultural projects and they stated thatalthough social impact assessment of projects havenot any wide status in agricultural developmentprojects, but the negative consequences on people’slivelihood caused special attention to the social impactassessment, especially in the environmental dimension.So EIA should be emphasized in all projects. Huang etal. (2015) in their study found that the negativeenvironmental impacts in the construction phase aremore than the operation phase. Toro et al. (2012) alsoshowed that there is a positive correlation betweenthe extent of environmental impacts and environmentalprofile projects, such as near the project site andtechnical specifications of the project. Mirsanjari et al.(2013) conducted an EIA and their findings showedthat tourism has been damaged ecotourismenvironmental such as erosion and soil compaction,destruction of habitat, flora and fauna, water and airpollution, damage to the agricultural economy and thenatural landscape of the area. Also, Ijigah et al. (2013)noted that the construction phase of projects have themost significant negative environmental impacts thatit including environmental pollution, depletion ofresources and degradation of ecosystems.

Analysis of the environmental impact of physicaldevelopment in rural areas also suggests thatchanges in agricultural land use reduce the quantityof drinking water, waste disposal problems and leadto the development of sound pollution (Hesam etal., 2015). Results of EIA on land use and land coverby Korir (2014) showed that inadequate andinappropriate regulations and policies, inadequateinfrastructure capacity, weakness of environmentalinformation, lack of community participation indevelopment planning were implementation impactsof this project. Environmental impacts of Boga Bridgein Bangladesh were included loss of livelihood, lossof land, delta formation, loss of trees and rare species,loss of fisheries, navigational restrictions, surfacewater pollution, air pollution, soil contamination,river bank erosion, changing the river flow. Theenvironmental impacts score of this project were “–3” ( Islam, 2015). Liao et al . (2013) in theenvironmental impacts assessment of livestock and

poultry manure concluded that the livestock andpoultry breeding industry had little impact on soilenvironment, but posed a grave threat to waterenvironment. Also, the results obtained in the EIAof biogas upgrading (mainly associated with thecultural and socio-economic components) make theproject feasible and all the negative impacts can bemitigated by preventive and remedial measures(Morero et al., 2015). As a result, this study aimed toassess the environmental impact of the constructionof irrigation and drainage network in Fars province,Iran. This assessment includes four aspects: Socio-economic, cultural, physical and ecological. Thisstudy has been carried out in Kavar irrigation anddrainage network of Iran in 2016.

MATERIALS AND METHODSIn this research, environmental impact assessment

of the irrigation and drainage network in Farsprovince (Iran) was performed by using ICOLDmatrix. ICOLD matrix can transform the qualitativeresults of environmental assessment in a project toquantitative results. In this method, the effect of eachproject activity on the environmental componentsin the study area was measured based on physical,ecologic, socio-economic, and culturalenvironments, during both construction andoperation phases. The extent of effect rangeestimated between 0 and +5, and 0 and -5. Thephysical, ecologic, socio-economic, and culturalenvironments components are listed in the columnsof the matrix and sub-activities of the projects aretaken down in their lines (Karimi et al., 2009). As forthe advantages of the matrix, it can refer to theexpression of the features of each effect on theenvironment, in that marks, used scores in the matrixrepresented the status and properties of the impacts(Mousavi et al., 2012).

ICOLD matrix has the ability to specify the impactsof projects as an organized method with a tightframework. Specially, this matrix examines the impactstypes (long-term, med-term and short-term) and canmeasure construction and operation phasesseparately. This method carries out the EIA basedon the impact intensity, project goals, project typeand the covered area. Another reason to chooseICOLD matrix for EIA, was the need for subject-matter specialists familiar with the study area. Thereis the fact that it calls for subject-matter specialists


270

and in most administrations and consultingengineering companies, consensus is a need for EIA.EIA was conducted by a research team comprised ofa water structures expert, a geology expert, a waterresources expert, an expert of environment and a socio-economic expert. Finally, regarding all aspects of aproject, an analysis was made for the projectimplementation or otherwise. At the confluence ofactivity components and environment parameters ifthere is an effect in force, the type of effect quality isexpressed by using Table 1.

Features of Kavar irrigation and drainage networkThe irrigation and drainage network of Kavar plain

consisted of three sectors: right, middle and leftsectors. The right sector encompassed six villages.It covers 4050 hectares. The right sector includedfive primary canals (PC), 10 secondary canals (SC)and 62 tertiary canals (TC). Also, this sector has twoprimary drainages, 10 secondary drainages and 164tertiary drainages. The middle sector covered sevenvillages. The covered area by the network is 3150hectares. The middle sector contains five PCs, eightSCs and 34 TCs. Also, the drainage network includesa primary drainage, four secondary drainages and32 tertiary drainages. The left sector covered sevenvillages. Its area is 4880 hectares. This sectorcontains two PCs, 11 SCs and 65 TCs. Also, drainagenetwork has two primary drainages, six secondarydrainages and 68 tertiary drainages.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONAs further described, ICOLD matrix was used to

analysis of the environmental components. In thisregard, the algebraic sum of the values for eachcolumn is calculated and then it divided by thenumber of available values and the average ratingwas calculated for each of activities. To calculatethe average rankings for each of the three areas the

Row Types of effectsA Type of effect: + and – marks illustrate positive and negative effects, respectively.

BDegree of effect: It represent level of changes with respect to the current status, i.e. in this research the changes level wereconsidered as very high, high, average, low, and very low, which are shown with the numerical symbols 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1.

CContinuity of effect: Transient effects occurred at an especial time and don’t have continued for long time. They arerepresented by T symbol. Permanent effects are long term effects and they are represented by P symbol.

D Time of occurrence: The three symbols of I, M, L are immediate, medium-term and long-term effects, respectively.

Table 1: Description of types of effects in ICOLD matrix

values sum of all the columns were divided by thenumber of effects. Finally, the overall average ratingfor each stage of construction and operationobtained through the algebraic sum of all the averageranking was divided by the number of environments.The results showed that excavation andembankment proceedings, borrow resources andbuilding roads have more negative impact on thephysical aspect, during construction phase (Table2). The excavation and embankment proceedings,borrow resources and construction waste havegreatest negative impact on the ecological aspect,respectively (Table 3). Most actions have a positiveimpact on the socio-economic aspect in theconstruction of irrigation and drainage network. Theroads of access, electricity supply and transmissionand construction of structures had more positiveimpact, respectively and only construction wastehave negative effects (Table 4). The culturalenvironment as well as excavation and embankmentproceedings and construction waste generated themost negative effects, respectively (Table 5).

In The operation phase, two activities of floodcontrol, water supply and repair and maintenance ofstructures have most positive impact, respectively.Also, the uses of fertilizers and pesticides have anegative effect on the physical environment (Table6). However, the two activities of flood control andlaunching of green spaces have greatest positiveimpact on the ecological aspect and the recreationalactivities development and using fertilizer have thegreatest negative impact (Table 7). In the operationphase of irrigation and drainage network, allactivities have positive impact on the socio-economicenvironment. So that, water supply and flood controlhave more positive impact (Table 8). The three activecultural environments, flood control, water supply andrecreational activities development have the greatestpositive impact on the cultural aspect (Table 9).



271

Tabl

e 2:

Pre

dict

ion

mat

rix

of p

hysi

cal

impa

cts

of i

rrig

atio

n an

d dr

aina

ge n

etw

ork

in c

onst

ruct

ion

phas

e

Tabl

e 3:

Pre

dict

ion

mat

rix

of e

colo

gica

l im

pact

s of

irr

igat

ion

and

drai

nage

net

wor

k in

con

stru

ctio

n ph

ase


272

Tabl

e 4:

Pre

dict

ion

mat

rix

of s

ocio

-eco

nom

ic i

mpa

cts

of i

rrig

atio

n an

d dr

aina

ge n

etw

ork

in b

uild

ing

phas

e

Tabl

e 5:

Pre

dict

ion

mat

rix

of c

ultu

ral

impa

cts

of i

rrig

atio

n an

d dr

aina

ge n

etw

ork

in c

onst

ruct

ion

phas

e

N. Izadi et al.


273

Table 6: Prediction matrix of physical impacts of irrigation and drainage network in operation phase

Action

Environmentalparameters

Wat

er s

uppl

y

Tor

rent

con

trol

Rec

reat

iona

lac

tiviti

esde

velo

pmen

t

Usi

ngpe

stic

ides

Usi

ngfe

rtili

zers

Dis

trib

utio

n &

use

of w

ater

Lau

nchi

ngof

gree

n sp

aces

Mai

nten

ance

of

acce

ssro

utes

Rep

air

&m

aint

enan

ce o

fst

ruct

ures

Air quality +1PL +5PM +1PLEnvironmentsound

-3PM

Dehydration regime +5PL +4PM +4PLFlood regime +5PM +3PLSurface water quality +1PM +4PM -2TI -2TIGroundwater quality +2PM +3PI -4PM -4PMSoil salinity +3PL -3PM +1PLSurface waterconsumption

-3TI -2TM -2TM -1TI -2MI +4PM

Groundwaterconsumption

+4PM +1PM +1PM +4PM

Landform +3PLSoil erosion +2PM +5PI +3PM +1PLTotal +15 +25 0 -8 -11 0 +7 -1 +15

Action


Wat

er s

uppl

y

Tor

rent

con

trol

Rec

reat

iona

l a

ctiv

ities

deve

lopm

ent

Usi

ng p

estic

ides

Usi

ng f

erti

lizer

s

Dis

trib

utio

n &

use

of

wat

er

Lau

nchi

ngof

gre

ensp

aces

Mai

nten

ance

of

acce

ssro

utes

Rep

air

&m

aint

enan

ce o

fst

ruct

ures

Aquatic ecosystem +3PM +4PI -3PL -3PL +1PLTerrestrial ecosystems +1PM +5PM -2PL -1PL -1PL +4PMAnimal emigration +1PM +3PM -1PL +3PMAnimal habitat +1PM +4PM -3PL +4PL -1PLPlants settlement +2PM +4PM -3PM +4PM -1PMVerminPests & weeds +2TI -2TI -2TMDisease vectors +3PM -3PL -2PLTotal +8 +23 -9 -5 -8 0 +14 -2 0

Table 7: Prediction matrix of ecological impacts of irrigation and drainage network in operation phase


274

Action


Wat

ersu

pply

Tor

rent

cont

rol

Rec

reat

iona

lac

tiviti

esde

velo

pmen

t

Usi

ngpe

stic

ides

Usi

ngfe

rtili

zers

Dis

trib

utio

n&

use

of

wat

er

Lau

nchi

ng o

fgr

een

spac

es

Mai

nten

ance

ofac

cess

rout

es

Rep

air

&m

aint

enan

ce

ofst

ruct

ures

Population +2PL +2PL +1PL +2TLMigration +5PM +4PI +3PM +2PM +2PM +1PL

Income & expense+4TM

+1PM

Employment & unemployment +3TL +1TL +1PM +1PM

Real estate price +2TI+2TM

Agriculture +5PI +5PI +3PI +3PI +1PI +2PM +4PMIndustry of area +2PL +3PL +3PLServices +1PM +3PI +1PMTransportation +5PI

Participation of users +4PM +1PI+1TM

+1TM

+4PM

Welfare +3TL +1TL+2TM

+1TL +3PM

Water consumption -3TI -3PI -3PI -3PI -2PI +4PMLeisure times +5PI +2PISecurityLand use +4PM +3PM +3PI +2PMFuture development projects +2PM +3PM +4PMSocial acceptance +4PM +3PI +3TL +3PMTotal +38 +30 +14 0 0 +5 0 +26 +19

Action


Wat

ersu

pply

Tor

rent

cont

rol

Rec

reat

iona

lac

tiviti

esde

velo

pmen

t

Usi

ngpe

stic

ides

Usi

ngfe

rtili

zers

Dis

trib

utio

n&

use

of

wat

er

Lau

nchi

ngof

gree

n sp

aces

Mai

nten

ance

of

acce

ssro

utes

Rep

air

&m

aint

enan

ceof

str

uctu

res

Hygienic indicators +2PI +3PI -4PI -4PIEducational indicators +1PMDiseases & illnesses +1PM +4PM +3PL -5PL -5PL +3PLWater drinking & watersupply quality

+3PL -3PM -3PM

Tourism +3PL +4PL +4PL +2TL +2PLEducational services +1TM +3TM +1PIReligious buildings +4PMLandscape & sights +4PL +3PL +3TM +4PLTotal +11 +24 +10 -12 -12 0 +9 +4 0

Table 9: Prediction matrix of cultural impacts of irrigation and drainage network in operation phase

Table 8: Prediction matrix of socio-economic impacts of irrigation and drainage network in operation phase



275

Generally, findings indicated that positive permanenteffects were more than negative effects on the physicalenvironment, but negative transient effects were morethan positive effects. In general, negative transienteffects were more than the negative permanent effectsand positive permanent effects were more than positivetransient effects. However, by comparing the sum ofpositive and negative consequences on the physicalenvironment was found that the construction andoperation of irrigation and drainage network havenegative effects more than positive effects on thephysical environment (Table 10).

Findings showed that negative permanent effectshave more than positive effects on the ecologicalaspect. The positive transient effects have less thannegative transient effects. In general, by comparingthe sum of positive and negative effects on theecological aspect concluded that negative effects havemore than positive effects with the construction andoperation of irrigation and drainage network (Table 11).

The findings of effects on the socio-economic aspectindicated that negative positive permanent effects weremore than negative effects. Also, the negative transienteffects have less than positive transient effects. Ingeneral, by comparing the sum of positive and negativeeffects on the socio-economic aspect, it became clearthat the negative effects of the construction andoperation of irrigation and drainage network will beless than positive effects (Table 12).

The results of the effects on the cultural aspectshowed that positive permanent effects were more thannegative permanent effects. However, the negativetransient effects were more than positive transienteffects. In general, by comparing the sum of positiveand negative effects in the cultural environment wasfound that the positive effects of construction andoperation of irrigation and drainage network will bemore than negative effects. But, there is not moredifference between the positive and negative effects(Table 13).


Impacts Air

qua

lity

Env

iron

men

tso

und

Deh

ydra

tion

regi

me

Floo

d re

gim

e

Surf

ace

wat

erqu

ality

Gro

undw

ater

qual

ity

Soil

salin

ity

Surf

ace

wat

erco

nsum

ptio

nG

roun

dwat

erco

nsum

ptio

n

Lan

dfor

m

Soil

eros

ion

Tot

alNumber of positive impactsof P

4 0 4 3 2 2 2 2 5 1 4 29

Number of negative impactsof P

0 1 0 0 1 3 1 1 0 4 4 15

Total of positive values of P 11 0 16 10 5 5 4 6 13 3 11 84Total of negative values of P 0 3 0 0 1 9 3 1 0 12 15 44Number of positive impactsof T

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Number of negative impactsof T

7 5 0 0 3 0 0 5 1 0 0 21

Total of positive values of T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Total of negative values of T 15 13 0 0 5 0 0 10 2 0 0 45Total number of positiveimpacts

4 0 4 3 2 2 2 2 5 1 4 29

Total number of negativeimpacts

7 6 0 0 4 3 1 6 1 4 4 36

Total of positive values 11 0 16 10 5 5 4 6 13 3 11 84Total of negative values 15 16 0 0 6 9 3 11 2 12 15 89

Table 10: Summary of physical impacts of Kavar irrigation and drainage network


276

Tabl

e 11

:S

umm

ary

of e

colo

gica

l im

pact

s of

Kav

ar i

rrig

atio

n an

d dr

aina

ge n

etw

ork

Tabl

e 12

:S

umm

ary

of s

ocio

-eco

nom

ic i

mpa

cts

of K

avar

irr

igat

ion

and

drai

nage

net

wor

k

N. Izadi et al.


277


Impacts

Hyg

ieni

c in

dica

tors

Edu

catio

nal

indi

cato

rs

Dis

ease

s &

illn

esse

s

Wat

er d

rink

ing

&w

ater

sup

ply

qual

ity

Tou

rism

Edu

catio

nal

serv

ices

Rel

igio

us b

uild

ings

Lan

dsca

pe &

sigh

ts

Tot

al

Number of positive impacts of P 3 3 5 1 7 3 1 4 27Number of negative impacts of P 2 0 2 2 4 0 2 0 12Total of positive values of P 7 3 12 3 19 6 4 15 69Total of negative values of P 8 0 10 6 14 0 5 0 43Number of positive impacts of T 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2Number of negative impacts of T 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 9Total of positive values of T 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 5Total of negative values of T 9 0 10 0 0 0 0 9 28Total number of positive impacts 3 3 5 1 8 3 1 5 29Total number of negative impacts 5 0 6 2 4 0 2 2 21Total of positive values 7 3 12 3 21 6 4 18 74Total of negative values 17 0 20 6 14 0 5 9 71

Table 13: Summary of cultural impacts of Kavar irrigation and drainage network

CONCLUSIONLack of attention to environmental considerations

in development planning and implementation ofprojects caused environmental impacts in manycountries of the world. As a result of this neglect, thequality of the natural and human environment haddecreased and destruction of natural resources andgreatly reduce public grievances has brought. This ismainly due to ignore environmental rules andregulations in Iran now, day after day take a widerdimension. This study aimed to examine the biological,socio-economic, cultural and physical construction ofirrigation and drainage network Kavar plain in Farsprovince, Iran. Results showed that the total numberof positive effects of irrigation and drainage networkin physical, ecological, socio-economic and culturalenvironments were 187 scores. Socio-economicenvironment had the largest number of positive impactswith 105 score. About the number of negative effects(111 score), most of them were ecological effects (45score), and others were the physical environment (36score) and cultural environment (21 score). Total valuesof Kavar irrigation and drainage network included 489positive score and 280 negative score. Socio-economicenvironment had the greatest positive effect (263 score),and after it, physical environment (84 score), culturalenvironment (74 score) and ecological environment (68score) had positive effects, respectively. Also,

ecological environment received the most negativeeffects from project (95 score). While socio-economicenvironment received the least negative effects (25score). Finally, the sum value indicates that the physicaland ecological environment had negative impacts andsocio-economic and cultural environment had positiveimpacts. But, sum of the effects were positive impactson the whole environment (+219 score) in fourenvironments (Table 14). Therefore, the implementationof Kavar irrigation and drainage network is permittedwith use of standards. The findings of this study areconsistent with the results of Mohammadi et al. (2009),Monavari et al. (2012), Piri (2012), and Nikbakht andShahmohammadi (2004).

In order to reduce the negative impact on theenvironment, suggestions and corrective action isnecessary. As a result, to reduce the negativeenvironmental consequences of the action planfollowing is recommended: Air and surface water quality will be affected withthe beginning operations of excavation andembankment. Also, soil erosion can result. As well asland and water ecosystems, plant and animal speciesand their habitats are changed. Therefore, it shouldproper planning, at least in excavation and embankmentoperations, especially in the rainy months, conductedand enforcement actions taken in traditional streams.


278

The planning to begin construction should be avoidedin protected areas or sensitive periods (duringreproduction of plants and animals). Development of recreational activities will be negativeaffect on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems andhabitats of plants. In regarding to the protected areaby the organization of natural resources and theenvironment in the study area, it is of utmost importancethat the introduction of human factors on the naturalenvironment, nature will change. Therefore, to reducethe negative impacts of recreational activities can beused to install warning signs and educate people bythe trainers. Operation of irrigation and drainage network increasedthe using of pesticides and fertilizers by the farmersthat it would have negative effects on groundwaterand quality of surface water and aquatic ecosystem.

As a result, the farmers are trained to low usepesticides and fertilizers through coordinating byOrganization of Agriculture Jahad. Also, they areencouraged to use crop residuals and animal manureand biological control of pests instead of pesticides.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTThe authors would like to thank Fars Water Regional

Authority (Shiraz, Fars, Iran) for its valuableparticipation. And also immensely grateful to PoorabFars Consulting Engineering Company and itsspecialists for their participation in the project and forproviding the facilities needed.

CONFLICT OF INTRESTThe authors declare that there are no conflicts of

interest regarding the publication of this manuscript.

REFERENCSAgu i la r -S t ø en , M . ; Hi r sc h , C . , ( 2 0 1 7 ) . Bo t t o m -u p

r e s p o n s e s t o e n v i r o n m e n t a l a n d s o c i a l i m p a c ta s s e s s m e n t s : A c a s e s t u d y f r o m G u a t e m a l a .E n v i r o n . Im p a c t A s s e s s . R e v. , 6 2 : 2 2 5 - 2 3 2 ( 8p a g e s ) .

Ahmadvand, M.; Karami, E.; Zamani, G.H.; Vanclay, F.,(2009). Evaluating the use of Social Impact Assessmentin the context of agricultural development projects inIran. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev., 29(6): 399-407 (9pa g e s ) .

Ashofteh, P.S.; Bozorg-Haddad, O.; Loáiciga, H.A., (2016).Multi-Cri teria Environmental Impact Assessment ofAlterna tive Irr iga t ion Networks wi th an AdoptedMatrix-Based Method. Water Resour. Manage., 1-26 (26pages) .

Ataei , P. ; Izadi , N. , (2014a) . Invest iga t ing inf luencef a c t o r s o n f a r m e r s ’ i n t e n t i o n i n u s i n g m o d e r nc h a n n e l s ( C a s e s t u d y : F e y z a b a d w a t e r s u p p l yn e twork i n Fa rs p rov in c e) . I ran i a n J . Agr i . Ec o .D e v. R e s e a r c h , 4 5 ( 4 ) : 6 7 3 - 6 8 2 ( 9 p a g e s ) . ( InP e r s i a n )

Ataei, P.; Izadi, N., (2014b). Analyzing Social Studies ofFeyzabad Dam Irrigation and Drainage Network in FarsProvince. Agri. Extension Edu. Research, 7(2): 63-82(19 pages). (In Persian)

Ataei, P.; Karimghasemi, S., (2017). Environmental impactassessment of Lavar plain artificial recharge plans inBousher province. J. Environ. Sci. Tech., 19(4): 531-544 (14 pages).

At ae i , P. ; Ya gh o u b i Fa r a n i , A . ; Iz a d i , N . , ( 2 0 1 7 ) .E n v i r o n m e n t a l c o m p o n e n t s a s s e s s m e n t o fFeyzabad i rrigat ion and dra inage network in ordert o r u r a l d e v e lo p m en t ( C a s e o f s t u d y: F ey za b a di rr iga t ion and dra inage network of Fars province) .J . N a t u r a l E n vi ro n . , 7 0 (1 ) : 1 1 3 - 1 3 7 ( 2 4 p a g es ) .( In P er s i a n )

Ataei , P. ; Khat i r, A. ; Izad i , N. ; Frost , K.J . , (2 018 ).E n v i r o n m e n t a l Im p a c t A s s e s s m e n t o f a r t i f i c i a lf eed in g p la n s : Th e H a mm am i P l a i n i n Ira n . In t .J . E n vi ron . Qu a l i t y, 2 7 : 1 9 -3 8 ( 1 9 pa g e s ) .

B o r i o n i , R . ; G a l l a r d o , A . L . C . F. ; S á n c h e z , L . E . ,( 2 0 1 7 ) . A d v a n c i n g s c o p i n g p r a c t i c e i nen vi ronmenta l impact assessment : an examinat i ono f t h e Br a z i l i an f ed e ra l sys t em. Imp ac t . As se ss .P ro j ec t Ap p r a i s a l , 3 5 (3 ) : 2 0 0 -2 1 3 ( 1 3 p a g e s ) .

Gi lbuena, R.; Kawamura , A.; Medina , R. ; Amaguchi ,H.; Nakagawa, N.; Bui , D.D., (2013). Environmentalimp a c t a s se ssmen t of s t r u c tu ra l f lood mi t i ga t i onm ea s u r e s b y a r a p i d i m p a c t a s s e s s m en t m a t r i x(RIAM) technique: A case s tudy in Metro Mani la ,Phil ipp ines. Sc i . Tota l Envi ron. , 456-457: 137-147(11 pa g e s ) .

H e , X . ; Q i a o , Y. ; L i u , Y. ; D e n d l e r , L . ; Yi n , C . ;M a r t i n , F. , ( 2 0 1 6 ) . E n v i r o n m e n t a l i m p a c ta s s e s s m en t o f o r g a n i c a n d c o n v e n t i o n a l t o m a t op rod uc t i on i n urb an green h ou ses of Bei j i n g c i t y,China . J . C lean er Prod . , 13 4(Pa rt A): 2 51 -2 58 ( 8p a g e s ) .

Hesam., M.; Cheraghi, M.; Ashoor, H., (2015). Analysisof the environmental impact of physical developmentin rural areas studied: Shahkuh Normandy. HousingRu ra l En v i ron . , 3 3 (1 4 8 ) : 6 3 -7 8 ( 1 6 pa g e s ) . ( InPers ian)

Huang, L.; Bohne, R.A.; Bruland, A.; Jakobsen, P.D.;Lohne, J., (2015). Environmental impact of drill andblast tunnelling: life cycle assessment. J. Cleaner Prod.,86: 110-117 (8 pages).

Ijigah, A.E.; Jimoh, R.A.; Aruleba, B.O.; Bilau Ade, A.,(2013). An assessment of environmental impacts ofbuilding construction projects. Civil Environ. Research,3(1): 93-104 (12 pages).

Islam, M.H.; Faisal, M.; Mahmood, K.A., (2015).Environmental impact assessment of Boga BridgePatukhali. J. Environ. Sci. Natural Resources, 8(1): 73-77(5 pages).



279

J a l i l i k e n a r i , M . ; S a l e h i , S . , ( 2 0 1 4 ) . A s s e s s t h eenvi ronmenta l and soc ia l consequences of the useo f c h e m i c a l s i n a g r i c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t i e s . S o c i o -C u l t u r . S t r a t e g y Q u a r t e r l y, 1 0 : 1 4 1 - 1 6 0 ( 2 2p a g e s ) . ( In P e r s i a n )

J iang, Z.; Dai , Y. ; Luo, X. ; Liu, G. ; Wang, H. ; Zheng,H . ; Wa n g , Z . , ( 2 0 1 7 ) . A s s e s s m en t o f b i o e n e r g yd e v e l o p m e n t p o t e n t i a l a n d i t s e n v i r o n m e n t a li mp ac t fo r ru ra l h o u s eh old en er gy c on su mp t i on :A c a s e s t u d y i n S h a n d o n g , C h i n a . R e n e w a b l eS u s t a i n a b l e E n e r g y R e v. , 6 7 : 1 1 5 3 - 1 1 6 1 ( 9p a g e s ) .

Ka rami , S . ; Ka rami , E . ; Bu ys, L. ; Drogemu ller , R . ,(2017). System dynamic s imula t ion : A new methodi n s o c i a l i m p a c t assessment (SIA). Environ. ImpactAssess. Rev., 62: 25-34 (10 pages).

Karimi, S.; Salehi Moayed, M.; Jafari, H.R., (2009). A newmethod of utilizing water resources in dry land watersheds(Case study: Marvast Dam-Iran). J. Environ. Stud. ,34(47): 87-98 (12 pages). (In Persian)

Kim, T.H.; Tae, S.H., (2016). Proposal of environmentalimpact assessment method for concrete in South Korea:An application in LCA (life cycle assessment). Int. J.Environ. Res. Public Health, 13(11): 1-16 (16 pages).

Korir, J.C., (2014). An assessment of the environmentalimpacts on land use and land cover changes and strategiesof reducing the adverse impacts: a case of EldoretMunicipality, Uasin Gishu District, Kenya. J. Environ.Earth Sci., 4(23): 96-103 (8 pages).

Le Clerc, S. ; Galet -Lalande, N. , (2011). Use ofenvironmental and social impact assessment on damdesign and water management. Int. J. Hydropower Dams,18(6): 92-95 (4 pages).

Liao, Q.; Huang, D.L.; Jiang, Z.; Wei, G.P.; Liang, P.X.;Wang, Y.N.; Li, Y.R., (2013). Estimation of productionamount of l ives tock and poult ry manure andenvironmental impact assessment in Guangxi. AsianAgri. Research, 5(11): 93-96 (4 pages).

Lilley, I., (2016). Environmental Reviews and Case Studies:Cultura l Heri tage, Communi ty Engagement , andEnvironmental Impact Assessment in Australia. Environ.Pract., 18(3): 205-208 (4 pages).

Liu, Y.Z.; Zhou, X.; Chen, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Zhou, L.L., (2015).Ecologica l footprin t -based envi ronmental impactassessment of structural adjustment objectives for overallland utilization planning. J. Animal Plant Sci., 25(3):99-106 (8 pages).

Malek Hossein i , A. ; Mirak Zadeh , A. , (2014). KingSolomon falcon Dam Social Impact Assessment onIrrigation and Drainage Network dam catchment areas.J. Rural Research, 5(3): 589-610 (22 pages). (In Persian)

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment., (2005). Ecosystemand wellbeing: synthesis report , Is land Press ,Washington, DC. (121 pages).

Mirsanjari, M.M.; Ashegh, M.m.; Zarekare, A.; Ghorbani,S. , (2013). Envi ronmenta l impact assessment ofecotourism site’s values. Advances Environ. Biology,7(2): 248-252 (5 pages).

Mohamadi, E.; Khalighi Sigaroudh, Sh.; Ebrahimi, Sh.,(2009). Environmental assessment of Gabric dam on

regional sustainable development. The 13 th World LakeConference, Wuhan, China (7 pages).

Moinoddin i , J . , (2006). Applica t ion of regionaldevelopment policies; Lessons from the experience ofdeveloped countries. J . Poli t ical Sci . , 7: 71-96 (26pages). (In Persian)

Monavari, S.M.; Farshchi, A.; Hasani, A.H.; Morovati, M.,(2012). Invest iga t ion of envi ronmenta l impacts ofartificial injection aquifer plan in Yazd province (Casestudy: Yazd – Ardekan plain sub watershed). J. Environ.Sci. Technol., 14(2): 27-36 (10 pages). (In Persian)

Morero, B.; Rodriguez, M.B.; Campanella, E.A., (2015).Environmental impact assessment as a complement oflife cycle assessment. Case study: Upgrading of biogas.Bioresour. Technol., 190: 402-407 (6 pages).

Mousavi, S.H.; Sheikh Goudarzi, M.; Kaviani, A., (2011).Comparison of two methods modified LEOPOLD matrixand matrix b lind dam ICOLD in the envi ronmentalimpact assessment (whales) in Sistan and BaluchestanProvince. J. Manage. Planning Environ., 2(4): 15-25(11 pages). (In Persian)

Mousavi, S.H.; Sheikh Goudarzi, M.; Kaviani, A., (2012).A comparison of modified Leopold Matrix and ICOLDMatrix in the Envi ronmental Impact Assessment ofKoor (Nahang) dam in the Sis tan and Baluchis tanprovince. J. Environ. Manage. Planning, 6: 15-24 (10pages). (In Persian)

Nikbakht , M. ; Shahmohammadi , Z. , (2004).Environmenta l impacts of the Sardash t dam duringoperational phase. J. Water Wastewater, 15(52): 87-99(13 pages). (In Persian)

Ozcan, A.; Strauss, E.J., (2014). Environmental ImpactAssessment (EIA) in Protected Areas of Turkey andSustainability Dilemma: The Case of National Parks.2nd In ternat ional Conference on Susta inableEnvironment and Agriculture, Singapore. (7 pages).

Paply Yazdi, M.H.; Shateri, M., (2003). Modernity, socialand environmental effects of deep and semi-deep wells(sample Gaen city). Geo. Research, 19(4): 129-151 (22pages). (In Persian)

Piri, H., (2012). Environmental Impact Assessment of ChahNimeh Four Construction in Zabol. Town Country Plann.,3(5): 145-163 (19 pages). (In Persian)

Ren, X., (2013). Implementation of environmental impactassessment in China. J. Environ. Assess. Policy Manage.,15(3): 1-20 (20 pages).

Robu, B.; Jitar, O.; Teodosiu, C.; Strungaru, S.A.; Nicoara, M.;Plavan, G., (2015). Environmental impact and riskassessment of the main pollution sources from the Romanianblack sea coast. Environ. Eng. Manage. J., 14(2): 331-340(10 pages).

Toniolo, S.; Mazzi, A.; Fedele, A.; Aguiari, F.; Scipioni, A.,(2017). Li fe Cycle Assessment to support thequantification of the environmental impacts of an event.Environ. Impact Assess. Rev., 63: 12-22 (11 pages).

Toro, J.; Duarte, O.; Requena, I.; Zamorano, M., (2012).Determining Vulnerability Importance in EnvironmentalImpact Assessment. The case of Colombia. Environ.Impact Assess. Rev., 32(1): 107-117 (11 pages).

Yaghoubi Farani, A.; Izadi, N.; Ataei, P., (2016). Assessmentof Ecological and Socia l impact of Fadami Dam


280

Construction on Agricultural Development of the Area. Geo.Dev. Iranian J., 14(43): 91-112 (22 pages). (In Persian)

Zeleòáková, M.; Zvijáková, L., (2017). Risk analysis withinenvironmental impact assessment of proposed constructionactivity. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev., 62: 76-89 (14 pages).

Zhu, X.; Zhang, L.; Ran, R.; Mol, A.P.J., (2015). Regionalres t r ic t ions on envi ronmenta l impact assessmentapproval in China: The legit imacy of environmentalauthori tar ian ism. J . Cleaner Prod . , 92: 100-108 ( 9pages) .

Socio-economic, cultural, physical and ecological impact assessmentN. Izadi et al.

socio-economic, cultural, physical and ecological impact … · 2021. 2. 17. · abstract:...

Documents