Environment and Interdisciplinary Development

Evaluation of Wetland Management Program from a Climate Change Perspective with an Ecosystem-Based Planning Approach: A Case Study of Shadegan Wetland

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Leila Hajihashemi Varnoosfaderani 1
Ahmad Nohegar 2
Mohammadreza Farzaneh 3

1 Department of Environment, Alborz Campus, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of Disaster Engineering, Education and Environmental Systems, Faculty of Environment, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

3 Department of Environmental Engineering and Pollutant Monitoring, Research Institute for Environment and Sustainable Development, Department of Environment, Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22034/envj.2025.542220.1544
Abstract
Introduction: Wetlands, as critical ecosystems, play a vital role in ecological balance and human community support by providing services such as water purification, flood control, and biodiversity conservation. The Shadegan International Wetland in Khuzestan, registered under the Ramsar Convention (1971), holds global significance due to its biodiversity and ecosystem services. This wetland faces challenges including drought, reduced water allocation, industrial and agricultural pollution, and dust storms driven by climate change, all threatening its survival. Climate change, by altering hydrological patterns, underscores the need for a comprehensive roadmap for wetland management. The Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM) approach, integrating ecological, social, economic, governance, and cultural factors, offers an effective framework for the conservation and restoration of the Shadegan Wetland. Developing a wetland-climate change roadmap based on EBM is a crucial step toward mitigating the adverse impacts of climate change and enhancing the sustainability of the Shadegan ecosystem.
Materials and Methods: The research was conducted in three phases: 1) Qualitative analysis of domestic and international scientific documents related to EBM and climate change to develop a roadmap, using qualitative content analysis of EBM components through a meta-synthesis method with NVivo14 software. Coding was performed based on five main systems (economic, ecological, social, governance, and cultural) and their subsystems. Inter-coder reliability (ICR) was assessed by two independent coders, with the Kappa coefficient calculated. 2) Qualitative analysis of the Shadegan Wetland Management Plan. 3) Quantitative assessment using a data-input-output matrix to evaluate the role of climate change and EBM in wetland management, with policy recommendations derived using SPSS software.
Results: The wetland-climate change roadmap, based on the EBM approach, comprises 54 components across five key systems (economic, ecological, social, governance, and cultural) and 19 sectors affected by climate change, serving as a benchmark for evaluating the Shadegan Wetland Management Plan. The data-input-output matrix analysis revealed an overall plan coverage of 31.48%, with significant gaps (87% of components and 94% of sectors). The economic system, with 23% coverage, performed the weakest, with only one fully addressed component (green infrastructure) and gaps in ecosystem service valuation and circular economy. Proposed solutions include sustainable aquaculture with native species, bird-watching ecotourism, and solar-powered boats. The ecological system (30.77% coverage) benefits from reedbed restoration and biofilters for biodiversity conservation, with 10 gaps identified. The social system (44.44% coverage) is enhanced by a stakeholder coordination mobile application. The governance system (45% coverage) requires a digital platform and adaptive management. The cultural system (20.83% coverage) is improved through a digital museum and local festivals. This plan ensures Shadegan’s sustainability by addressing emission reduction, adaptation, and risk mitigation.
Discussion: The innovations of this study, such as solar-powered boats and biofilters, align with FAO (2012) and Ramsar (2018) but offer a more localized approach tailored to Khuzestan’s climate. Ecosystem service valuation, akin to Costanza (2017), has local applicability and differs from TEEB (2010). The stakeholder coordination mobile application modernizes participatory management compared to traditional methods by Brooks (2008). The digital governance platform enhances transparency in Khuzestan’s complex conditions, surpassing Stram (2009). The digital museum and cultural tourism improve local livelihoods and, unlike UNEP (2016), globalize wetland values. Across 19 climate change sectors, solutions such as Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) in water, GIS in environmental management, and biogas in energy align with IPCC (2014) and FAO (2017), yet integrating wetlands into management provides a more holistic approach. Limitations, such as long-term data gaps and stakeholder coordination, can be addressed through education and digital technology. This plan serves as a model for other Iranian wetlands, such as Hamoun and Anzali.

Keywords

Ecosystem-Based Management
Shadegan Wetland
Emission Reduction
Climate Change Adaptation
Disaster Risk Reduction

Subjects

  1. Amiri, M., Shariati, M., Azizi, A. and Rezaei, H., 2021. Investigation of water level changes in Shadegan Wetland using remote sensing indices. Journal of Environmental Research. 12, 45–60. (In Persian with English abstract).
  2. Ashayeri, N.Y. and Keshavarzi, B., 2019. Geochemical characteristics, partitioning, and potential ecological risk assessment of heavy metals in the sediments of Shadegan Wetland, Iran. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 149, 110573.
  3. Berkes, F., Folke, C. and Colding, J., 1998. Linking social and ecological systems: Management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  4. Bonan, G.B., 2008. Forests and climate change: Forcings, feedbacks, and the climate benefits of forests. Science. 320, 1444–1449.
  5. Dekker, S., 2018. Cities leading climate action. C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, London. Available online at: https://www.c40.org/reports [Accessed 14 August 2025].
  6. CBD, 2020. Fifth global biodiversity outlook. United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal. Available online at: https://www.wbcsd.org/resources/fifth-global-biodiversity-outlook-report-by-the-united-nations-convention-on-biological-diversity-cbd/ [Accessed 14 August 2025].
  7. Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Braat, L., Kubiszewski, I., Fioramonti, L., Sutton, P., Farber, S. and Grasso, M., 2014. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change. 26, 152–158.
  8. Craft, C., Vymazal, J., Kröpfelová, L. and Zedler, J.B., 2025. Carbon sequestration in wetlands: A review. Global Change Biology. 31, 456–472.
  9. Department of Environment, 2011. Shadegan integrated management plan. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland. Available online at: https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/shadeganmanagementplan-i.r._iran2011.pdf [Accessed 23 September 2025].
  10. Dudgeon, D., Arthington, A.H., Gessner, M.O., Kawabata, Z.I., Knowler, D.J., Lévêque, C., Naiman, R.J., Prieur-Richard, A.H., Soto, D., Stiassny, M.L.J. and Sullivan, C.A., 2006. Freshwater biodiversity: Importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biological Reviews. 81, 163–182.
  11. FAO, 2017. Climate-smart agriculture sourcebook. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
  12. FAO, 2024. The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2024. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
  13. Fluet-Chouinard, E., Stocker, B.D., Zhang, Z., Malhotra, A., Melton, J.R., Poulter, B., Kaplan, J.O., Goldewijk, K.K., Siebert, S., Minnen, J., Müller, C., Thornton, P., Thornton, J. and McDonald, K., 2023. Extensive global wetland loss over the past three centuries. Nature. 614, 281–286.
  14. Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L. and Holling, C.S., 2005. Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 30, 441–473.
  15. Ghaniyan, M., Salari, F., Norouzi, A. and Rezaei, M., 2017. Socio-economic importance of the Shadegan Wetland. Journal of Rural Studies. [Volume (Issue)], [page range]. (In Persian with English abstract).
  16. Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L., 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine Publishing, Chicago.
  17. Gokce, D., 2019. Wetlands and their role in global hydrological cycles. Wetlands Management. 12, 45–58.
  18. Hsieh, H.F. and Shannon, S.E., 2005. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research. 15, 1277–1288.
  19. IEA, 2020. World energy outlook 2020. International Energy Agency, Paris.
  20. IFAD, 2016. Rural development report 2016: Fostering inclusive rural transformation. International Fund for Agricultural Development, Rome.
  21. IPCC, 2014. Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva.
  22. IPCC, 2022. Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva.
  23. IPCC, 2023. Climate change 2023: Synthesis report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva.
  24. Iran Department of Environment, 2015. Shadegan wetland management plan. Iran Department of Environment, Tehran. (In Persian with English abstract).
  25. Cohen-Shacham, E., Walters, G., Janzen, C. and Maginnis, S., 2016. Nature-based solutions to address global societal challenges. International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland. Available online at: https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2016-036.pdf [Accessed 14 August 2025].
  26. Junk, W.J., An, S., Finlayson, C.M., Gopal, B., Květ, J., Mitchell, S.A., Mitsch, W.J. and Robarts, R.D., 2013. Current state of knowledge regarding the world’s wetlands and their future under global climate change. Aquatic Sciences. 75, 151–167.
  27. Kaffashi, S., Shamsudin, M.N., Radam, A., Rahim, K.A., Yacob, M.R., Muda, A. and Yazid, M., 2011. Economic valuation of Shadegan Wetland in Iran: A contingent valuation approach. Environmental Management. 47, 873–883.
  28. Khelifa, R., Mellal, M.K., Gillespie, L., MacDonald, C., Mahdjoub, H. and Henry, E., 2022. Climate change impacts on wetlands: A global review. Biological Conservation. 268, 109492.
  29. Liu, L., Wang, H., Xu, Y., Zhang, X. and Chen, Z., 2025. Impacts of climate change on wetland ecosystems. Ecological Indicators. 160, 111789.
  30. Madani, K., 2014. Water management in Iran: What is causing the looming crisis? Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences. 4, 315–328.
  31. McLeod, K.L. and Leslie, H.M., 2009. Ecosystem-based management for the oceans. Island Press, Washington, DC.
  32. Newton, A., Brito, A.C., Icely, J.D., Derolez, V., Clara, I. and Angus, S., 2024. Ecosystem-based management: A tool for wetland conservation under climate change. Marine Policy. 158, 105876.
  33. Nicholls, R.J., Wong, P.P., Burkett, V.R., Codignotto, J.O., Hay, J.E., McLean, R.F., Ragoonaden, S. and Woodroffe, C.D., 2007. Coastal systems and low-lying areas. In: IPCC (Ed.), Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 315–356.
  34. OECD, 2015. OECD environmental performance reviews. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.
  35. OECD, 2019. Global outlook on financing for sustainable development 2019. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris. Available online at: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2018/11/global-outlook-on-financing-for-sustainable-development-2019_g1g98f0d.html [Accessed 14 August 2025].
  36. Ostrom, E., 2009. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science. 325, 419–422.
  37. Pendam Consulting Engineers, 2002. Hydrological assessment of the Shadegan Wetland. Pendam Consulting Engineers, Tehran. (In Persian with English abstract).
  38. Pourhashemi, M., Zare, R., Mousavi, S.H. and Rahimi, A., 2024. Climate change vulnerability assessment of Shadegan Wetland. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 31, 22045–22058.
  39. Rahimi Balouchi, L. and Malek Mohammadi, B., 2013. Biodiversity of the Shadegan Wetland. Journal of Ecological Research. [Volume (Issue)], [page range]. (In Persian with English abstract).
  40. Rafei, A., Danehkar, A. and Sheikh Goodarzi, M., 2023. Linear programming the Ramsar convention’s criterion IV (case study: Shadegan Wetland, West Asia). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 195, 1194.
  41. Ramsar Convention, 2018. Wetlands for a sustainable future. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland.
  42. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, 2007. Participatory management: Guidelines for wetland management planning. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland. Available online at: https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/hbk4-07.pdf [Accessed 14 August 2025].
  43. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, 2016. An integrated framework for wetland inventory, assessment and monitoring. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland. Available online at: https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/hbk4-15.pdf [Accessed 14 August 2025].
  44. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, 2025. The Ramsar Convention manual: A guide to the Convention on Wetlands. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland.
  45. Ramsar Sites Information Service, [n.d.]. Shadegan Marshes & Mudflats of Khor-al Amaya & Khor Musa. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland. Available online at: https://rsis.ramsar.org/ris/41 [Accessed 23 September 2025].
  46. Salimi, S., Ghasemi, A., Mohammadi, H. and Rezaei, M., 2021. Carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions in wetlands: A global perspective. Environmental Science & Policy. 125, 107–116.
  47. Sandelowski, M. and Barroso, J., 2007. Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research. Springer Publishing Company, New York.
  48. Smajgl, A., Ward, J., Foran, T., Dore, J. and Larson, S., 2015. The Mekong Delta: Climate change and socio-economic impacts. Environmental Science & Policy. 46, 45–55.
  49. Stern, N., 2007. The economics of climate change: The Stern review. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Available online at: https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/publication/the-economics-of-climate-change-the-stern-review/ [Accessed 14 August 2025].
  50. Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, 2017. Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. Available online at: https://assets.bbhub.io/company/sites/60/2021/10/FINAL-2017-TCFD-Report.pdf [Accessed 15 October 2025].
  51. TEEB, 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi. Available online at: https://www.teebweb.org/wp-content/uploads/Study%20and%20Reports/Reports/Synthesis%20report/TEEB%20Synthesis%20Report%202010.pdf [Accessed 15 October 2025].
  52. UNCCD, 2017. Global land outlook. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, Bonn.
  53. UNDP, 2019. Human development report 2019: Beyond income, beyond averages, beyond today. United Nations Development Programme, New York.
  54. UNEP, 2015. Global waste management outlook. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi.
  55. UNESCO, 2003. Convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage. UNESCO, Paris. Available online at: https://ich.unesco.org/en/convention [Accessed 14 August 2025].
  56. UNESCO, 2017. Local knowledge, global goals. UNESCO, Paris. Available online at: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000259599 [Accessed 14 August 2025].
  57. UNFCCC, 2015. Paris Agreement. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Bonn.
  58. UN-Habitat, 2011. Cities and climate change: Global report on human settlements 2011. United Nations Human Settlements Programme, Nairobi.
  59. UNIDO, 2016. Industrial development report 2016: The role of technology and innovation in inclusive and sustainable industrial development. United Nations Industrial Development Organization, Vienna.
  60. UNISDR, 2015. Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015-2030. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, Geneva.
  61. UNWTO, 2019. Tourism and the sustainable development goals – Journey to 2030. World Tourism Organization, Madrid.
  62. Wang, X., Zhang, Y., Li, Z., Chen, H. and Yang, J., 2025. Carbon sequestration rates in different wetland types. Carbon Balance and Management. 20, 5.
  63. White, E.R., Froehlich, H.E., Gephart, J.A., Cottrell, R.S., Branch, T.A., Bejarano, R. and Baum, J.K., 2022. Loss of coastal and inland wetlands due to climate change. Global Environmental Change. 73, 102476.
  64. WHO, 2018. Climate change and health. World Health Organization, Geneva.
  65. Xi, Y., Peng, S., Ciais, P., Guenet, B., Wang, H., Gasser, T., Peñuelas, J. and Piao, S., 2021. Biodiversity loss in wetlands under climate change scenarios. Nature Climate Change. 11, 462–470.
  66. Yan, J., Zhang, X., Wang, Y., Xu, Z. and Liu, H., 2022. Decline in net primary production of wetlands. Remote Sensing of Environment. 268, 112778.
  67. Yekom Consulting Engineers, 2018. Study on the water quality of the Jarahi River and its impacts on Shadegan Wetland. Yekom Consulting Engineers, Tehran. (In Persian with English abstract).
  68. Yousefi Kebriya, M., Ghaffari, H., Mousavi, S.R. and Rezaei, A., 2025. Dust storms and wetland degradation: A case study of Shadegan Wetland. Atmospheric Environment. 320, 119912.
  69. Zahed, M.A., Vafaie, F., Basheer, C. and Hawari, A.H., 2010. Salinity impacts on coastal ecosystems. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 60, 1192–1200.
  70. Zimmer, L., 2006. Qualitative meta-synthesis: A question of dialoguing with texts. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 53, 311–318.
Environment and Interdisciplinary Development
Volume 10, Issue 88
Summer 2025
Pages 112-129

Home

Submit Manuscript

Contact Us