A comparative analysis of three multi-criteria decision-making methods for land suitability assessment

被引:0
|
作者
Farahnaz Rashidi
Shadi Sharifian
机构
[1] Education and Extension Organization (AREEO),Research Institute of Forests and Rangelands, Agricultural Research
[2] University of Payam Noor (PNU),undefined
来源
关键词
Afforestation; AHP; Fuzzy AHP; Buckley method; Multi-criteria decision-making; Siahpoosh Watershed; TOPSIS;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Natural resource management relies on identifying the ecological constraints, assessing land suitability, and considering the socio-economic demands in the region. However, in many developing countries, natural resources are extensively overused in favor of economic growth. This is due to the fact that conservation and natural constraints are not always taken into consideration during the planning phase, especially when the decision-making process is mainly influenced by political or economical views. To avoid these subjective plannings, environmental planners are encouraged to consider quantitative planning approaches that can integrate environmental, social, economic, and political matters through a non-bias procedure. The present study, therefore, examines the application of three multi-criteria decision-making methods (MCDM), namely, analytic hierarchical process (AHP), fuzzy analytic hierarchical process (fuzzy AHP), and technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS), for the assessment of land suitability afforestation. Siahpoosh Watershed, in Iran, is used as a case study to compare three MCDM methods. To achieve this, a set of land suitability criteria (i.e., slope, elevation, aspect, soil texture, soil depth, drainage, erosion, temperature, rainfall, and vegetation type and cover) was defined and weighted using the AHP and fuzzy AHP methods. TOPSIS was then used to prioritize and rank the suitability of different sections of the study area for afforestation. The study demonstrates that the fuzzy AHP method combined with TOPSIS generates more reliable outcomes than the AHP method. The results could be useful for making more informed decisions about afforestation in the region.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] A review of multi-criteria decision-making methods for infrastructure management
    Kabir, Golam
    Sadiq, Rehan
    Tesfamariam, Solomon
    [J]. STRUCTURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING, 2014, 10 (09) : 1176 - 1210
  • [42] Stochastic multi-criteria decision-making: an overview to methods and applications
    Erkan Celik
    Muhammet Gul
    Melih Yucesan
    Suleyman Mete
    [J]. Beni-Suef University Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 8
  • [43] Comparison of multi-criteria decision-making methods for equipment selection
    Hodgett, Richard Edgar
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY, 2016, 85 (5-8): : 1145 - 1157
  • [44] Comparison of multi-criteria decision-making methods for equipment selection
    Richard Edgar Hodgett
    [J]. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 2016, 85 : 1145 - 1157
  • [45] SUBJECTIVE MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION-MAKING
    ESHRAGH, F
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MAN-MACHINE STUDIES, 1980, 13 (01): : 117 - 141
  • [46] Vague Set Methods of Multi-criteria Fuzzy Decision-making
    Yan, Ruixia
    Zheng, Jianguo
    Wang, Xiang
    [J]. 2010 CHINESE CONTROL AND DECISION CONFERENCE, VOLS 1-5, 2010, : 658 - 661
  • [47] Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods in Bipolar Fuzzy Environment
    Alghamdi, M. A.
    Alshehri, Noura Omair
    Akram, Muhammad
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FUZZY SYSTEMS, 2018, 20 (06) : 2057 - 2064
  • [48] Multi-criteria decision-making methods: application in humanitarian operations
    Nain, Aniruddh
    Jain, Deepika
    Trivedi, Ashish
    [J]. BENCHMARKING-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, 2024, 31 (06) : 2090 - 2128
  • [49] Drone selection using multi-criteria decision-making methods
    Khan, Muhammad Sohaib
    Shah, Syed Irtiza Ali
    Javed, Ali
    Qadri, Nafees Mumtaz
    Hussain, Nadeem
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF 2021 INTERNATIONAL BHURBAN CONFERENCE ON APPLIED SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES (IBCAST), 2021, : 256 - 270
  • [50] Wastewater Treatment and Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods: A Review
    Sharma, Tina
    Kumar, Anuj
    Pant, Sangeeta
    Kotecha, Ketan
    [J]. IEEE ACCESS, 2023, 11 : 143704 - 143720