ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS FOR SPATIAL DECISION MAKING
作者： Fatmagül Batuk , Derya Öztürk
DOI:
关键词:
摘要: Decision-making is the investigating process to decide best solution by evaluating usually many factors. Analytic hierarchy (AHP) one of multi-criteria decision making methods (MCDM), based on pair-wise comparisons factors using values in range 1–9. Many spatial problems as site selection, disaster risk assessments, planning decisions, natural resource management, etc. are depend multi-criteria. In this article, order contribute future studies use analytic method for problems, explained theoretical background and calculation procedures shown a sample application.
参考文章(10)
Bryan H. Massam, Spatial search : application to planning problems in the public sector Pergamon Press. ,(1980)
Thomas L. Saaty, Luis G. Vargas, Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process ,(2012)
Evangelos Triantaphyllou, Multi-criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study ,(2000)
Thomas Lorie Saaty, The analytic hierarchy process : planning, priority setting, resource allocation ,(1980)
Piotr Jankowski, Integrating geographical information systems and multiple criteria decision-making methods International Journal of Geographic Information Systems. ,vol. 9, pp. 251- 273 ,(1995) , 10.1080/02693799508902036
Jacek Malczewski, Integrating multicriteria analysis and geographic information systems: the ordered weighted averaging (OWA) approach International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management. ,vol. 6, pp. 7- 19 ,(2006) , 10.1504/IJETM.2006.008251
Thomas L. Saaty, DECISION MAKING WITH THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS International Journal of Services Sciences. ,vol. 1, pp. 83- 98 ,(2008) , 10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590
Oswald Marinoni, Implementation of the analytical hierarchy process with VBA in ArcGIS Computers & Geosciences. ,vol. 30, pp. 637- 646 ,(2004) , 10.1016/J.CAGEO.2004.03.010
Jacek Malczewski, GIS-based land-use suitability analysis: a critical overview Progress in Planning. ,vol. 62, pp. 3- 65 ,(2004) , 10.1016/J.PROGRESS.2003.09.002
Assessing the quality of different MCDA methods Routledge. pp. 115- 149 ,(2004) , 10.4324/9780203412879-14