ITEM METADATA RECORD
Title: Comparison of discrete multi-criteria decision making methods for selection of afforestation sites
Authors: Estrella Maldonado, Rene
Delabastita, Ward
Wijffels, Anja
Van Orshoven, Jos #
Issue Date: Nov-2012
Publisher: Unité de Géomatique, Département de géographie, Université de Liège
Series Title: Actes de la Conférence internationale de Géomatique et Analyse Spatiale 2012 pages:182-197
Conference: Conférence internationale de Géomatique et Analyse Spatiale edition:2012 location:Liège, Belgium date:6-9 November 2012
Abstract: This paper reports on a comparison of six Multi-Criteria Decision making Methods
(MCDM) when used to rank sites for afforestation. ELECTRE III, PROMETHEE II, Analytic
Hierarchy Process (AHP), Compromise Programming (CP), Stochastic Multi-criteria Accept-
ability Analysis (SMAA-2) and Iterative Ideal Point Thresholding (IIPT) were applied to a ras-
terized database containing a number of land units, with each land unit representing a group
of spatially scattered pixels with identical land performance values. The 20 land units in the
database were used as decision alternatives during the comparison. The decision criteria were
five attributes expressing the biophysical and socio-economical performance of these land units
30yearsafterbeingcoveredbyPinuspatula.ThespecificquestionaddressedwiththeseMCDM
was: “Which land units should be afforested with Pinus patula to achieve an optimal land per-
formance 30 years after planting the trees?” The output of each method was a ranking of the
land units, ordered in accordance to their multi-criteria performance.
A certain degree of consistency was observed in the rankings produced by all MCDM. Specifi-
cally, all methods designated the same four land unit as the most suitable alternatives, whereas
only IIPT showed minimal differences regarding the least suitable land unit. Besides this, for
all MCDM with the exception of IIPT, consistency was also observed in some intermediate po-
sitions in the ranking, although for other positions the results produced by the MCDM did not
exactly coincide. This inconsistency can be attributed to inherent particularities of the methods
and to the specific values assigned to the parameters used in each of them.
Publication status: published
KU Leuven publication type: IC
Appears in Collections:Division Forest, Nature and Landscape Research
# (joint) last author

Files in This Item:
File Description Status SizeFormat
Comparison MCDM.pdf Published 701KbAdobe PDFView/Open

 


All items in Lirias are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.