hig.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard-cite-them-right
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • sv-SE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • de-DE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Comparison of fuzzy and crisp analytic hierarchy process (AHP) methods for spatial multicriteria decision analysis in GIS
University of Gävle, Department of Technology and Built Environment.
2008 (English)Independent thesis Advanced level (degree of Magister), 15 points / 22,5 hpStudent thesis
Abstract [en]

There are a number of decision making problems in which Geographical Information System (GIS) has employed to organize and facilitate the procedure of analyzing the problem. These GIS-based decision problems which typically include a number of different criteria and alternatives are generally analyzed by Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA).Different locations within a geographical area represent the alternatives by which the overall goal of the project is achieved. The quality of achieving the goal is evaluated by a set of criteria which should be considered in the work. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) which is a powerful method of MCDA generally can organize spatial problems and decides which alternatives are most suitable for the defined problems. However due to some intrinsic uncertainty in the method, a number of authors suggest fuzzifying the method while others are against fuzzification of the AHP.

The debate over fuzzifying AHP is going on and attempt for finding that was mostly in theory, and little, if any; practical comparison between the AHP and fuzzified AHP has done. This work presents a practical comparison of AHP and fuzzy AHP in a GIS-based problem, case study, for locating a dam in Costa Rica, considering different criteria. In order to perform the AHP and fuzzy AHP in the GIS-based problem and calculating weights of the criteria by the methods, some computer codes have written and developed in MATLAB.

The comparisons between the AHP and fuzzy AHP methods are done on result weights and on the result final maps. The comparison between the weights is repeated on different levels of uncertainty in fuzzy AHP then all the results are compared with the result of AHP method. Also this study for checking the effect of fuzzification on results is suggested Chi-Square test as a suitable tool.

Comparisons between the resulting weights of the AHP and fuzzy AHP methods show some differences between the methods. Furthermore, the Chi-Square test shows that the higher level of uncertainty in the fuzzy AHP, the greater the difference in results between the AHP and fuzzy AHP methods.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2008. , p. 54
Keywords [en]
Geographical Information System (GIS), Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
National Category
Engineering and Technology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hig:diva-669OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hig-669DiVA, id: diva2:120251
Uppsok
teknik
Supervisors
Examiners
Available from: 2008-09-16 Created: 2008-09-16

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(1601 kB)22167 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 1601 kBChecksum SHA-1
a9df7ec1faeddfc38d2af986913a500da59515d5c6da88b8aa10c3456434e7a837247b6b
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

By organisation
Department of Technology and Built Environment
Engineering and Technology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 22167 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 3225 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard-cite-them-right
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • sv-SE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • de-DE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf