Am J Environ Eng 4:32–40ĭeng H (1999) Multicriteria analysis with fuzzy pairwise comparison. Appl Soft Comput 11:265–275ĭehghani M, Rastegarfar M, Ashrafi RA, Ghazipour N, Khorramrooz HR (2014) Interferometric SAR and geospatial techniques used for subsidence study in the Rafsanjan plain. Irrig Drain 59:174–188Ĭhen VY, Lien HP, Liu CH, Liou JJ, Tzeng GH, Yang LS (2011) Fuzzy MCDM approach for selecting the best environment-watershed plan. IEEE, pp V1–375Ĭhen Y, Khan S, Paydar Z (2010) To retire or expand? A fuzzy GIS-based spatial multi-criteria evaluation framework for irrigated agriculture. In: Information networking and automation (ICINA), int conference on 2010 Oct 18, vol 1.

Geotech 54(2):143–147Ĭhen J, Zhu Q (2010) Uncertainty and decision strategy analysis of GIS-based ordered weighted averaging method. Int J Geogr Inf Syst 5:321–339Ĭhai JC, Shen SL, Zhu HH, Zhang XL (2004) Land subsidence due to groundwater drawdown in Shanghai. Eur J Oper Res 102:538–553Ĭarver SJ (1991) Integrating multi-criteria evaluation with geographical information systems. Int J Environ Res Public Health 15(1):140Ĭarmone FJ, Kara A, Zanakis SH (1997) A Monte Carlo investigation of incomplete pairwise comparison matrices in AHP. Springer, BerlinĬabrera-Barona P, Ghorbanzadeh O (2018) Comparing classic and interval analytical hierarchy process methodologies for measuring area-level deprivation to analyze health inequalities. Environ Monit Assess 129(1–3):277–294īrunelli M (2014) Introduction to the analytic hierarchy process. Our results will be of considerable importance for researchers involved in GIS-based multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) and those dealing with GIS-based spatial decision-making methods.Īhmadi SH, Sedghamiz A (2007) Geostatistical analysis of spatial and temporal variations of groundwater level. This improvement was achieved by minimizing the uncertainty associated with criteria ranking/weighting in a traditional AHP and could form a basis for future research into minimizing the uncertainty in weightings derived using the AHP method. The results were tested against a data set of known land subsidence occurrences, indicating an improvement in accuracy of about 14% in the LSSM map that was developed using the IPCM method. The criteria weightings obtained were then used to produce LSSM maps based on each of these approaches. To compare the capability of the AHP method (a traditional approach) with that of the proposed IPCM method (a novel approach), 11 creations of LSSM were ranked using each approach in turn. The method has been used for criteria ranking in land subsidence susceptibility mapping (LSSM) as a practical test case, for which an interval matrix was generated by pairwise comparison. We present a new method for optimizing pairwise comparison decision-making matrices in AHP method, which has been developed on the basis of an interval pairwise comparison matrix (IPCM) derived from expert knowledge. The analytical hierarchy process (AHP) is one of the most effective methods for criteria ranking/weighting to have been successfully incorporated into GIS analyses.

Ahp decision matrix