Environmental Management

, Volume 13, Issue 6, pp 685–693 | Cite as

A new method for site suitability analysis: The analytic hierarchy process

  • Reza Banai-Kashani


A critical shortcoming of methods that are reliant upon the judgment of experts to determine site suitability is noted. The article introduces a new method, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) with which error in judging the relative importance of factors in site suitability analysis can be both detected and corrected. The proposed approach is illustrated with an example to show how the AHP frames the site evaluation problem and can aid in decision making involving multiple criteria, factor diversity, and conditions of uncertainty. The article concludes by suggesting the potential application of the AHP in public choice decisions involving complex, controversial, and conflictual site selection processes.

Key words

Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) Site suitability Multicriteria evaluation Judgment consistency 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature cited

  1. Anderson, L. T. 1987. Seven methods for calculating land capability/suitability. Planning advisory service (PAS) report No. 402. American Planning Association, Chicago: 20 PP.Google Scholar
  2. Banai-Kashani, A. R. 1987. A new paradigm for planning simulation. Pages 131–136 In E. Alexander (ed.), Proceedings of the 1987 international congress on planning and design theory. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Banai-Kashani, A. R. 1988. Toward a synthetic measure of good settlement form.Environment and Planning 15B:399–412.Google Scholar
  4. Buchanan, J. M., and G. Tullock. 1965. The calculus of consent. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. 316 pp.Google Scholar
  5. Chapin, F. S., and E. J. Kaiser. 1979. Urban land use planning. University of Illinois Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  6. Dee, N., J. K. Baker, N. L. Drobry, K. M. Duke, I. Whitman, and D. Fabringer. 1973. An environmental evaluation system for water resources planning.Water Resources Research 9(2):523–535.Google Scholar
  7. Expert Choice. 1988. Software Package. Decision Support Software, McLean, Virginia.Google Scholar
  8. Hall, P. 1980. Great planning disasters. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 308 pp.Google Scholar
  9. Hopkins, L. D. 1977. Methods of generating land suitability maps: A comparative evaluation.Journal of the American Institute of Planners 43(4):386–400.Google Scholar
  10. Hughes, W. 1986. Deriving utilities using the analytic hierarchy process.Socio-Economic Planning Science 20(6):393–395.Google Scholar
  11. Leopold, L. B., F. E. Clarke, B. B. Hanshaw, and J. R. Balsley. 1971. A procedure for evaluating environmental impact. Geological survey circular 645. US Geological Survey, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  12. Lynch, K. 1984. A theory of good city form. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusettes.Google Scholar
  13. McHarg, I. 1969. Design with nature. Natural History Press, New York. 197 pp.Google Scholar
  14. Miller, G. A. 1956. The magical number seven plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.Psychological Review 63:81–97.Google Scholar
  15. Nijkamp, P., and H. Voogd. 1983. A survey of multicriteria analysis for development planning. Pages 217–229in L. Chatterjee, P. Nijkamp (eds.), Urban and regional policy analysis in developing countries. Gower, Boston.Google Scholar
  16. Saaty, R. W. 1987. The analytic hierarchy process—what it is and how it is used.Mathematical Modelling. 9(3–5):161–176.Google Scholar
  17. Saaty, R. W., and L. G. Vargas (eds.). 1987. The analytic hierarchy process.Mathematical Modelling 9(3–5).Google Scholar
  18. Saaty, T. L. 1977. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures.Journal of Mathematical Psychology 15(3):234–281.Google Scholar
  19. Saaty, T. L. 1980. The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York. 287 pp.Google Scholar
  20. Saaty, T. L. 1982. Decision-making for leaders. Lifetime Learning, San Francisco. 291 pp.Google Scholar
  21. Saaty, T. L. 1987. Rank generation, preservation, and reversal in the analytic hierarchy decision process.Decision Sciences 18:157–177.Google Scholar
  22. Saaty, T. L., and J. M. Alexander. 1977. The forward and backward processes of conflict analysis.Behavioral Science 22:87–98.Google Scholar
  23. Saaty, T. L., and L. Vargas. 1982. The logic of priorities. Kluwer/Nijhoff, Boston. 299 pp.Google Scholar
  24. Simon, H. 1981. The sciences of the artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 247 pp.Google Scholar
  25. Simon, H. 1983. Reason in human affairs. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. 115 pp.Google Scholar
  26. Steiner, F. 1983. Resource suitability: Methods for analyses.Environmental Management. 7(5):401–420.Google Scholar
  27. Steiner, F. 1987. Agricultural land evaluation and site assessment in the United States: An introduction.Environmental Management 11(3):375–377.Google Scholar
  28. USDA (Department of Agriculture). 1983. National agricultural land evaluation and site assessment handbook. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  29. Vargas, L. G. 1987. Priority theory and utility theory.Mathematical Modeling 9(3–5):381–385.Google Scholar
  30. Wright, L. E., W. Zitzmann, K. Young, and R. Googins. 1983. LESA—agricultural land evaluation and site assessment.Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 38(2):82–86.Google Scholar
  31. Zahedi, F. 1986. The analytic hierarchy process—a survey of the method and its applications.Interfaces 16(4):96–108.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Reza Banai-Kashani
    • 1
  1. 1.Graduate Program in City and Regional Planning Department of Geography and PlanningMemphis State UniversityMemphisUSA

Personalised recommendations