Parametric-based neural networks and TOPSIS modeling in land suitability evaluation for alfalfa production using GIS

Original Article


Land evaluation is the process of predicting land use potential on the basis of its attributes. In the present study, the qualitative land suitability evaluation using parametric based neural networks and TOPSIS models was investigated for irrigated alfalfa production in Joveyn plain, Northeast of Iran. Some twenty-six land units were studied at the study area by a precise soil survey and their morphological and physicochemical properties. Our results indicated that the most limiting factor for alfalfa cultivation in the study area was soil fertility properties. The values of land indexes by neural networks model ranged from 46.39 in some parts in east and west to 75.91 in the middle parts of the study area, which categorized the plain from moderate (S3) to high (S1) suitable classes. The TOPSIS preference values for alfalfa cultivation in the study area varied between 0.388 and 0.773 which classified from moderate to very high classes. The coefficient of determination revealed a high correlation between the output results of two models (R2 = 0.961).


Land suitability Evaluation Alfalfa Neural networks TOPSIS GIS 



We thank Islamic Azad University-Mashhad branch for their support of the project. Thanks are also given to one anonymous reviewer for generous suggestions on data analyses and interpretations.


  1. Ayalew L, Yamagishi H, Ugawa N (2004) Landslide susceptibility mapping using GIS-based weighted linear combination, the case in Tsugawa area of Agano River, Niigata Prefecture, Japan. Landslide 1:73–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bagherzadeh A, Mansouri Daneshvar MR (2011) Physical land suitability evaluation for specific cereal crops using GIS at Mashhad Plain, Northeast of Iran. Front Agric China 5(4):90–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bagherzadeh A, Paymard P (2015) Assessment of land capability for different irrigation systems by parametric and fuzzy approaches in the Mashhad Plain, Northeast Iran. Soil Water Res 10(2):90–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ball A, De la Rosa D (2006) Modelling possibilities for the assessment of soil systems. In: Uphoff N et al. (eds) Biological approaches to sustainable soil systems. CRC Press, BocaRatonGoogle Scholar
  5. Biorani H, Ghofran A (2009) Determining and using technique for order preference by similarity ideal solution (TOPSIS) for ranking of civic region based on crim. Detective2:109–128 (in Persian)Google Scholar
  6. De Villers J, Barnard E (1992) Backpropagation neural nets with one and two hidden layers. IEEE Trans Neural Netw 4(1):136–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. FAO (1976) A framework for land evaluation. FAO soils bulletin no. 32. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  8. FAO (1983) Guidelines: land evaluation for rain fed agriculture. FAO soils bulletin no. 52. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  9. FAO (1985) Guideline: land evaluation for irrigated agriculture. FAO soils bulletin no. 55. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  10. FAO (1993) Guideline for land use planning. FAO development series no: 1, FAO, Rome, pp 96Google Scholar
  11. Fischer MM, Gopal S (1994) Artificial neural networks: a new approach to modeling interregional telecommunication flows. J Reg Sci 34(4):503–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Held M, Imeson A, Montanarella L (2003) Economic interests and benefits of sustainable use of soils and land management. Joint Research Centre Press, IspraGoogle Scholar
  13. Hwang CL, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. Springer-Verlag, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Joss BN, Hall RJ, Sidders DM, Keddy TJ (2008) Fuzzy-logic modeling of land suitability for hybrid poplar across the Prairie Provinces of Canada. Earth Environ Sci 141:79–96Google Scholar
  15. Keshavarzi A, Sarmadian F (2009) Investigation of fuzzy set theory’s efficiency in land suitability assessment for irrigated wheat in Qazvin province using Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and multivariate regression methods. In: Proceedings of the Pedometrics 2009 Conference, Beijing, China, 26–28 August 2009Google Scholar
  16. Kreinovich V, Sirisaengtaskin O (1993) 3-Layer neural networks are universal approximators or functionals and for control strategies. Neural Parallel Sci Comput 1(3):325–346Google Scholar
  17. Kurtener D, Krueger-Shvetsova E, Dubitskaia I (2004) Quality estimation of data collection. In: UDMS. UDMS Press, Giorggia-Venice pp 9101–9109Google Scholar
  18. Malczewski J (1999) GIS and multi-criteria decision analysis. Wiley, New York, p 392Google Scholar
  19. Malinova T, Guo ZX (2004) Artificial neural network modeling of hydrogen storage properties of Mg-based Alloys. Mater Sci Eng 365:219–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nash JE, Sutcliffe JV (1970) River flow forecasting through conceptual models, Part I: a discussion of principles. J Hydrol 10(3):282–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Olson DL (2003) Comparison of weights in TOPSIS models. Math Comput Model 40:721–727 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Prakash TN (2003) Land suitability analysis for agricultural crops: a fuzzy multicriteria decision making approach. Msc. Thesis, international Institute for geo-information science and earth observation enschede, The NetherlandGoogle Scholar
  23. Rumelhart DE, Hinton GE (1986) Learning representation by back-propagation errors. Nature 323(6088):533–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Saati S, Hatami Marbini A, Makoei A (2007) Group decision by TOPSIS fuzzy. Appl Math J Lahijan Univers 4:21–34 (Persian)Google Scholar
  25. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw–Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Saaty TL (1990) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper 48:9–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Saaty TL (1994) Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the AHP. RWS Publications, PittsburgGoogle Scholar
  28. Saaty TL, Vargas LG (2001) Models, methods, concepts and applications of the analytic hierarchy process. Kluwer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sui DZ (1994) Recently applications of neural networks for spatial data handling. Can J Remote Sensing 20(4):368–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sys C, Van Ranst E, Debaveye IJ (1991a) Land evaluation. Part I: principles in land evaluation and crop production calculations. General Administration for Development Cooperation, Agricultural Publication No. 7, Brussels, p 274Google Scholar
  31. Sys C, Van Ranst E, Debaveye IJ (1991b) Land evaluation. Part II: methods in land evaluation. General Administration for Development Cooperation, Agricultural Publication No. 7, Brussels, p 247Google Scholar
  32. Sys C, Van Ranst E, Debaveye IJ, Beernaert F (1993). Land evaluation. Part III: crop requirements. General Administration for Development Cooperation, Agricultural Publication No. 7, Brussels, p 199Google Scholar
  33. Tang H, Van Ranst E, Sys C (1992) An approach to predict land production potential for irrigated and rainfed winter wheat in Pinan County, China. Soil Technol 5:213–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Triantafilis J, Ward WT, McBratney AB (2001) Land suitability assessment in the Namoi Valley of Australia, using a continuous model. Amst J Soil Res 39:273–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Van Ranst E, Tang H, Groenemans R, Sinthurahat S (1996) Application of fuzzy logic to land suitability for rubber production in Peninsular Thailand. Geoderma 70:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zurada JM (1992) Introduction to artificial neural systems. West, St. PaulGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of AgricultureMashhadIran

Personalised recommendations