Comparison of Fuzzy AHP Algorithms for Land Suitability Assessment

  • Jan CahaEmail author
  • Jaroslav Burian
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography book series (LNGC)


Weighted Linear Combination (WLC) is one of the most popular methods for Multiple Criteria Decision-making (MCDM) in the field of geoinformatics. A typical utilization of WLC is in land suitability assessment and optimal location detection. The application of WLC requires the determination of weights for each criterion used in the MCDM problem. In this paper, we focus on a fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) which is based on pairwise comparisons of criterion importance and, unlike the classic (crisp) AHP, it can contain uncertainty. This allows the user to include imprecise or incomplete knowledge in an MCDM problem. The theoretical part of the paper briefly describes fuzzy AHP and provides the necessary mathematical background. The practical part of the contribution is focused on testing two algorithms for weight determination in fuzzy AHP—the extent analysis method and a method based on constrained fuzzy arithmetic. The methods are described in terms of the amount of uncertainty in the result, the resulting value, and overall appropriateness. A four level fuzzy AHP problem containing one main goal, three criteria and twenty-four subcriteria is solved as a case study using both methods. Based on the results obtained, the recommendations for fuzzy AHP utilization in spatial suitability assessment are made.


Fuzzy AHP Analytical hierarchy process Multiple criteria Decision-making Land suitability 



The paper was supported by Internal Grant Agency of Palacký University Olomouc (project IGA_PrF_2016_008—Advanced monitoring, spatial analysis and visualization of urban landscape) and by the ERASMUS + project no. 2016-1-CZ01-KA203-024040.


  1. Banai, R. (1993). Fuzziness in geographical information systems: Contributions from the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 7(4), 315–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barzilai, J. (1997). Deriving weights from pairwise comparison matrices. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 48(12), 1226–1232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burian, J., Brychtova, A., Vavra, A., & Hladisova, B. (2016). Analytical material for planning in Olomouc, Czech Republic. Journal of Maps, 12(4), 649–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burian, J., Stastny, S., Brus, J., Pechanec, V., & Vozenilek, V. (2015). Urban planner: Model for optimal land use scenario modelling. GEOGRAFIE, 120(3), 330–353.Google Scholar
  5. Caha, J., & Drážná, A. (2016). Examples of FuzzyAHP package application (ver. 0.8.0). Retrieved from [28. 11. 2016].
  6. Chandio, I. A., Matori, A. N. B., WanYusof, K. B., Talpur, M. A. H., Balogun, A. L., & Lawal, D. U. (2013). GIS-based analytic hierarchy process as a multicriteria decision analysis instrument: A review. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 6(8), 3059–3066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chang, D.-Y. (1996). Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 95(3), 649–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Du, X., Zhou, K., Cui, Y., Wang, J., Zhang, N., & Sun, W. (2016). Application of fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and prediction-area (P-A) plot for mineral prospectivity mapping: A case study from the Dananhu metallogenic belt, Xinjiang, NW China. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 9(4).Google Scholar
  9. Elaalem, M., Comber, A., & Fisher, P. (2011). A comparison of fuzzy AHP and ideal point methods for evaluating land suitability. Transactions in GIS, 15(3), 329–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Feizizadeh, B., & Blaschke, T. (2013). GIS-multicriteria decision analysis for landslide susceptibility mapping: Comparing three methods for the Urmia lake basin, Iran. Natural Hazards, 65(3), 2105–2128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Feizizadeh, B., Shadman Roodposhti, M., Jankowski, P., & Blaschke, T. (2014). A GIS-based extended fuzzy multi-criteria evaluation for landslide susceptibility mapping. Computers & Geosciences, 73, 208–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hanss, M. (2005). Applied fuzzy arithmetic: An introduction with engineering applications. Berlin, New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Hopkins, L. D. (1977). Methods for generating land suitability maps: A comparative evaluation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 43(4), 386–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ishizaka, A., & Lusti, M. (2006). How to derive priorities in AHP: A comparative study. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 14(4), 387–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jankowski, P. (1995). Integrating geographical information systems and multiple criteria decision-making methods. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 9(3), 251–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Klir, G. J., & Pan, Y. (1998). Constrained fuzzy arithmetic: Basic questions and some answers. Soft Computing—A Fusion of Foundations, Methodologies and Applications, 2(2), 100–108.Google Scholar
  17. Krejčí, J., Pavlačka, O., & Talašová, J. (2016). A fuzzy extension of analytic hierarchy process based on the constrained fuzzy arithmetic. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, 16(1), 89–110.Google Scholar
  18. Nazari, A., Salarirad, M. M., & Bazzazi, A. A. (2012). Landfill site selection by decision-making tools based on fuzzy multi-attribute decision-making method. Environmental Earth Sciences, 65(6), 1631–1642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pazand, K., Hezarkhani, A., & Ghanbari, Y. (2014). Fuzzy analytical hierarchy process and GIS for predictive Cu porphyry potential mapping: A case study in Ahar-Arasbaran Zone (NW, Iran). Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 7(1), 241–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Saaty, T. L., & Tran, L. T. (2007). On the invalidity of fuzzifying numerical judgments in the analytic hierarchy process. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 46(7–8), 962–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tesfamariam, S., & Sadiq, R. (2006). Risk-based environmental decision-making using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (F-AHP). Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 21(1), 35–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. van Laarhoven, P. J. M., & Pedrycz, W. (1983). A fuzzy extension of Saaty’s priority theory. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 11(1), 229–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wang, Y. M., Luo, Y., & Hua, Z. (2008). On the extent analysis method for fuzzy AHP and its applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 186(2), 735–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Regional Development and Public Administration, Faculty of Regional Development and International StudiesMendel University in BrnoBrnoCzech Republic
  2. 2.Department of Geoinformatics, Faculty of SciencePalacký University in OlomoucOlomoucCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations