Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-24T12:55:49.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Priority setting in agricultural land-use types for sustainable development

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2007

Nevin Akpinar ,
Ilkden Talay  and
Sema Gun
Nevin Akpinar
Affiliation:
Ankara University, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Landscape Architecture, 06110 Diskapi, Ankara, Turkey.
Ilkden Talay*
Affiliation:
Ankara University, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Landscape Architecture, 06110 Diskapi, Ankara, Turkey.
Sema Gun
Affiliation:
Ankara University, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Economics, 06110 Diskapi, Ankara, Turkey.
*
*Corresponding author: talay@agri.ankara.edu.tr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Even in developing countries that are faced with ecological and socio-economic problems, agricultural areas are constrained by land-use laws to be developed in particular ways. This being the case, the major issues in these areas are a better quality of life and sustainable use of the limited resources. This necessitates planning for sustainable development and evaluating various qualitative and quantitative data in a single framework. Multicriteria or multipurpose decision analysis methods are appropriate for this purpose. Using these methods, physical, economical and social data, as well as planning goals, can be combined and evaluated in the context of sustainable development. These multicriteria methods have been documented widely in a variety of problem areas, but two multicriteria methods, namely AHP (analytic hierarchy process) and ELECTRE II (elimination and choice translating reality), have not been used extensively in agricultural land-use decisions in developing countries. However, in situations where decision-making criteria are non-commensurable, non-comparable or non-countable, and when it is necessary to evaluate the criteria together, as in agricultural land-use decisions, AHP and ELECTRE II methods are warranted. This study reviews these methods briefly and suggests their potential application in the agricultural land-use decision process in a developing country. For this purpose, these methods were sampled in Ziyaret Stream Basin in Adiyaman, which is part of the Güneydoğu Anadolu Projesi (GAP) (South-eastern Anatolian Project) in the Republic of Turkey. The area could be characterized by its rural and agricultural features, although it is under the pressure of Adiyaman urban development. This study shows that both AHP and ELECTRE II methods can be applied successfully for the determination of agricultural land-use priorities, which are an essential part of the quality of life and of sustainable land-use studies.

Keywords

agricultural land useAHP (analytic hierarchy process)ELECTRE II (elimination and choice translating reality)GAP (South-eastern Anatolian Project)multicriteria analysis
Type
Research Article
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , September 2005 , pp. 136 - 147
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Mahmoud, R.M. and Garcia, L.A. (2000) Comparison of different multicriteria evaluation methods for the Red Bluff diversion dam. Environmental Modelling and Software 15: 471–478.Google Scholar
2Raju, K.S., Pillai, C.R.S. (1999) Multicriterion decision making in river basin planning and development. European Journal of Operational Research 112: 249–257.Google Scholar
3Zanakis, S.H., Solomon, A., Wishart, N. and Dublish, S. (1998) Multi attribute decision-making: a simulation comparison of select methods. European Journal of Operational Research 107: 507–529.Google Scholar
4Akptnar, N (2003) Sürdürülebilir alan kullanιm planlamasιnda alan kullanιm tiplerine ait önceliklerin simos prosedürü ve ELECTRE I yöntemi ile belirlenmesi. Ankara Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Tarιm Bilimleri Dergisi 9(2): 234–242.Google Scholar
5Raj, P.A. (1995) Multicriteria methods in river basin planning – !thinsp;a case study. Water Science and Technology 31(8): 261–272.Google Scholar
6Karagiannidis, A. and Moussiopoulos, N. (1997) Application of ELECTRE III for the integrated management of municipal solid waste in the Greater Athens Area. European Journal of Operational Research 97: 439–449.Google Scholar
7Beccall, M., Cellura, M. and Ardente, D. (1998) Decision making in energy planning: the ELECTRE multicriteria analysis approach compared to a fuzzy-sets methodology. Energy Conversion and Management 39: 16–181869–1881.Google Scholar
8Goletsis, Y., Psarras, J. and Samouilidis, J.E. (2003) Project ranking in the Armenian energy sector using a multicriteria method for groups. Annals of Operations Research 120: 135–157.Google Scholar
9Huylenbroeck, G.V. (1997) Multicriteria tools for the trade-off analysis in rural planning between economic and environmental objectives. Applied Mathematics and Computation 83: 261–280.Google Scholar
10Salminen, P., Hokkanen, J. and Lahdelma, R. (1998) Comparing multicriteria methods in the context of environmental problems. European Journal of Operational Research 104: 485–496.Google Scholar
11Lahdelma, R., Salminen, P. and Hokkanen, J. (2000) Using multicriteria methods in environmental planning and management. Environmental Management 26(6): 595–605.Google Scholar
12Cheng, S., Chan, C.W. and Huang, G.H. (2003) An integrated multicriteria decision analysis and inexact mixed integer linear programming approach for solid waste management. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 16: 543–554.Google Scholar
13Colson, G. (2000) The OR's prize winner and the software ARGOS: how a multijudge and multicriteria ranking GDSS helps a jury to attribute a scientific award. Computers and Operations Research 27: 741–755.Google Scholar
14Ananda, J. and Herath, G. (2003) The use of Analytic Hierarchy Process to incorporate stakeholder preferences into regional forest planning. Forest Policy and Economics 5: 13–16.Google Scholar
15Duke, M.J. and Hyde, R.A. (2002) Identifying public preferences for land preservation using the analytic hierarchy process. Ecological Economics 42: 131–145.Google Scholar
16Ramanathan, R. (2001) A note on the use of analytic hierarchy process for environmental impact assessment. Journal of Environmental Management 63: 27–35.Google Scholar
17Dai, F.C., Lee, F.C. and Zhang, X.H. (2001) GIS-based geo-environmental evaluation for urban land use planning: a case study. Engineering Geology 61: 257–271.Google Scholar
18Guo, L.S. and He, Y.S. (1999) Integrated multicriterial decision model: a case study for the allocation of facilities in Chinese Agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 73: 87–94.Google Scholar
19Alphonce, C.B. (1997) Application of the analytic hierarchy process in agriculture in developing countries. Agricultural Systems 53: 97–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20Altι, and nbilek, H.D. (1997) Water and land resources development in south-eastern Turkey. Water Resources Development 13(3): 311–332.Google Scholar
21Unver, I.H.O. (1997a) South eastern Anatolia project (GAP). Water Resources Development 13(4): 453–483.Google Scholar
22Unver, I.H.O. (1997b) South eastern Anatolia integrated development project (GAP), Turkey: an overview of issues of sustainability. Water Resources Development 13(2): 187–207.Google Scholar
23Basal, M., Akpnar, N., Karadeniz, N., Talay, İ., Tanrιvermiş, H., and Kιlιç, N. 2000. Adιyaman Ziyaret Çayι Havzasι tarιmsal potansiyelinin belirlenmesi ve enerji etkin planlama bağlamιnda arazi kullanιm deseninin oluşturulmasι. TÜBİTAK/TARP Sempozyumu Bildiri Özetleri Kitabι. p. 36–37.Google Scholar
24Harita Genel Müdürlüğü. 1999. 1:25 000 Ölçekli Topografik Haritalar ve Sayιsal Altlyιklar. Ankara.Google Scholar
25Orman Genel Müdürlüğü. 1990. Adιyaman Orman İşletme Müdürlüğü Şehittepe-Kalburcu Kuyucak Serisi Orman Amenajman Plan ve Raporlarι. Ankara.Google Scholar
26Köy Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlüğü. 1999. Adιyaman İli Arazi Varlιğι. Tarιm, Orman ve Köyişleri Bakanlιğι, Ankara.Google Scholar
27Devlet Meteoroloji İşleri Genel Müdürlüğü. 1999. Adιyaman Gözlem İstasyonu Verileri. Uzun Yιllalr ve Son On Yιllιk Ortalamalarι Ankara.Google Scholar
28SIS. 1998. Ekonomik ve Sosyal Göstergeler – Adιyaman, T.C. Başbakanlιk Devlet İstatistik Enstitüsü, Ankara.Google Scholar
29Martinez-Alonso, S. (1995) Quantitative Techniques in Landscape Planning. Lewis Publishers, CRC Press.Google Scholar
30Joerin, F., Theriault, M. and Musy, A. (2001) Using GIS and outranking multicriteria analysis for land-use suitability assessment. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 15(2): 153–174.Google Scholar
31Joerin, F. and Musy, A. (2000) Land management with GIS and multicriteria analysis. International Transactions in Operational Research 7: 67–78.Google Scholar
32Golley, F.B. and Bellot, J. (1999) Rural Planning from an Environmental System Perspective. New York, Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
33Quaddus, M.A., Siddique, M.A.B. (2001) Modelling sustainable development planning: a multicriteria decision conferencing approach. Environment International 27: 89–95.Google Scholar
34Saaty, T.L. (1983) Priority settings in complex problems. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 30: 140–155.Google Scholar
35Saaty, T.L. (1974) Measuring fuzziness of sets. Journal of Cybernetics 4(4): 53–61.Google Scholar
36Akpinar, N. 1995. Madencilik Sonrasi Alan Kullanim Alternatiflerinin Değerlendirilmesinde Fuzzy Set Tekniğinden Yararlanma Olanaklari Üzerine Bir Araştirma. Yayιn No: 1430. Ankara Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi, Ankara.Google Scholar
37Duke, J.M. and Hyde, R.A. (2002) Identifying public preferences for land preservation using the analytic hierarchy process. Ecological Economics 42: 131–145.Google Scholar
38Karakaya, E. 1995. Analysis of current reclamation practices post mining land use alternatives and suggested procedures in GELI mines. Master's thesis, METU, Ankara.Google Scholar