Elsevier

Computers & Geosciences

Volume 59, September 2013, Pages 1-8
Computers & Geosciences

A modified analytical hierarchy process (M-AHP) approach for decision support systems in natural hazard assessments

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2013.05.010Get rights and content

Highlights

  • A modified analytical hierarchy process (M-AHP) is suggested.

  • The consistency ratio value in the M-AHP never exceeds 0.10.

  • A computer code called M-AHP is provided.

Abstract

The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a classic and powerful decision support tool. However, the conventional AHP has some disadvantages originating in the expert decision-making process. To minimize the disadvantages of the conventional AHP, a modified analytical hierarchy process (M-AHP), is suggested in this study. This study is conducted in three stages: (i) the theoretical background for the conventional AHP is introduced, (ii) essentials for the proposed M-AHP technique are given with an example solution for the evaluation of snow avalanche source susceptibility, and (iii) a computer code named M-AHP is presented. By applying the methodology suggested in this study, the consistency ratio value for the comparison matrix and the weight vector never exceeds 0.10. The M-AHP program is a complementary tool for natural hazard, natural resource, or nature preservation researchers who apply the M-AHP technique to their decision support problem.

Introduction

It is commonly accepted that a natural event, such as a landslide, flood, avalanche, or wild fire, becomes a natural hazard when humans interact with the event under any circumstances or for any reason. As world population increases, the need to find suitable inhabitable areas prominently increases; hence, human beings face these natural events more frequently in their lifespan. Therefore, evaluation of interactions between natural events and humans in terms of hazard and risk has become a popular topic in the geosciences and in natural resources conservation over the last two decades. Modelling is one of the main tools for the assessment of natural hazards. Modelling can be defined as an abstraction of a real world phenomenon into a 2d surface, 3d structure, or digital simulation. In discussing the abstraction of any phenomenon, we should first consider the relevant uncertainty due to that abstraction. Modelling techniques can be classified into two main groups: deterministic and stochastic. Physical and/or mathematical models are deterministic models. Uncertainty is not accepted nor evaluated in deterministic models. Unfortunately, problems related to natural hazards cannot usually be handled without considering inherent uncertainty. Therefore, natural hazards problems are commonly modelled using stochastic techniques. The main limitations of these techniques are the requirement of a representative number of samples and appropriate databases for relevant natural phenomenon. In recent years, modelling techniques such as soft computing and data mining have become popular in the assessment of natural hazards problems. One of these techniques is fuzzy logic (Zadeh, 1965), an expert system that does not require large sample sizes in modelling studies. However, one of the main drawbacks of the fuzzy system approach is that it can be substantially sophisticated in application. The complexity of the system can increase exponentially with an increase in the numbers of the variables in the system, which can also mean a drastic increase in the numbers of the membership functions, and after a certain complexity, the system may become unsolvable or not executable. It is usually desired that models are clearly understandable, track running stages, and are practical in real application. Another modelling technique evaluated in expert systems is the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) (Saaty, 1980). The stages running in an AHP model can be easily followed. Additionally, this technique does not require any training stage, meaning it does not need a complete database. It is based on expert knowledge. Many studies evaluating natural hazards and geo-environmental problems using the AHP technique can be found in recent literature (i.e. Dai et al., 2001, Wu et al., 2004, Chen et al., 2011, Bathrellos et al., 2012, Chang and Chao, 2012, Tsai et al., 2012). The main advantage of the method is the property given by the statement “depending on expert knowledge”; however, this is also the main disadvantage. Expert subjectivity, particularly in pair-wise comparisons, constitutes the main drawback of the AHP. In order to handle this subjectivity, the fuzzy logic approach has been integrated with AHP, and Fuzzy-AHP models have been constructed to evaluate natural hazards and geo-environmental problems in recent literature (Wang et al., 2006, Gorsevski et al., 2006, Lari et al., 2009, Sadiq and Tesfamariam, 2009, Huang et al., 2012, Pourghasemi et al., 2012). Both approaches have limitations, particularly during the modelling stage. Considering the main limitations of conventional AHP and the fuzzy logic approach, a modification of the conventional AHP is introduced in this study, and a computer code for the modified analytical hierarchy process (M-AHP) is presented for decision support systems in natural hazard assessments.

Section snippets

Theoretical background of the analytical hierarchy process (AHP)

The theoretical background for the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) method is summarised from Yaralıoğlu (2004). The AHP method enables calculation of the distribution of the percentage on the resultant decision points with respect to conditioning factors affecting the results (Yaralıoğlu, 2004). The method uses a comparison matrix defined by considering a decision hierarchy. The importance differences are expressed in terms of distribution of the percentage on the decision points. The basics

A modified analytical hierarchy process (M-AHP)

The M-AHP is a modified version of the conventional AHP. The purpose of this modification is to compensate for expert subjectivity encountered in factor comparisons. The differences between the M-AHP and the conventional AHP can be classified into two groups. The first group is related to the preparation of the factor comparison matrix performed in the second stage of the conventional AHP. In this stage of the M-AHP:

  • The comparison matrix is not prepared by the expert,

  • The expert only gives the

A computer code for the M-AHP

The M-AHP is a powerful tool for decision support problems, particularly when working on complex situations. It is possible to apply the M-AHP technique to a problem manually. However, the M-AHP program is developed to avoid possible errors encountered during M-AHP application and to reduce the application time. Additionally, with an increase in the number of factors and the number of decision points, manual solution becomes impractical.

The M-AHP program is developed with the C (Standard

Discussion and conclusions

A modified analytical hierarchy process (M-AHP) is suggested in this study. Additionally, a computer code called M-AHP is also provided. There are several well-known application areas for the conventional AHP (Saaty, 2008). The main advantage of the technique is also the main disadvantage. More specifically, the uncertainties raised by the expert constitute the main drawback of the conventional AHP. Considering commercial or daily life applications of the technique, the uncertainty raised by

References (22)

  • F.C. Dai et al.

    GIS-based geo-environmental evaluation for urban land-use planning: a case study

    Engineering Geology

    (2001)
  • L.A. Zadeh

    Fuzzy sets

    Information and Control

    (1965)
  • J.A. Alonso et al.

    Consistency in the analytic hierarchy process: a new approach

    International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems

    (2006)
  • G.D. Bathrellos et al.

    Potential suitability for urban planning and industry development using natural hazard maps and geological–geomorphological parameters

    Environmental Earth Science

    (2012)
  • C. Chang et al.

    Using the analytical hierarchy process to assess the environmental vulnerabilities of basins in Taiwan

    Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

    (2012)
  • Y. Chen et al.

    Integrated application of the analytic hierarchy process and the geographic information system for flood risk assessment and flood plain management in Taiwan

    Natural Hazards

    (2011)
  • Crétaux, C.F., Leblanc, M., Tweed, S., Calmant, S., Abarca Del Rio, R., Ramillien, G., Cazenave, A., 2007. Flood...
  • ENVI, 2012. ENVI User's Guide. 〈http://aviris.gl.fcen.uba.ar/Curso_SR/biblio_sr/ENVI_userguid.pdf〉...
  • B.L. Golden et al.

    An alternative measure of consistency

  • P.V. Gorsevski et al.

    An heuristic approach for mapping landslide hazard by integrating fuzzy logic with analytic hierarchy process

    Control and Cybernetics

    (2006)
  • S. Huang et al.

    A new model of geo-environmental impact assessment of mining: a multiple-criteria assessment method integrating Fuzzy-AHP with fuzzy synthetic ranking

    Environmental Earth Science

    (2012)
  • Cited by (136)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text