Effects of increasing fuzziness on analytic hierarchy process for spatial multicriteria decision analysis

Abstract

Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) involves techniques which relatively recently have received great increase in interest for their capabilities of solving spatial decision problems. One of the most frequently used techniques of MCDA is Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). In the AHP, decision-makers make pairwise comparisons between different criteria to obtain values of their relative importance. The AHP initially only dealt with crisp numbers or exact values in the pairwise comparisons, but later it has been modified and adapted to also consider fuzzy values. It is necessary to empirically validate the ability of the fuzzified AHP for solving spatial problems. Further, the effects of different levels of fuzzification on the method have to be studied. In the context of a hypothetical GIS-based decision-making problem of locating a dam in Costa Rica using real-world data, this paper illustrates and compares the effects of increasing levels of uncertainty exemplified through different levels of fuzzification of the AHP. Practical comparison of the methods in this work, in accordance with the theoretical research, revealed that by increasing the level of uncertainty or fuzziness in the fuzzy AHP, differences between results of the conventional and fuzzy AHPs become more significant. These differences in the results of the methods may affect the final decisions in decision-making processes. This study concludes that the AHP is sensitive to the level of fuzzification and decision-makers should be aware of this sensitivity while using the fuzzy AHP. Furthermore, the methodology described may serve as a guideline on how to perform a sensitivity analysis in spatial MCDA. Depending on the character of criteria weights, i.e. the degree of fuzzification, and its impact on the results of a selected decision 1 rule (e.g. AHP), the results from a fuzzy analysis may be used to produce sensitivity estimates for crisp AHP MCDA methods.

Integrating GIS with AHP and Fuzzy Logic to generate hand, foot and mouth disease hazard zonation (HFMD-HZ) model in Thailand

“…The hierarchical structure of AHP decision making process (Kordi M. and Brandt S.A., 2012) The AHP method was created by Saaty (L.T. Saaty,1980).…”

Modeling Flood Risk for an Urban CBD Using AHP and GIS

“…These issues are those that are to be considered in tackling the problem. Such a hierarchical ordering often helps to simplify the problem and bring it to a condition which is more easily understood [6]. As illustrated in Fig.…”

“…Such fuzziness, even in expert judgment, generally leads to matrices that are not quite consistent. However some matrices might violate consistency very slightly by only two or three elements while others may have values that cannot even be called close to consistent [6]. The measure of how far a matrix is from consistency may be determined by computing the Consistency Ratio (C.R.).…”

Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in Spatial Modeling for Floodplain Risk Assessment

“…These hierarchical orders help to simplify the problem and bring it to a condition which is more easily understood. In each hierarchical level, the weights of the elements are calculated [4]. Refer to Fig.…”

“…Comparing these alternatives and defining the importance of each relative to the others are done using the PCM. Computing the importance ratios for each pair of alternatives, a matrix of pair-wise comparison ratios is obtained [4].…”