using the analytic hierarchy process and gis for …...using the analytic hierarchy process and gis...

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 359 [email protected]

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET) Volume 7, Issue 2, March-April 2016, pp. 359–375, Article ID: IJCIET_07_02_032 Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=7&IType=2 Journal Impact Factor (2016): 9.7820 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316 © IAEME Publication

USING THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS AND GIS FOR DECISION

MAKING IN RURAL HIGHWAY ROUTE LOCATION

Ayman A. Abdul-Mawjoud

Assistant Prof., Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering/University of Mosul, Mosul/Iraq

Mohammed G. Jamel

Assistant Lec., Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering/ University of Mosul, Mosul/Iraq

ABSTRACT

Rural highway route location is a very complex case, requiring significant

time and effort from the planners. This study presented the route location

method by applying Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Geographical

Information System (GIS). The location of the study is confined to south Mosul

city in Iraq of the area (198km2). The researcher is behind defining the route

which connects Baghdad-Mosul and Mosul-Kirkuk roadways. This route is

considered the suggested turn to Mosul city. A variety of data set from

different sources and at different scales are managed. A questionnaire has

been made with a group of decision makers and specialists in designing and

constructing roadways to point out the relative importance of location criteria

that was done by following pairwise comparison after building a hierarchical

framework to evaluate the criteria. The relative importance is found as

follows: land use (23%), water resources (26%), slope (10%), soil bearing

(10%), environmental impact (5%), hydrology (8%), settlement area (11%)

and linear engineering structure (7%). A basic for sub-criteria weighted

within designed criteria was conducted according to cost and engineering properties.

The study is based on an accurate digital space data of 0.6m to define and

insert the data and locations of these criteria and change it into digital data by

using GIS Program-ArcMap10. It is used as a tool in the hands of decision

makers to determine the Spatial Multi - Criteria Decision Analysis. This

influences the defined route as part of the stages of route design by

formulating the equivalent cost surface to the mentioned criteria. Many maps

and special framework of insertion of data analysis of the adjusted surface

have been used to define the optimal route. It was also conducted to evaluate

this route compared with the shortest possible route and tracks proposed by

Ayman A. Abdul-Mawjoud and Mohammed G. Jamel


the relevant agencies in Mosul city, it was found that the optimal route

reduces valuable cost surface by up to between (21.8% to 63.7%) for the other

tracks. The cost surface is changed to form many alternatives with different

lengths to define Least Cost Route. That is done by economic assessment of the

influential criteria on the suggested routes. A shorter route than the optimal

one is gained with less cost of (2.25%) to reduce the environmental impacts

and travel time and use of GIS to get the rate of criteria in every suggested

route to facilitate the process of decision making.

Key words: Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), GIS, Highway route location, Least cost path, Multi-criteria analysis (MCA), Optimum route, Pairwise comparisons, Weighted Linear Combination (WLC).

Cite this Article: Ayman A. Abdul-Mawjoud and Mohammed G. Jamel. Using The Analytic Hierarchy Process and GIS For Decision Making In Rural Highway Route Location, International Journal of Civil Engineering and

Technology, 7(2), 2016, pp. 359–375. http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=7&IType=2

1. INTRODUCTION

The process of designing and constructing roads is considered one of the most complicating problems in creating the balance among the technical, economic and environmental factors. Moreover, the process of defining the optimum route is part of the stages which subject to certain location criteria that require a balance among them, that aims at reducing losses resulting from the loss of natural resources and lessening the initial survey to define the route.

The Analytic Hierarchical Process (AHP) can be employed as one approaches that may be applied to find complex decision - making problems containing multiple scenarios and criteria [1, 2]. Saaty [3] proposed AHP method that has the flexibility to combine quantitative and qualitative factors to manage different groups of performers. It uses a multi-level hierarchical configuration of objectives, criteria and sub-criteria. The relevant data are derived by using a set of pairwise comparisons. The weights of the importance of the decision criteria are obtained through these comparisons, a checking for consistency are performed to ensure that the comparisons are perfectly consistent [4].

Using GIS with Multi - Criteria Analysis (MCA) has helped to improve multi-criteria decision making combined with planning process [5, 6, 7, 8], and involves the phases of intelligence, design, and choice [9]. However; GIS has the capability to conduct data spatially in layers and then overlay these layers to accomplish spatial land-use suitability analyses.[10]

AIM OF THE STUDY

The main goals of this study are:

1. Finding and planning a highway routes using AHP and GIS technology, considering the influence of several economic, technical, and ecological factors.

2. Comparing the optimum route with the shortest possible route and tracks proposed by the relevant agencies in Mosul city.

3. Determination of the least cost route by changing the cost surface to form many alternatives with different lengths.

Using The Analytic Hierarchy Process

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCI

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1 The Analytic Hierarchy Process

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a compreexpressing and analyzing policy decisions, it was developed by Saaty, Tomas L. in 1960s [11]. It is a mathematical procedure, widely used in decision making in a wide range of applications. It is a theory of measurement thrdepend on the judgments of measure impalpable in relative terms. The comparisons are execute using a scale of absolute assessments that represents, how much more, one elemwith respect to a given attribute and then measure the consistency of the judgments[12].

The selection of the location of a proposed highway is considered the important initial step in highway design. The decision to choose an accurate based on topography, soil characteristics,the relation between these criteria and the Analytic Hierarchy Process in this study is shown in Fig. 1.

Figure 1 Analytic Hierarchy Process for

2.2. Weighing of criteria

The pairwise comparison method was presented by Saaty in 1980, it involves pairwise comparisons to produce a ratio matrix of criteria and to produce relative importance of each criteria by using Saaty’s weighing scale. Factors are compared against each other in a pairwise comparison that is a measure of relative importance among the factors. Thus, numerical values showing theanother. Saaty suggested a scale for comparison including of values ranging from 1 to 9 which represent the intensity of importance, by means of a value of 1 describes

Using The Analytic Hierarchy Process and GIS For Decision Making In Rural Highway Route Location

CIET/index.asp 361

. METHODOLOGY

2.1 The Analytic Hierarchy Process

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a comprehensive intuitive method for expressing and analyzing policy decisions, it was developed by Saaty, Tomas L. in 1960s [11]. It is a mathematical procedure, widely used in decision making in a wide range of applications. It is a theory of measurement through pairwise comparisons and depend on the judgments of the proficient to derive priority scales, these scales measure impalpable in relative terms. The comparisons are execute using a scale of absolute assessments that represents, how much more, one element command another with respect to a given attribute and then measure the consistency of the

The selection of the location of a proposed highway is considered the important initial step in highway design. The decision to choose an accurate location is usually based on topography, soil characteristics, environmental and economic factors the relation between these criteria and the Analytic Hierarchy Process in this study is

Analytic Hierarchy Process for evaluation of the criteria in the study

riteria

The pairwise comparison method was presented by Saaty in 1980, it involves pairwise comparisons to produce a ratio matrix of criteria and to produce relative importance

using Saaty’s weighing scale. Factors are compared against each other in a pairwise comparison that is a measure of relative importance among the

numerical values showing the relative importance of a factor against a scale for comparison including of values ranging from 1 to

9 which represent the intensity of importance, by means of a value of 1 describes

nd GIS For Decision Making In Rural Highway

[email protected]

hensive intuitive method for expressing and analyzing policy decisions, it was developed by Saaty, Tomas L. in the 1960s [11]. It is a mathematical procedure, widely used in decision making in a wide

ough pairwise comparisons and proficient to derive priority scales, these scales

measure impalpable in relative terms. The comparisons are execute using a scale of ent command another

with respect to a given attribute and then measure the consistency of the

The selection of the location of a proposed highway is considered the important location is usually

environmental and economic factors [13], the relation between these criteria and the Analytic Hierarchy Process in this study is

evaluation of the criteria in the study

The pairwise comparison method was presented by Saaty in 1980, it involves pairwise comparisons to produce a ratio matrix of criteria and to produce relative importance

using Saaty’s weighing scale. Factors are compared against each other in a pairwise comparison that is a measure of relative importance among the

relative importance of a factor against a scale for comparison including of values ranging from 1 to

9 which represent the intensity of importance, by means of a value of 1 describes the



equal importance and a value of 9 expresses to those factors having an excessive importance over another [1, 14]. Table (1) shows Saaty’s weighing scale.

Table (1) Scale for pairwise comparison [12]

Explanation Definition Intensity of Importance

Two activities contribute equally to the objective

Equal importance 1

Experience and judgment slightly favor one activity over another

Weak importance of one over another

3

Experience and judgment strongly favor one activity over another

Essential or strong importance

5

An activity is strongly favored and its dominance demonstrated in practice

Demonstrated importance

7

The evidence favoring one activity over another is of the highest possible order of affirmation

Absolute importance 9

When compromise is needed Intermediate values between the two adjacent judgments

2,4,6,8

2.3. The relative importance of the criteria

Assigning importance of the criteria is changed in the range of variation for evaluation criterion. In the case of n criteria, the weights are usually normalized to sum to 1. The definition of a set of weights is as follows:

� = ��1, �2, … �, … ��

� � = 1 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … �1�

A ratio matrix was developed from an individual or group compares every possible pairing and enters the ratings into a pairwise comparison matrix.Since the matrix is symmetrical, only the upper or lower triangle really needs to be filled in. The remaining cells are then simply the reciprocals of the other triangle. The relative weights of the criteria can be achieved by following the operations:[12, 15, 9] - Sum the values in each column of the pairwise comparisonmatrix;

� = � � … … … … … … … … … … �2��

��

C11 C12 C13 C21 C22 C23 C31 C32 C33



Divide each element in the matrix by itscolumn total;

Xij = �∑ ��

… … … … … … … … … … �3�

- For each row, divide the sum of normalized scores by the number of criteria to compute the average of the elements in each row of the matrix; that is,

�� = ∑ �� … … … … … … … … … �4�

These averages provide an evaluate of the relative weights of the applicable criteria. At present, the weights are demonstrated as the average of all possible manners of comparing the criteria. The larger the weight, the more valuable is the criterion [9]. The degree of consistency should be determined that is used in developing the ratings.

The Consistency Ratio (CR) describes the probability that criteria weighting were randomly generated and Saaty[3, 16] suggests that CR should be less than 0.10, which demonstrates a realistic level of consistency otherwise the ratio is inconsistent. Saaty[3] describes a procedure by which a Consistency Index (CI) and a consistency ratio, can be produced as the following:

* =

… … … … … … … … … �5�

X11 X12 X13 X21 X22 X23 X31 X32 X33

C11 C12 C13 C21 C22 C23 C31 C32 C33

W11 W21 W31

Cv11 Cv21 Cv31

�� = 1��

� �� + �� + �!�!�"

�� = 1��

� �� + �� + �!�!�"

�!� = 1�!�

� !�� + !�� + !!�!�"



The consistency index provides a measure of deviation from consistency. The calculation of CI is based on lambda (λ) which is always greater than or equal to the number of criteria used [15].

ƛ= ∑ #$%&'(

� … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … �6�

* = ƛ − − 1 … … … … … … … … … … … … … … �7�

From Table (2) select the Random Index (RI) depending on the number of criteria.

Table 2 Random Index Values (RI), [3, 4]

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 No. of Criteria

1.45 1.41 1.32 1.24 1.12 0.90 0.58 0.00 0.00 Random Index

. = *.* … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … �8�

2.4. Sub-criteria identification

For each criteria, a number of sub-criteria was determined according to the study area and estimated cost for the road construction, the primary comparison for sub-criteria is for each main criteria.

2.5. Creating a suitability cost surface

After weighting the criteria and creating cost surface concerning the relative importance of each criterion and also suitability index, all the criterion maps were overlaid to calculate how suitable each area is to travel through. Finally, suitability map was managed and the optimum route was determined [1, 17].

This method can be mannered using GIS system having overlay capabilities that admit the evaluation criterion map layers to be accumulated to determine the composite map layer.

2.6. Generating the least cost alternatives

After finding the optimum route we can minimize optimal length and path turn to perform a route straightening by executing changing in cost surface using the following formula:

0123451 634 7289:;5 = � + <11 − �11 = × 634 7289:;5 … … … … �9�

where, I, is the value of the surface change ranging from 0 for no straightening to 11 for total straightening.

This formula was conducted on the surface cost, by realizing disproportional raising between the higher and lower values of the cost surface. This accomplished in reducing the length and secondary angles of the optimal route in the suitable areas while continuing to avoid unfavorable areas [18]. A re-analyzed using ArcMap10-program was conducted for finding a recent route location. This shortening and straightening of the route are valuable because the cost to construct a shorter route is taken into consideration requirements of engineering perspective. However; a least



cost route can be determined with their corresponding (i) value and project the position in the digital space. Fig. (2) clarify adjusted value against the surface value.

Figure 2 Surface cost alternative curve

3. STUDY AREA

The study area for this research is the area around 198km2south of Mosul city in Iraq which includes the extent of latitude between (N4008731-N4021577) and longitude between (E329630-E345068)according to UTM metric unit. The suggested route connects Baghdad-Mosul and Mosul-Kirkuk roadways across Tigris river. This route is considered the suggested turn to Mosul city.

The study area had different land use and different slope grades from flat to rugged terrain, Fig. (3) shows the area percentages of land use within the study area.

Figure 3 Land use of study area

The origin of the route is on Mosul-Baghdad roadway near Hamam-Alallel crossing while the destination is demonstrated by a line of 3392m length on Mosul-Kirkuk roadway which presents the destinations of the three proposed routes suggested by the relevant agencies in Mosul city. Fig. (4) shows the study area and the three proposed routes.

Ayman A. Abdul

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCI

Figure 4 Study area with

4. CRITERIA EVALUATI

The relative importance of location criteria was conducted after analyzing a questionnaire form from a group of decision makers and specialists in designing and constructing roadways. After forming a comparison matrix(ƛ) was calculated and if a consistency ratio for this calculation is less than 0.1 lamdia (ƛ) enter in the evaluation, otherwise canceled. A total of 38 comparison matrices was conducted from the approved questionnaire form widecision 89.5%. The relativeshown from the figure that the highest relative importance is for waterfollowed by land use while the lowest relative importance is impact.

Figure

Environ

5%

Hydrolog

y

8%

Settleme

nt Area

11%


CIET/index.asp 366

with the origin and destination points of the three proposed routes

4. CRITERIA EVALUATION

The relative importance of location criteria was conducted after analyzing a questionnaire form from a group of decision makers and specialists in designing and constructing roadways. After forming a comparison matrix for each specialist, lamdia

) was calculated and if a consistency ratio for this calculation is less than 0.1 lamdia ) enter in the evaluation, otherwise canceled. A total of 38 comparison matrices was

conducted from the approved questionnaire form with the percentage of right decision 89.5%. The relative importance of the criteria was shown in Figshown from the figure that the highest relative importance is for water

while the lowest relative importance is for environmental

Figure 5 Relative importance for the criteria

Landuse

23%

Water

Source

26%

Slope

10%

Soil

Bearing

10%

Environ

5%

Hydrolog

y

8%

SettlemeL.E.S

7%

[email protected]

oposed routes

The relative importance of location criteria was conducted after analyzing a questionnaire form from a group of decision makers and specialists in designing and

for each specialist, lamdia ) was calculated and if a consistency ratio for this calculation is less than 0.1 lamdia ) enter in the evaluation, otherwise canceled. A total of 38 comparison matrices was

percentage of right shown in Fig. (5). It is

shown from the figure that the highest relative importance is for water resources for environmental



4.1. Set of criteria map

A digital map for each criteria was managed from the data of the study area. A unique criteria measurement was performed to realize a weighted linear combination (WLC) to use it in the analysis procedure by ArcMap10. A scale value was arranged to a suitability value for each sub-criteria, the higher a suitability value provides a lower scale value. However, the ones with the highest suitability values were regarded the most favorable fields for the roadway route. While the fields with a suitability value of 0 were regarded unsuitable areas for roadway construction.

• Land use: A suitability value was executed according to land use partitions due to categories and prices of land for integration of criterion scale. Airport, hospital, military zone and industrial zone were given the value of 0, therefore, these category fields were excluded from the possibility over which roadway could pass.

• Water resources: A sequential distance was recognized from Tigris river bank to reduce the distance of river crossing.

• Slope: A Digital Elevation Model (DEM) with 10 m resolution was converted to a relative slope. A slope of (0-3%) was considered as flat terrain, (3-5%) as Rolling terrain while (5-7%) slope was considered as mountain terrain [19]. An increasing percentage of slope resulting in increasing earthwork construction, therefore, the fields with low slope are assigned the high suitability value, while the fields with high inclination are assigned the lowest suitability value.

• Soil bearing: California Bearing Ratio- CBR was considered to determine a suitability value. The layers with a high value of CBR were assigned higher suitability values because hard grounds provide more suitable conditions for roadways. CBR for the study area ranging between (<4% - 8.33%), using Inverse Distance Weighting (IDW) processes by Arc-Map10 for creating predicted surface for soil bearing map regarding CBR.

• Environmental impact: Gases from the exhaust of moving vehicles was considered for estimation of harmful, therefore, the study area was divided according to land use considering the primary circumstance is for reducing harmful to occupying the land.

• Hydrology: Location of valleys was determined from the DEM map. Valleys were classified according to their cross section, Type 1 is the smaller cross section and best suitable while Type 3 recognized larger cross section and less suitable.

• Settlement area: A sequential distance was considered from the settlement area to the proposed route with minimum a distance of 500m and the area was divided in constant range distance from settlement area.

• Linear engineering structure: Right of way was established by the linear engineering structure which is the roadway, pipe line, power line, rail road, and rail tunnel to reduce crossing with the proposed route. Suitability value was considered through the severity and most probability for accidents of these linear structures with the proposed route. Fig. (6) shows criterion maps in the study area.



a. Criterion map for land use

b. Sequential distance of criterion map for water resources

c. Digital Elevation Model-10m of criterion map for slope



d. California Bearing Ratio- CBR of criterion map for soil bearing

e. Criterion map for environmental impact

f. Type of valley of criterion map for hydrology



g. Sequential distance from urbanized area

h. Criterion map for linear engineering structure

Figure 6 Criterion maps in the study area

4.2. Surface composition cost and optimum route selection

The criterion maps were overlaid and the final land suitability map was prepared using a weighted linear combination (WLC) to realize equivalent surface cost for all criteria.

The (WLC) method is the most often used proficiency for undertaking spatial multi-attribute decision making, in other words; based on the concept of a weighted average [20]. In this process, the decision maker directly allocates weights of relative importance for each attribute. For each alternative a total score is acquired by multiplying the importance weight allocated for each attribute by its scale value, and summing the products [21].

The most desired alternative is selected by identifying the minimum value of the summing products [9].This method can be adapted using GIS program having



capabilities of overlay that allow the evaluation criterion map layers to be accumulated to determine the composite map layer. Fig. (7) shows the finding of the Optimum Route (OR) within the study area.

Figure 7 Optimum route in the study area

4.3. Evaluation of optimum route

Optimum route and any other route can be evaluated by elicitation the value of cells from cost surface through the path of the route and summing the values of that route. A comparison was an assessment of the optimum route with the shortest route (line joining the origin and destination points) and the three tracks proposed by the relevant agencies, by finding the sum of the cell values through each route. Table (5) shows the number of cell and cost surface for each route, after re-value the cell weight. It is shown from the table that optimum route had the shortest path after a straight line path and reduce valuable cost surface through proposed routes by up to between (21.8% to 63.7%).

Table 5 Number of cells and cost surface for optimum, shorest, and the three proposed routes



4.4. Generating alternatives

The cost surface is changed to form many alternatives with different lengths to define Least Cost Route. That is done by economic assessment of the influential criteria on the suggested routes.A change in surface cost was proceed using the formula (9) mentioned in the methodology to find another suggested routes with the same origin and destination points. Table (6) show suggested routes with their lengths, while Fig. (8) shows the utility scenario for suggested route locations.

Table 6 Length of suggested routes compared with optimum one

Reduction in Length %

Length- m Adjusted Value Name Id

---- 13489.50 0 Route _Line (OR) 1

0.35 13441.90 1 Route _Line 1 2

2.25 13186.33 3 Route _Line 3 3

3.77 12979.63 5 Route _Line 5 4

5.52 12744.11 7 Route _Line 7 5

5.60 12735.21 9 Route _Line 9 6

5.23 12784.07 11 Route _Line 11 7

Figure 8 Utility scenario for suggestedroute locations

4.5 Evaluation of alternatives

The total cost for roadway routes were gained by calculate the operation cost depending on the traffic survey data and the construction cost that effected by a group of criteria to evaluate alternative routes.

Table (7) summarized the operation, and construction costs for suggested routes. It is shown that the Route_Line3 has the lowest cost with a reduction in length of 2.25% contrasting optimum one.



Table 7 Operation, and construction costs for suggested routes

(a) Operation cost*

Operation Cost ($)

Tire Cost($) Oil Cost ($) Fuel Cost ($)

Length (m) Route Name 15756.77*L /1000

6113.469*L /1000

39266.17*L /1000

824699.5 212550.93 82467.64 529681 13489.5 Route _Line (OR)

821789.4 211800.91 82176.64 527812 13441.9 Route_Line1

806164.8 207773.95 80614.22 517777 13186.33 Route_Line3

793527.9 204517.03 79350.56 509660 12979.63 Route_Line5

779129.0 200806 77910.72 500412 12744.11 Route_Line7

778584.9 200665.76 77856.31 500063 12735.21 Route_Line9

781572.0 201435.64 78155.01 501981 12784.07 Route_Line11

* Operation cost are calculated according to reference ITMP [19]

(b) Construction cost

(c) Construction cost with and without bridge

5. CONCLUSIONS

This study is mainly focused on finding a route location by applying AHP method to land use suitability analysis with eight criteria layers using GIS techniques, from this study we concluded that:

1. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) model is possible to accomplish a complex process in a much shorter time and accuracy and gives an ideal method of creating scenarios that differ significantly from proficient or decision maker.

Environment Impact Cost_$

Settlement area Cost_$

Construction Cost_$

Geology Cost_$

Bridge Cost_$ Acquisition Cost_$

Cut & Fill Cost $ Route Name

1,370,385.4 2,160,947.2 7,078,600.7 790,827.8 389,8845.5 1,265,090.7 579,923.7 Route _Line

1,365,549.8 2,160,576.7 7,053,322.3 788,849.3 3,898,845.5 1,254,033.3 594,688.5 Route_Line1

1,339,586.6 2,143,412.0 6,917,599.9 811,922.7 3,898,845.5 1,165,716.9 763,905.4 Route_Line3

1,318,588.2 2,160,957.8 6,805,010.4 804,383.4 4,028,036.5 1,142,215.6 1,210,233.9 Route_Line5

1,294,661.9 3,056,208.3 6,445,553.4 811,578.2 14,765,980.2 983,899.9 1,478,759.8 Route_Line7

1,293,757.8 3,057,537.0 6,440,827.0 840,882.7 14,765,980.2 983,326.2 1,648,779.0 Route_Line9

1,298,721.4 2,876,051.9 6,556,273.6 783,546.3 10,665,684.2 1,024,401.7 2,178,618.5 Route_Line11



2. The present study shows that a pair-wise comparison proved to be the efficient and effective method for determining criteria weights.

3. The relative importance of the designed criteria defined in this study is as follows: land use (23%), water resources (26%), slope (10%), soil bearing (10%), environmental impact (5%), hydrology (8%), settlement area (11%) and linear engineering structure (7%).

4. It was found that the optimal route reduces valuable cost surface by up to between (21.8% to 63.7%) for the proposed tracks by the relevant agencies. While a shorter route than the optimum one is gained with less cost of (2.25%) to reduce the environmental impacts and travel time.

REFERENCES

[1] V. D.Patil,R. N.Sankhua, and R. K. Jain, Analytic hierarchy process for evaluation of environmental factors for residential land use suitability, International Journal of Computational Engineering Research, Vol. 2 Issue 7, 2012.

[2] R.Greene, R.Devillers, J. E.Luther, and B. G.Eddy, GIS-based multiple-criteria decision analysis, Geography Compass 5/6, 2011, pp.412–432.

[3] T. L.Saaty, The analytic hierarchy process (McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1980).

[4] H. S.Mann, Using the analytic hierarchy process for decision making in engineering application: some challenges, International Journal of Industrial Engineering: Applications and Practice, 2(1), 1995, pp. 35-44.

[5] M. O.Al-Mumaiz, Spatial multi-criteria assessment to select an optimum route to improve transportation network in Al-Omarah city, Engineering & Technology Journal, 30(8), Technical University, Baghdad, 2012.

[6] S. J. Carver, Integrating multi-criteria evaluation with geographical information systems, International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 5(3), 1991, pp. 321–339.

[7] B. Roy, Multicriteria methodology for decision aiding (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996).

[8] J.Malczewski, GIS-based multicriteria decision analysis: A survey of the literature, International Journal of Geographical Information Science 20(7), 2006, pp. 703–726.

[9] J.Malczewski, GIS and multi-criteria decision analysis (John Wiley & Sons, 1999).

[10] D. B.Geneletti, A GIS-based decision support system to identify nature conservation priorities in an alpine valley, Land-Use Policy 21, 2004, pp. 149-160.

[11] T.Roh,J. Lee, H.Kim, J.Kim, and Y.Jung, Construction on decision support system for route location based on GIS, The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Vol. XXXVII, Part B2, Beijing, 2008.

[12] T. L.Saaty, Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process, International Journal Services Sciences, 1(1), Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, 2008, pp.83–98.

[13] N. J.Garber,andL. A. Hoel, Traffic and highway engineering, fourth edition (Cengage Learning, 2009).

[14] M.Piantanakulchai, andN.Saengkhao, Evaluation of alternatives in transportation planning using multi-stakeholders multi-objectives AHP modeling, Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, 4, 2003.



[15] R.Sadasivuni, C. G. O’Hara, R.Nobreg, and J. Dumas, A transportation corridor case study for multi-criteria decision analysis, ASPRS 2009 Annual Conference Baltimore, Maryland, 2009.

[16] T. T.Duc, Using GIS and AHP technique for land-use suitability analysis, International Symposium on Geoinformatics for Spatial Infrastructure Development in Earth and Allied Sciences, 2006.

[17] F.Kara, andN.Usul, Highway route design through the use of GIS and multi-criteria analysis: A case study of Istanbul, Ozean Journal of Applied Sciences 5(1), Ozean Publication, 2012.

[18] A. J.Schmidt, Implementing a GIS methodology for sitting high voltage electric transmission lines, Volume 11, Papers in Resource Analysis, 17 pp. Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota University Central Services Press, Winona, MN, 2009.

[19] ITMP, Iraqi Transport Master Plan, A joint project between the Iraqi government and the Italian government, Italian consortium for Iraqi transport infrastructure, the final issue, 2005.

[20] J.Malczewski, On the use of weight linear combination method in GIS : Common and best practice approaches, Department of Geography, University of Western Ontario, Transaction in GIS, 4(1), 2000, pp. 5-22.

[21] Islam M. Abo Elnaga. Waste Materials Recycling In Highways Construction, International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 5(7), 2014, pp. 17–25.

[22] Abdul Kareem Naji Abbood. Rehabilitation Study of Altaji – Baghdad Highway Through The 8.00 Km Section Length, International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 5(3), 2014, pp. 50–59.

[23] Islam M. Abo Elnaga. Development of Traffic Accidents Prediction Models At Rural Highways In Egypt, International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 5(6), 2014, pp. 16–24

[24] A.Djenaliev, Multicriteria decision making and GIS for railroad planning in Kyrgyzstan, M.Sc Thesis in Geoinformatics, School of Architecture and the Built Environment Royal Institute of Technology (KTH)100 44 Stockholm, Sweden, 2007.

using the analytic hierarchy process and gis for …...using the analytic hierarchy process and gis...

Documents