USING THE GEOSPATIAL MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS MODEL AND METHODS FOR SOIL DEGRADATION RISK MAPPING

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.20998/2079-0023.2024.01.03

Keywords:

multi-criteria decision analysis, Analytic Hierarchy Process, Geographic Information System, spatial modeling, expert assessments, soil degradation risk

Abstract

Modern methods of spatial analysis and modeling are increasingly being combined with decision-making methods and fuzzy set theory. The latter are actively integrated into the environment of Geographic Information Systems (GIS), such as well-known ones like ArcGIS or QGIS, in the form of separate tools, plugins, or Python scripts. Decision-making methods allow structuring the problem in geographical space, as well as taking into account the knowledge and judgments of experts and the preferences of the decision-maker in determining the priorities of alternative solutions. This paper provides a description of a geospatial multi-criteria decision analysis model, which allows addressing a wide range of ecological and socio-economic issues. An example of applying this model to map soil degradation risk in Ukraine is presented in the paper. According to the object-spatial approach, the properties of a territory are determined as the result of the action (impact) of a set of objects (processes) belonging to this territory. The territory is represented as a two-dimensional discrete grid, each point of which (local area) is an alternative. The set of local areas of the territory constitutes the set of alternatives. The representation of the territory model as a system of objects and relationships between them allows justifying the choice of a set of criteria (factors) for assessing soil degradation risk. Each criterion is a separate raster layer of the map. To build a hierarchical decision-making structure and calculate the importance coefficients of the criteria, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method is used. To account for uncertainty in assessments and judgments of experts at the stages of standardization of alternative attributes by different criteria and aggregation of their assessments, expert membership functions for fuzzy sets and fuzzy quantifiers are applied. The particular feature of the proposed multi-criteria decision analysis model is its low computational complexity and ease of integration into the GIS environment.

Author Biographies

Svitlana Kuznichenko, Odesa State Environmental University

Candidate of Geographical Sciences (PhD), Docent, Odesa State Environmental University, Associate Professor at the Department of Information Technologies, Odesa, Ukraine

Dmytro Ivanov, Odesa State Environmental University

PhD Student, Odesa State Environmental University, Odesa, Ukraine

Dmytro Kuznichenko, LikeBus

LikeBus logistics company, Odesa, Ukraine

References

Holubtsov O., Sorokina L., Splodytel A., Chumachenko S. Vplyv viiny rosii proty Ukrainy na stan ukrainskykh gruntiv. Rezultaty analizu. [The impact of russia’s war against Ukraine on the state of Ukrainian soils. Analysis results]. Kyiv: NGO "Center for Environmental Initiatives "Ekodia", 2023. 32 p. (In Ukr.).

Malczewski J., Rinner C. Multicriteria Decision Analysis in Geographic Information Science. Springer, New York. 2015, 331 p. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-74757-4.

Lidouh K. On themotivation behind MCDA and GIS integration. Multicriteria Decision Making. 2013. Vol. 3, № 2/3. P. 101–113. DOI: 10.1504/ IJMCDM.2013.053727.

Kuznichenko S., Kovalenko L., Buchynska I., Gunchenko Y., Development of a multi-criteria model for making decisions on the location of solid waste landfills. Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technologies, 2018. Vol.2, No. 3(92). P. 21–31. DOI: 10.15587/1729-4061.2018.129287

Kuznichenko S. D. Model of the process of geospatial multi-criteria decision analysis for territorial planning. Radio Electronics, Computer Science, Control, 2022. Vol. 2, P.140–153. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15588/1607-3274-2022-2-14.

Kuznichenko S., Buchynska I., Kovalenko L., Gunchenko, Y. Suitable site selection using two-stage GIS-based fuzzy multi-criteria decision analysis. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 2020. Vol. 1080 AISC, P.214–230. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-33695-0_16

Saaty T. The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resources allocation. New York, NY: McGraw, 1980. P. 287.

Zadeh L. A. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 1965. Vol. 8, No. 3, P. 338–353.

Kuznichenko S.D., Hunchenko Yu.O., Buchynska I.V. Nechitka model obrobky heoprostorovykh danykh v multykryterialnomu analizi prydatnosti terytorii [Fuzzy model of geospatial data processing in multi-criteria analysis of suitability of territories]. Zbirnyk naukovykh prats Viiskovoho instytutu Kyivskoho natsionalnoho universytetu imeni Tarasa Shevchenka [Collection of scientific works of the Military Institute of Taras Shevchenko Kyiv National University]. Kyiv, VIKNU, 2018. № 61. P.90-102.

Yager R. R. Quantifier guided aggregation using OWA operators. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 1996. Vol.11(1), P. 49–73.

Kuznichenko S., Buchynska I. Vybir operatoriv ahrehuvannia dlia bahatokryterialnoi otsinky prydatnosti terytorii [Selection of aggregation operators for a multi-criteria evolution of suitability of territories]. Elektronne fakhove naukove vydannia «Kiberbezpeka: osvita, nauka, tekhnika» [Electronic professional scientific publication "Cybersecurity: education, science, technology"], 2019. Vol. 2, № 6. P. 46–56. DOI: 10.28925/2663-4023.2019.6.4656. (In Ukr.).

Stankevich S, Kharytonov N, Dudar T, Kozlova A. Risk Assessment of Land Degradation Using Satellite Imagery and Geospatial Modelling in Ukraine. Land Degradation and Desertification - a Global Crisis. InTech, 2016. Р.15–25. DOI: 10.5772/62403

Published

2024-07-30

How to Cite

Kuznichenko, S., Ivanov, D., & Kuznichenko, D. (2024). USING THE GEOSPATIAL MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS MODEL AND METHODS FOR SOIL DEGRADATION RISK MAPPING. Bulletin of National Technical University "KhPI". Series: System Analysis, Control and Information Technologies, (1 (11), 18–25. https://doi.org/10.20998/2079-0023.2024.01.03

Issue

Section

SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DECISION-MAKING THEORY