05JSSP012013

7/25/2019 05JSSP012013

1/7

Identification of Potential Sites for Urban Development

Using GIS Based Multi Criteria Evaluation Techniue!

" Case Stud# of Shimla Municipal "rea$ Shimla District$

%imachal Pradesh$ India

Manish KUMAR1, Vivekananda BISWAS11Kumaun University, Department of Geography, Centre of Excellence for NRDM in Uttara!han", # Campus, $lmora, %ND%$

E&mail' manish!&s'(gmailcom$ thevive&)'(gmail!com

K e y w o r d s: site suita(ility, G%, multi criteria evaluation )MCE*, pair+ise comparison matrix, analytical hierarchy process

A B S T R A C T

1. INTR!UCTIN

The identification of suitable land for urban

development is one of the critical issues of planning *'+!

The suitabilit# of the land for urban development is not

onl# based on a set of ph#sical parameters but also ver#

much on the economic factors! The cumulative effect of

these factors determine the degree of suitabilit# and also

helps in further categori,ing of the land into different

orders of development! The assessment of the ph#sical

parameters of the land is possible b# anal#,ing the land

use$ terrain parameters$ geolog#$ ph#siograph#$ and

distance from road$ distance from the e-istingdevelopment etc! and .hich is much amenable to GIS

anal#sis! "gainst this$ the economic pressures on urban

land are ver# much difficult to be specified and used for

anal#sis! %o.ever$ the assessment of ph#sicalparameters gives an identification of the limitations of

the land for urban development! The concept of

limitation is derived from the ualit# of land! /or

e-ample$ if the slope is high the limitation it offers is

more than a land .hich has gentle slopes or a flat terrain!

Practicall#$ this .ould mean that the development of the

high slope land .ould reuire considerable inputs

0finance$ manpo.er$ materials$ time etc!1 and thus ma#

be less suitable as against the flat land .here the inputs

reuired are considerabl# less! The constraints .ith

respect to the terrain characteristics 0landform1 and their

urban suitabilit# are to be assessed!2ne of the successful and most .idel# used

approaches .hich greatl# reduces the time as .ell as effort

is pair.ise comparison method developed b# Thomas

Centre or Research on Settlements and Urbanism

Journal of Settlements and Spatial Planning

J o u r n a l h o m e p a g e: http://jssp.reviste.ubbcluj.ro

Identification of potential sites for urban development in hill# areas is one of the critical issues of planning! Site suitabilit# anal#sis has

become unavoidable for finding appropriate site for various developmental initiatives$ especiall# in the undulating terrain of the hills!

The stud# illustrates the use of geographic information s#stem 0GIS1 and numerical multi criteria evaluation 0MCE1 techniue for

selection of suitable sites for urban development in Shimla Municipal "rea$ Shimla district$ %imachal Pradesh! /or this purpose

Cartosat ' satellite data .ere used to generate various thematic la#ers using "rcGIS soft.are! /ive criteria$ i!e! slope$ road pro-imit#$

land use3cover$ litholog# and aspect .ere used for land evaluation! The generated thematic maps of these criteria .ere standardi,ed

using pair.ise comparison matri- &no.n as anal#tical hierarch# process 0"%P1! " .eight for each criterion .as generated b#

comparing them .ith each other according to their importance! 4ith the help of these .eights and criteria$ final site suitabilit# map .as

prepared!

7/25/2019 05JSSP012013

2/7

Manish KUMAR, Vivekananda BISWAS

5ournal of Settlements and Spatial Planning$ vol! 6$ no! ' 0)7'81 69:9'

46

Saat# *)+ in the conte-t of the"%P and is one of the

methods of multi criteria decision anal#sis 0MCD"1 *8+! In

general$ pair.ise comparison is made to choose the most

suitable from a given number of alternatives! %o.ever this

process involves error and limitations! It is so because the

capacit# of the human brain does not allo. evaluating each

and ever# given alternative as a result selection being

narro.ed do.n to a fe.er ones! Though this reduces the

load on our brain and ma&es the process e-tremel# simple$

the rationalit# of the process based upon intuitive selection

ma# produce un.anted results choosing a .rong alter:

native and overloo&ing the best solution! Therefore to

sort out these t#pes of errors$ the idea of "%P;s pair.ise

comparison .as introduced$ .hich involves pair.ise

comparison from the ver# initial stage .hen all the

available alternatives are there! That is$ pair.ise

comparison to all available alternatives and not limiting

the domain of decision ma&ing process to a selected once!

That is .h# pair.ise comparison using "%P is more

rational$ more scientific and considerabl# more

advantageous *6+!

+! These classification techniues can be

based on Boolean and fu,,# theor# or artificial neural

net.or&s! Combining GIS and MCD" is also a po.erful

approach to land suitabilit# assessments! GIS enables

computation of the criteria .hile a MCD" can be used to

group them into a suitabilit# inde-! /ollo.ing a similar

approach$ Eastman et al produced a land suitabilit# map

for an industr# near ?athmandu using ID@ISI and "%P

*A+ *+! Pereira and Duc&stein have used MCD" and raster

GIS to evaluate a habitat for endangered species *'7+!

This stud# aims to present ho. po.erful the

GIS based multi criteria evaluation techniue in land

suitabilit# anal#sis for urban development in hill# areasis! This process involves a consideration of five factors$

i!e!$ slope$ road pro-imit#$ land use3cover$ litholog# and

aspect! 4ith the support of geographic information

s#stems 0GIS1$ and numerical multicriteria evaluation

techniues$ these five factors .ere selected to be used in

the anal#sis of the suitabilit# level in Shimla Municipal

area$ Shimla District$ %imachal Pradesh!

". STU!# AR$A

The stud# area 0fig! '1$ vi,! the Shimla Municipal

Corporation$ is one of the oldest municipalities of India.hich e-tends bet.een 8'767' F to 8'7A ' F

latitude and >>7= 9= E to >>'8 97 E longitude$

encompasses an area of )>!9A &m! Its average altitudinal

height is )7')!87 meters above mean sea level! Shimla lies

in the north:.estern ranges of the %imala#as! The average

temperature during summer is bet.een 'C 0== /1

and )AC 0A) /1$ and bet.een H'C 087 /1 and

'7C 097 /1 in .inter! It eno#s the cool temperate

climatic conditions! "s a large and gro.ing cit#$ Shimla is

home to man# .ell:recogni,ed colleges and research

institutions in India! The cit# has a large number of

temples and palaces! Shimla is also .ell noted for its

buildings st#led in Tudorbethan and neo:Gothic

architecture dating from the colonial era!

/ig! '!

7/25/2019 05JSSP012013

3/7

Usin (IS Based M0+)i Cri)eria $va+0a)ion Te*hni40e.A Case S)0dy o Shi/+a M0ni*i-a+ Area, Shi/+a !is)ri*), &i/a*ha+ 5radesh, India


47

for urban development! /or this purpose the pair.ise

comparison matri- using Saat#s nine:point .eighing

scale .as applied 0table '1! To develop a pair.ise

comparison matri- different criteria are reuired to

create a ratio matri-! These pair.ise comparisons are

ta&en as input and relative .eights are produced as an

output!

Table '! Fine point .eighting scale for pair.ise comparison *''+!

Intensity of

importanceDescription Suitability class

1 Equal importance Lowest suitability

2 Equal to moderate importance Very low suitability

3 Moderate importance Low suitability

4 Moderate to strong importance Moderately low suitability

5 Strong importance Moderate suitability

6 Strong to very strong importance Moderate high suitability

7 Very strong importance High suitability

8 Very to extremely strong importance Very high suitability

9 Extremely importance Highest suitability

%.6. Co/-0)a)ion o )he *ri)erion weih)s

"fter the formation of pair.ise comparison

matri-$ computation of the criterion .eights has been

done! The computation involves the follo.ing

operationsJ

a1! /inding the sum of the values in each

column of the pair.ise comparison matri-!

b1! Division of each element in the matri- b#

its column total 0the resulting matri- is referred to as

normali,ed pair.ise comparison matri-1!

c1! Computation of average of elements in each

ro. of the normali,ed matri-$ i!e! dividing the sum of

normali,ed scores of each ro. b# the number of

criteria! These averages provide an estimate of the

relative .eights of the criteria being compared!

It should be noted that for preventing bias

thought criteria .eighting the consistenc# ratio 0C@1

.as used!

%.7. $s)i/a)ion o )he *onsis)en*y ra)io

The ne-t step is to calculate a consistenc# ratio0C@1 to measure ho. consistent the udgments have

been relative to large samples of purel# random

udgments! The "%P deals .ith consistenc# e-plicitl#

because in ma&ing paired comparisons$ ust as in

thin&ing$ people do not have the intrinsic logical abilit#

to al.a#s be consistent *'8+! /or estimating consistenc#$

it involves the follo.ing operationsJ

a1! Determination of the .eighted sum vector

b# multipl#ing matri- of comparisons on the right b#

the vector of priorities to get a ne. column vector! Then

divide first component of ne. column vector b# the first

component of priorities vector$ the second componentof ne. column vector b# the second component of

priorities vector$ and so on! /inall#$ sum these values

over the ro.s!

b1! Determination of consistenc# vector b#

dividing the .eighted sum vector b# the criterion

.eights!

2nce the consistenc# vector is calculated it is

reuired to compute values for t.o more terms$ i!e!

lambda 0K1 and the consistenc# inde- 0CI1!

The value for lambda is simpl# the average

value of the consistenc# vector! The calculation of CI is

based on the observation that K is al.a#s greater than or

eual to the number of criteria under consideration 0n1

for positive$ reciprocal matrices and K L n$ if the

pair.ise comparison matri- is consistent matri-!

"ccordingl#$ K:n can be considered as a measure of the

degree of inconsistenc#!

This measure can be normali,ed as follo.sJ

CI L 0K:n1 3 0n:'1

The term CI$ referred to as consistenc# inde-$

provides a measure of departure from consistenc#! To

determine the goodness of C!I!$ the anal#tical hierarch#

process compares it b# random inde- 0@!I!1 and the

result is .hat .e call consistenc# ratio 0C!@!1$ .hich canbe defined asJ

C@ L CI3@I

@andom inde- is the consistenc# inde- of a

randoml# generated pair.ise comparison matri- of

order ' to '7 obtained b# appro-imating random

indices using a sample si,e of 977 *')+! Table ) sho.s

the value of @!I! sorted b# the order of matri-!

The consistenc# ratio 0C@1 is designed in such

a .a# that if C@ 7!'7$ the ratio indicates a reasonable

level of consistenc# in the pair.ise comparisonsN if$

ho.ever$ C@ O 7!'7$ then the values of the ratio areindicative of inconsistent udgments! In such cases one

should reconsider and revise the original values in the

pair.ise comparison matri-!

7/25/2019 05JSSP012013

4/7



48

%.8. Ras)eri9a)ion o *ri)eria /a-s

Different criteria maps .ere converted into

raster data environment for further anal#sis because in

raster data format computation is less complicated than

vector data format *'6+!

Table )! @andom inde-!

Order

MatrixR.I.

Order

MatrixR.I.

1 0.0 6 1.24

2 0.0 7 1.32

3 0.58 8 1.41

4 0.9 9 1.45

5 0.12 10 1.49

%.. In)era)ion o /a-s and -re-ara)ion o

ina+ s0i)ai+i)y /a-

"fter rasteri,ation$ these classified raster maps

.ere integrated in raster calculator of "rcGIS and

multiplied b# .eightage$ and then the final suitabilit#

map .as prepared!

6. R$SU'TS AN! !ISCUSSINS

6.1. Si)e s0i)ai+i)y ana+ysis

The effective criteria in site suitabilit# anal#sis

for urban development are briefl# given belo. along

.ith their individual importance!

lope'Slope is an important criterion in hill#

terrain for finding suitable sites for urban development!

Steep slopes are disadvantageous for construction!

Steeper slopes increase construction costs$ limit

ma-imum floor areas and contribute to erosion during

construction and subseuent use!

Slope '7 degree is considered gentle slope

having the highest intensit# of importance *'9+! Slope

greater than '7 degree has been classified as unsuitable

because it increases the construction cost 0figure ) 0a1

and table 81!

Table 8! Suitabilit# scoring3ran&ing!

Intensity of

importanceSlope (Degree) Lithology

Road proximity

(mts.)Land use/cover Aspect

9 ( Highest) 0-10 0-50 Barren land South

8 ( Very high) Shimla formation 50-100 South-West

7 ( High) 100-150 South-East

6 (Moderate high) 10-20 150-200 West

5 (Moderate) 20-30 200-250 East

4 (Moderate low) 30-40 250-300 North-West3 (Low) 40-50 300-350 North-East

2 (Very low) 50-60 350-400 Agriculture land North

1 (Lowest) >60 >400 Vegetation

Roa" -roximity' @oad is also an important

criterion in site suitabilit# because of the need to

transport ra. products and finished materials!

Construction of ne. road is e-pensive in hill# regions!

Therefore$ effort is made to locate the site nearer to an#

e-isting road if possible! Moreover$ in order to find out

better accessibilit# to the e-isting road$ buffer ,ones have

been created b# ta&ing 97 meter distance from the road!

Table 8 and figure ) 0b1 sho. the buffer ,ones and theirintensit# of importance for road pro-imit# criteria!

.an" use/cover' 9 #ears! Thus barren land is considered highest suitable

for the development 0figure ) 0c1 and table 81!

.ithology' Shimla to.n is situated on the roc&s of

5utogh Group and Shimla Group! 5utogh group occupies

most of the Shimla area and e-tends from "nnadale:Chura

Ba,aar:Prospect %ill:5a&hoo:US Club and highland area!Shimla Group comprising of earlier Chail /ormation and

Shimla Series represented b# shale$ slate$ uart,ite

gre#.ac&e and local conglomerate is .ell e-posed in

Sanauli:Dhalli area! Therefore$ the roc&s mainl# found in

the stud# area are metamorphic roc&s .hich are harder and

relativel# more resistant to erosion *'=+! Thus$ a highest

intensit# of importance has been given to 5utogh Group and

Shimla Group roc&s 0figure ) 0d1 and table 81!

$spectJ "spect generall# refers to the hori,ontal

direction to .hich a mountain slope faces! In the

northern hemisphere north facing slopes receive ver#

little heat from the sun in mid .inter! Conversel#$ southfacing slopes receive much more heat! Therefore$ south

facing slopes tend to be .armer than the northern ones!

In hill# areas people prefer building their houses on the

sunn# faced slopes! Thus$ southern facing slopes have

higher intensit# of importance! East facing slopes catch

sun onl# in the morning .hen temperatures are colder

.hile .est facing slopes catch the sun in the .arm

afternoon! Conseuentl#$ east facing slopes are colder

than .est facing slopes 0figure ) 0e1 and table 81!

6.". S*orin2rankin o *ri)eria

The suitabilit# scoring used in this stud# for

each of the criteria map and their categor# at point

.eighting scale are given in table 8!

7/25/2019 05JSSP012013

5/7



49

6.%. Ca+*0+a)ion o )he *onsis)en*y ra)io

It is reuired to chec& .hether our comparisons

are consistent! Table 9 sho.s the determination of

.eighted sum vector and consistenc# vector!

Calculation of lambda 0K1 L 09!669!''9!6)9!'66!97391 L 9!'8)

Note'

7/25/2019 05JSSP012013

6/7



50

Con"ition 0' Consistenc# ratio C@ 0L7!7)1

7!'7 indicated a reasonable level of consistenc# in the

pair.ise comparisons! Therefore$ the values obtained

satisf# the noted conditions$ .hich denote that the

.eights obtained are agreeable!

/ig! 8! /inal site suitabilit# map!

6.6. 5re-ara)ion o +and s0i)ai+i)y /a-

"ll five criteria maps .ere converted into

raster format$ so that for each pi-el$ a score can be

determined *'>+! "ll the criteria maps .ere integrated

and overlaid and the final site suitabilit# map 0figure 81

.as prepared b# the follo.ing formulaJ

Suitabilit# mapL R *criteria map .eight+

Suitabilit# inde- L 0*Slope+ 7!971 0*@oad

pro-imit#+ 7!)=1 0*Q9'=!

*>+ Wan, ;. 0'61$ 2he use of artificial neural

net+or!s in a geographical information system foragricultural lan"&suita(ility assessment$ Environment

and planning "$ )=$ pp! )=9Q)A6!

Suitability categories Area in km2 Area in %

Extreme low suitable 4.95 17.94

Very low suitable 2.8 10.15

Low suitable 1.18 4.27

Moderately suitable 7.23 26.21High suitable 3.74 13.59

Very high suitable 7.68 27.84

7/25/2019 05JSSP012013

7/7



51

*A+ $as)/an, $ pp! 67>Q6)6!

*''+ $SRI$ Environmental S#stems @esearch Institute$

Inc! 0'=1$ 4or!ing +ith the $rc9ie+ patial $nalyst,

Environmental ystems Research %nstitute$ Inc!$

@edlands$ California$ US"!

*')+ Saa)y, T. '. 0)7771$ :un"amentals of Decision

Ma!ing an" -riority 2heory$ @4S Publications

Pittsburgh!

*'8+ Saa)y, T. '. 0'61$ :un"amentals of Decision

Ma!ing an" -riority 2heory +ith 2he $nalytic

5ierarchy -rocess$ @4S Publications Pittsburgh!*'6+ Chan, K. T.0)77=1$%ntro"uction to Geographic

%nformation ystem$ Tata McGra. %ill$ Fe. Delhi!

*'9+ Rawa), + 1$ite suita(ility

analysis for ur(an "evelopment using G%$ 5ournal of

"pplied Sciences$ >0'A1$ pp! )9>=:)9A8!

05JSSP012013

Documents

Transcript of 05JSSP012013