Ranking Çanakkale Districts in terms of Rangeland Quality with Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods

Year 2023, Volume: 10 Issue: 3, 605 - 614, 23.07.2023

Zeynep Gökkuş , Sevil Şentürk , Firat Alatürk

https://doi.org/10.30910/turkjans.1183698

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Based on the Project report of Determination of Rangeland Availability and Range of Rangeland Status Classes carried out by the Management of Eastern Anatolia Agricultural Research Institute, eleven districts of Çanakkale are ordered in terms of rangeland quality. For this reason, four different rankings were obtained by AHP, TOPSIS, VIKOR and WASPAS methods. According to the rankings made by the AHP, VIKOR and WASPAS methods, while the district with the highest rangeland quality was Biga, the highest rangeland quality according to the TOPSIS method was found to be the Central district.

Keywords

Ranking in agricultural experiments, AHP, TOPSIS, VIKOR, WASPAS

Çanakkale İlçelerinin Mera Kalitesi Bakımından Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri İle Sıralanması

Abstract

Doğu Anadolu Tarımsal Araştırma Enstitüsü Müdürlüğü'nün yürüttüğü Mera Varlığının ve Mera Durum Sınıflarının Belirlenmesi Proje raporu kaynak alınarak, Çanakkale'nin on bir ilçesi mera kalitesi bakımından sıralanmıştır. Bunun için AHP, TOPSIS, VIKOR ve WASPAS yöntemleri ile farklı dört sıralama elde edilmiştir. AHP, VIKOR ve WASPAS yöntemleri ilen yapılan sıralamalara göre mera kalitesi en yüksek olan ilçe Biga iken TOPSIS yöntemine göre mera kalitesi en yüksek ilçe Merkez olarak bulunmuştur.

Keywords

Tarımsal deneylerde sıralama, AHP, TOPSIS, VIKOR, WASPAS.

References

• AKYÜZ, G. A. 2012. Supplier selection with the fuzzy VIKOR method. Ataturk University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 26(1), 197-215 (Turkish).
• Altın, M., A. Gökkuş and A. Koç. 2011. Meadow and Rangeland Management (Volume 2). Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, General Directorate of Agricultural Production and Development. Ankara (Turkish).
• Aydoğdu, M., Yıldız, H., Ünal, E., Özaydın, K.A., Dedeoğlu, F., Ataker, S., and Kuz, V.Ö., 2020. Determination of Rangeland Presence and Rangeland Status Classes. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, TAGEM, Field Crops Center Res. Institute, Project Final Report (Unpublished).
• Deng, H., Yeh, C. H., and Willis, R. J., 2000. Inter-company comparison using modified TOPSIS with objective weights. Computers & Operations Research, 27(10), 963-973.
• Fatih, E. and Küçük, O., 2008. Analytical hierarchy method in supplier selection and an application. Journal of Atatürk University Social Sciences Institute, 11(1), 355-369 (Turkish).
• GÖKKUŞ, A., ALATÜRK, F. and ÖZASLAN-PARLAK, A., 2011. THE IMPORTANCE OF GRASSING AREAS IN LIVESTOCK IN ÇANAKKALE. CANAKKALE AGRICULTURE SYMPOSIUM (PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE).
• Hwang, C. L. and Yoon, K., 1981. Methods for multiple attribute decision making. In Multiple attribute decision making (pp. 58-191). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
• Ilbahar, E., Kahraman, C., and Cebi, S., 2022. Risk assessment of renewable energy investments: A modified failure mode and effect analysis based on prospect theory and intuitionistic fuzzy AHP. Energy, 239, 121907.
• Kubler, S., Robert, J., Derigent, W., Voisin, A. and Le Traon, Y., 2016. A state-of the-art survey & testbed of fuzzy AHP (FAHP) applications. Expert Systems with Applications, 65, 398-422.
• Kizielewicz, B. and Bączkiewicz, A., 2021. Comparison of Fuzzy TOPSIS, Fuzzy VIKOR, Fuzzy WASPAS and Fuzzy MMOORA methods in the housing selection problem. Procedia Computer Science, 192, 4578-4591.
• Kwiesielewicz, M. and Van Uden, E., 2004. Inconsistent and contradictory judgements in pairwise comparison method in the AHP. Computers & Operations Research, 31(5), 713-719.
• Lashgari, S., Antuchevičienė, J., Delavari, A. and Kheirkhah, O., 2014. Using QSPM and WASPAS methods for determining outsourcing strategies. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 15(4), 729-743.
• Opricovic, S. and Tzeng, G. H., 2004. Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European journal of operational research, 156(2), 445-455.
• Opricovic, S. and Tzeng, G. H., 2007. Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods. European journal of operational research, 178(2), 514-529.
• Opricovic, S., 2011. Fuzzy VIKOR with an application to water resources planning. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(10), 12983-12990.
• Özden, Ü. H., 2011. Ranking of European Union member and candidate countries according to economic indicators by Topsis method. Trakya University Journal of Social Sciences, 13(2), 215-236 (Turkish).
• Özbek, A., 2013. Performance evaluation of learning management system. NWSA-Education Sciences, 8(2), 164-178.
• Özbek, A. and Eren, T., 2013. Multiple criteria decision making methods for selecting third party logistics firms: A literatur review. Sigma, 31, 178-202.
• Özbek, A., 2017. Multi-criteria decision making methods and problem solving with excel. Seçkin Publishing, Ankara (Turkish).
• Özbek, A., 2019. ORDERING THE PROVINCES IN TURKEY ACCORDING TO LIFEABILITY CRITERIA AND EDAS AND WASPAS METHODS. Kırıkkale University Journal of Social Sciences, 9(1), 177-200 (Turkish).
• Paksoy, T., Pehlivan, N. Y. and Kahraman, C., 2012. Organizational strategy development in distribution channel management using fuzzy AHP and hierarchical fuzzy TOPSIS. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(3), 2822-2841.
• Saaty, T. L., 1977. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of mathematical psychology, 15(3), 234-281.
• Saaty, T. L., 2008. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International journal of services sciences, 1(1), 83-98.
• Souissi, D., Zouhri, L., Hammami, S., Msaddek, M. H., Zghibi, A. and Dlala, M., 2020. GIS-based MCDM–AHP modeling for flood susceptibility mapping of arid areas, southeastern Tunisia. Geocarto International, 35(9), 991-1017.
• Wind, Y. and Saaty, T. L., 1980. Marketing applications of the analytic hierarchy process. Management science, 26(7), 641-658.
• Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., Antucheviciene, J. and Zakarevicius, A., 2012. Optimization of weighted aggregated sum product assessment. Elektronika ir elektrotechnika, 122(6), 3-6.