GIS Modeling & Analysis

Mr P Mafuratidze
Department of Geography & Environmental Science
University of Zimbabwe
 Outline
❑ What is modeling?
❑ General characteristics of models
❑ Building a model in GIScience
❑ Multicriteria methods
 What is modeling?
❑ a model is a representation of reality in either
Material form (physical representation) or
Symbolic form (abstract representation);
❑ GIS modeling involves symbolic
representation of Locational properties
(WHERE), as well as Thematic (WHAT) and
Temporal (WHEN) attributes describing
characteristics and conditions of space and
time.
 Spatial modeling
❑ Modeling: An overworked term
❑ data model a template for data
relational, object-oriented, coverage, shapefile
❑ Model concerned with how the world looks
❑ Model also a representation of some real-world
process
❑ Concerned with how the world works
 Spatial modeling
❑ Manipulation of geographic information in multiple
steps
❑ Steps may represent stages in some complex analysis
❑ Calculation of indicators over space (potentials)
❑ Steps may represent time
❑ Geocomputation
 Basic requirement in modeling

Modeler s interest modeler’ and knowledge of the systems to be

modeled.

e.g. environment

Biologic (ecology) hydrologic

atmospheric
Geologic (land surface/subsurface)
 Spatial modeling
❑ Spatial Model elements:
❑ A set of selected spatial variables
❑ Functional /mathematical relationship between variables
❑ Spatial Model can be related to
❑ exploratory data analysis
❑ data visualization
❑ DB management
❑ Spatial Model can work together with /across GIS software
packages and other computer programs (e.g. excel, access,
SQL)
 Spatial modeling
❑ Spatial modeling can be:
❑ Vector based Depends on nature of model ,data
❑ Raster based source and computing algorithm
❑ include both in one model / task (using conversion)
 Why model?
❑ Support some design process
❑ Allow the user to experiment with a replica
❑ Investigate what-if scenarios
❑ Spatial prediction
❑ To understand change and dynamics
❑ Test sensitivity and confidence
 The value of Models
❑ They allow experiments to be conducted on
simulated systems, rather than the real thing
▪ Cheaper and less invasive
❑ They allow alternative scenarios to be evaluated
▪ Different policy options and their impacts on the
future
Modeling Approach
❑ Individual (One element) vs. Aggregate models
(Many individual elements)
❑ Is it possible to model every individual element
in the system?
❑ Every molecule of groundwater?
Every person in a crowd?
❑ Autonomous agent models
 Modelling
❑ Conceptual Models
To understand world, predict conditions at locations in time and/or space
Boxes and arrows - rules

❑ Mathematical Models
Numerical models where formalised - some idealised, some less so
partial differential equation

❑ Data Models
Structure and flow of information in time and space

❑ Spatial Data – often (not always) represented in maps

(Lots of) Data with spatial component, some attempts to address time too

❑ Computerised Spatial Data -> Quick Spatial Analysis over wide extent
GIS – Geographical Information Science (and/or Systems)
Code
 GENERAL TYPES OF
MODELS:
Structural and Relational
❑Structural: focus on the composition and construction of

things; Object and Action are two types of structural models.

❑Object Model—Static Entity-based which forms a visual representation
of an item; e.g., an architect's blueprint of a building. Characteristics
include scaled, 2 or 3- dimensional, symbolic representation.
❑Action Model— Dynamic Movement-based which tracks the space/time
relationships of items; e.g., a model train along it's track. Characteristics
include timeslices, change detection, transition statistics, animation.
 GENERAL TYPES OF
MODELS:
❑ Relational: focus on the interdependence and
relationships among factors; Functional and Conceptual
are two types of relational models.
❑ Functional Model —Input/Output-based which tracks
relationships among variables, such as storm runoff
prediction. Characteristics include cause/effect linkages,
“hard” science, and sensitivity analysis.
❑ Conceptual Model —Perception-based which incorporates
both fact interpretation and value weights, such as suitability
for outdoor recreation. Characteristics include heuristics
(expert rules), “soft” science, scenarios.
 Conceptual Model

GIS “themes,”
“layers,” or
“coverages”

The real world

 TYPES OF GIS MODELS
❑ Cartographic Model — automation of manual
techniques which traditionally use drafting aids and
transparent overlays, such as a map identifying
locations of productive soils and gentle slopes using
binary logic expressed as a geo-query.
❑ Spatial Model — expression of mathematical
relationships among mapped variables, such as a map
of crop yield throughout a field based on relative
amounts of phosphorous, potassium, nitrogen and ph
levels using multi-value logic expressed as variables,
parameters and relationships.
 GIS MODEL
CHARACTERISTICS:
Scale: Micro and Macro
❑ Micro— contains high-resolution of space, time and/or

variable considerations governing system response, such

as a 1:1,000 map of a farm with the crop specified for
each individual field that is revised each year.
❑ Macro— contains low-resolution of space, time and/or

variable considerations governing system response, such

as a 1:1,000,000 map of land use with single category for
agriculture that is revised every ten years.
 GIS MODEL
CHARACTERISTICS:
Extent: Complete and Partial
❑ Complete— includes entire set of space, time and/or

variable considerations governing system response, such as

a map of an entire watershed or river basin.
❑ Partial— includes subsets of space, time and/or variable

considerations governing system response, such as a

standard topographic sheet with its "artificial edge"
capturing limited portions of several adjoining watersheds.
 GIS MODEL
CHARACTERISTICS:
Purpose: Descriptive and Prescriptive
❑Descriptive— characterization of the direct interactions of
system components to gain insight into system processes
(understand), such as a wildlife population dynamics map
generated by simulation of birth and death processes.
❑ Prescriptive— characterization of correlated factors that

are related to system response used in determining

appropriate management action (decide), such as a a sales
prediction map based on census block-level demographic
in formation.
 GIS MODEL
CHARACTERISTICS:
Approach: Empirical and Theoretical
❑Empirical— based on reduction (analysis) of field
collected measurements, such as a map of soil loss for
each watershed in a region generated by spatially
evaluating the Universal Soil Loss Equation.
❑Theoretical— based on the linkage (synthesis) of proven
or postulated relationships among variables, such a map
of spotted owl habitat based on accepted theories on owl
preferences.
 GIS MODEL
CHARACTERISTICS:
Technique: Deterministic and Stochastic
❑ Deterministic— direct evaluation of a defined relationship

(results in a single repeatable solution), such as a wildlife

population map based on one model execution using a single
"best" estimate to characterize each variable.
❑ Stochastic— simulation of a probabilistic relationship

(results in a range of likely solutions), such as a wildlife

population map based on the average of a series of model
executions using probability functions to characterize each
variable.
 GIS MODEL
CHARACTERISTICS:
Association: Lumped and Linked
❑ Lumped— the state/condition of each individual map

location is based on the independent values of other

variables at that location (point-by-point), such as land cover
map based on the relative amounts of reflected light from
satellite imagery.
❑ Linked— the state/condition of an individual map location

is dependent on the conditions of surrounding map locations

(vicinity, neighborhood or region), such as an overland flow
model considering terrain configuration and intervening soil
conditions.
 GIS MODEL
CHARACTERISTICS:
Aggregation: Cohort and Disaggregated
❑ Cohort— executed for groups of objects having similar

characteristics, such as a timber growth map for each

management parcel based on a look-up table of growth for
each specific set of landscape conditions (usually
vector-based polygons).
❑ Disaggregated— executed for each individual object, such

as a map of predicted biomass based on spatially evaluating

a regression equation in which each input map identifies an
independent variable, each location a case, and each value a
measurement (usually raster-based grid cells).
 GIS MODEL
CHARACTERISTICS:
Temporal: Static and Dynamic
❑ Static— treats time as constant and model variables do not
vary over time, such as a map of current timber value based on
forest inventory and relative access to existing roads. Analysis
is static (Revealing what would be otherwise be invisible, looking for
anomalies, patterns and leading to hypotheses about systems)
❑ Dynamic— treats time as variable and model variables
change as a function of time, such as a map of the spread of a
pollution plume from a point source driven by wind
direction/strength and relative humidity. Modelling can be
dynamic(Testing hypotheses about systems, evaluating alternative
scenarios)
 Multcriteria Methods
❑ Multiple factors affect decisions
❑ Weighted by difference levels of importance
❑ Karst case
slope > 5%
land use = cropping
distance from stream < 300m
❑ Simple binary decision
❑ How to assign weights to each factor?
❑ Stakeholders may disagree on weights
❑ MCDM = multicriteria decision making
 Multicriteria Methods

Mr P Mafuratidze
Department of Geography & Environmental Science
University of Zimbabwe
 Learning objective

❑ The aim of this lecture is to present the basic

principles, methods, & some applications of
GIS-based Multicriteria Decision Analysis
Making/Analysis (MCDM/A).
❑ Increase Awareness and Facilitate Use of GIS
and MCDM/A
 Outline
❑ Basic principles of GIS-based MCDM/A
❑ Methods & applications of multi-criteria evaluation
 GIS: Spatial Decision Support
System(SDSS)
• GIS for Decision Analysis
Modeling
• Descriptive Approach
• Describe and explain actual behavior
of decision making agents
Methodological
Approach
• GIS in the “rational model
framework”
• 1. Problem Definition
• 2. Search for Alternatives and Selection
Image Source: [Link]
Criteria
• 3. Evaluation of Alternatives
• 4. Selection of Alternatives
Multiple Criteria Decision
Making/Analysis
“MCDM/A is primarily concerned with
how to combine the information from
several criteria
to form a single index of evaluation.”
 What is multi-criteria decision
making/analysis
Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDM/A) is a formal, structured and transparent
decision making methodology. Its ism is to assist groups or individual decision
makers to explore their decisions in the case of complex situations with multiple
criteria.

MCDM/A does not provide the ‘right’ answer.

MCDM/A does not provide an objective analysis.
MCDM/A does not relieve decision makers of the responsibility of making difficult
judgments.

MCDM/A assists the decision maker in confidently reaching a decision by:

•enabling decision makers to gain a better understanding of the problem faced;

•organising and synthesising the entire range of information;
•integrating objective measurements with value judgements;
•making explicit and managing the decision maker’s subjectivity; and
•ensuring that all criteria and decision factors have been taken properly into account.
 Basic principles of
GIS-based MCDA
MCDM/A – Multi-Criteria Decision Making Analysis
Problem
❑ spatial decision problems typically involve a large set of feasible
alternatives & multiple evaluation criteria
❑ most of the time, these are conflicting

❑ alternatives & criteria are often evaluated by a number of individuals

(decision-makers, managers, stakeholders, interest groups).
❑ most of the time, they also have conflicting ideas, preferences,
objectives, etc.
❑many spatial decision problems give rise to the GIS-based MCDA

❑ to aid in the decision making process

 Basic principles of
GIS-based MCDA
GIS
❑ techniques & procedures have an important role to play in

analyzing decision problems

❑ recognized as a decision support system involving the

integration of spatially referenced data in aproblem solving

environment
 GIS & MCDM/A Integration
“…GIS-MCDM/A can be thought of as a collection of
methods and tools for transforming and combining
geographic data and preferences (value judgments) to
obtain information for decision making.”
MCDM/A GIS
❑Provides methodology/ •“Unique capabilities for
framework for storing, managing,
“argumentation maps” analyzing, and visualizing
❑Systematic and geospatial data for decision
defensible approach making.”
 Basic principles of
GIS-based MCDA
MCDA
❑ provides a rich collection of techniques & procedures for

structuring decision problems, & designing, evaluating &

prioritizing alternative decisions
GIS-MCDA
❑ can be thought of as a process that transforms &

combines geographical data & value judgments (the

decision-maker’s preferences) to obtain information for
decision making
 Basic principles of
GIS-based MCDA-
Definitions
❑ Decision – is a choice between alternatives
❑ i.e. best land use among different land use
alternatives
 Basic principles of
GIS-based MCDA-
Criteria Definitions
- are set of guidelines or requirements used as basis for a
decision
Two types: factors & constraints
❑ A factor is a criterion that enhances or detracts from the suitability

of a specific alternative for the activity under consideration

❑ i.e. distance to road (near = most suitable; far = least suitable)

❑ A constraint serves to limit the alternatives under consideration;

element or feature that represents limitations or restrictions; area

that is not preferred in any way or considered unsuitable.
❑ i.e. protected area, water body, etc. (usually represented by a

Boolean mask)
 Basic principles of
GIS-based MCDA-
DecisionDefinitions
rule
❑procedure by which criteria are combined to arrive at a particular
evaluation.
1) Choice function – provides a mathematical means for
comparing alternatives; numerical, exact decision rules
2) Choice heuristic – specifies a procedure to be followed rather
than a function
Objective
❑the measure by which the decision rule operates (i.e. identify
suitable areas for a housing project) in a single-objective
multi-criteria evaluation, it is also considered as a ‘goal’
 Basic principles of
GIS-based MCDA-
Definitions
Suitability
❑ is the characteristic of possessing the preferred

attributes or requirements for a specific purpose

Suitability analysis
❑ is a GIS-based process used to determine the

appropriateness of a given area (land resource) for a

specific use, i.e. agriculture, forestry, business, urban
development, livelihood projects, etc.
 MCDM/A methodology
MCDM/A is an umbrella term for a range of tools and methodologies. The level of
complexity, interaction with the decision maker and level of detail utilised in the
decision making process can vary substantially.

In general the decision maker follows the same process:

1. Identify multiple criteria on which to base their decision;

2. Identify multiple alternative solutions to their decision;
3. Provide (subjective) ranking or weighting of criteria; and
4. Provide values, rankings or weighting of alternatives for each criteria.
 MCDM/A methodology
Steps:
1. Set the goal/define the problem
2. Determine the criteria (factors/constraints)
3. Standardize the factors/criterion scores
4. Determine the weight of each factor
5. Aggregate the criteria
6. Validate/verify the result
 MCDM/A methodology
Steps
1. Set the goal/define the problem
❑ As a general rule, a goal must be:

S – specific
M – measurable
A – attainable
R – relevant
T – time-bound
 MCDM/A methodology
Steps
2. Determine the criteria (factors/constraints)
❑ how much details are needed in the analysis affects

the set of criteria to be used

▪ i.e. main roads only vs. including minor roads; no. of

houses vs. no. of residents; etc.

❑ Criteria should be measurable

❑ If not determinable, use proxies

▪ i.e. slope stability can be represented by slope

gradient
 MCDM/A methodology
Steps
3. Standardize the factors/criterion scores
❑ Set the suitability values of the factors to a common scale to

make comparisons possible

▪ it is hard to compare different things (i.e. mango vs.

banana)
For example
❖ Elevation (m)

❖ Slope (%)

o Convert them to a common range, i.e. 0 – 255

o 0 = least suitable; 255 = most suitable

MCDM/A methodology
 MCDM/A methodology
Steps
3. Standardize the factors/criterion scores cont’d…
❑ Fuzzy Membership Functions are used to standardize the

criterion scores.
❑ Decision-makers have to decide based on their knowledge &

fair judgment which function should be used for each

criterion.
 MCDM/A methodology
Steps
4. Determine the weight of each factor
❑ There are several methods

▪ Ranking

i.e. 3 factors: rank the factors with 1, 2, & 3, where 1 is the

least important while 3 is the most important
 MCDM/A methodology
▪ Rating
i.e. 3 factors: rate the factors using percentile – Factor 1
with the lowest percentage as the least important & Factor
3 with the highest percentage as the most important
▪ Rankings & ratings are usually converted to numerical
weights on a scale 0 to 1 with overall summation of 1
(normalization).
▪ i.e. Factor 1 = 0.17; Factor 2 = 0.33; & Factor 3 = 0.50;
 MCDM/A methodology
Steps
4. Determine the weight of each factor
❑ There are several methods (cont’d)
▪ Pairwise comparison

Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)

❑A matrix is constructed, where each criterion is compared with the other
criteria, relative to its importance, on a scale from 1 to 9.
where 1 = equal preference between two factors; 9 = a particular factor
is extremely favored over the other
a weight estimate is calculated & used to derive a consistency ratio (CR)
of the pairwise comparisons
 MCDM/A methodology
Steps
4. Determine the weight of each factor
If CR > 0.10, then some pairwise values need to be
reconsidered & the process is repeated until the
desired value of CR < 0.10 is reached.
❑ Like in ranking & rating, AHP weights are also

expressed in numerical weights that sum up to 1.

 MCDM/A methodology
◻
 MCDM/A methodology
Example:
❑Applying it in GIS raster calculator

S =((F1 * 0.67) + (F2 * 0.06) + (F3 * 0.27)) * cons_boolean

❑Note: F1, F2, F3 & cons_boolean are thematic layers

representing the factors & constraints.
 MCDM/A methodology
Steps
6. Validate/verify the result
❑ to assess the reliability of the output

▪ Ground truth verification

o i.e. conduct a field survey to verify sample areas

▪ Sensitivity analysis
o How do the following affect the result?

altering the set of criteria (plus or minus)

altering the respective weights of the factors
o Is the result reasonable?
o Does the result reflect reality? Etc.
 MCDM/A methodology
The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)

AHP was developed in the late 1970s. Today it is the most widely used MCDM/A
method.

AHP generates all criteria weighting and alternative preference within each criteria
by eliciting these values from the decision maker through a series of pairwise
comparisons, as opposed to utilising numerical values directly.

Thus, a complex decision is reduced to a series of simpler ones, between pairs of

alternative values within criteria or between pairs of criteria. The decision maker’s
preference is always explicit. However, the decision maker may be asked to make
very many small decisions. Hence, it becomes important to generate an optimised
hierarchy of criteria and alternatives, to reduce the number of pairwise decisions.
 AHP
Step 1: Construct the problem hierarchy
Model, usually visually, the problem decision identifying relationships between
criteria and alternatives.

Step 2: Pairwise comparison of criteria

Undertake pairwise comparison between criteria, identifying decision maker
preference for criteria on which alternatives are evaluated.

Step 3: Pairwise comparison of alternatives within each criterion

Undertake pairwise comparison between alternatives based on their performance
within each criterion.

Step 4: Compute the vector of criteria weights

From a matrix of pairwise comparison results AHP utilises a variety of matrix
transformations to calculate criteria weight vectors representing normalised criteria
weightings.
 AHP
Step 5: Compute the matrix of alternative scores
From the results of the pairwise comparisons on alternatives within each criterion a
nxm (where n is the number of criteria and m is the number of alternatives) matrix
is constructed representing the normalised performance (score) of each alternative
for each criteria.

Step 6: Ranking the alternatives

Utilising the vectors of criteria weights and the matrix of alternative scores a global
score and hence ranking for each alternative is calculated using:

where: a is the alternative, c is the criteria, g is the global score of the alternative,
w is the criteria weight and s is the alternative score. A function of the ranking
equation, aggregating across each criteria means that trade-offs between criteria
in fundamental to the final ranking.
 AHP
Problem Hierarchy
The problem hierarchy provides a structured, usually visual, means of modelling
the decision being processed. As the first step in the analytical hierarchy process
the creation of a hierarchy that models the decision problem enables decision
makers to increase their understanding of the problem, its context and, in the case
of group decision making, see alternative approaches to the problem across
different stakeholders.

The AHP problem hierarchy consists of a goal (the decision), a number of

alternatives for reaching that goal, and a number of criteria on which the
alternatives can be judged that relate to the goal.

Here as an example a
simple AHP hierarchy was
generated in DECERNS
tool.
 AHP
For most realistic analyses criteria are multi-tiered. Criteria weightings are
calculated as pairwise comparisons.

Consider a problem
hierarchy with 12 criteria on
which the three alternatives
are to be judged. For
pairwise comparison the first
criteria will be compared
against the remaining 11,
the second criteria against
the remaining 10, the third
criteria against the
remaining 9 etc. In total 66
(11+10+9+8+7+6+5+4+3+2
+1) pairwise comparisons
will need to be undertaken
in order to determine the
 AHP
Pairwise Comparisons

Within AHP pairwise comparison is the process of comparing entities in pairs so as

to judge which is preferred and by how much. Comparisons are undertaken to
determine criteria weighting and also assess the value or score of different
alternatives within each criteria.

A 9-point scale to elicit the scale of preference from a decision maker:

the more preferable entity within the pair scores

1 when it is showing no preference

3 when it is showing moderate preference
5 when it is showing strong preference
7 when it is showing very strong preference
9 when it is showing extreme preference.

The less preferable entity within the pair scores the inverse, for example the less
preferable entity where the more preferable entity shows very strong preference
 AHP
Groups of pairwise comparisons are undertaken between every alternative value
within a single criteria, and every criteria within the goal (or for multi-tier hierarchies
within their parent criteria). For each group a matrix is completed with the results of
the pairwise comparison, such as that shown in the table below, following the
example from figure on Slide 12.

The results of the matrix would provide the normalised criteria weights for criteria A1
to A4. Similar matrices would be completed for criteria B1 to B4, for C1 to C4 and
also one comparing criteria A, B and C. Finally, pairwise comparisons would be
undertaken to fill matrices for each criteria comparing the performance of each
alternative within that criteria.
 AHP
Consistency across pairwise comparisons
The consistency of the decision maker across a number of pairwise comparisons
is a significant complexity. Consider the very simple comparison of three criteria:
A, B and C. If the decision maker judges A to be more preferable than B, and A to
be less preferable than C then the decision maker must not judge B to be more
preferable than C.

In a group that contains a large number of pairwise comparisons or where the

difference is between moderate and very strong preference it can be seen that lack
of consistency is a largely inevitable consequence of complex decision processes
within AHP.

The AHP method attempts to address the issue of consistency by implementing a

consistency index that is a function of opposing comparisons. Above a threshold a
lack of consistency is highlighted and no analysis results are presented. An
unfortunate consequence is that decision makers begin to fulfil pairwise
comparisons not on their actual judgements but rather in order to maintain
acceptable consistency.
 AHP
Rank reversal
If the inclusion or exclusion of a non-outperforming alternative, or duplicate
alternative alters the ranking of the remaining alternatives a rank reversal occurs.

AHP method and other MCDM/A methods are susceptible to rank reversal and
experienced users must be aware of this.
 AHP
Recording the decision making process and decision makers subjectivity

It is useful to have a record of decision making process. This gives some idea of
how the decision was reached. The problem hierarchy gives insight into how the
decision was structured.

Most AHP tools allow to view the pairwise comparison matrices showing the
preference values applied to each pair. However, this does not make explicit the
subjectivity inherent in the judgements made by the decision maker; the reasoning
and understanding behind those simple judgements is lost.

For complex problems where a large number of pairwise comparisons have been
undertaken it is unlikely that enough subjective detail could be recorded at the time
of making the decision to suggest the information available could be considered
transparent or suitable for any form of audit. Similarly it is unlikely that returning to
this information in the future would enable the reasoning behind any mistakes to
be observed.
 PROMETHEE
Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluations

This is a family of methods developed since 1980s. PROMETHEE is classified as

an outranking method allowing for a finite number of alternatives to be ranked
based on a finite number of criteria, which are often conflicting.

The PROMETHEE family includes a number of methods (PROMETHEE I, II, III, IV,
V and VI) although PROMETHEE I for partial ranking of alternatives and
particularly PROMETHEE II for complete ranking of alternatives are the most
commonly used.

Arguably, PROMETHEE II is the most relevant to decision making in process

development and innovation.

PROMETHEE II has been developed in order to provide a complete ranking of a

finite set of alternatives from the best to the worst. The ranking is calculated using
a pair-wise comparison of alternatives for each criteria utilising preference
functions which are then aggregated using criteria weighting to provide a net
PROMETHEE
 PROMETHEE
Each criterion used within a PROMETHEE model to help rank alternatives is
assigned a preference function by the decision maker. The preference function
translates the difference (either positive or negative) in the value of a criterion
between two alternatives in a pairwise comparison into a preference degree ranging
from zero to one.

Typically, 6 preference functions are used:

Type 1: Usual criterion

Indifference only exists between alternatives a and b when they are equal and in this
case they will be assigned a preference degree of 0. However, the smallest
difference in value represents a strict preference on behalf of the decision maker
and is assigned a preference degree of 1.

Type 2: Quasi-criterion
In this case alternatives a and b are seen to be indifferent within a range defined by
the decision maker and will be assigned a preference degree of 0. Beyond that area
of indifference the preference becomes strict, with a preference degree of 1 being
assigned.
 PROMETHEE

Type 3: Criterion with linear preference

Extending the usual criterion, in this case the decision maker’s preference increases
progressively for progressively larger deviations between alternatives a and b.
Where a equals b the alternatives are indifferent and assigned a preference degree
of 0. From that point the intensity of preference increases linearly to a threshold
value defined by the decision maker at which point and beyond which the preference
is strict and assigned a preference degree of 1.

Type 4: Level criterion

An extension to the quasi-criterion, in this case alternatives a and b are seen to be
indifferent within a range defined by the decision maker and will be assigned a
preference degree of 0. Beyond that a second range defined by the decision maker
provides a weak preference where a preference degree of 0.5 will be assigned.
Beyond that range a strict preference with a preference degree of 1 is given.
 PROMETHEE

Type 5: Criterion with linear preference and indifference area

A combination of types 2 and 3, in this case alternatives a and b are seen to be
indifferent within a range defined by the decision maker and will be assigned a
preference degree of 0. Beyond this range the decision maker’s preference
increases progressively for progressively larger deviations between alternatives a
and b. The intensity of preference increases linearly to a threshold value defined by
the decision maker at which point and beyond which the preference is strict and
assigned a preference degree of 1.

Type 6: Gaussian criteria

Similar to type 3, if a particular criterion is of the Gaussian type, the preference of
the decision maker still grows with increasing deviation between alternatives a and b
but the relationship is not linear. Through the decision maker providing a value of σ,
representing the distance between the origin and point of inflection, the relationship
between difference in alternatives a and b and the preference degree is given. The
preference degree will vary from 0 where a equals b to approaching 1 where the
difference is very large.
 PROMETHEE
Preference
functions
 PROMETHEE
Criteria Weighting
As with most MCDM/A methods it is possible, indeed preferred, to define the relative
importance of each criteria within the decision making process. This is done using
criteria weighting.

Within the PROMETHEE model normalised weights, aggregating to 1 are used. There
are many techniques to elicit the weightings from the decision maker with the choice
often being one of the software being used or personal preference of the decision
maker. As an example, the MCDM/A tool DECERNS provides 4 common methods of
eliciting criteria weights within its PROMETHEE model:

1. Direct weighting
The decision maker directly provides numerical weights for each criterion representing
its perceived importance in the decision process. These weights will be normalised
before being used in the PROMETHEE model.

2. Ranking
The decision maker is asked to rank in order of preference the criteria. The rankings
 PROMETHEE
Criteria Weighting

3. Rating
The decision maker attributes a score of 100 to the criteria perceived as most
important. Subsequently scores of less than 100 are applied to each of the remaining
criteria. The scores are normalised to aggregate to 1.

4. Pairwise comparison
Using the same process and scale as AHP, the decision maker considers each
possible pair of criteria and states a preference on a 9 point scale from equal
preference through moderate, strong, very strong and extreme preference. Once all
pairwise comparisons are complete scores for each criterion are aggregated and
normalised.
 PROMETHEE
Multi-level criteria, multi-level
weighting
In this example the higher level criteria
have been defined for economic,
environmental and social impacts with
the relevant criteria flowing into each.
Criteria weighting occurs within
the economic higher level
criteria for criteria X and Y and
positive, negative and net flows
for the alternatives are
calculated at that level. At the
task level weighting of the three
higher levels occurs and is
applied to the flows calculated
for the economic,
environmental and social
criteria to provide flows, and
hence a ranking, for the overall
 PROMETHEE
Barriers to wide adoption

In principle, PROMETHEE is a relatively simple ranking method in its idea and

application.

Key methodological difficulty is the definition of preference functions suitable for each
criterion. This may require a specific guidance following statistical analysis of decision
outcomes depending on preference functions used, as well as a guidance for
preference functions suitable for specific situations.

PROMETHEE tools

Decision Lab
DECERNS
D-Sight
Smart Picker Pro
Visual PROMETHEE
 PROMETHEE
Recording the decision making process and decision makers subjectivity

Due to the relative simplicity of the PROMETHEE approach it is possible to provide a

simple and yet complete overview of the decision making process and decision maker’s
subjective input.

This information provides transparency and audit of the decision process and allows
the decision to be recreated at a later date.

The following data is readily available from all PROMETHEE software tools:

Criteria/Alternative value matrix

Criteria hierarchy map (if using multi-tier weighting)
Preference functions for each criteria
Criteria Weighting (for each tier if using multi-tier weighting)
 Assignment
❑ Suitability analysis for beekeeping sites in
Marondera, using GIS & MCDM/A techniques