GIS Asia Link 2 :
Course of Rehabilitation and Monitoring
Degraded Forest in Southeast Asia
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHPOleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
AHP and Land Zoning AHP and Land Zoning
decisiondecision
Muhamad Buce SalehTatang Tiryana
Department of Forest ManagementFaculty of Forestry IPB
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP
Oleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
Material DiscussionMaterial Discussion
• Basic Decision Theory
• Basic Theory of AHP
• Case Study on Land use planning in Puncak Bogor
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHPOleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
Material 1:
Basic Decision TheoryBasic Decision Theory
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP
Oleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
Decision urgenciesDecision urgencies……..
• For human’s life:
– Facing the problems:
• Gap between the real and hopes
– Generally the problems are complicated,
– The resources always limited for solving the
problems,
– Then decision should be made – even if we do nothing is a decision
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHPOleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
Ways of explaining reality
Sea Snow Sea Snow
PhenomenonPhenomenon
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP
Oleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
GIS Asia Link 2 :
Course of Rehabilitation and Monitoring
Degraded Forest in Southeast Asia
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHPOleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP
Oleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
MODEL Limitation
Characters of MODEL:Characters of MODEL:
1.1. GeneralityGenerality
2.2. PrecisionPrecision
3.3. ReliableReliable
In general a model only fulfilled 2 In general a model only fulfilled 2
among 3 characters model aboveamong 3 characters model above
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHPOleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
Decision urgencies …(2)
• Examples:
– How to chose the best school for our children?
– How to chose our vehicles?
– etc?Which one I have to chose …???
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP
Oleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
Decision urgencies…(3)
• Decision are not easy, because of:– The problems are really complicated– The limitation of human’s brain– Non-linear utilities:
– Most of the criteria are contradictive or conflicting• For example: we want a good car but cheap …????
– Measurement technique are difficult:• We should combine the data with difference scale• No scale for qualitative factors
Cost of promotion (Rp)
Rating sale
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHPOleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
How to implement decision?How to implement decision?
• Stages of decision (Herbert Simon, 1960):
IntelligenceIntelligence
DesignDesign
ChoiceChoice
ImplementationImplementation
Are there any problems?
Are there any solution?
Which Alternative solution to chose?
Are the choices effective?
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP
Oleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
A common use in decisionA common use in decision
• Usually decision made by method:BOGSAT (a Bunch of Old Guys/Gals Sitting Around Talking)
Procedural stages:• Collecting the data/information,• Analyzing the data/information,• Discussing• Take a Decision
GIS Asia Link 2 :
Course of Rehabilitation and Monitoring
Degraded Forest in Southeast Asia
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHPOleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
A common use in decision…(2)
• weaknesses of BOGSAT:
– Dominated by only a few people
– Ignore the cognitive limitation:• BOGSAT have to discussed many thing in one time (e.g.
problem, alternatives, goal, criteria, etc),
• Though human brain have a limited capacity (up to 7 items)
– There is a satisfying principles, only concern with the alternatives which proposed – aspiration of the group:
• Limited to find more information for evaluate other alternatives
Sumber: Forman & Selly (2002)
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP
Oleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
Decision theories development Decision theories development –– other other
subjects:subjects:
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHPOleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
Foundation of a decisionFoundation of a decision
•• Value System: a belief that used in natural resources Value System: a belief that used in natural resources management with or without consciousness management with or without consciousness
–– EfficiencyEfficiency
–– PrecautionaryPrecautionary
–– EquityEquity
•• Preference: a knowledge, experiences, etcPreference: a knowledge, experiences, etc
–– Time PreferenceTime Preference
–– Risk PreferenceRisk Preference
•• Information: data or information that we haveInformation: data or information that we have
–– Quantitative/qualitativeQuantitative/qualitative
–– Type of data: nominal, ordinal, cardinal, Type of data: nominal, ordinal, cardinal, ratio2ratio2
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP
Oleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
Compatibility with/usability of decision principles in DAFs: Compatibility with/usability of decision principles in DAFs: –– weak but not impossible; + possible but not central; * esweak but not impossible; + possible but not central; * essential feature of DAFsential feature of DAF
Level of application: G = Global; I=Inter/SupraLevel of application: G = Global; I=Inter/Supra--national; N=National; R = Regional/Sectoral (Subnational; N=National; R = Regional/Sectoral (Sub--national); L=Local (community); M = Micro (Family, national); L=Local (community); M = Micro (Family,
firm, farm); X = Allfirm, farm); X = All
Typical domain of application: D=Direct intervention; I=IndireTypical domain of application: D=Direct intervention; I=Indirect influence; B=Bothct influence; B=Both
Uncertainty treatment: Rigor: * high; + good; Uncertainty treatment: Rigor: * high; + good; –– moderate/lowmoderate/low
Form: St=Model structure; SA=Sensitivity analysis; Sc=ScenarioForm: St=Model structure; SA=Sensitivity analysis; Sc=Scenarioss
Source:Source: Joseph Alcamo [et al.]. Joseph Alcamo [et al.]. 2003. 2003.
De
cis
ion
Fra
me
wo
rk
De
cis
ion
Fra
mew
ork
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHPOleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
Decision Situation (ADAPTED FROM EPA, 2000; STERN & Decision Situation (ADAPTED FROM EPA, 2000; STERN &
FINEBERG, 1996; KFINEBERG, 1996; KØØRNRNØØV & THISSEN, 2000). V & THISSEN, 2000).
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP
Oleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
History of Decision TheoryHistory of Decision Theory
GIS Asia Link 2 :
Course of Rehabilitation and Monitoring
Degraded Forest in Southeast Asia
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP
Oleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
Measurement Techniques in DecisionMeasurement Techniques in Decision
•• RankingRanking
•• RatingRating
•• Pairwise comparisonPairwise comparison
•• Utility theoryUtility theory
•• Probability TheoryProbability Theory
•• Posterior/Subjective probability (Bayesian)Posterior/Subjective probability (Bayesian)
•• DempsterDempster--ShaferShafer
•• FuzzyFuzzy
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP
Oleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
Data as source of decisionData as source of decision
• Decision based on data/information,
• But, be careful on data….!!!
• Human Population : 5000
• Animal Population : 750
• Area : 1250
Total : 7000
Number not always as it is - seen …!
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHPOleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
Measurement ScaleMeasurement Scale
• What kind of analysis?
Nominal
Ordinal
IntervalRatio
96
5
21
3
• Number of runner
• Ranking winner
• Performance rating on scale 0 - 10
60
• Human weight
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP
Oleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
Measurement Scale…(2)
• What operation should be done with number…!!!
Y=aXY=aX+b--Mathematical Function
YesYesNoNox / :
YesYesNoNo+ / -
RatioIntervalOrdinalNominal
ScaleMathematical Operation
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHPOleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
Decision MethodDecision Method
• Popular Decision Method PK : “Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM)”
– Consisted of 2 groups:
• MODM (multi-objective decision making):
– Decision space is continue
– Alternatives choices based on several objectives that are
conflicting
• MADM (multi-attibute decision making):
– Decision space is discrete (alternatives is limited and have
determined before)
– Alternatives choices based on attributes (criteria) which are
conflicting for a certain goal
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP
Oleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
MADM method classificationMADM method classification
©Yoon & Hwang (1995)��������
GIS Asia Link 2 :
Course of Rehabilitation and Monitoring
Degraded Forest in Southeast Asia
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHPOleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
Characteristics of MADMCharacteristics of MADM
– Alternatives:
• Several action that will be prioritized
• Number of action limited
– Multi Attribute (goals, criteria):
• Used for evaluating the alternatives
• Each problem has specific attribute:
– Examples when we chose the car: price, comfort ability,
safety, etc.
– Measurement scale are different.
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP
Oleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
Characteristic of MADM…(2)
– Weight for attributes:
• Relative Important level for each attributes
• Can be determined directly or using a certain method (example: pairwise comparison AHP)
– Decision Matrix:
• column represent attributes
• row represent alternatives
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHPOleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
How to conduct MADM ?How to conduct MADM ?
• 3 stages :
1) Determined the relevant criteria and alternatives
2) Used numerical scale for relative important level of criteria and alternatives
3) Calculated and Analysis the numerical values to determined priority/ranking of alternatives
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP
Oleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
Material 2:
Basic Theory of AHPBasic Theory of AHP
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHPOleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
AHP?AHP?
• Introduced and developed by Dr. Thomas L. Saaty at early 1970 period
• One of MCDA methods which explained a complicated problem through a simple way as follow: – Structurized the problem into hierarchical form
– Put a numerical value to determined important level for one element compare with other element
– Synthesizing to get priority of alternatives solution
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP
Oleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
Basic concept AHPBasic concept AHP
• Decomposition : put the problem into hierarchical form
• Priority determination through pairwise comparison
• Priority Synthesizing
• Evaluate inconsistency
GIS Asia Link 2 :
Course of Rehabilitation and Monitoring
Degraded Forest in Southeast Asia
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHPOleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
Why AHP?Why AHP?
• Helpful in organizing the elements of probleminto a hierarchy form:– Fit with human natural thinking to analyzed a complex problem
• Determination of important level conducted carefully:– Pairwise comparison more intuitive
• Integration of qualitative and quantitative data:– qualitative: judgment, preference
– quantitative: measurement result (e.g. price, cost, etc)
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP
Oleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
AHP ProcedureAHP Procedure
1. Problem definition
2. Organized elements of problem into hierarchy
3. Assessment the criteria and alternatives
4. Determined the relative priority
5. Evaluated consistency index
6. Synthesis the alternatives priority
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHPOleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
1. Problem definition1. Problem definition
• Problem:
– Gap between the recent condition (what is) and the expectation (what should be)
• Problem Identification:
– What goal/objectives should be achieved?
– What criteria and sub-criteria which are suitable?
– What are alternatives solution?
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP
Oleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
2. Hierarchy framing2. Hierarchy framing
• Basic Structure AHP:
GoalGoal
K1K1 K2K2 K3K3 K4K4
A1A1
A2A2
A3A3
A1A1
A2A2
A3A3
A1A1
A2A2
A3A3
A1A1
A2A2
A3A3
GoalGoal
CriteriaCriteria
AlternativesAlternatives
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHPOleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
2. Hierarchy framingHierarchy framing …(2)
• Structure expanded:
Scenario
Criteria & Sub-criteria
Alternatives
Goal
Actor
Criteria & Sub-criteria
Alternatives
Goal
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP
Oleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
2. Hierarchy framingHierarchy framing …(3)
Generally there are 2 models of AHP:1. Relative measurement model:
• If alternative solution has known exactly (maximum 9 alternative), then
• Alternatives can be compared one to others directly
• Example: choice 3 alternative cars
2. Absolute measurement model:• If alternative solution has not known well or
might be the number is too many
• Alternatives rated by a certain standard
• Example: - rating model for student selection
GIS Asia Link 2 :
Course of Rehabilitation and Monitoring
Degraded Forest in Southeast Asia
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHPOleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
2. Hierarchy framingHierarchy framing …(4)
• Example of relative model:
GoalGoal
CriteriaCriteria
AlternativeAlternative
The best car for familyThe best car for family
PricePrice PrestigePrestige MultiuseMultiuse
BMWBMW ToyotaKijang
ToyotaKijang
SuzukiKarimun
SuzukiKarimun
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP
Oleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
3. Criteria and Alternative assessment3. Criteria and Alternative assessment
• Conducted for each hierarchy level to determined the relative important value between one and other element
• Pairwise comparison used:
– Data (measurement results), or generally used
– Scale 1-9
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHPOleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
2. Hierarchy framingHierarchy framing …(5)
• Example absolute model:
GoalGoal
CriteriaCriteria
Intensity ScaleIntensity Scale
AlternativeAlternative
The best car for familyThe best car for family
PricePrice PrestigePrestige MultiuseMultiuse
Alternative (all type and trade mark in market)
Alternative (all type and trade mark in market)
CheapCheap ExpensExpens LowLow MediumMedium HighHigh LessLess MoreMore
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHPOleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
2. Hierarchy framingHierarchy framing …(6)
• Struktur hierarki PHTL LEI: model rating
Kelestarian
Kualitas
Lahan dan Air
Kelestarian
Keanekaragaman
Hayati
Kelestarian
Akses & Kontrol
Komuniti
Kelestarian
Integrasi Sosial
dan Budaya
Kelestarian
Hubungan
Tenaga Kerja
Kelestarian
Usaha
Kelestarian
Hasil Hutan
Kelestarian
Sumberdaya
Keterangan :
MK : Manajemen Kawasan
MH : Manajemen Hutan
PK : Penataan
Kelembagaan
Pm-K : Pemantapan Kawasan
Pn-K : Penataan Kawasan
Pg-K : Pengamanan Kawasan
KP : Kelola Produksi
KL : Kelola Lingkungan
KS : Kelola Sosial
PO : Penataan Organisasi
PSDM : Peningkatan
Sumberdaya Manusia
MKeu : Manajemen
Keuangan
SUB-PROSES
PROSES
KRITERIA
PRINSIP
TUJUAN
MH PKMK
Pm-K Pn-K Pg-K PO PSDM
INDIKATORINDIKATOR
NILAI (SKALA INTENSITAS)NILAI (SKALA INTENSITAS)
MKeuKLKP KS
Pengelolaan Hutan
Tanaman Lestari (PHTL)
Kelestarian Fungsi
Produksi
Kelestarian Fungsi
Ekologi/Lingkungan
Kelestarian Fungsi
Sosial Ekonomi dan
Budaya
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHPOleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
3. Criteria and Alternative assessmentCriteria and Alternative assessment …(2)
If feel hesitated between two close values2,4,6,8
A absolutely more important than B9
A very clearly more important than B7
A clearly more important than B5
A little more important than B3
Criteria/alternative A and B equally important
1
StatementValue
Reciprocal value (1/3, 1/5,…) used if B more important than A
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP
Oleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
3. Criteria and Alternative assessmentCriteria and Alternative assessment …(3)
• Assessment results put on pairwise comparison matrix (PCM)
• Example PCM (1): criteria level
– “Which criteria is more important and how much important?”
11/21/4Prestige
211/3Multiuse
431Price
PrestigeMultiusePriceCriteria
GIS Asia Link 2 :
Course of Rehabilitation and Monitoring
Degraded Forest in Southeast Asia
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHPOleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
3. Criteria and Alternative assessmentCriteria and Alternative assessment …(4)
• Example PCM (2): alternative level
– “From prestige aspect, which car more important and how much important?”
• If n element, then the total number of comparison: n(n-1)/2
11/51/7Karimun
511/3Kijang
731BMW
KarimunKijangBMWPrestige
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP
Oleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
InterruptionInterruption……!!!!!!
If only determined the weight,
why we should use pairwise
comparison?
I think easier to determined
directly such as for example:
0,4??
But why 0,4? Why not
0,45?
Then here in AHP,
when determined the
weight not
careless…!!!
”it is better to be approximately right than precisely wrong”
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHPOleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
3. Criteria and Alternative assessment…(5)
• How if assessment conducted by group?
– Better if group made a consensus:
• Discussion and argues should be done before coming with one value
– Value based on consensus used in PCM
OK, we deal with that price is 3 time more important than prestige..!!!
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP
Oleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
3. Criteria and Alternative assessmentCriteria and Alternative assessment …(6)
• How if there is no consensus among the group?
– Used mean geometric from individual assessment:
– Example:1 2. ....n
nx x x x=
A=3B
A=2B
A=5B
A=7B Mean-geo: A = 3,8B
4 (2).(3).(5).(7) 3,8x = =
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHPOleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
4. Priority determination4. Priority determination
• Each element (criteria, alternative) in hierarchy has relative weight:
– To show priority/important relatively
• Weight get from PCM:
– Calculate eigen value (eigenvector)
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP
Oleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
4. Priority determinationPriority determination …(2)
• Calculation methods (eigen value):
– According to Saaty: power method
– Procedure:
• Squared the matrix
• Calculate sum of number for each row, then normalized (divided by total sum)
• Iterated until we get the deviation value between two iteration is very small (not change in 4 decimal)
GIS Asia Link 2 :
Course of Rehabilitation and Monitoring
Degraded Forest in Southeast Asia
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHPOleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
4. Priority determinationPriority determination …(3)
• Example weight:
• Iteration -1:
– Squared PCM:
11/21/4Prestige
211/3Multiuse
431Price
PrestigeMultiusePriceCriteria 1 3 4
0,33 1 2
0, 25 0,5 1
1,000 3,000 4,000 1,000 3,000 4,000 3,000 8,000 14,000
0,333 1,000 2,000 0,333 1,000 2,000 1,167 3,000 5,333
0,250 0,500 1,000 0,250 0,500 1,000 0,667 1,750 3,000
x
=
PCM
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP
Oleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
4. Priority determinationPriority determination …(4)
• Iteration 1:
– Summed value of each row and normalized:
– So, eigen value from iteration -1:
• 0,6263, 0,2380, 0,1357
3,0000 8,0000 14,0000 25,0000 25,0000/39,9167 = 0,6263
1,1667 3,0000 5,3333 9,5000 9,5000/39,9167 = 0,2380
0,6667 1,7500 3,0000 5,4167 5,4167/39,9167 = 0,1357
Sum row normalized
Sum: 39,9167
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHPOleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
4. Priority determinationPriority determination …(5)
• Iteration-2:
– Again squared the matrix from iteration -1:
3,0000 8,0000 14,0000 3,0000 8,0000 14,0000
1,1667 3,0000 5,3333 1,1667 3,0000 5,3333
0,6667 1,7500 3,0000 0,6667 1,7500 3,0000
27,6667 72,5000 126,6667
= 10,5556 27,6667 48,3333
6,0417 15,8333 27,6667
x
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP
Oleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
4. Priority determinationPriority determination …(6)
• Iteration-2 :
– Summed the value for each row and normalized:
– So, eigen value from iteration -2:
• 0,6250, 0,2385, 0,1365
27.6667 72.5000 126.6667 226.8334 226,8334/362,9307 = 0,6250
10.5556 27.6667 48.3333 86,5556 86,5556/362,9307 = 0,2385
6.0417 15.8333 27.6667 49,5417 49,5417/362,9307 = 0,1365
Sum row normalized
Sum : 362,9307
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHPOleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
0,6263 0,6250 0,0013
0,2380 0, 2385 0,0005
0,1357 0,1365 0,0008
− =
− = −
− = −
4. Priority determinationPriority determination …(7)
• Now, calculate deviation between eigen valuefrom iteration-1 and iteration-2:
– Deviation not large until 4 decimal
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP
Oleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
• If iteration-3 continued, we will get the eigen value not change in 4 decimal:
– So, eigen value for criteria level:
– That means the most important criteria is price, follow by multiuse then prestige
4. Priority determinationPriority determination …(8)
0,6250 Harga
0,2385 Serbaguna
0,1365 Prestise
⇒
GIS Asia Link 2 :
Course of Rehabilitation and Monitoring
Degraded Forest in Southeast Asia
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHPOleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
4. Priority determinationPriority determination …(9)
Stop…stop..!!! Should we calculated so complicated like
this…???
Not of course…,Just used the software…!!!
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP
Oleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
5. Consistency evaluation5. Consistency evaluation
• Are pairwise comparison conducted consistently?
• Consistency will guaranteed the weight validity
Consistent:•A = 2B, B = 3C� A = 6C
•Price > Multiuse,Multiuse > Prestige� Price > Prestige
Consistent:•A = 2B, B = 3C� A = 6C
•Price > Multiuse,Multiuse > Prestige� Price > Prestige
Inconsistent:•A = 2B, B = 3C� A = 4C
•Price > Multiuse,Multiuse > Prestige� Price < Prestige
Inconsistent:•A = 2B, B = 3C� A = 4C
•Price > Multiuse,Multiuse > Prestige� Price < Prestige
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHPOleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
5. Consistency evaluationConsistency evaluation …(2)
• Inconsistency might be happen when:
–Wrong entry data
– Information not enough
– Less concentration
– Facts are really not always consistent:
• Team A outmatch Team B, and Team B outmatch Team C, but
• May be Team C outmatch Team A
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP
Oleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
5. Consistency evaluationConsistency evaluation …(3)
• AHP tolerate inconsistency:
– Measure by consistency index (CI) dan ratio consistency (CR):
– Random value (RI):
– Good Consistency : CR CR ≤≤ 0,10,1
CICR
RI=
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHPOleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
5. Consistency evaluationConsistency evaluation …(4)
• Example consistency evaluation:– Is the assessment consistent?
– From the calculation we have eigen value (priority vector):
11/21/4Prestige
211/3Multiuse
431Price
Prestige
MultiusePriceCriteria1 3 4
0,33 1 2
0,25 0,5 1
PCM
0, 62500,23850,1365
PriceMultiusePrestige
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP
Oleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
5. Consistency evaluationConsistency evaluation …(5)
Next Procedure:• Calculate weighted sum vector : multiply matrix with eigen
value (priority vector)
• Divide the weight sum vector with priority vector:
1 3 4 0,6250 1,8865
0,33 1 2 0, 2385 = 0,7178
0, 25 0,5 1 0,1365 0,4120
x
1,8865 0,6250 3,0184
0,7178 : 0,2385 = 3,0096
0,4120 0,1365 3,0183
GIS Asia Link 2 :
Course of Rehabilitation and Monitoring
Degraded Forest in Southeast Asia
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHPOleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
5. Consistency evaluationConsistency evaluation …(6)
Next Procedure:• Calculate maximum eigen value :
• Calculate consistency index (CI):
max
(3,0184)+(3,0096)+(3,0183) = =3,0154
3λ
max 3, 0154 30, 0077
1 3 1
nCI
n
λ − −= = =
− −
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP
Oleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
5. Consistency evaluationConsistency evaluation …(7)
Next Procedure:• Calculate consistency ratio (CR):
(Note: RI value for n=3 we get from table)
– Conclusion: assessment of the criteria level was consistent because CR value < 0,1
0,00770,0132
0,58
CICR
RI= = =
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHPOleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
5. Consistency evaluationConsistency evaluation …(8)
Once more… feel dizzy?Just used the software…!!!
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP
Oleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
6. Synthesis Alternative Priority6. Synthesis Alternative Priority
• For example we get relative priority as follow:
Chose Ideal CarChose Ideal Car
Price(0,625)
Price(0,625)
Multiuse(0,238)
Multiuse(0,238)
Prestige(0,136)
Prestige(0,136)
1. Karimun (0,648)2. Kijang (0,230)3. BMW (0,122)
1. Karimun (0,648)2. Kijang (0,230)3. BMW (0,122)
1. Kijang (0,625) 2. Karimun (0,238)3. BMW (0,136)
1. Kijang (0,625) 2. Karimun (0,238)3. BMW (0,136)
1. BMW (0,649)2. Kijang (0,279)3. Karimun (0,072)
1. BMW (0,649)2. Kijang (0,279)3. Karimun (0,072)
So, which is car we have to chose…???
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHPOleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
6. Synthesis Alternative PrioritySynthesis Alternative Priority …(2)
• If we want to get total priority for
alternatives, we have to synthesis:
– Combine all relative priority vector
– One of the method is weighted summation, compromise method, etc
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP
Oleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
6. Synthesis Alternative PrioritySynthesis Alternative Priority …(3)
• Example synthesis:
0,072
0,279
0,649
Prestige
(0,136)
0,4700,2380,648Karimun
0,3330,6250,230Kijang
0,1970,1360,122BMW
Multiuse
(0,238)
Price
(0,625)Alternative
Alternative Priority
CriteriaWeight
Calculation:For BMW: (0,122).(0,625) + (0,136).(0.238) + (0,649).(0.136) = 0,197
GIS Asia Link 2 :
Course of Rehabilitation and Monitoring
Degraded Forest in Southeast Asia
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHPOleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
Oh I have to chose just Karimun …!!!
6. Synthesis Alternative PrioritySynthesis Alternative Priority…(4)
• After all, then:
– Total Priority level is: Karimun > Kijang > BMW
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP
Oleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
Material 3:
Case Study: Implementation Case Study: Implementation
on Land use Planning in on Land use Planning in
Puncak Area, BogorPuncak Area, Bogor
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHPOleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
Thank you bu Syar, pa Hadi and pa Lilik …!
PENERAPAN PENERAPAN MULTI CRITERIA DECISION MAKINGMULTI CRITERIA DECISION MAKING(MCDM) DAN (MCDM) DAN GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION SYSTEMSYSTEM (GIS) PADA EVALUASI PERUNTUKAN (GIS) PADA EVALUASI PERUNTUKAN LAHAN LAHAN (Studi Kasus: DAS Ciliwung Hulu, Kab. Bogor, Jawa Barat)(Studi Kasus: DAS Ciliwung Hulu, Kab. Bogor, Jawa Barat)
By: SYARTINILIASupervisor :Ir. Hadi Susilo Arifin, MS., Ph. D.Dr. Ir. Lilik Budi Prasetyo, M.Sc
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHPOleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
#
########
###
## ##############
#########
#######
#
#
#####
###
###
#
#
#
#
#
##
#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
#
#
######
#
##
#
#
#
#
#
Ground truth point# GPS track 2002 Sungai C illiwung
Legenda :
N
0 1 2 3 Kilometers
Pulau Jawa
Province Jawa Barat
DAS Ciliwung Hulu, Kabupaten Bogor, Jawa Barat
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHPOleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
Protected Area CriteriaProtected Area Criteria
Source : - Ketentuan teknis kawasan lindung dalam RTRW Bopunjur (Bappeda, 2000) dengan berpedoman pada Keppres No.32 tahun 1990 tentang Pengelolaan Kawasan Lindung dan SK Gubernur Jawa Barat No. 413.21/SK.222-HUK/91
tentang Kriteria Lokasi dan Standar Teknis Penataan Ruang di Kawasan Puncak.
Land suitability for Protected Area
Slope High Land creep area
Elevation Soil River bank Important Catchment
Area
>2000 m>40% Litosol,slope > 15%
100 m both side of river
Regosol, slope> 15%
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP
Oleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
Land suitability for Build up and Cultivation Land suitability for Build up and Cultivation AreaArea
Settlement
Rice field>2000
Dry agricultureSlow1500-2000>20
ShrubsFast1000-150016-20
Tea estateMedium700-100010-15
ForestGood300-700<10SettlementSettlement
Rice field
Dry agriculture>25
ShrubsSlow>200016-25Tea estateFast1500-20008-15
ForestMedium-Good1000-1500<8Estate/ plantation
Settlement
Rice field>2000>25Dry agriculture1500-200016-25
ShrubsSlow1000-15009-15
Tea estateFast700-10003-8
ForestMedium-Good300-700< 3Dry land agriculture
Settlement
Rice field>2000>25
Dry agriculture1500-200016-25
ShrubsFast1000-15009-15
Tea estateMedium-Good700-10003-8
Forestslowslow300300--700700< 3< 3Rice field
Land coverDrainageElevation)Slope (%)
CriteriaLand use
GIS Asia Link 2 :
Course of Rehabilitation and Monitoring
Degraded Forest in Southeast Asia
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHPOleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
CULTIVATION AREACULTIVATION AREA
•• Weight and intensity scale: AHPWeight and intensity scale: AHP
Level 3:
Value
Land suitability for rice field
Slope (%)
< 3
3-8
>25
9-15
16-25
Drainage
Slow
Medm-Good
Fast
Elevation (m)
300-700
700-1000
1000-1500
1500-2000
>2000
Penggunaan/pe
nutupan lahan
Forest
Tea estate
Shrubs
Ricef
Dry Agr
Settlement
Level 2:Weight
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP
Oleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
Slope (%)
< 3
3-8
>25
9-15
16-25
Drainage
Baik-sedang
Cepat
Terhambat
Elevasi (m)
300-700
700-1000
1000-1500
1500-2000
>2000
Land cover
Hutan
Perkebunan teh
Semak belukar
Sawah
Ladang
Pemukiman
Kesesuaian lahan untuk pertanian lahan kering
Level 3:Nilai
Level 2 :Bobot
DRY LAND AGRICULTURE AREADRY LAND AGRICULTURE AREA
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHPOleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
Slope (%)
16-25
< 8
Drainage
Baik
Sedang-cepat
Terhambat
Elevasi (m)
1000-1500
1500-2000
>2000
Land cover
Hutan
Perkebunan teh
Semak belukar
Sawah
Ladang
Pemukiman
Kesesuaian lahan untuk perkebunan
8-15
>25
Level 3 :Nilai
Level 2 :Bobot
PLANTATION AREAPLANTATION AREA
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP
Oleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
Level 3 :Nilai
Level 2 :Bobot
Slope (%)
< 10
>20
10-15
16-20
Drainage
Baik
Cepat
Terhambat
Elevasi (m)
300-700
700-1000
1000-1500
1500-2000
>2000
Land cover
Hutan
Perkebunan teh
Semak belukar
Sawah
Ladang
Pemukiman
Kesesuaian lahan untuk pemukiman
Sedang
SETTLEMENT AREASETTLEMENT AREA
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHPOleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
Example: weight and intensity scale Example: weight and intensity scale for Rice field Areafor Rice field Area
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
<3 % 3-8 % 9-15 % 16-25 % >25 %
Slope
Valu
e
B= 0.217
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
300-700 700-1000 1000-1500 1500-2000 >2000
Elevasi (m)
Valu
e
B= 0.149
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Terhambat Sedang-baik Cepat
Drainase
Valu
e
B = 0.461
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Hutan Perkebunan
Teh
Semak
belukar
Sawah Ladang Pemukiman
Land cover
Valu
e
B= 0.172
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP
Oleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
� We use sensitivity analysis with 3 different values, such as: p = 1, 2 and (e.g. p>10).
MODEL SINTHESISMODEL SINTHESIS
( )p
I
i
pk
ii
p
ip xxd
/1
1
*
−= ∑
=
β
∞
dp = distance metrics
= weight for criteria based on preference level, where > 0, = ideal point p
p = distance parameter, range from 1 to
iβi
β 1=∑ iβ∗
x∞
Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM)Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM)Compromise Programming (CP)
GIS Asia Link 2 :
Course of Rehabilitation and Monitoring
Degraded Forest in Southeast Asia
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHPOleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
Distance Matrix value calculation for GIS
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP
Oleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
Slope
Digital Elevation Model
(DEM)
Aspect
Database SpatialDatabase Spatial
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHPOleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
Drainage Land cover
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP
Oleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
Example: for cultivation area modelExample: for cultivation area model
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHPOleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
Cultivation area ModelCultivation area Model
Ric
e fie
ld
Dry la
nd
ag
ricu
lture
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP
Oleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
Esta
te
Settle
ment
GIS Asia Link 2 :
Course of Rehabilitation and Monitoring
Degraded Forest in Southeast Asia
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHPOleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
Cu
ltiva
tion
Are
a w
ith p
= 1
, 2, 1
0C
ultiv
atio
n A
rea w
ith p
= 1
, 2, 1
0
Technique Pengambilan Keputusan dengan Metode AHP
Oleh: M. Buce Saleh & Tatang Tiryana
THANK YOU FOR BEING DIZZY…..
Waaah… SO COMPLICATED…!?!?