Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Technology 8 (2013) 134 – 143

6th International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies in

Agriculture, Food and Environment (HAICTA 2013)

Use of swot and analytic hierarchy process integration as a

participatory decision making tool in watershed management
Fadim Yavuza,*,Tüzin Baycanb
a
Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, 42090, Turkey
b
Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of Architecture, Istanbul Technical University, østanbul, 34367, Turkey

Abstract

The most critical issue of the decision making process in watershed management is the active involvement of a range of
stakeholder groups whose views usually conflict with each other. Participatory approaches must fully respect the knowledge,
experiences, values, and interests of various stakeholders. This study addresses the Beyúehir Lake Basin, the largest freshwater
lake in Turkey, and focuses on inhabitants’ perceptions and approaches in order to find out the optimal watershed management
strategies. The study illustrates the feasibility of SWOT analysis and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) integration to
incorporate stakeholder preferences in the decision making process. The results provide the following crucial information: (i) the
main problems of the basin (ii) the most important advantages of the basin in terms of ‘Strengths’ and ‘Opportunities’ (iii) the
most important disadvantages of the basin in terms of ‘Weaknesses’ and ‘Threats’ (iv) the most appropriate watershed
management strategies those enable ecological and socio-cultural sustainability of the basin.
© 2013The
© 2013 TheAuthors.
Authors. Published
Published by Elsevier
by Elsevier B.V.access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Ltd. Open
Selection andpeer-review
Selection and peer-review under
under responsibility
responsibility of TheofHellenic
HAICTA Association for Information and Communication Technologies in Agriculture
Food and Environment (HAICTA)
Keywords: Multi-Criteria Decision Making; Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP); SWOT Analysis; Participatory Watershed Management;
Beyúehir Lake Basin

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +90-332-323-8220 / 5729; fax: +90-332-323-8245

E-mail address: fadimyavuz@konya.edu.tr

2212-0173 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of The Hellenic Association for Information and Communication Technologies in Agriculture
Food and Environment (HAICTA)
doi:10.1016/j.protcy.2013.11.019
 Fadim Yavuz and Tüzin Baycan / Procedia Technology 8 (2013) 134 – 143 135

1. Introduction

Successful projects in watershed management (WM) are generally those which achieved effective integration and
participation of watershed inhabitants in planning and execution processes. An effective WM is confirmed as the
process of arranging compromise between central and local administrations, universities, non-governmental
organizations and watershed users, and the process of producing decisions through participatory planning [1]. Local
participation of influential and diverse stakeholders into the planning process; (i) facilitates effective
communication, (ii) enables to overcome the external obstacles via broadening the group’s store of knowledge on
matters both technical and pragmatic, (iii) increases the likelihood that someone in the group will know about
additional sources of needed information, and (iv) improves the likelihood of successful WM [1,2,3,4].
Watershed planning and management decisions generally include multiple goals. The multitude of the WM
objectives inevitably leads to conflicts among stakeholders or interest groups [5]. Nowadays, cooperation,
collaboration and conflict resolution have become crucial issues in participatory WM approaches. In this context,
multi-criteria decision making provides transparent ways to elicit and communicate individual preferences. When
the stakeholders clearly understand each other’s views, a consensus can be reached more easily. Multi-criteria
assessment models as a tool for conflict management are very useful in water resources management. Analytical
Hierarchy Process (AHP) facilitates the more holistic understanding of watershed systems, consideration of multiple
stakeholder values, objectives and behaviors, and improves abilities to predict and plan for future impacts as a multi-
criteria decision making and conflict resolution model. AHP, provides a framework for selecting a preferred
alternative from among a set of potential solutions to a problem, therefore leads to more sustainable watershed
planning and management decisions.

2. Materials and methods

This paper addresses the Beyúehir Lake Basin (BLB) which is the largest freshwater lake in Turkey and aims to
describe the optimal WM strategy from the perspective of inhabitants living in the basin. The paper offers a
systematic approach and analytical means with a combination of SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and
Threats) analysis – AHP that can enhance stakeholders’ and decision makers’ understanding of the problem and help
in the definition of solution objectives and constraints. Using SWOT-AHP framework in developing participatory
WM strategies for BLB tallying with SWOT factors can facilitate the development of feasible alternatives, as well
as the evaluation of alternatives’ performance and impacts via the pair-wise comparison technique available with
AHP.

2.1. Study domain

Beyúehir Lake (BL) is the largest freshwater lake and drinking water reservoir in Turkey. The basin is located in
the southwest of Konya Closed Basin between 37° 45’ N 31° 30’ E coordinates and belongs to Konya and Isparta
province borders (Fig 1). It is significant both for humans, as a source of fresh water, and environmentally, due to
the wetland ecosystem [6]. BL has international importance according to Ramsar Convention criteria as well as has
Important Bird Area (IBA) and Important Plant Area (IPA) statuses. However, BLB suffers from lots of
environmental and socio-economic problems such as: reduction in quantity or quality of the lake water, reductions
in fish and other life forms, overhunting, agricultural water pollution, excessive water consumption for agricultural
purposes, difficulty in accessing to water and inequalities, lack or inadequacy of infrastructure services, scarcity of
employment opportunities, migration of the population to the outside of the basin and ineffective water policies.
136 Fadim Yavuz and Tüzin Baycan / Procedia Technology 8 (2013) 134 – 143

Fig. 1. Location of Beyúehir Lake Basin in Turkey

2.2. The combined use of the AHP and SWOT analysis

Water resources management is characterized by the presence of a strong competition among different categories
of consumptive water uses and the existence of various interest groups. Multi-criteria assessment models as a tool
for conflict management are very useful in water resources management. The major strength of multi-criteria
methods is their ability to address problems marked by various conflicting evaluations [7]. AHP is a commonly used
multi-criteria decision making method that involves structuring multiple choice criteria into a hierarchy, assessing
the relative importance of these criteria, comparing alternatives for each criterion, and determining an overall
ranking of the alternatives. AHP is a quantitative comparison method that is used to select the optimal alternative by
comparing project alternatives based on their relative performance on the criteria of interest, after accounting for
the decision-maker’s relative preference or weighting of these criteria. AHP completely aggregates various facets of
the decision problem into a single objective function [8]. The importance or preferences of the decision elements are
compared in a pair-wise manner with regard to the element preceding them in the hierarchy [9]. Evaluators express
the intensity of a preference for one criterion versus another using a nine-point scale [10]. By organizing and
assessing alternatives against a hierarchy of multifaceted objectives, AHP reduces drastically the complex decision
cycle. AHP allows minimizing common pitfalls of decision making process, such as lack of focus, planning,
participation or ownership, which ultimately are costly distractions that can prevent from making the right choice
[11]. However, AHP also has some weak points. AHP has received some criticism despite its widespread use as a
decision method [4, 12, 13]: AHP also requires data based on experience, knowledge and judgment which are
subjective for each decision-maker. Since there is no theoretical basis exists for the formation of hierarchies,
decision makers, when faced with identical decision situations, can derive different hierarchies, thus different
solutions. Also, the rankings produced by the AHP are arbitrary because they are produced by a subjective opinion
using a ratio scale and these arbitrary rankings can lead to “rank reversal”. If more than one person is working on
this method, different opinions about the weight of each criterion can complicate matters. Moreover, flaws exist in
the methods for aggregating individual weights into composite weights. Despite these concerns, AHP remains
immensely popular in so many decision making problems. We believe that the implementation of AHP yields
plausible results in complex group decision making processes.
SWOT analysis is a commonly used strategic planning method to evaluate the Strengths (S), Weaknesses (W),
Opportunities (O), and Threats (T) involved in a project or in a business venture [14]. Generally SWOT is a list of
statements or factors with descriptions of the present and future trend of both internal and external environment; the
expressions of individual factors are general and brief which describe subjective views. However, SWOT is a
convenient and promising way of conducting a situational assessment [15]. Despite the advantages of SWOT in
decision making, the use of conventional SWOT analysis has no means of determining the importance of each
SWOT factor [16]. The AHP is largely used to make the factors in SWOT analysis more measurable via providing
them analytical priorities and to support the strategic planning process quantitatively. In this study, SWOT analysis
is combined with AHP and its eigen-value calculation framework.
The combined use of the AHP and SWOT analysis has been widely used to support strategic decision-making
processes. Utilizing AHP in SWOT analysis yields analytical priorities for the factors included in SWOT analysis
 Fadim Yavuz and Tüzin Baycan / Procedia Technology 8 (2013) 134 – 143 137

and makes them commensurable. While SWOT analysis supports the decision situation, AHP measures the relative
importance of the SWOT factors [17,18]. Making pairwise comparisons forces the decision–makers to think over
the weights of the SWOT factors and to analyze the situation more precisely and in more depth than the standard
SWOT does. By integrating SWOT with AHP, not only the mutual weighting of SWOT factors, but also the
evaluation of alternative strategic decisions can be integrated with ordinary SWOT analyses. By this way, the most
crucial weakness of SWOT can be avoided [19,20]. In this paper, our approach is to structure a hierarchy for the
participatory WM process based on a SWOT analysis and to use AHP to estimate a global value for each of the
proposed strategies. The flow chart of the methodology is shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2. Flow chart of the methodology

3. Results and discussion

In this section we present the empirical results according to the SWOT-AHP application steps consecutively:
138 Fadim Yavuz and Tüzin Baycan / Procedia Technology 8 (2013) 134 – 143

3.1 SWOT analysis

In the light of scientific data of the workshops and conferences arranged in the basin, as well as the expert
interviews and the individual observations the basin’s current status is summarized in a SWOT analysis identifies
Strengths (S), Weaknesses (W), Opportunities (O) and Threats (T).

3.2 Establishment of the decision hierarchy

The hierarchy for our problem has been structured in four levels, as we describe next. The first level is the main
goal will be achieved by the decision: to develop the best WM strategy enables BLB’s environmental and socio-
economic sustainability together. The next level consists of decision objectives such as to take advantage of the
Strengths, to reinforce the Weaknesses, to use the advantage of Opportunities and to develop the best defence to the
Threats. At the third level SWOT factors described in SWOT analysis take part in. Finally, the fourth level consists
of alternative WM strategies called as strategic objectives [SO]. A graphical representation of the hierarchical
structure we used in this study is presented in Fig. 3. How much important are the internal Strengths & Weaknesses
and the Opportunities & Threats, arising from external environment, or what degree should be maintenance to
achieve the purposes specified? What are the most important problems of the basin? Which is the safest way leads to
improve the lake's environmental and living conditions of the basin’s inhabitants? SWOT and AHP integration has
been utilized to reach the answers of these questions from the perspective of basin’s inhabitants.

Fig. 3. Hierarchical Structure to Prioritize the SWOT Factors of BLB’s Sustainability†

3.3 Strategy formulation using TOWS matrix

We have used TOWS matrix in developing alternative strategies (Table 1). TOWS matrix provides means to
develop strategies based on logical combinations of SWOT factors related to internal strengths (or weaknesses) with
factors related to external opportunities (or threats) [22]. TOWS matrix identifies four conceptually distinct strategic
groups to create the alternative strategies: Strength-Opportunity (SO); Strength-Threats (ST); Weaknesses-

†
The flow chart is adapted from [21]. The lines in the figure represent the relationships between levels. ‘W’ symbols indicate the relative
weights of these relationships and ‘U’ symbols indicate the degree of efficiency of each strategy in the achievement of each one of the factors
included in the previous level of the hierarchy. ‘m’ means the number of factors, as well as ‘n’ means the number of strategic objectives.
 Fadim Yavuz and Tüzin Baycan / Procedia Technology 8 (2013) 134 – 143 139

Opportunities (WO); and Weaknesses-Threats (WT). TOWS matrix contains six proposed strategic objectives [SO].

Table 1. Strategy formulation using TOWS matrix

TOWS
Strengths Weaknesses
matrix
SO (Maxi-Maxi) Strategies: WO (Mini-Maxi) Strategies:
Strategies use strengths to maximize Strategies minimize weaknesses to take the advantage of opportunities
Opportunities

the opportunities [SO 3] Collaborative watershed management

[SO 1] Agricultural development
[SO 2] Environment friendly tourism
development: rural tourism

ST (Maxi-Mini) Strategies: WT (Mini-Mini) Strategies:

Strategies use internal strengths to Strategies reduce the internal weaknesses to avoid the external threats
Threats

minimize the threats [SO 5] Improving water quality- control invasive pollutant
[SO 4] Decreasing the water [SO 6] Improving water usage in rural areas and agriculture
consumption in urban area

3.4 AHP

For pair-wise comparisons, the question style consisted of two parts; (1) comparing the two factors in order to
perform the main goal, the most dominant factor (in the case of strength and opportunity) or the least favourable
factor (in the case of weakness and threat), (2) the intensity of importance. Each question included a rating scale of
one to nine in order to weigh each factor relatively. The local and global priority computations for the SWOT factors
and strategic objectives, based on the pair-wise comparisons, were carried out using an Excel worksheet. The local
and global weights of the each one of the criteria in the hierarchy are evaluated at this stage. Herein we present the
results of the paired comparisons for the groups of factors and for the factors within each group. The weights of the
decision objectives (S, W, O, T) are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. The weights of the decision objectives from the perspectives of inhabitants

Weights
Stakeholder
group to take the advantage to reinforce the to use the advantage of to develop the best
of Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities defence to Threats
Inhabitants living in
0.093 0.299 0.221 0.387
coastal zones
Inhabitants living in
0.112 0.264 0.211 0.413
internal zones
All inhabitants 0.102 0.281 0.216 0.401

Amongst the four SWOT factor groups, the inhabitants rated to develop the best defence to the Threats [T] (40.1
%) at the highest level, whereas they rated to take the advantage of Strengths [S] at the lowest level (10.2 %). We
have observed not significant differences between the evaluations of inhabitants living in coastal zones and
inhabitants living in internal zones of the basin regarding SWOTs. The priority rankings remained the same, but [S]
and [T] factors were overrated mostly by the inhabitants living in offshore areas.
Fig. 4 shows the priorities of SWOT factors: Local weight dispersions explicitly show the importance of [T4]
‘water pollution’ and [T3] ‘decline in the amount of lake water’ factors from the perspective of all inhabitants who
emphasized the importance of [T] category. While [W4] ‘scarcity of employment opportunities’ (5.0 %), [W3] ‘lack
or inadequacy of infrastructure services’ and [W6] ‘limitation of financial resources’ (4.8 %) factors are the highest-
priority factors, [W1] ‘inequalities in water use and high energy prices’ (1.5 %) is the factor at the lowest priority in
the category of [W]. Inhabitants highlighted the importance of [O3] ‘Derebucak Derivation Tunnel’ (5.2 %) in the
[O] category; however they ignored [O1] ‘positional advantage’ (1.0 %). While [S4] ‘supporting means of
subsistence’ (% 2.6) and [S2] ‘water supply’ (2.2%) factors have the highest weights in their category; [S1]
140 Fadim Yavuz and Tüzin Baycan / Procedia Technology 8 (2013) 134 – 143

‘geographical position and accessibility’ has the lowest weight in the same category.

Fig. 4. Local Weights of the SWOT Factors

Fig. 4 also provides an opportunity to compare the differences at SWOT priorities of the inhabitants with respect
to the living closeness to the lake. The most important differences observed in the weight dispersions of the
inhabitants living in coastal zones and inhabitants living in internal zones in BLB are; i) the inhabitants living in
coastal zones supported the [W2] ‘lack of importance attached to tourism as an instrument in the development of the
basin’; [W3] ‘lack or inadequacy of infrastructure services’; [W7] ‘limitations to construction facilities in the basin
with National Park statuses, inability to efficiently benefit from the lakeshore’; and [O2] ‘construction of New
Konya- Antalya (Gembos) Motorway’ with the highest scores; and ii) inhabitants living in internal zones supported
the [S4] ‘supporting means of subsistence’; [T3] ‘decline in the amount of lake water’; [T4] ‘water pollution’; [T6]
‘destruction of the lake ecosystem’; and [O3] ‘Derebucak Derivation Tunnel’ with the highest scores comparing the
others.

3.5 Rating and ranking the strategy options

Weights of proposed strategies are calculated using the following formula [21]:
x Vj : The global (relative) value of the Strategy j (j = 1, 2, ...., n)

i  ms i mo i  mo i  mt
Vj Ws ¦ SiU si , j  WW ¦WWiUWi, j  WO ¦WOiU oi , j  WT ¦WTiU Ti , j
i 1 i 1 i 1 i 1

x Normalized value of the Strategy Weights:

vj
Nj n
Nj : Normalized weight of the jth strategy, m: Number of SWOT factors, n: Number of strategies.
¦ j 1
vj

The results for the global evaluations of the proposed strategic objectives are presented at Table 3. Our findings
suggest that the priorities of the inhabitants explicitly show that they overrate the threat of [T3] ‘decline in the
amount of lake water’. ‘Improving water usage in rural areas and agriculture’ [SO 6] strategy, reduces the internal
weaknesses to avoid external threats, is perceived as the most important approach (17.0 %) to solve the basin’s
problems in this way gains to successful WM by all inhabitants who mostly rate to develop the best defence to
threats. This preference points out that the users of the basin’s water are aware of cause-effect relationship between
agriculture and the reduction in the amount of water.
 Fadim Yavuz and Tüzin Baycan / Procedia Technology 8 (2013) 134 – 143 141

Table 3. Global priorities of the strategic objectives

Inhabitants
Inhabitants living
Characteristics of the Strategic Objective Ranking living Ranking All inhabitants Ranking
in coastal zones
in internal zones
[SO 1] Maxi-Maxi 0.1643 4 0.1624 5 0.1634 6
[SO 2] Maxi-Maxi 0.1639 5 0.1585 6 0.1613 5
[SO 3] Mini-Maxi 0.1693 2 0.1685 3 0.1689 3
[SO 4] Maxi-Mini 0.1690 3 0.1689 2 0.1690 2
[SO 5] Mini-Mini 0.1622 6 0.1739 1 0.1779 4
[SO 6] Mini-Mini 0.1712 1 0.1678 4 0.1696 1

The inhabitants secondly (16.9 %) rated ‘Decreasing the water consumption in urban area’ [SO 4] strategy, uses
internal strengths to minimize threats and was developed to stand against the threat of reduction in the quantity of
water with the policy changes in urban areas. This preference also confirms that the most important problem of the
basin is [T3] the ‘decline in the amount of lake water’ from the perspectives of inhabitants. The inhabitants
overrated ‘Collaborative Watershed Management (Public-Corporate-Experts Cooperation)’ [SO 3] strategy, reduces
internal weaknesses or develop missing strengths to minimize external threats at the third rank (16.9 %). This
preference points out that the roles of coordination and cooperation to gain effective watershed planning and
management activities were not understood sufficiently. ‘Environment friendly tourism development: rural tourism’
[SO 2] strategy, uses strengths to maximize opportunities, is the most ignored strategic objective (16.1 %). The
inhabitants did not support enough [SO2], aims to improve local economy being sensitive to the environment, even
though they complain about the lack of employment opportunities.

3.6 Sensitivity Analysis

Fig. 5 shows the results of sensitivity analysis of each WM option. The sensitivity analysis shows how the
proposed strategic objectives were prioritised relative to other alternatives with respect to each objective as well as
overall objective. Strategy of ‘Decreasing the water consumption in urban area’ [SO 4] was supported at the highest
level (16.90 %) by the all inhabitants. However, the inhabitants living in internal zones supported ‘Improving water
quality- control invasive pollutant’ [SO 5] strategy at the highest level (17.39 %). Finally, ‘the inhabitants living in
coastal zones supported ‘Improving water usage in rural areas and agriculture’ [SO 6] strategy at the highest level
(17.12 %).

Fig. 5. Global Weights of the Strategic Objectives

142 Fadim Yavuz and Tüzin Baycan / Procedia Technology 8 (2013) 134 – 143

4. Conclusions

One of the most critical factors in the success of WM is the active involvement of a range of stakeholder groups
in the process to provide support for the implementation of WM strategies. This study analyzed and evaluated the
perceptions of inhabitants towards the successful WM in BLB. As a methodology, a combination of SWOT analysis
and AHP is used to describe the most appropriate WM strategy that meets expectations of the basin inhabitants. The
results show that amongst a set of proposed strategic objectives ‘Improving water usage in rural areas and
agriculture’ [SO 6], which reduces the internal weaknesses to avoid external threats as a ‘mini-mini’ strategy, is
assumed as the optimal approach to solve the BLB’s problems by the inhabitants. Their preferences explicitly show
that, ‘the decrease in lake water’s quantity’ [T3] was accepted as the basin’s primary problem by the inhabitants
who mostly support defensive strategies. However, as a ‘maxi-maxi’ strategy that uses strengths to maximize
opportunities, ‘Environment friendly tourism development/rural tourism’ [SO 2] has been the lowest rated strategy.
Furthermore, strategy prioritizations of the inhabitants living in coastal zones definitely differ from the inhabitants
living in internal zones. This study presents a ‘knowledge-based, stakeholder-oriented and comprehensive decision
support system’ that provides assistance for WM by (i) supporting the planning options that find the optimal point
between the economic value and environmental value; (ii) enabling the development of guidelines for effective
collaboration between stakeholders, thus reducing conflicts; (iii) providing a simple, transparent and rapid decision-
making process; and (iv) providing some insights on what can be done to enhance the likelihood of WM success.
Such a transparent decision-making process leads to a more sustainable watershed planning and management
decisions via increasing the acceptability of the policy decisions by the inhabitants. Amongst a set of proposed
strategic objectives, ‘Decreasing the water consumption in urban area’ strategy has been described as the optimal
approach to solve the basin’s problems by the inhabitants.

Acknowledgements

This manuscript is based on the PhD thesis (2011) of Fadim Yavuz titled ‘Collaborative Watershed Planning and
Management: Evaluation of the Critical Success Factors in Beyúehir Lake Basin’ supervised by Tüzin Baycan.

References

[1] Rhoads B.L, Wilson D, Urban M, Herrics E.E. Interaction between scientists and nonscientists in community-based watershed management:
emergence of the concept of stream naturalization. Environmental Management 1999; 24 (3):297-308.
[2] Hughes Mcdermott M, Moote M.A, Danks C. How community-based collaboratives overcome external institutional barriers to achieving
their environmental goals. www.ibcperu.org/doc/isis/12083.pdf: 2005.
[3] Kaplowitz M.D, Witter S.G. Agricultural and residential stakeholder input for watershed management in a mid-Michigan watershed.
Landscape and Urban Planning 2008; 84: 20-27.
[4] DeSteiguer J.E, Duberstein J, Lopes V. The analytic hierarchy process as a means for integrated watershed management. In: Renard K.G,
McElroy S.A, Gburek W.J, Canfield H.E, Scott R.L, editors. Proceedings of first interagency conference on research in watersheds, Oct. 27-
30. http://www.tucson.ars.ag.gov/icrw/proceedings/steiguer.pdf; 2003. p. 737-740.
[5] Mirchi A, Watkins D.W.J., Madani K. Modeling for watershed planning, management, and decision making, In: Vaughn J.C, editor.
Watersheds: management, restoration and environmental impact. Nova Science Publishers, Inc., ISBN: 978-1-61668-667-3,
http://www.kysq.org/docs/Mirchi_Watershed.pdf; 2009.
[6] Babao÷lu M. Beyúehir Gölü’nün sorunlarÕ ve alÕnmasÕ gereken önlemler, Konya øl Genel Meclisi Beyúehir Gölü araútÕrma komisyonu raporu
(in Turkish). http://www.mehmetbabaoglu.gen.tr/beygolresim/beysehirraporu.pdf: 2007.
[7] Ash N, Thönell J. Analytical approaches for assessing ecosystem condition and human well-being. In: Hassan R.M, Scholes R, Ash N,
editors. Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trends: findings of the condition and trends working group of the millennium
ecosystem assessment, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Program) Condition and Trends Working Group. Island Press; 2005. p. 37-72.
[8] Saaty T.L. Fundamentals of the analytic hierarchy process. In: Schmoldt D.L, Kangas J, Mendoza G.A, Pesonen M., editors. The analytic
hierarchy process in natural resource and environmental decision making. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2001. p. 15-35, ISBN:
0-7923-7076-7.
[9] Harrison S. Socio-economic research techniques in non-industrial forestry. Annals of Tropical Research 2003; 25(2): 1-12.
[10] Linkov I, Varghese A, Jamil S, Kiker G, Bridges T. Multi-criteria decision analysis: A framework for structuring remedial decisions at
contaminated sites. In: Linkov I, Ramadan A.B., editors. Comparative risk assessment and environmental decision making. Netherlands:
Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2004. p. 15–54.
[11] Anonymousa. Analytical hierarchy process (AHP). http://rfptemplates.technologyevaluation.com/Analytical-Hierarchy-Process-(AHP).html:
2010.
 Fadim Yavuz and Tüzin Baycan / Procedia Technology 8 (2013) 134 – 143 143

[12] Farzad T, Mohammad R.O, Aidy A, Rosnah M. Y. A review of supplier selection methods in manufacturing industries. Suranaree J. Sci.
Technol. 2008; 15(3): 201-208
[13] Bana e Costa C.A., Vansnick J-C. A critical analysis of the eigenvalue method used to derive priorities in AHP. European Journal of
Operational Research 2008; 187(3): 1422–1428.
[14] Anonymousb. SWOT analysis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWOT_analysis: 2010.
[15] Wickramasinghe V, Takano S. Application of combined SWOT and analytic hierarchy process (AHP) for tourism revival strategic
marketing planning: A Case of Sri Lanka tourism. Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies 2009; 8: 954-969.
[16] Shinno H, Yoshioka, H, Marpaung S, Hachiga S. Quantitative SWOT analysis on global competitiveness of machine tool industry. Journal
of Engineering Design 2006; 17(3): 251-258.
[17] Kandako÷lu A, Akgün I, Topçu Y.ø. Strategy development & evaluation in the battlefield using quantified Swot analytical method. In
Proceedings of the 9th international symposium on the analytic hierarchy process (August 2-6 2007, Viña del Mar, Chile).
http://chile2007.isahp.org/; 2007.
[18] Kurttila M, Pesonen M, Kangas J, Kajanus M. Utilizing the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in SWOT analysis - a hybrid method and its
application to a forest-certification case. Forest Policy and Economics 2000; 1(1): 41-52.
[19] Kangas J, Pesonen M, Kurttila M., Kajanus M. A’WOT: Integrating the AHP with SWOT analysis. In: Sixth International Symposium on
the Analytic Hierarchy Process- ISAHP 2001 (August 2-4, 2001, Bern, Switzerland). http://www.isahp.org/2001Proceedings/Papers/037-
P.pdf; 2001. p. 189-198.
[20] Kangas J, Kurttila M, Kajanus M, Kangas A. Evaluating the management strategies of a forestland estate - the S–O–S approach. Journal of
Environmental Management 2003; 69: 349-358.
[21] Osuna E. E, Aranda A. Combining SWOT and AHP techniques for strategic planning. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium
on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (August 2- 6 2007, Viña del Mar, Chile). http://chile2007.isahp.org/; 2007.
[22] Wickramasinghe V. Analytical tourism disaster management framework for sustainable tourism following a sudden calamity, PhD
dissertation. Division of Engineering and Policy for Cold Regional Environment, Hokkaido University, Japan:
http://133.87.123.206/e3/alumni/abstract/Vasantha.pdf: 2008.