A New Method for Site Suitability Analysis:
The Analytic Hierarchy Process
REZA BANAI-KASHANI
Graduate Program in City and Regional Planning
Department of Geography and Ranning
Memphis State University
Memphis, Tennessee 38152, USA
ABSTRACT / A critical shortcoming of methods that are reliant
upon the judgment of experts to determine site suitability is
noted. The article introduces a new method, the analytic hi-
Recendy, Anderson (1987) surveyed a class of
methods for land capability/suitability analysis. The
seven methods ranged in degree of computational or
analytical sophistication from the simple to the more
elaborate. The methods include: pass/fall screening,
graduated screening, weighted factors, penalty point
assignment, composite rating, weighted composite
rating, and direct assignment. For detailed compar-
. . . . . . . .~:c Anderson (1987), Chapin and Kaiser (1979,
,sum,
Chapter 9), and Steiner (1983, 1987) for a review of
land evaluation and site assessment (LESA) as a suit-
ability method used by US government agendes, as
well as examples of applications of suitability proce-
dures in the United States and in other countries.
A complex site selection process involves a measure
of trade-offs among the criterion factors. For example,
the pass/fail method of screening alternatives may not
result in the selection of the best alternative where the
relationship among the criteria is not considered.
Methods that account for the relationship among the
suitability factors, such as nonlinear combination,
factor combination, and weighted composite rating
(Chapin and Kaiser 1979, Chapter 9, Anderson 1987),
provide greater flexibility in a suitability analysis.
However, there is no formal process inherent in such
methods that can aid the decision maker in deriving
the relative importance of the criteria.
The weighted-factors method provides a procedure
where each suitability factor is assigned a score, which
is multiplied by the weight of that factor. The results
of the multplicafions are added, and thus a site com-
posite score is determined. The composite score is
compared with a predetermined standard, which is
used to select or reject a site. Land evaluation and site
assessment (LESA) provides an application of this
method (USDA 1983, Wright and others 1983). For
KEY WORDS: Analytichierarchyprocess (NIP); Site suitability;Multi-
criteriaevaluation;Judgmentconsistency
EnvironmentalManagementVol 13, No 6, pp 685-693
erarchy process (AHP) with which error in judging the relative
importance of factors in site suitability analysis can be both
detected and corrected. The proposed approach is illus-
trated with an example to show how the AHP frames the site
evaluation problem and can aid in decision making involving
multiple criteria, factor diversity, and conditions of uncertainty.
The article concludes by suggestingthe potential application
of the AHP in public choice decisions involving complex,
controversial, and conflictual site selection processes.
example, LESA uses a USDA-recommended stan-
dard of 100 points for land evaluation (LE) and a
maximum of 200 points for site assessment (SA)
(Steiner 1983).
This approach to site assessment is operational
when standards are known. However, in new
problems, for which no standards have been estab-
lished, or when old standards are discredited (Lynch
1984) and intangible criteria are used to assess alterna-
tives (Saaty 1987), the weighted-factors method is of
fimited use.
Lynch (1984) has warned against the possible
danger of generalization with the use of "performance
standards" and has stressed the use of "performance
dimensions." Lynch (1984, pp. 111-113) notes:
to assert that ideal densityis twelvefamilies to the acre, or that good
cities are organized into residential neighborhoodsof 3000 persons
each, are statements too easily discredited. Situations and values
differ. What we might hope to generalize about are performanced./-
mens/ons,that is, certainidentifmblecharacteristicsof the performance
[ofd~s] whichare due primarily to their spatial qualifiesand which
a r e measurable scales, along which different groups will prefer to
achievedifferent positions"[emphasisadded].
The performance dimensions suggested by Lynch are:
vitality, sense, fit, access, control, efficiency, and jus-
tice. "Groups and persons will value different aspects
of them and assign different priorities to them. But,
having measured them, a particular group in a real
situation would be able to judge the relative goodness
of their place and would have the dues necessary to
improve or maintain that goodness" (Lynch 1984, p.
119). The performance characteristics are thus evalu-
ated in relation to the goals and values and are
brought to bear upon the relevant features of settle-
ment form.
Concomitantly, the dependence of the criteria on
(the characteristics of) the alternatives is called "struc-
tural dependence" by Saaty (1987), which is revealed
9 1969Spdnger-VerlagNewYorkInc
686 R. Banai-Kashani
in "relative" measurement. The approach allows for
the priorities of the criteria to change according to the
importance obtained from the ranking of the alterna-
fives, i.e., to discover the relative weight of alternatives
through paired comparisons, rather than through a
standard (Saaty 1987, p. 165). Relative measurement is
thus contrasted with absolute measurement, which in-
volves known standards (Saaty 1987).
A common feature of the suitability methods noted
above, as well as the checldist methods used in envi-
ronmental impact assessment (e.g., Leopold and
others 1971, Dee and others 1973), is their reliance
upon expert judgment. However, none incorporate a
check on the consistency of value judgments in the
process of deciding the relative importance of factors
or in evaluating preferences for alternatives in a site
suitability analysis. Yet, the problem of inconsistency
arises in decision making under conditions of limited
information and uncertainty. Various sources of un-
certainty, such as about the planning environment,
about value judgments, and about the decisions of
other participants, contribute to errors in decision
making and forecasting by experts (Hall 1980, p. 250).
[See Hall (1980) for a detailed account of the different
sources of uncertainty.]
Factors commonly considered in a suitability anal-
ysis, such as zoning, land value, and existing and
planned uses (Anderson 1987), are evaluated in the
face of the uncertainties of the economic, demo-
graphic, and political environment. The expert plan-
ning team encounters the uncertainties of the deci-
sions of other participants--the present and future
residents of a community, the developer, the land use
regulator/controller, and the polifician. Furthermore,
variability is exhibited in the value judgments of the
decision makers, and decisions may be made in the
face of limited information. An alternative to the
methods commonly used in suitability studies is called
for which can aid the expert faced with decision
making under uncertainty.
In this article Saaty's (1980, 1982) analytic hierarchy
process (AHP) is presented as a new method for site
suitability evaluation. The AHP has been shown to be
effective in evaluation problems involving multiple
and diverse criteria, measurement of trade-offs, and
with limited data [see Saaty and Vargas (1987), and
Zahedi (1986) for a survey of the method and its ap-
plications]. The AHP exhibits flexibility in dealing
with both the qualitative (intangible) and quantitative
(tangible) factors in a multicriteria evaluation problem.
Furthermore, the AHP provides a methodological
framework within which the inconsistency in judging
the relative importance of factors in a site suitability
analysis can be both detected and corrected. A brief
description of the AHP method is given by developing
an example for site suitability analysis.
Site Suitability Analysis by the AHP Method
Suppose a decision maker is faced with a problem
of deciding among three alternative sites and has
identified the criteria that guide the site selection pro-
cess. The decision maker may perceive the criterion
factors as being varied in importance. Furthermore,
cognizance is taken of the competing attributes of the
(site) alternatives, while deciding which alternative best
meets the criteria. This problem involves a two-stage
evaluation process: (1) determining a measure of the
relative importance, or priority, of the criterion
factors, and (2) determining a measure of the relative
weight of the alternatives. The structure of a hierarchy
can be used to frame this site evaluation problem
(Figure 1).
This hierarchy is comprised of four levels. The first
level simply states the problem objective: choosing an
optimal, or most suitable, site, subject to a set of cri-
teria. Three criteria are identified (as an example) at
the second level of the hierarchy: (site) slope, price,
and views. Three alternative sites, a, b, and c, are sped-
fled at the third level of this hierarchy. At the fourth
level, the attributes (data) of the alternative sites are
specified. The objective is to determine which of the
three sites should be selected vis-~t-vis t[ae relative im-
portance given to the suitability criteria.
The criteria include both quantitative (slope and
price) and qualitative (views) factors. The first two
factors lend themselves easily to quandfication,
whereas the third factor (views) is restricted by the
type of measurement scale used. For example, a mea-
sure of landscape views can be given by the use of an
ordinal scale, such as good, fair, poor. The AHP offers
an advantage of a ratio scale, which can be effectively
applied to the measurement of both qualitative and
quantitative factors in site suitability evaluation. [For a
description of the different types of scales in the con-
text of site suitability studies, see Hopkins (1077).]
The AHP procedure involves performing compar-
ison of pairs of factors within a set of reciprocal ma-
trices. The use of a matrix in site suitability analysis is
not new. For example, in his important work Design
with Nature, McHarg (1969) used a matrix that formed
the relationship between a set of factors to evaluate
land use compatibility and/or suitaiaility. A combina-
tion of qualitative and quantitative factors was used--
although the ordinal scale posed a limitation in arith-
metic operation. This limitation is surmounted if the
 The Analytic Hierarchy Process 687

L1 : Objective Choosing Optimal Site

L2: Criteria slope price views

(s) (p) (v)

L3: A l t e r n a t i v e
Sites a b c
/J',, A',, a
a b c b c

L4: S i t e t [ I i I I I '{ "1

Attributes s s p v s p v
30% $p v
2 0 / excellent lo% $40/ good 5% $801 fair
8cre acre acre

F~um 1. A simple hierarchy for

Configuration of Sites site suitability analysis.

more versatile ratio scale is used. However, the recip-
rocal matrix of pairwise comparisons can be solved to
determine the priority of factors, which is expressed in
relative (or percentile) weights. [It turns out that the
solution of a reciprocal matrix that has unit rank and
in which all its elements are positive and its diagonal
elements are one is a unique vector (upon normaliza-
tion of its columns), which gives the relative weights of
the elements along a ratio scale (Saaty 1980).] In com-
paring pairs of factors, the AHP scale of relative im-
portance is used (see Table 1 for explanation).
A matrix of three factors, slope, price, and views, is
formed (Table 2). The diagonal elements are assigned
the value of unity (i.e., when a factor is compared with
itself).
Anderson (1987) stressed that an essential property
of a site suitability method is to allow measurement of
the relative weight of the criterion, rather than to as-
sume the same weight for each criterion. The AHP
can provide this flexibility. Suppose, in particular, in
comparing the criterion factor, slope with price, the
former is given moderate importance, i.e., the value 3
over the latter. (See the AHP scale description in Table
1.) Further, suppose slope is given relatively strong
importance (value of 6) when compared to views.
These values are placed in the first row of the matrix.
Since, by definition, the AHP comparison matrices are
reciprocal, the remaining entries in the first column of
this matrix are automatically determined (shown by
1/3 and 1/6 in the second and third rows, first column
entries, respectively). For this matrix, all that remains
is a comparison of the criterion of price with that of
views.
Note that from the initial set of comparisons, which
involved the factors slope, price, and views, the fol-
lowing scale relations were determined:
s --- (3)P; s = (6)v
which implies
P = (2)v
Thus, this value (2) is entered for the second row,
third column, of the criterion matrix. Now, to deter-
mine the relative weight of the three criteria, the judg-
ments are synthesized. For this purpose: (1) add all the
values in each column of the matrix; (2) divide each
column entry by the column total; and (3) take an
average over the rows (or take geometric mean of each
row). [The geometric mean (GM) of three factors, S, P,
and V, is determined by multiplying the factors and
then taking their cubic root: GM = (SPV)m.]
For the three criteria, the relative importance ex-
pressed in percentages is derived (Table 3). Thus a
common scale 0 % - 1 0 0 % ) is obtained from the AHP
procedure of assigning quantified judgments. The cri-
terion of slope emerges as the most important (with a
relative weight of 67%), followed by the importance of
price (23%)and views (10%).
688 R. Banai-Kashani

Table 1. The AHP scale for paired comparisons."
Intensity
of importance Defmition and explanation
Ib Equal importance--two activities
contn~tmte equa/ly to the objective.
3 Moderate importance--experience
and judgment slighdy favor one
activity over another.
Essential or strong importance--
experience and judgment strongly
favor one activity over another.
Demonstrated irnportance--an
activity is strongly favored and its
dominance is demonstrated in
practice.
Extreme importance--the evidence
favoring one activity over another
is of the highest possible order of
affLrmation.
2,4,6,8 Intermediate values between the two
adjacent judgements--when
compromise is needed.
Redprocal of If an activity has one of the above
above numbers numbers assigned to it when
compared with a second activity,
then the second activity has the
reciprocal value when compared to
the first.
"Adaptedfrom Saaty0987).
~'he scale l.l, 1.9..... 1.9,or even a freer one, can be used to com-
pare dements that are dose together, or are near equal in impor-
tance.
Table 2. Pairwise comparisons of the criteria.
Criterion S P
Slope (S) 1 3
Price (P) gs 1 2
Views (V) Vo 1/~
An essential contribution of the AHP as an alterna-
tive to the existing methods for site suitability studies
lies in its internal procedure for detecting the inconsis-
tency of judgment, in comparing one factor, criterion,
or activity with another. The A H P provides a proce-
dure for checking the consistency of expert judgment
in the process o f pairwise comparison of factors. A
problem o f inconsistency in assigning the relative
weights for the same criteria as specified before can be
demonstrated.
Suppose in comparing the criterion of price with
views the value 4 is assigned, rather than the value 2,
which preserves consistency in the matrix. (Recall that
the comparison of price with views was earlier per-
formed through the comparison of slope with price
and slope with views.) This comparison is shown in
Table 4 in brackets, resulting in a new, "inconsistent"
matrix. After the same type o f calculation as shown
earlier, the result (the fourth column of the matrix)
shows the relative importance o f the criteria. The rela-
tive weight o f slope is decreased (from 67% to 63%),
whereas the weight of price is increased (from 23% to
27%). T h e rankings of the criteria are not affected
(despite some inconsistency) and still remain: slope,
followed by price, followed by views. Nevertheless, it is
conceivable that in the general case the preference
order arrived at in an inconsistent matrix may turn out
to be different than in the case where consistency is
maintained. Thus, it is essential to determine a mea-
sure of departure from consistency.
To determine such a measure, the first column of
the inconsistent matrix (Table 4) is multiplied by 0.63,
the second column by 0.27, and the third by 0.10. The
result of this multiplication is shown in the first three
columns o f Table 5 in decimal form. Thereby, we seek
to contrast the inconsistency with the solution we
V
would have obtained if the judgments were random
6 (Saaty 1982).
The row totals are given in column 4 and the crite-
1
rion weights are shown again in column 5. T h e row

Table 3. Determining the relative weight of criteria.

Step IIl
Step I Step II
Row Geometric
Criterion S P V S P V average % mean
Slope (S) 1 3 6 6/9 0/9 % 6/9 67 .67
Price (P) gs 1 2 2/9 V9 u % 23 .23
Views (V) V6 Y2 1 V9 V9 V9 V9 10 .10
Totals % % 9 1 1 1 1 100% 100%
 The Analytic Hierarchy Process 689

Table 4. Inconsistent matrix. strates good consistency in judgment. If the value had
Criterion S P V Row avg exceeded 10%, the new value assigned in comparing
price with views (4) would need to be rethought. Why
Slope (S) 1 3 6 0.63 is 10% inconsistency tolerated? Saaty (1987, p. 172)
Price (P) ~ 1 [4] 0.27
Views (V) Ve [V,] 1 0.10 explains:
The reason is that inconsistencyitselfis important, for withoutit
totals are divided by the criterion weights, and their new knowledgewhichchangespreferenceorder cannot be admitted.
Assumingall knowledgeto be comi.qentcontradictsexperiencewhich
average value is taken, which is called'X,=,. requires continued adjustment in understanding. Thus the objective
Now, an index (C0 that provides a measure of de- of developinga wide-rangingconsistent frameworkdepends on ad-
parture from consistency can be computed: mitting someinconsistency.
Cl = ( k , ~ - n)/(n - 1) Thus, the AHP is conceptually predicated on the
where n denotes the size of the comparison .matrix behaviorally plausible paradigm of bounded ratio-
(Saaty 1980, 1982). For this example the value o f C l = nality and sets out to model decision making within the
(3.01 - 3)/2 = 0.005. The closer k,,~ is to n (or CI is framework of "satisficing e' [satisf=cing expresses the no-
to zero), the better the consistency of judgment; other- tion of being satisfied with "good enough" solutions,
wise, a problem of inconsistency is implied, explained rather than searching for optimal or the "best" solu-
further as follows. tions (Simon 1983, p. 85)].
Through this process we have, in effect, sought to Thus far, we have arrived at the relative impor-
assess whether the AHP ratio estimates (in paired com- tance of the three criteria, and we are assured of judg-
parisons of factors) are closer to being logically or con- ment consistency in the process. Now, however, we
sistently adjudicated or are closer to being randomly should take a further advantage of the AHP proce-
chosen (Saaty 1980). The random value o f Cl (denoted dure, which guides us through the remaining task of
by R/) for a matrix of size n = 3 is R / = 0.58. Random evaluating the three sites (a, b, c, in our example). We
consistency index (R/), which is derived from a sample address explicitly how each site fares when assessed in
of size 500 of a randomly generated reciprocal matrix the face of the three criteria. To do this, assume the
using the scale 1/9, 1/8. . . . . 1. . . . . 8, 9, is given by the following characteristics (data) for the three sites, sum-
size of the matrix (or the number of factors, n, in the marized in Table 6 (repeated from level 4 of the hier-
comparison matrix) (Saaty 1987, p. 171): archy in Figure l).
Site a has a steep slope, excellent views, and the
Size of matrix (n) lowest price (compared to b and c), whereas site c has
the lowest slope, high price, and fair views. Now, the
1 2 3 4 5 sites can be compared to assess how they meet the
three suitability criteria. The information of site char-
consistency acteristics is used in the paired comparisons. For the
index (R/) 0 0 0.58 0.90 1.12 criterion of slope, a matrix is formed (Table 7). In this
matrix, a preference is revealed for a site that has a
Size of matrix (n) less steep slope, since it is more economical for devel-
6 7 8 9 10 opment. The solution of this matrix shows in relative
weights (%) this revealed preference: site c (65%), site
Random b (25%), and site a (10%). Similarly, matrices for the
consistency criteria of price and views are formed (Table 7). [A
index (R/) 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49 software package for the IBM PC called Expert Choice
(1988) is available to perform the AHP computations
The consistency ratio (CR) is found: of the sort presented here. In addition, a variety of
computer programs in Basic, Fortran, and APL is pro-
C R = CI/RI
vided in Saaty (1982) that facilitate the use of the AHP
= 0.005/0.58
interactively with either personal and/or mainframe
= 0.008, or 0.8%
computers.]
Thus, the judgment formed in the criteria matrix The values of consistency index (C0 and consis-
(Table 4) is acceptable if we use a limit suggested by tency ratio (CR), stated in the bottom of Table 7 indi-
Saaty (1982) that a C R value of less than 10% demon- cate that the comparisons were performed with good
690 R. Banai-Kashani

Table 5. Determining a measure of inconsistency in judgment with X~w,.

(4) (5) (6) (7)
Row Criterion
S P V total weight (4):(5) k~
Slope (S) 0.63 0.81 0.60 2.04 0.63 3.23 3.02
Price (P) 0.20 0.27 0.40 0.87 0.27 3.22
Views (V) 0.10 0.06 0.10 0.26 0.10 2.60

Table 6. Characteristics of alternative sites: data.
Price
Site Slope (%) (S/acre) Views
a 30 20 excellent
b io 40 good
c 5 80 fair
judgment consistency. However, a clear advantage of
the AHP approach is that the three sites are now com-
parable through a common relative scale (0%-100%),
whether a criterion factor is qualitative or quantitative
in nature.
Finally, which site is the most suitable, given th e rel-
ative importance arrived at earlier for the three suit-
ability criteria? In the criteria matrix (Table 3), the rel-
ative importance of slope (67%), price (23%), and
views (10%) was determined. In the Fmal step (Table
8), these values are multiplied by the relative weight of
the alternative sites for each criterion (the last column
in the matrices given in Table 7, repeated in Table 8).
The last column in Table 8, site priority, states the
composite scores to show how each site (a, b, c) meets
the criteria of slope, price, and views simultaneously.
Site c, which has a slope of 5%, and $80/acre price, and
fair views, emerges as the most suitable (with a relative
weight, or priority, of 47%). The AHP computations
carried out in Table 8 can also be illustrated graphi-
cally as shown in Figure 2.
Conclusion
A summary of the AHP as a method for site suit-
ability evaluation is given here. First, the AHP pro-
vides a hierarchical structure that allows one to or-
ganize the relationship of factors in a suitability anal-
ysis. In the illustrative example presented, a simple
hierarchy was used that had four levels (Figure 1).
Level 1 stated the objective of a site evaluation
problem, subject to a set of suitability criteria. The cri-
teria were specified at the second level, and the alter-
native sites and their attributes were identified at the
third and fourth levels of this hierarchy, respectively.
[There is a certain conceptual resemblance of the AHP
with the rational planning paradigm, which specifies
(1) problem identification/goal formulation, (2) evalua-
tion of alternatives, (3) determination of choice, and
(4) implementation.] The interrelationship of factors
at each level of the hierarchy was analyzed with respect
to each factor at its preceding level. Thereby, the rela-
tionship among the objective, criteria, and alternatives
was accounted for. Multiplying the weights of factors
in the preceding level by the weight of factors in the
succeeding level resulted in the overall weights of
factors in the lowest level of the hierarchy, i.e., the
priorities of the alternative sites. This operation is
guided by a mathematical principle of aggregation in a
hierarchy. Stated differently, the organizational ele-
ments of the hierarchy (criteria) were brought to bear
upon the instrumental elements of the hierarchy (al-
ternatives), and the composite weights of the elements
were arrived at. Thus, the AHP provides an analytic
procedure (comparing elements) and a synthetic pro-
cedure (compositing elements) in a unified evaluation
framework.
One can allow for greater complexity by increasing
the number of levels or factors in a hierarchy. For ex-
ample, the participants (e.g., developers, users, etc.)
could be identified explicitly, thereby accounting for
the different priorities they attach to the suitability cri-
teria. [It is interesting to examine the scenario in which
the weightings of the criteria result in an outcome that
favors one party more than another. The AHP pre-
diction of such an outcome can inform the parties in-
volved and can provide a basis for negotiation so as to
arrive at collectively desirable decision outcomes.] Al-
ternatively, the land-use activities, such as residential,
commercial, and industrial may be discerned as yet
another set of factors in a level of the hierarchy (e.g.,
see Banai-Kashani 1987, 1988). This level by level das-
sification and representation helps to capture the con-
tribution of different types of factors in a complex site
evaluation analysis. It also helps to avoid a potential
confusion that arises with an indiscriminant inclusion
of very different types of factors in the analysis of their
interrelationships, for example, the distinction among
the criterion factors, activities; attributes of alterna-
fives, and choices.
 The Analytic Hierarchy Process 691

Table 7. Comparing sites for each criterion.

Relative Relative Relative
Slope a b c weight Price a b c weight Views a b c weight
a 1 Vs ]/6 0.10 a 1 2 4 0.56 a 1 3 7 0.67
b 3 1 Vs 0.25 b V= 1 3 0.32 b Vs 1 3 0.24
c 6 3 1 0.65 c V4 Vs 1 0.12 c V~ Vs ) 0.09
CI = 0.009 CR = 0.015 CI = 0.009 CR = 0.015 CI = 0.003 CR = 0.005

Table 8. Determining overall priorities,

Criterion Site
Sites Slope Price Views weight priority*

b 0.25 0.32 0.24 x P 0.23 = 0.264

c 0.65 0.12 0.09 V 0.10 0.474
9In detail: (0.67 x 0.10) + (0.23 x 0.56) + (0.10 x 0.67) = 0.262
(0.67 x 0.25) + (0.23 x 0.32) + (0.10 x 0.24) = 0.264
(0.67 x 0.65) + (0.23 x 0.12) + (0.10 x 0.09) = 0.474

/L
Slope Price Views

,1ILL
Composite Priorities

~r~-~.:~:$~~. Key ~ < 20%

20 - 40~

[ ~ > 40% Figure 2. Criterion-weighted, com-

posite priority mapping of the sites.

Second, there should be a limit on the n u m b e r o f sistency o f j u d g m e n t in paired comparison o f factors

factors that are included in each level o f a hierarchy in
o r d e r to maintain good consistency in judging their
relative importance. Modern problem-solving tech-
niques (e.g., Simon 1981, 1983) have stressed a limita-
tion in the natural cognitive ability o f the mind to pro-
cess information. Psychological experiments have
shown that an individual cannot simultaneously com-
pare m o r e than seven objects (plus or minus two)
without being confused (Miller 1956 in Saaty and
Vargas 1982, p. 22). Miller's observation has been con-
firmed further with the use o f A H P in testing the con-
(Saaty 1977, 1980).
Third, the A H P pairwise comparison approach
offers an account of the competing properties o f the
alternatives. After all, the three sites in the illustrative
example had certain c o m m o n features: slope, price,
and views, which varied with relative intensities. T h e
A H P ratio scale provided a measure o f the intensities
o f preferences for these features, which were revealed
in the comparative evaluation o f the site alternatives in
accordance with the criteria. T h e suitability criteria
were determined by the relative importance given to
692 R. Banai-Kashani
slope, price, and views, which were derived through
the paired comparisons of their interrelationship.
The AHP approach has an interface with multicri-
teria evaluation methods that have recently emerged
in the planning literature (Saaty 1980, Nijkamp and
Voogd 1983, Hughes 1986, Vargas 1987). However, a
key ingredient of the AHP approach for multicriteria
evaluation and decision making should be empha-
sized. In the matrices of Table 7, alternatives (sites)
were compared for each criterion, with the criterion
itself considered as a given. However, the relative im-
portance of the criteria was derived through the AHP
paired comparison method (in the first stage of evalu-
ation) and was then brought to bear upon the weights
of the alternatives (in the second stage of evaluation).
Thus, the AHP provides an advantage compared to
existing muldcriteria methods, which do not aid the
decision maker in arriving at the relative weights of
the criteria and which treat the criteria as givens or
(pre)determined outside of the evaluation method.
An important advantage of the AHP method that
allows one to gauge the consistency of judgments in
the evaluation process should be stressed. For ex-
ample, in evaluating three alternatives Al, A2, As, the
preferences may be ordered by: A 1 preferred to A~,
and A 2 preferred to As. If consistency is to be held, it
follows that logically A~ should be preferred to As.
However, perfect consistency does not always hold in
practice. Limited information, uncertainty, and behav-
ioral as well as contextual variability are among the
contributing factors leading to a violation of the con-
sistency principle. However, the recognition of incon-
sistency is important in itself. It calls for improving
judgments by learning, incorporating better informa-
tion, and a greater scrutiny of the behavioral and con-
textual environment of decision making.
Furthermore, controversial site selection processes
- - f o r example, the siting of nuclear power plants and
landfills for environmentally hazardous materials--
can fuel considerable public debate surrounding the
interpretation of the location criteria as well as the
choice of the optimal site. An account of consensus in
decision-making, however, is indispensable, not only in
the expressed opinions of the nonexpert (public
groups), but also among the panel of experts them-
selves (the planning staff). Toward this end, the AHP
consistency analysis can be fruitfully applied to pro-
vide an account of consent, or dissent, in public deri-
sion making and thereby formulating strategies for
conflict resolution (e.g., Saaty and Alexander 1977,
Saaty and Vargas 1987). Various sources of uncer-
tainty, such as those identified at the outset of this ar-
ticle, suggest fertile ground for future applications of
the AHP method in the realm of public choice theory
(Buchanan and Tullock 1965) that remain to be inves-
tigated.
Acknowledgments
The author gratefully acknowledges the editor of
this journal for the opportunity to incorporate the
constructive comments of the referees in this version
of the paper.
Literature Cited
Anderson, L T. 1987. Seven methods for calculating land
capability/suitability. Planning advisory service (PAS) re-
port No. 402. American Planning Association, Chicago: 20
PP.
Banai-Kashani, A.R. 1987. A new paradigm for planning
simulation. Pages 131-136 In E. Alexander (ed.), Pro-
ceedings of the 1987 international congress on planning
and design theory. American Society of Mechanical Engi-
neers, New York.
Banai-Kashani, A.R. 1988. Toward a synthetic measure of
good serdemem form. Environment and Planning 15B:399-
412.
Buchanan, J. M., and G. Tullock. 1965. The calculus of con-
sent. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. 316 pp.
Chapin, F.S., and E.J. Kaiser. 1979. Urban land use plan-
ning. University of Illinois Press, Chicago.
Dee, N., J. K. Baker, N. L. Drobry, K. M. Duke, I. Whitman,
and D. Fabringer. 1973. An environmental evaluation
system for water resources planning. Water Resources Re-
search 9(2):523-535.
Expert Choice. 1988. Software Package. Decision Support
Software, McLean, Virginia.
Hall, P. 1980. Great planning disasters. University of Cali-
fornia Press, Berkeley, California. 308 pp.
Hopkins, L.D. 1977. Methods of generating land suitability
maps: A comparative evaluation. Jonnud of the American In-
s~*ute of Planner~ 43(4):386-400.
Hughes, W. 1986. Deriving utilities using the analytic hier-
archy process. Socio-Eanunnic Planning Science 20(6):393-
395.
Leopold, L.B., F.E. Clarke, B.B. Hanshaw, and J.R.
Balsiey. 1971. A procedure for evaluating environmental
impact. Geological survey circular 645. US Geological
Survey, Washington, DC.
Lynch, K. 1984. A theory of good city form. MIT Press,
Cambridge, Massachusettes.
McHarg, I. 1969. Design with nature. Natural History Press,
New York. 197 pp.
Miller, G. A. 1956. The magical number seven plus or minus
two: Some limits on our capacity for processing informa-
tion. Psycho/og/cdRet/av 63:81-97.
Nijkamp, P., and H. Voogd. 1983. A survey of multicriteria
analysis for development planning. Pages 217-229 in L.
Chatterjee, P. Nijkamp (eds.), Urban and regional policy
analysis in developing countries. Gower, Boston.

Saaty, IL W. 1987. The analytic hierarchy process--what k is
and how it is used. MathematicalModeUing. 9(3-5):161-
176.
Saaty, R. W., and L. G. Vargas (eds.). 1987. The analytic hier-
archy process. M ~ Modelling 9(3-5).
Saaty, T. L. 1977. A scaling method for priorities in hierar-
ch~mal structures. Jounud of MoZhemat~a/ Psycho/og~
15(3):234-281.
Saaty, T. L 1980. The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-
Hill, New York. 287 pp.
Saaty, T.L. 1982. Decision-making for leaders. Lifetime
Learning, San Francisco. 291 pp.
Saaty, T.L. 1987. Rank generation, preservation, and re-
versal in the analytic hierarchy decision process. Decision
Sc/oncea 18:157-177.
Saaty, T. L., and J. M. Alexander. 1977. The forward and
backward processes of conflict analysis. Belmvioral Science
22:87-98.
Saaty, T.L., and L. Vat'gas. 1982. The logic of priorities.
Kluwer/Nijhoff, Boston. 299 pp.
The Analytic Hierarchy Process 693
Simon, H. 1981. The sciences of the artiticial. MIT Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts. 247 pp.
Simon, H. 1983. Reason in human affairs. Stanford Univer-
sity Press, Stanford, California. 115 pp.
Steiner, F. 1983. Resource suitability: Methods for analyses.
Env/ronmenta/M~. 7(5):401-420.
Steiner, F. 1987. Agricultural land evaluation and site assess-
ment in the United States: An introduction. Environmental
Managwnont 11(3):375-377.
USDA (Department of Agriculture). 1983. National agricul-
tural land evaluation and site assessment handbook. Soil
Conservation Service, Washington, DC.
Vargas, L. G. 1987. Priority theory and utility theory. Mathe-
mat/ca/Made//ng 9(3-5):381-385.
Wright, L. E., W. ZitzJnann, K. Young, and R. Googim. 1983,
LESA--agricultural land evaluation and site assessment.
Journal of Soil and WaterConservation $8(2):82-86.
Zahedi, F. 1986. The analytic hierarchy process--a survey of
the method and its applications. Interfaces 16(4):96-108.