Application of AHP Model to Evaluate the Urban Sustainable Development
Hai-yang SHANG Fang SU
The Scientific Information Center College of economics
for Resources and Environment
CAS Lanzhou university
Lanzhou 730000,China Lanzhou 730000,China
Email: Email:
Abstract—Evaluation for urban sustainable development is very significant to improve the future development of urban. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is very suitable for evaluation of urban sustainable development. In the study, AHP is applied to evaluate urban sustainable development. On the basis of analyzing the evaluation indexes, evaluation model for urban sustainable development is constructed based on AHP. And we take Zhangye city as an example to study the evaluation performance of AHP. The result of the urban sustainable development is “middling” and the experimental results indicate the effectiveness and correctness of the proposed method.
Keywords- Urban sustainable development; AHP; Evaluation; Assessment indexes
І. INTRODUCTION
Urban sustainable development level reflects social, economic, environmental development of urban system.Urban sustainable development potential reflects the support for urban development by society, economy, environment, population. Evaluation for urban sustainable development is very significant to the future development of urban[1,2].The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) has the special advantage multi-criteria evaluation method[3-5], which is very suitable for evaluation of urban sustainable development. In the study, evaluation for urban sustainable development based on AHP is proposed. Evaluation indexes for urban sustainable development are given, then evaluation model for urban sustainable development based on AHP is constructed. Zhangye city is used to study the evaluation performance of AHP. The experimental results indicate the effectiveness and correctness of the proposed method.
ІІ. THE EVALUATION FOR URBAN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT BASED ON AHP
The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) has the special advantage multi-criteria evaluation method, which is very suitable for evaluation of urban sustainable development. The evaluation process of urban sustainable development based on AHP is shown in Fig.1.
Figure 1. The evaluation process of urban sustainable development based on AHP
A. Evaluation Indexes for Urban Sustainable Development
As shown in Fig.1, the evaluation indexes of urban sustainable development mainly include two layers. The first assessment index includes the three assessment indexes: level of development, development coordination extent, development potential, which are denoted as X1, X2, X3 respectively. In the second assessment index, level of development includes the five second assessment indexes:economic development level, social develpoment level, population growth level, resources and environmental protection, which are denoted as C1, C2,C3,C4 respectively. Development coordination extent includes the three second assessment indexes:social economy coordination, social develpoment level, urban-rural relationship coordination, which are denoted as C5,C6,C7 respectively. Development potential includes the six second assessment indexes:economic development potential, social develpoment potential, educational and scientific support ability, environmental protection potential, resources development potential, management and adjustment potential, which are denoted as C8, C9, C10,C11,respectively.
Figure 2. Evaluation indexes of urban sustainable development
B. Evaluation Model of Urban sustainable development Based on AHP
1) Evaluation coefficient of criterion layer
Discriminant matrix is constructed by comparison
among evaluation factors in criterion layer each other.
1,3,5,7,9 are adopted as scale of comparison among evalu ation factors each other.
The discriminant matrix in criterion layer is .Then, as shown in Tab.1, the weight coefficients are calculated by AHP , whose results are as followings: .The discriminant matrix is consistent by consistency check. Then, the evaluation is reasonable.
TABLE І. EVALUATION COEFFICIENT OF CRITERION LAYER
A / X1 / X2 / X3 / Weight coefficientX1 / 1 / 1/5 / 1/3 / 0.1047
X2 / 5 / 1 / 3 / 0.6370
X3 / 3 / 1/3 / 1 / 0.2583
/ 1
2) Evaluation coefficient of index layer
Here, weight coefficients evaluation indexes in each evaluation factor are calculated. Discriminant matrix is constructed by comparison among evaluation indexes in X1 each other. 1,3,5,7,9 are adopted as scale of comparison among evaluation indexes in X1 each other.
The discriminant matrix in X1 is .Then, as shown in Tab.2, the results of weight coefficients are .The discriminant matrix is consistent by consistency check. Then, the evaluation is reasonable.
TABLE ІІ. WEIGHT COEFFICIENT OF EVALUATION INDEX IN X1
X1 / C1 / C2 / C3 / C4 / Weight coefficientC1 / 1 / 3 / 1/3 / 1 / 0.1717
C2 / 1/3 / 1 / 1/7 / 1/3 / 0.0620
C3 / 3 / 7 / 1 / 7 / 0.6234
C4 / 1 / 3 / 1/7 / 1 / 0.1429
/ 1
Weight coefficients evaluation indexes in X2 are calculated. Discriminant matrix is constructed by comparison among evaluation indexes in X2 each other. 1,3,5,7,9 are adopted as scale of comparison among evaluation indexes in X2 each other.
The discriminant matrix in X2 is .Then, as shown in Tab.3, the weight coefficients are calculated by AHP , whose results are as followings:.The discriminant matrix is consistent by consistency check. Then, the evaluation is reasonable.
TABLE ІІІ. WEIGHT COEFFICIENT OF EVALUATION INDEX IN X2
X2 / C5 / C6 / C7 / Weight coefficientC5 / 1 / 1 / 1/3 / 0.20
C6 / 1 / 1 / 1/3 / 0.20
C7 / 3 / 3 / 1 / 0.60
/ 1
Weight coefficients evaluation indexes in X3 are calculated. Discriminant matrix is constructed by comparison among evaluation indexes in X3 each other. 1,3,5,7,9 are adopted as scale of comparison among evaluation indexes in X3 each other.
TABLE ІV. WEIGHT COEFFICIENT OF EVALUATION INDEX IN X3
X3 / C8 / C9 / C10 / C11 / Weight coefficientC8 / 1 / 1 / 3 / 5 / 0.3961
C9 / 1 / 1 / 3 / 5 / 0.3961
C10 / 1/3 / 1/3 / 1 / 1 / 0.1170
C11 / 1/5 / 1/5 / 1 / 1 / 0.0908
/ 1
The discriminant matrix in X3 is .Then, as shown in Tab.4, the weight coefficients are calculated by AHP, whose results are as followings: .The discriminant matrix is consistent by consistency check. Then, the evaluation is reasonable. Then, the weight of evaluation index is shown in Tab.5.
3) Computation of evaluation model
According to values and weight coefficients of every evaluation index, evaluation model can be constructed. The evaluation value of urban sustainable development is expressed as Eequ.(1):
() (1)
where(); is evaluation value of evaluation factor in criterion layer; is weight coefficient of evaluation factor in criterion layer; is weight coefficient of evaluation index in index layer.
Evaluation results are divided into five degrees, including excellence, good, middling, fair, unfair, whose range is defined as [4.5 5], [3.5 4.5], [2.5 3.5],[1.5 2.5],[0 1.5] respectively. As shown in Tab.6, evaluation criterion of every evaluation index is given, which is divided into 5 degrees.
TABLE V. WEIGHT COEFFICIENT OF EVALUATION INDEX
Criterion / X1 / X2 / X3Weight coefficient / 0.1047 / 0.6370 / 0.2583
Evaluation index / C1 / C2 / C3 / C4 / C5 / C6 / C7 / C8 / C9 / C10 / C11
Weight coefficient / 0.1717 / 0.0620 / 0.6234 / 0.1429 / 0.20 / 0.20 / 0.60 / 0.3961 / 0.3961 / 0.1170 / 0.0908
ІІІ. EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS
Zhangye city is used to study the evaluation performance of AHP. Evaluation criterion of assessment index is divided into five degrees, which is denoted as 1~5. 5 denotes the best one.1 denotes the worst one. Evaluation results are divided into five degrees, including excellence, good, middling, fair, unfair, whose range is defined as [4.5 5], [3.5 4.5],[2.5 3.5],[1.5 2.5],[0 1.5] respectively. According to data of all evaluation indexes, evaluation degrees of the evaluation indexes are gained, which are as followings: [4 3 2 4 2 2 4 4 2 2 4]. Then, the results of urban sustainable development are gained by Eq.(1),whose value is 2.8773. Thus, the evaluation results of urban sustainable development is ‘middling’.
TABLE VІ. EVALUATION CRITERION OF EVERY EVALUATION INDEX
Evaluation index / Evaluation degree5 / 4 / 3 / 2 / 1
C1 / / 80～90 / 70～80 / 60～70 /
C2 / 100 / 90～100 / 80～90 / 70～80 /
C3 / / 80～90 / 70～80 / 60～70 /
C4 / / 25～35 / 15～25 / 5～15 /
C5 / excellence / good / middling / fair / unfair
C6 / without erosion / slight erosion / minor erosion / middling erosion / severe erosion
C7 / above II degree / II degree / III degree / IV degree / below IV degree
C8 / / 80～90 / 70～80 / 60～70 /
C9 / / 80～90 / 70～80 / 60～70 /
C10 / / 4～5 / 3～4 / 2～3 /
C11 / / 70～80 / 60～70 / 50～60 /
ІV. CONCLUSION
In the study, AHP is applied to evaluate urban sustainable development. Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) has the special advantage multi-criteria evaluation method, which is very suitable for evaluation of urban sustainable development. On the basis of analyzing the evaluation indexes, evaluation model for urban sustainable development is constructed based on AHP. Zhangye city is used to study the evaluation performance of AHP. The experimental results indicate the effectiveness and correctness of the proposed method.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This work was supported by the key projects of CAS Knowledge Innovation Program (KZCX2-YW-501), West Light Foundation of CAS “Studies on Development Model and Path of Middle-small Cites in Western China” and National Key Technology R&D Program (NO:2007BAD46B08).
REFERENCES
[1] C.Z. Zhao and L.H. Jia, “The Evaluation Indexes System of Comprehensive Effect of the Project of Returning Grazing Land to No Grazing Land and a Case Study”, Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2008,Vol.30, No.4, pp.83-87.
[2] P.S.Leung, J. Muraoka, S. T. Nakamoto, and S. Pooley, “Evaluating fisheries management options in Hawaii using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) ”, Fisheries Research, 1998,Vol.36,No.2-3, pp.171-183.
[3] S. Antonie and A. P. D. Silva, “On multiplicative priority rating methods for the AHP”, European Journal of Operational Research,
2003, Vol.145,No.1,pp.92-108.
[4] B. Malcolm, “An analysis of distributions of priority values from alternative comparison scales within AHP”, European Journal of Operational Research, 2002,Vol.140,No.1,pp.104-117.
[5] E.W.T. Ngai and E.W.C. Chan, “Evaluation of knowledge management tools using AHP”, Expert Systems with Applications, 2005, Vol. 29,No.4, pp. 889-899.
[6] J.K.W. Wong and H.Li, “Application of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in multi-criteria analysis of the selection of intelligent building systems”, Building and Environment, 2008,Vol.43,No.1, pp.108-125