Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Rankıng Districts of Çanakkale in Terms of Rangeland Quality by Fuzzy MCDM Methods

  • Published:
Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Due diligence of rangelands, which are among the renewable energy sources, is very important for improvement projects. In this study, it is proposed to use fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods as a supportive statistical approach in examining rangeland conditions. Among these methods, fuzzy AHP, TOPSIS and VIKOR are explained. Vegetation data of a rangeland condition determination project were examined by these methods. According to the results, the fuzzy MCDM methods provide effective support in determining the rangeland conditions numerically. For this reason, it is recommended to be used in similar studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aktan HE, Samut PK (2013) Agricultural performance evaluation by integrating fuzzy AHP and VIKOR methods. Int J Appl Decis Sci 6(4):324–344

    Google Scholar 

  • Akyüz GA (2012) Supplier selection using the fuzzy VIKOR method. Atatürk Univ J Econ Adm Sci 26(1):197–215 ((Turkish))

    Google Scholar 

  • Alatürk F, Gökkuş A (2019) The effects of different breeding methods on the ratio of Hıdırellez Whip (Asphodelus aestivus Brot.) and rangeland yield and grass quality. J ÇOMÜ Fac Agric 7(1):109–117 (Turkish)

    Google Scholar 

  • Altın M, Gökkuş A, Koç A (2011) Meadow and rangeland management, vol 2. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, General Directorate of Agricultural Production and Development, Ankara ((Turkish))

    Google Scholar 

  • Atalik G, Şentürk S (2019) A new ranking method for triangular intuitionistic fuzzy number based on Gergonne point. J Quant Sci 1(1):59–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Avağ A, Şimşek U, Uzun M, Özgöz MM, Aksakal E, Dumlu S, Başkan O (2012) National rangeland use and management project database studies. Int J Agric Nat Sci 5(2):102–106 (Turkish)

    Google Scholar 

  • Aydoğdu M, Yıldız H, Ünal E, Özaydın KA, Dedeoğlu F, Ataker S, Kuz V.Ö (2020) Determination of rangeland presence and rangeland status classes. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, TAGEM, Field Crops Center Research Institute, project final report (Turkish)

  • Babashamsi P, Golzadfar A, Yusoff NIM, Ceylan H, Nor NGM (2016) Integrated fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and VIKOR method in the prioritization of pavement maintenance activities. Int J Pavement Res Technol 9(2):112–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakır M, Atalık Ö (2021) Application of fuzzy AHP and fuzzy MARCOS approach for the evaluation of e-service quality in the airline industry. Dec Mak Appl Manag Eng 4(1):127–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen CT (2000) Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst 114(1):1–9

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Chang DY (1996) Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. Eur J Oper Res 95(3):649–655

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Deng H, Yeh CH, Willis RJ (2000) Inter-company comparison using modified TOPSIS with objective weights. Comput Oper Res 27(10):963–973

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Dincer H, Hacioglu U (2015) A comparative performance evaluation on bipolar risks in emerging capital markets using fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS and VIKOR approaches. Eng Econ 26(2):118–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gökkuş A, Oral HH (2022) An important forage source for animals: small grain rangelands. Acta Nat Sci 3(1):1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gökkuş Z, Şentürk S, Alatürk F (2023) Ranking Çanakkale Districts in terms of rangeland quality with multi-criteria decision making methods. Türk Tarım ve Doğa Bilimleri Dergisi (Under review)

  • Han H, Trimi S (2018) A fuzzy TOPSIS method for performance evaluation of reverse logistics in social commerce platforms. Expert Syst Appl 103:133–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang CL, Yoon K (1981) Methods for multiple attribute decision making. In: Multiple attribute decision making. Springer, Berlin, pp 58–191

  • Holechek JL, Pieper RD, Herbel CH (2011) Range management principles and practices, 6th edn. Prentice Hall, Hoboken, p 444

    Google Scholar 

  • Ilbahar E, Kahraman C, Cebi S (2022) Risk assessment of renewable energy investments: a modified failure mode and effect analysis based on prospect theory and intuitionistic fuzzy AHP. Energy 239:121907

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahraman C, Keshavarz Ghorabaee M, Zavadskas EK, Cevik Onar S, Yazdani M, Oztaysi B (2017) Intuitionistic fuzzy EDAS method: an application to solid waste disposal site selection. J Environ Eng Landsc Manag 25(1):1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahraman C, Öztayşi B, Onar SÇ (2020) An integrated intuitionistic fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS approach to evaluation of outsource manufacturers. J Intell Syst 29(1):283–297

    Google Scholar 

  • Karakiş E (2019) Integrated decision support model proposal with fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS: teacher selection in private schools. J Erciyes Univ Fac Econ Adm Sci 53:112–137 (Turkish)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kizielewicz B, Bączkiewicz A (2021) Comparison of Fuzzy TOPSIS, Fuzzy VIKOR, Fuzzy WASPAS and Fuzzy MMOORA methods in the housing selection problem. Procedia Comput Sci 192:4578–4591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kubler S, Robert J, Derigent W, Voisin A, Le Traon Y (2016) A state-of the-art survey & testbed of fuzzy AHP (FAHP) applications. Expert Syst Appl 65:398–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar S, Barman AG (2021) Fuzzy TOPSIS and fuzzy VIKOR in selecting green suppliers for sponge iron and steel manufacturing. Soft Comput 25(8):6505–6525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kutlu Gündoğdu F, Kahraman C (2019a) A novel VIKOR method using spherical fuzzy sets and its application to warehouse site selection. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 37(1):1197–1211

  • Kutlu Gündoğdu, F, Kahraman C (2019b) Spherical fuzzy sets and spherical fuzzy TOPSIS method. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 36(1):337–352

  • Opricovic S (1998) Multicriteria optimization of civil engineering systems. Fac Civ Eng Belgrade 2(1):5–21

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Opricovic S (2011) Fuzzy VIKOR with an application to water resources planning. Expert Syst Appl 38(10):12983–12990

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opricovic S, Tzeng GH (2002) Multicriteria planning of post-earthquake sustainable reconstruction. Comput Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng 17(3):211–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opricovic S, Tzeng GH (2004) Compromise solution by MCDM methods: a comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur J Oper Res 156(2):445–455

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Opricovic S, Tzeng GH (2007) Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods. Eur J Oper Res 178(2):514–529

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Paksoy T, Pehlivan NY, Özceylan E (2013) Fuzzy set theory. Nobel Publication, Ankara (Turkish)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Perçin S, Aldalou E (2018) Financial performance evaluation of Turkish airline companies using integrated fuzzy AHP fuzzy TOPSIS model. Int J Econ Adm Stud 583–598

  • Ramavandi B, Darabi AH, Omidvar M (2021) Risk assessment of hot and humid environments through an integrated fuzzy AHP-VIKOR method. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 35(12):2425–2438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rezaie K, Ramiyani SS, Nazari-Shirkouhi S, Badizadeh A (2014) Evaluating performance of Iranian cement firms using an integrated fuzzy AHP-VIKOR method. Appl Math Model 38(21–22):5033–5046

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Rouyendegh BD, Yildizbasi A, Üstünyer P (2020) Intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS method for green supplier selection problem. Soft Comput 24(3):2215–2228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty T (1980) The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) for decision making. In: Kobe, Japan, pp 1–69

  • Stević Ž, Tanackov I, Vasiljević M, Novarlić B, Stojić G (2016) An integrated fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS model for supplier evaluation. Serbian J Manag 11(1):15–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suganthi L (2018) Multi expert and multi criteria evaluation of sectoral investments for sustainable development: an integrated fuzzy AHP, VIKOR/DEA methodology. Sustain Cities Soc 43:144–156

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Sun CC (2010) A performance evaluation model by integrating fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods. Expert Syst Appl 37(12):7745–7754

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylan O, Alamoudi R, Kabli M, AlJifri A, Ramzi F, Herrera-Viedma E (2020) Assessment of energy systems using extended fuzzy AHP, fuzzy VIKOR, and TOPSIS approaches to manage non-cooperative opinions. Sustainability 12(7):2745

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Laarhoven PJ, Pedrycz W (1983) A fuzzy extension of Saaty’s priority theory. Fuzzy Sets Syst 11(1–3):229–241

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Yavuz S, Deveci M (2014) Shopping center site selection with Fuzzy TOPSIS and Fuzzy VIKOR methods and an application. Ege Acad Rev 14(3):463–479 (Turkish)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Technology, Vocational School, Kastamonu University, Kastamonu, Turkey

    Zeynep Gökkuş

  2. Department of Statistics, Faculty of Science, Eskişehir Technical University, Eskisehir, Turkey

    Sevil Şentürk

  3. Department of Field Crops, Faculty of Agriculture, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Çanakkale, Turkey

    Fırat Alatürk

Authors
  1. Zeynep Gökkuş
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sevil Şentürk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fırat Alatürk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zeynep Gökkuş.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

No other authors declared a potential conflict of interest regarding this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gökkuş, Z., Şentürk, S. & Alatürk, F. Rankıng Districts of Çanakkale in Terms of Rangeland Quality by Fuzzy MCDM Methods. JABES 28, 636–663 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13253-023-00532-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13253-023-00532-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation