Universitas Bangka Belitung

Jurusan Teknik Pertambangan

SIG Pertambangan
(Theory of Spatial Analysis : Metode AHP)

Oleh :
Irvani

Universitas Bangka Belitung

Jurusan Teknik Pertambangan

SKS, Penilaian & Kehadiran :

Banyaknya SKS = 2 SKS (Teori)
Penilaian :
- Absensi 10%
- Tugas 20%
- Teori (UTS & UAS) 70%
Kehadiran minimal 75% dari 14x perkualiahan

Universitas Bangka Belitung

Jurusan Teknik Pertambangan

Referensi :

Bonham-Carter, G.F. (1994) Geographic Information System for Geoscientists: Modelling

with GIS. Delta Printing , Ontario, 398 p.
Harris, J.R. (ed) (2006) GIS For The Earth Sciences. GAC Special Paper 44, Geological
Association of Canada, 616 p.
de By, R.A. (ed) (2000) Principles of Geographic Information Systems. ITC educational
Texbook Series, Netherlands.
Huisman, O. And de By, R.A. (2009) Principles of Geographic Information Systems. ITC
educational Texbook Series, Netherlands.
Mitchel, A. (1999) The ESRI guide to GIS Analysis. Volume 1: Geographic patterns &
Relationships, ESRI Press, 186 pp.
Kennedy, H. (ed) (2001) Dictionary of GIS terminology. ESRI Press, Redlands, 116 p.
Longley, P.A., Goodchild, M.F., Maguire, D.J. and Rhind, D.W. (2001) Geographic
Information Systems and Science. John Wiley & Sons, 454 pp.
Maguire, D. J., Goodchild, M. F., and Rhind, D. W. (eds) (1991) Geographical information
systems: principles and applications, Longman.
Zeiler, M. (1999) Modeling Our World: the ESRI Guide to Geodatabase Design. ESRI Press,
Redlands, 198 p.
ESRI Homepage ( http://esri.com/index.html ) : understanding GIS, industry applications,
user conference, virtual campus, ESRI Press books

Universitas Bangka Belitung

Jurusan Teknik Pertambangan

Materi/Pokok Bahasan
I Pendahuluan (P.1)

VI Theory of Spatial Analysis (P.7-9)

a. Metode AHP
b. Principle Steps
II Overview of GIS (P.2)
in GIS Spatial
c. GIS Processing
III Map Projection and
VII
Introduction
to ArcGIS or
Coordinate System (P.3-4)
MapInfo (P.10) (Option)
IV GIS for Geoscience (P.5)
VIII Case Studies/Latihan (P.11-14)
V GIS Database (P.6)

Teori AHP 1

Analytic Hierarchy Process

Multiple-criteria decision-making
Real world decision problems
multiple, diverse criteria
qualitative as well as quantitative information

Comparing apples and oranges?

Spend on defence or agriculture?
Open the refrigerator - apple or orange?

AHP
Information is decomposed into a hierarchy of
alternatives and criteria
Information is then synthesized to determine
relative ranking of alternatives
Both qualitative and quantitative information can
be compared using informed judgements to
derive weights and priorities

Example: Car Selection

Objective
Selecting a car
Criteria
Style, Reliability, Fuel-economy
Cost?
Alternatives
Civic Coupe, Saturn Coupe, Ford Escort,
Mazda Miata

Hierarchical tree
Selecting
a New Car

Style

Reliability

- Civic
- Saturn
- Escort
- Miata

Fuel Economy

- Civic
- Saturn
- Escort
- Miata

- Civic
- Saturn
- Escort
- Miata

Ranking of criteria
Weights?
AHP
pair-wise relative importance
[1:Equal, 3:Moderate, 5:Strong, 7:Very
strong, 9:Extreme]
Style

Reliability

Fuel Economy

Style

1/1

1/2

3/1

Reliability

2/1

1/1

4/1

Fuel Economy

1/3

1/4

1/1

Ranking of priorities

Eigenvector

[Ax = x]

Iterate
1. Take successive squared powers of matrix
2. Normalize the row sums
Until difference between successive row sums
is less than a pre-specified value

1
0.5
2
1
0.333 0.25
Row sums
12.75
22.3332
4.8333
39.9165

3
4
1.0

3.0
1.75 8.0
5.3332 3.0 14.0
1.1666 0.6667 3.0

squared

Normalized
Row sums
0.3194
0.5595
0.1211
1.0

New iteration gives normalized row sum

Difference is:

0.3194
0.5595 0.1211

0.3196
0.5584
0.1220

0.3196
0.5584
0.1220
- 0.0002
0.0011
- 0.0009

Preference
Style
.3196
Reliability
.5584
Fuel Economy .1220
Selecting
a New Car
1.0

Style
.3196

Reliability
.5584

Fuel Economy
.1220

Ranking alternatives
Style
Civic

Civic
1/1

Saturn
1/4

Saturn
Escort
Miata

4/1
1/4
6/1

1/1
1/4
4/1

Reliability Civic
Civic
1/1
Saturn
Escort
Miata

1/2
1/5
1/1

Saturn
2/1
1/1
1/3
1/2

Escort
4/1
4/1
1/1
5/1

Miata
1/6
1/4
1/5
1/1

Escort Miata
5/1
1/1
3/1
1/1
4/1

2/1
1/4
1/1

Eigenvector
.1160
.2470
.0600
.5770

.3790
.2900
.0740
.2570

Miles/gallon

Fuel Economy
(quantitative
information)

Normalized

Civic

34

.3010

Saturn
Escort
Miata

27
24
28
113

.2390
.2120
.2480
1.0

Selecting
a New Car
1.0

Style
.3196

- Civic .1160
- Saturn .2470
- Escort .0600
- Miata .5770

Reliability
.5584

- Civic
- Saturn
- Escort
- Miata

.3790
.2900
.0740
.2570

Fuel Economy
.1220

- Civic
- Saturn
- Escort
- Miata

.3010
.2390
.2120
.2480

Ranking of alternatives

Style Reliability

Fuel
Economy

Civic

.1160

.3790 .3010

Saturn
Escort
Miata

.2470
.0600

.2900 .2390
.0740 .2120

.5770

.2570 .2480

.3196
*

.5584
.1220

.3060
.2720
.0940
.3280

Handling Costs
Dangers of including Cost as another criterion
political, emotional responses?
Separate Benefits and Costs hierarchical trees
Costs vs. Benefits evaluation
Alternative with best benefits/costs ratio

Cost vs. Benefits

Cost

MIATA
.9840
CIVIC
1.3771
SATURN
.9791
ESCORT

Normalized
Cost

Cost/Benefits
Ratio

$18K

.333

$12K

.222

$15K

.2778

$9K

.1667

.5639

Complex decisions
Many levels of criteria and sub-criteria

10

 Application areas

strategic planning
resource allocation
source selection, program selection
business policy
etc., etc., etc..

AHP software (ExpertChoice)

computations
sensitivity analysis
graphs, tables

Group AHP

Teori AHP 2

11

Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)

- by Saaty
Another way to structure decision problem
Used to prioritize alternatives
Used to build an additive value function
Attempts to mirror human decision process
Easy to use
Well accepted by decision makers
Used often - familiarity
Intuitive
Can be used for multiple decision makers
Very controversial!

What do we want to accomplish?

Learn how to conduct an AHP analysis
Understand the how it works
Deal with controversy
Rank reversal
Arbitrary ratings
Show what can be done to make it useable
Bottom Line: AHP can be a useful tool. . . but it
cant be used indiscriminately!

12

AHP Procedure Build the Hierarchy

Very similar to hierarchical value structure
Goal on top (Fundamental Objective)
Decompose into sub-goals (Means objectives)
Further decomposition as necessary
Identify criteria (attributes) to measure
achievement of goals (attributes and objectives)
Alternatives added to bottom
Different from decision tree
Alternatives show up in decision nodes
Alternatives affected by uncertain events
Alternatives connected to all criteria

Building the Hierarchy

Note: Hierarchy corresponds to decision maker values
No right answer
Must be negotiated for group decisions
Affinity
Diagram

Example: Buying a car

Buy the best
Car

Goal

General Criteria
Secondary
Criteria

Alternatives

Handling

Braking Dist

Turning Radius

Ford Taurus

Economy
Purchase Cost

Lexus

Maint Cost

Power
Gas Mileage

Time 0-60

Saab 9000

13

AHP Procedure Judgments and

Comparisons
Numerical Representation
Relationship between two elements that share a common
parent in the hierarchy
Comparisons ask 2 questions:
Which is more important with respect to the criterion?
How strongly?
Matrix shows results of all such comparisons
Typically uses a 1-9 scale
Requires n(n-1)/2 judgments
Inconsistency may arise

1 -9 Scale
Intensity of Importance

Definition

Equal Importance

Moderate Importance

Strong Importance

Very Strong Importance

Extreme Importance

2, 4, 6, 8
Reciprocals of above
Rationals

For compromises between the above

In comparing elements i and j
- if i is 3 compared to j
- then j is 1/3 compared to i
Force consistency
Measured values available

14

Example - Pairwise Comparisons

Consider following criteria

Purchase Cost

Maintenance Cost

Gas Mileage

Want to find weights on these criteria

AHP compares everything two at a time
(1) Compare

Purchase Cost

to

Maintenance Cost

Which is more important?

Say purchase cost
By how much? Say moderately

Example - Pairwise Comparisons

(2) Compare

Purchase Cost

to

Gas Mileage

Which is more important?

Say purchase cost
By how much? Say more important
(3) Compare

Maintenance Cost

to

Gas Mileage

Which is more important?

Say maintenance cost
By how much? Say more important

15

Example - Pairwise Comparisons

This set of comparisons gives the

P
M
G
following matrix:
P

1/3

1/5

1/3

Ratings mean that P is 3 times more important than M

and P is 5 times more important than G
Whats wrong with this matrix?
The ratings are inconsistent!

Consistency
Ratings should be consistent in two ways:
(1) Ratings should be transitive
That means that
If A is better than B
and B is better than C
then A must be better than C
(2) Ratings should be numerically consistent
In car example we made 1 more
comparison than
we needed
3M = 5G
M = (5/3)G
We know that P = 3M and P = 5G

16

Consistency And Weights

So consistent matrix for the car example

would look like:
Note that matrix
P

1/3

5/3

1/5

3/5

has Rank = 1
That means that
all rows are multiples
of each other

Weights are easy to compute for this matrix

Use fact that rows are multiples of each other
Compute weights by normalizing any column
We get

wP

15
23

0.65 , w M

5
23

0.22 , w G

3
23

0.13

Weights for Inconsistent Matrices

More difficult - no multiples of rows
Must use some averaging technique
Method 1 - Eigenvalue/Eigenvector Method
Eigenvalues are important tools in several math,
science and engineering applications
- Changing coordinate systems
- Solving differential equations
- Statistical applications
Defined as follows: for square matrix A and vector x,
Eigenvalue of A when Ax = x, x nonzero
x is then the eigenvector associated with
Compute by solving the characteristic equation:
det(I A) = | I A | = 0

17

Weights for Inconsistent Matrices

Properties:
- The number of nonzero Eigenvalues for a matrix is
equal to its rank (a consistent matrix has rank 1)
- The sum of the Eigenvalues equals the sum of the
diagonal elements of the matrix (all 1s for
consistent matrix)
Therefore: An nx n consistent matrix has one
Eigenvalue with value n
Knowing this will provide a basis of determining
consistency
Inconsistent matrices typically have more than 1 eigen value
- We will use the largest, max , for the computation

Weights for Inconsistent Matrices

Compute the Eigenvalues for the inconsistent
P
M
G
matrix
P

1/3

1/5

1/3

=A

w = vector of weights
Must solve: Aw = w by solving det(I A) = 0
We get:
max = 3.039
find the Eigen vector for 3.039 and normalize

wP 0.64, wM 0.26, wG 0.10

Different than before!

18

Measuring Consistency
Recall that for consistent 3x3 comparison
matrix, = 3 max
Compare with
from inconsistent matrix
max
Use test statistic:
C.I.

n
Consistency Index
n 1

From Car Example:

C.I. = (3.0393)/(3-1) = 0.0195
Another measure compares C.I. with randomly generated
ones
C.R. = C.I./R.I. where R.I. is the random index
n 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
R.I. 0
0
.52
.89
1.11 1.25 1.35
1.4

Measuring Consistency
For Car Example:
C.I. = 0.0195
n=3
R.I. = 0.52 (from table)
So, C.R. = C.I./R.I. = 0.0195/0.52 = 0.037
Rule of Thumb: C.R. 0.1 indicates sufficient
consistency
Care must be taken in analyzing consistency
Show decision maker the weights and ask for
feedback

19

Weights for Inconsistent Matrices

(continued)

Method 2: Geometric Mean

Definition of the geometric mean:
Given values x1, x2, , xn
n
xg n xi geometric mean
i 1

Procedure:
(1) Normalize each column
(2) Compute geometric mean of each row
Limitation: lacks measure of consistency

Weights for Inconsistent Matrices

(continued)

Car example with geometric means

P

1/3

1/5

1/3

3
1

Normalized

1/3

.65

.69

.56

.22

.23

.13

.08

.33
.11

wp = [(.65)(.69)(.56)]
wM = [(.22)(.23)(.33)] 1/3

= 0.63

1/3

= 0.05

wG

= [(.13)(.08)(.11)]

= 0.26

0.67
Normalized

0.28
0.05

20

Universitas Bangka Belitung

Jurusan Teknik Pertambangan

Terima Kasih

21