Professional Documents
Culture Documents
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/283155799
READS
21
7 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Adriaan Van Niekerk
Danie Du Plessis
Stellenbosch University
Stellenbosch University
20 PUBLICATIONS 34 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Ronnie Donaldson
Stellenbosch University
Stellenbosch University
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 16 May 2015
Received in revised form 8 September 2015
Accepted 18 September 2015
Keywords:
South Africa
Growth potential
Settlements
Spatial decision support systems
Growth modelling
a b s t r a c t
Growth potential modelling is useful as it provides insight into which settlements in a region are likely
to experience growth and which areas are likely to decline. However, growth potential modelling is an
ill-structured problem as there is no universally-agreed set of criteria (parameters) that can be combined
in a particular way (rules) to provide a denitive growth potential measure (solution). In this paper we
address the ill-structured problem of growth potential modelling by combining multi-criteria decision
making (MCDM), geographical information systems (GIS) and planning support systems (PPS) to generate a number of growth scenarios for settlements in Western Cape province of South Africa. A new
framework and methodology for selecting, structuring and analysing multiple growth potential criteria
is proposed. The framework, based on the principles of innovation potential and growth preconditions,
was applied to demonstrate how it can be used to identify a series of candidate criteria relating to the
growth potential of settlements. The criteria were subjected to a MCDM process involving criteria selection, weighting and normalisation. Two criteria sets, weighting schemes and normalisation methods were
considered. Two different classication techniques were also evaluated. A total of 16 scenarios were generated using a newly-developed growth potential PPS (GPPSS). The paper shows how the GPPSS can be
used to quantitatively and qualitatively assess the various scenarios and to select the most appropriate
solution.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The importance of space and place in effective development policy is reinforced by the renewed focus on regional development
(Ascani et al., 2012). Continued systematic research on the role and
function of urban settlements within the developmental context
of a region is required to provide a sound foundation to support
well-founded strategic decisions (Pike et al., 2010). Of particular
interest, especially in developing countries, is the identication of
regions or settlements that are most likely to experience sustained
180
2. Methods
2.1. Study area
Donaldson et al. (2012b) evaluated the development potential
of 24 non-metropolitan local municipalities in the Western Cape,
South Africa by employing a range of spatial indicators collected
at municipal level. The resulting indexes and classications were
analysed and interpreted to formulate a set of generic interventions
181
182
migration patterns and population dynamics hold important development implications at both provincial and municipal levels.
It is clear that the provinces natural, human and infrastructural resources cannot be managed sustainably without performing
sound spatial planning (Musakwa and Van Niekerk, 2013). Such
planning requires accurate information about the suitability of land
and about the growth trends of settlements and their surrounding
hinterland. This information is also critical for formulating strategies that can spur specic types of development in certain areas or
settlements. Because of the complexities involved in growth potential modelling, innovative tools are needed to support decisions
about investment strategies in the province.
2.2. Growth potential modelling using a multi-criteria decision
making approach
The premise of growth potential modelling is that, in the absence
of signicant interventions, current and historical information can
be used to predict the future growth of a region or settlement. The
unavailability of empirical data measuring actual development is
especially in data-scarce developing countries such as South Africa
the main reason why empirical approaches are not always suitable for modelling growth potential. An alternative approach is to
build a model based on human reasoning or expert knowledge. For
instance, it is well known that drivers of growth are often related to
entrepreneurial innovations that stimulate economic activities and
social development. Although such actions cannot be predicted, the
likelihood of innovation and entrepreneurial investment in a settlement is higher if it provides the necessary social capital (Iyer
et al., 2005) and institutional support (Arbia et al., 2010; RodrguezPose, 2013), while an initiative will only succeed if a settlement can
offer the necessary nancial (economic) services, natural resources
and infrastructure (Cloke, 2013). Information relating to innovation potential and growth preconditions can consequently be used
to model a settlements potential to attract and sustain future
investments (Zietsman et al., 2006). Such reasoning can be formalised as a set of deterministic rules in an expert system or as
factors in a MCDM to model the growth potential of a settlement.
MCDM has been used in many types of applications including economics (Al-Najjar and Alsyouf, 2003), noise pollution (Van der
Merwe and Von Holdt, 2006), forestry (Bruno et al., 2006; Varma
et al., 2000), conservation (Phua and Minowa, 2005; Wood and
Dragicevic, 2007), ood vulnerability (Yalcin and Akyurek, 2004),
transportation (Vreeker et al., 2002), tourism potential determining (Van der Merwe et al., 2008), and land use suitability analysis
(Van Niekerk, 2008).
Van der Merwe (1997) suggests a six-step procedure for applying MCDM for spatial problems. The rst step is to set the objectives
of the evaluation. These objectives dictate which methodology or
decision strategy will be used in the evaluation (e.g. multi-attribute,
multi-objective, individual, participative, deterministic, probabilistic). In step two of the MCDM process, the appropriate criteria are
dened. Criteria can be either factors or constraints. Factors refer
to criteria that enhance or detract from an objective (e.g. growth
potential of a settlement), while constraints are meant to limit or
exclude cases for consideration (Malczewski, 1999). Once the criteria are selected, the data for each criterion is collected and mapped
(step three), usually using a GIS. Because factors can be continuous and measured in different scales (i.e. nominal, ordinal, interval
and ratio), step four of the MCDM process requires all factors to
be reformatted or normalized to a common measurement scale.
By nature different criteria do not have equal importance for a
particular objective. Access to infrastructure and labour might, for
instance, might be considered more important for spurring industrial development than tourism or agricultural potential. To take
this into consideration, each criterion can be weighted according
wi xi
cj
(1)
183
Table 1
Structuring framework for indicator selection.
#
Theme
Sub-themes
Modelling purpose
Economic
Preconditions for
Growth
Physical environment
Infrastructure
Human Capital
Institutional
Innovation Potential
guidelines were used to draw up an initial set of candidate criteria shown in Table 2. All criteria were judged to be factors that will
either contribute to or detract from growth potential (i.e. none were
considered to be absolute constraints to further growth).
184
Table 2
Factors considered for each index.
Human capital index
Average per capita income 2011 (Rands) a , c , d
% of population receiving social grantsb
% of households living in informal housing 2011b
% change in economic empowerment 20012011a , c
Overcrowding 2011b
% Unemployment 2011 b , c , d
Matric pass rate 2012 (%) a , c
% 2065 years old with primary or no education 2011b
% 2065 year olds with at least grade 12 and highera , c
Ratio non-economically active population age 2011b , c , d
% Population growth rate 20012011a
% In-migrants past 10 years 2011a
Economic index
Tourism potential 2008 a , c
% Growth of economically active population 20012011 a , c , d
Growth in town extent 0508 (ha)a
Growth in town extent 0811 (ha)a
Growth in town extent 0511 (ha)a
Distance to PE, CT and 6 leader towns b , c
Total personal income 2011 (Rands million) a , c
% Growth in highly skilled labour 20012011 a , c
Number of property transactions 2010a
Value of property transactions 2010a , c
Property tax revenue 2010a , c
Number of formal retail outlets and service sector businesses 2010a , c , d
Number of formal retail outlets and service sector businesses 2010 per persona
Bio-physical index
Number of vacant residential stands 2010a
Number of vacant business stands 2010a
Number of vacant industrial stands 2010a
Mean annual precipitation a , c , d
Projected short term (2020) surplus/shortfalls of peak summer GAADD considering internal reticulation storage 2011 (mcm/a) a , c
Projected medium term (2025) surplus/shortfalls of GAAD under high growth scenario plus 100% of future developments realised 2011 (million m3/a)a
Groundwater availability 2011 (mcm/a) a , c
Groundwater quality 2011 b , c , d
Potential evaporation (mm) b , c
Grazing capacitya , c
% Area cultivated 2012a , c , d
Growth in% area cultivated (20072012)a , c
Size and status of unexploited minerals 2010a , c
Groundwater quality (EC) 2011 (Ms/m)b
Biodiversityb
Infrastructure index
% Households with access to the internet 2011a , c , d
Distance to nearest scheduled airportb , c
Distance to nearest commercial harbourb , c
Distance to nearest small harbour and slipwaysb , c
Access to main and national roadsa , c , d
Access to railwaysa , c , d
% households with access to cellphone 2011a , c
% households with access to sanitation (ush) 2011a , c
% households with access to electricity (lighting) 2011a , c
% households with access to waste removal 2011a ,c
WWTW spare capacity per person 2011 (l/day/pop)a , c , d
State of WWTW infrastructure 2011a , c , d
Institutional index
Management experience and capacity 2010a , c
Debtors ratio 2010b
Debt rate 2010b
Qualied audits 2012a , c , d
Infrastructure backlog reduction 2010a , c , d
OPEX per capita 2010a
CAPEX per capita 2010a
Staff per cap ratio 2010b , c
% Posts lled 2010a , c , d
% Crime (all) occurrences change 20092012b , c , d
% Contact crime occurrences change 20092012b
% Property crime occurrences change 20092012b
Crime (all) occurrences (0912) per 100,000 populationb , c
Contact crime occurrences (0912) per 100,000 populationb
Property crime occurrences (0912) per 100,000 populationb
Small business support 2010a , c
Voter turnout 2010a
Number of Amenities 2010a , c , d
Number of Social service organisations 2010a , c
a
b
c
d
Factor contributed positively to the index (i.e. high values are preferred).
Factor contributed negatively to the index (i.e. low values are preferred).
Factor used in Criteria Subset A (see Section 2.3.5).
Factor used in Criteria Subset B (see Section 2.3.5).
185
Fig. 3. Weighted Voronoi polygons used as basis for data collection and analysis at settlement level.
Ri Rmin
m
(Rmax Rmin )
(2)
where: Xi is the standardised score; Ri is the raw score; Rmin represents the minimum score; Rmax is the maximum score; and M is
an arbitrary multiplier representing the upper standardised range
value.
zik =
(xik x k )
sdk
(3)
where, zik is the standardised score (also called z-score); xik is the
raw value of variable k for settlement i; x k is the mean value of
variable k for all settlements in the province; and sdk is the standard
deviation of variable k.
A mechanism whereby criteria can be inverted was also implemented as some criteria may have a positive or negative effect on
growth potential. For instance, a low crime rate is expected to have
(4)
1
A settlements rate of physical expansion is not necessarily on par with its economic or population growth rate. Stellenbosch, for example, experienced an annual
population growth rate of 8.5% from 2000 to 2010, while its physical expansion in
the same period averaged at 2.8% per annum (Musakwa and Van Niekerk, 2013).
186
187
Table 3
Growth potential scenarios generated by setting different model settings.
Scenario #
Scenario code
Criteria subset
Weighting scheme
Normalisation method
Classication technique
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
AAAA
AABA
ABAA
ABBA
BAAA
BABA
BBAA
BBBA
AAAB
AABB
ABAB
ABBB
BAAB
BABB
BBAB
BBBB
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
A
A
B
B
A
A
B
B
A
A
B
B
A
A
B
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
normalization method; (4) modifying the relative weights of individual criteria; and (5) selecting a different classication method.
The system can also be set up to iteratively apply various permutations of settings to produce different scenarios. To demonstrate,
16 different scenarios were generated in this paper by applying
two subsets of criteria, two weighting schemes, two normalization
methods and two classication techniques (Table 3).
The classications of all 16 scenarios were mapped and statistically compared. The median growth potential classication per
settlement (MEDIAN) was rst calculated to represent the overall
(consensus) classication of a settlement. The median instead of
the mean was used as it is known to be less sensitive to outliers
(Pearson, 2002). The purpose of the SD score is essentially to quantify the level of disagreement between the different scenarios for
a particular settlement. If the SD is very high (e.g. more than 1)
it would indicate that, for the particular settlement, there is not a
good agreement (consensus) between the methods used to model
its growth potential. Settlements with high SD may consequently
be considered to be more sensitive to the methodological approach
used, which suggests a level of uncertainty of the classication of
that settlement.
Pearsons two-tailed bivariate correlation analyses were carried
out in IBM SPSS v22 software and used to determine how closely
the growth potential classications of each scenario agree to the
consensus (median) classication. A correlation score (COR) was
recorded for each scenario.
The SD score, MEDIAN, and classication results of all 16 scenarios were mapped to enable spatial comparison. The results
were presented to a group of stakeholders, including government ofcials, local and district municipal representatives, town
and regional planners, social scientists, environmental managers,
economists and geographers. Stakeholders were requested to interpret the scenario results and to comment on how the classications
compare to their growth expectations for individual settlements.
The SD scores, COR values and the outcome of the qualitative assessment were considered in the selection of the most appropriate
solution (Voss and Post, 1988).
3. Results
3.1. Classications
The classications of the 16 growth potential scenarios are
shown in Table A1. Overall there is a good classication agreement
between the different scenarios, with 24 (21%) of the settlements
having a SD score of zero. This implies that, for 24 settlements, all
the growth potential classications were identical no matter which
188
Fig. 4. Geographic comparison of the (a) MEDIAN (consensus) and (a) SD (disagreement) scores per settlement.
189
4. Discussion
Growth potential modelling is useful as it provides insight into
which settlements in a region are likely to experience growth and
which areas are likely to decline. Such information can be used to
support investment decisions relating to infrastructure development and social welfare support. As demonstrated in this paper,
growth potential modelling is an ill-structured problem as it has
multiple possible solutions, solution paths, and criteria. MCDM provides a logical framework for analysing and aggregating the large
number of factors that affect growth potential. GIS are very effective for preparing, analysing and presenting the various datasets
and criteria, but are not exible enough for interactive or automated scenario generation. The GPPSS enabled the construction of a
series of growth potential modelling scenarios or the Western Cape
province that can help government ofcials, scientists and other
stakeholders to gain a regional outlook of development trends. The
generation of scenarios also reduces the risks associated with the
methodological uncertainties of growth potential as it can highlight
sensitivity to specic parameters. This is of particular importance
for growth potential modelling for which there is no universally
acceptable methodology. In this paper only two subsets of criteria
were considered in the scenario generation process. However, the
GPPSS can potentially automatically generate hundreds of different
subsets. The user can also interactively select or deselect individual
factors to see what inuence such changes will have of the results
(i.e. carry out a data sensitivity analysis). Another benet of the use
of the GPPSS is that the growth potential modelling can be easily
updated by simply editing or replacing the datasets associated with
the individual factors.
When applied to the data of the Western Cape the GPPSS
produced meaningful growth potential classications. Through a
process of scenario building and comparison it was determined
that there is good agreement between different parameter sets.
This is an indication that the classications are good reections of
the underlying data and that they are not signicantly affected by
190
tion, in combination with the fact that this scenario had the highest
COR score, led to the selection of Scenario 1 as the most appropriate growth potential classication model for the non-metropolitan
settlements of the Western Cape.
The GPPSS is not without limitations. Although its development
within a desktop GIS environment enabled rapid development,
the required software license makes it only accessible to those
with the required license. The systems graphical interface is very
rudimentary as it was designed as a research tool and not for general distribution. Users will also require familiarity with ArcView
software. A logical extension of this research would be the redevelopment of the GPPSS as a web application that is accessible over
the Internet.
This paper combined MCDM, GIS and SDSS to generate a number of growth scenarios for settlements in Western Cape province
of South Africa. A new framework and methodology for selecting, structuring and analysing multiple growth potential criteria
was proposed. The framework, based on the principles of innovation potential and growth preconditions, is applied to demonstrate
how it can be used to identify a series of candidate criteria relating to the growth potential of settlements. Scenarios are generated
using a newly-developed Growth Potential SDSS (GPPSS). The various scenarios were then quantitatively and qualitatively evaluated
to select the most appropriate solution. The scenario-building also
highlighted the sensitivity of growth potential models to variations
in parameters such as the criteria set, weighting scheme, normalisation technique and classication method. Although the GPPSS
was specically developed for the Western Cape province, it can
be applied for any group of settlements for which suitable data is
available. It can also be applied on other spatial entities such as
wards, municipalities, districts, counties, countries and region as
long as the data is available in GIS format.
5. Conclusions
The dynamics and intricacies of the problems and challenges
relating to settlements in recession must be approached in a coordinated manner. Investment strategies should be put into place to
accelerate development in settlements with high growth potential,
whilst ensuring sustained social and institutional support to those
living in regions with relatively low growth potential. Development policies should direct specic types of investments to certain
areas or settlements. Industrial development should, for instance,
not be encouraged in settlements reliant on tourism or in areas
that are environmentally sensitive. To do the above state institutions need an appropriate methodology to inform policy decision
management.
Acknowledgements
We thank the Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning of the Western Cape Government for providing
nancial support for this study.
Appendix A
Table A1
Settlement growth potential classications for all scenarios (1 = Very Low; 2 = Low; 3 = Medium; 4 = High; 5 = Very High).
Settlement
AELN
AEZN
AULN
AUZN
CELN
CEZN
CULN
CUZN
AELQ
AEZQ
AULQ
AUZQ
CELQ
CEZQ
CULQ
CUZQ
MEDIAN
SD
Albertinia
Arniston
Ashton
Aurora
Barrydale
Beaufort West
Bettys /Pringle Bay
Bitterfontein
Bonnievale
Botrivier
Bredasdorp
Buffelsbaai
Caledon
Calitzdorp
Ceres
Citrusdal
Clanwilliam
Darling
De Doorns
De Rust
Doringbaai
Dwarskersbos
Dysselsdorp
Ebenhaesar
Eendekuil
Elandsbaai
Elim
Franschhoek
Friemersheim
Gansbaai
Genadendal
George
Goedverwacht
Gouda
Gouritsmond
Graafwater
Grabouw
Greyton
Jongensfontein
3
2
3
2
3
2
5
1
3
3
3
3
4
1
4
2
2
3
2
1
1
3
1
2
3
3
2
3
3
4
3
5
2
3
3
2
4
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
2
5
1
2
3
3
3
4
1
4
2
2
3
2
1
1
3
1
2
3
2
2
3
3
4
3
5
2
3
3
2
4
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
5
1
2
3
3
4
4
1
3
2
2
3
2
1
1
3
1
2
2
2
2
4
3
4
3
5
2
2
3
2
4
3
4
3
2
3
2
3
3
5
1
2
3
3
4
4
1
4
2
2
3
2
1
1
3
1
2
2
2
2
4
3
4
3
5
2
2
3
2
4
3
4
3
2
3
2
3
2
5
1
3
3
3
3
4
1
4
2
2
3
2
1
1
3
1
2
3
3
2
3
3
4
3
5
2
3
3
2
4
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
2
5
1
2
3
3
3
4
1
4
2
2
3
2
1
1
3
1
2
3
2
2
3
3
4
3
5
2
3
3
2
4
3
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
5
1
2
4
3
3
5
1
3
3
2
4
2
1
1
3
1
2
3
3
1
3
1
3
3
5
3
2
3
2
4
4
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
4
1
2
4
3
4
4
1
4
3
2
3
2
1
1
3
1
2
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
5
3
2
3
2
4
4
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
5
1
3
4
3
4
5
1
4
2
2
4
2
1
1
3
1
2
3
3
1
4
3
5
4
5
2
3
4
2
5
4
4
3
2
3
2
3
2
5
1
3
3
3
4
4
1
5
2
2
4
2
1
1
3
1
2
3
3
2
4
3
5
4
5
2
3
4
2
5
4
4
3
2
3
1
3
3
5
1
2
4
3
4
4
1
4
2
2
4
2
1
1
3
1
2
2
2
2
5
3
5
4
5
2
2
4
2
5
4
4
3
2
3
1
3
3
5
1
2
4
3
4
4
1
4
2
2
4
2
1
1
3
1
2
2
2
2
4
3
5
4
5
2
3
4
1
5
4
4
3
2
3
2
3
2
5
1
3
4
3
4
5
1
4
2
2
4
2
1
1
3
1
2
3
3
1
4
3
5
4
5
2
3
4
2
5
4
4
3
2
3
2
3
2
5
1
3
3
3
4
4
1
5
2
2
4
2
1
1
3
1
2
3
3
2
4
3
5
4
5
2
3
4
2
5
4
4
2
1
3
4
2
2
5
1
3
5
3
4
5
1
4
3
2
5
2
1
1
4
1
2
4
3
1
3
1
3
3
5
3
2
3
3
5
5
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
5
1
2
5
4
4
5
1
4
3
2
4
2
1
1
4
1
2
4
3
1
4
1
3
3
5
3
2
3
2
5
4
2
3
2
3
2
3
2
5
1
2
3.5
3
4
4
1
4
2
2
4
2
1
1
3
1
2
3
3
2
4
3
4
3
5
2
3
3
2
4.5
4
2
0.25
0.00
0.75
0.50
0.50
0.25
0.00
0.66
0.71
0.25
0.56
0.56
0.00
0.50
0.50
0.00
0.71
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.35
0.00
0.00
0.61
0.61
0.56
0.71
0.90
0.79
0.61
0.00
0.50
0.66
0.61
0.35
0.50
0.66
0.66
0.50
191
Table A1 (Continued)
Settlement
AELN
AEZN
AULN
AUZN
CELN
CEZN
CULN
CUZN
AELQ
AEZQ
AULQ
AUZQ
CELQ
CEZQ
CULQ
CUZQ
MEDIAN
SD
Haarlem
Heidelberg
Herbertsdale
Hermanus/Onrus
Hopeeld
Kalbaskraal
Klapmuts
Klawer
Kleinmond
Kliprand
Knysna/Brenton
Koekenaap
Koringberg
Kurland
Ladismith
Laingsburg
Lamberts Bay
Langebaan
Leeu Gamka
Lutzville
Malmesbury
Matjiesfontein
McGregor
Merweville
Montagu
Moorreesburg
Mosselbaai
Murraysburg
Napier
Natures Valley
Nuwerus
Op-die-Berg
Oudtshoorn
Paarl
Paternoster
Pearly Beach
Piketberg
Plettenberg Bay
Pniel/Kylemore
Porterville
Prince Albert
Prince Alfred Ham.
Rawsonville
Redelinghuys
Rheenendal
Riebeek-Kast./Wes
Rietpoort
Riversdale
Riviersonderend
Robertson
Saldanha
Saron
Sedgeeld
Slangrivier
St Helena Bay
Stanford
Stellenbosch
Stilbaai
Strandfontein
Struisbaai
Suurbraak
Swellendam
Touwsrivier
Tulbagh
Uniondale
Vanrhynsdorp
Velddrift
Villiersdorp
Volmoed
Vredenburg
Vredendal
Wellington
Wilderness
Witsand
Wolseley
Worcester
Yzerfontein
Zoar
COR
2
3
2
5
3
4
3
2
4
1
5
2
3
2
2
2
2
4
1
2
5
1
3
1
3
4
5
1
3
3
1
2
3
5
3
2
3
4
4
4
1
3
3
2
3
4
1
3
3
3
3
3
4
2
3
3
5
4
1
2
2
3
1
2
2
2
3
3
1
5
2
3
4
2
2
4
3
1
0.963
2
3
2
4
3
4
3
2
4
1
5
2
3
2
2
2
2
4
1
2
4
1
3
1
3
4
5
1
3
3
1
2
3
5
3
2
3
4
4
4
1
3
3
2
3
4
1
3
2
3
4
3
4
2
3
3
5
4
1
3
2
3
1
2
2
2
3
3
1
4
2
4
4
2
2
4
4
1
0.962
2
3
2
5
3
4
3
2
4
1
5
2
3
3
2
2
2
4
1
2
4
1
3
1
3
4
5
1
3
3
1
2
3
5
3
2
3
4
5
4
1
3
3
2
3
4
1
3
3
3
4
3
4
2
3
3
5
4
1
3
3
3
1
2
2
2
3
4
1
4
2
4
4
3
2
4
4
1
0.954
2
3
2
5
3
4
3
2
4
1
5
2
3
3
2
2
2
4
1
2
4
1
3
1
3
4
5
1
3
3
1
2
3
5
3
2
3
4
4
4
1
3
3
2
3
4
1
3
2
3
4
3
4
2
3
3
5
4
1
3
3
3
1
2
2
2
3
3
1
4
2
4
4
3
2
4
4
1
0.949
2
3
2
5
3
4
3
2
4
1
5
2
3
2
2
2
2
4
1
2
4
1
3
1
3
4
5
1
3
3
1
2
3
5
3
2
3
4
4
4
1
3
3
2
3
4
1
3
3
3
3
3
4
2
3
3
5
4
1
2
2
3
1
2
2
2
3
3
1
4
2
3
4
2
2
4
3
1
0.959
2
3
2
4
3
4
3
2
4
1
5
2
3
2
2
2
2
4
1
2
4
1
3
1
3
4
5
1
3
3
1
2
3
5
3
2
3
4
4
4
1
3
3
2
3
4
1
3
2
3
4
3
4
2
3
3
5
4
1
3
2
3
1
2
2
2
3
3
1
4
2
4
4
2
2
4
4
1
0.962
1
2
2
5
2
4
3
2
3
1
5
2
4
2
2
2
3
4
1
3
5
2
2
1
3
4
5
1
3
3
1
2
3
5
3
2
4
4
4
4
1
3
3
3
1
5
1
3
3
3
3
2
4
2
2
2
5
3
1
1
1
3
1
2
2
3
4
3
1
4
3
3
4
3
2
4
4
1
0.865
2
2
2
4
3
4
3
2
3
1
5
2
4
2
2
2
3
4
1
3
5
2
3
1
3
4
5
1
3
4
1
3
3
5
3
2
4
4
4
4
2
3
3
3
2
4
1
3
3
3
3
3
4
2
2
3
5
3
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
2
4
3
4
4
3
3
4
4
1
0.869
1
3
2
5
3
5
3
1
5
1
5
1
4
2
1
2
2
5
1
1
5
1
3
1
4
5
5
1
3
3
1
1
4
5
4
2
3
5
5
5
1
4
4
2
3
5
1
4
3
4
4
3
5
2
3
3
5
5
1
2
2
4
1
2
2
2
4
4
1
5
2
4
5
2
2
5
4
1
0.953
1
3
2
5
4
5
3
1
5
1
5
1
4
2
2
2
2
5
1
1
5
1
3
1
4
4
5
1
3
3
1
2
4
5
4
1
4
5
5
5
1
4
3
1
3
5
1
4
2
4
4
3
5
2
3
3
5
5
1
3
3
4
1
2
2
2
4
4
1
5
2
4
5
2
2
5
5
1
0.947
2
3
2
5
3
5
4
1
5
1
5
1
4
3
2
2
2
5
1
1
5
1
3
1
4
4
5
1
3
4
1
1
4
5
3
2
3
5
5
5
1
3
4
1
4
5
1
4
3
4
4
3
5
2
3
3
5
5
1
3
3
4
1
2
2
2
3
4
1
5
1
4
5
3
2
5
4
1
0.939
2
3
2
5
3
5
3
1
5
1
5
1
4
3
2
2
2
5
1
1
5
1
3
1
4
4
5
1
3
4
1
2
4
5
3
2
3
5
5
4
1
4
3
1
4
5
1
4
2
4
5
3
5
2
3
3
5
5
1
3
3
4
1
2
2
2
4
4
1
5
2
5
5
3
2
5
5
1
0.942
1
3
2
5
3
5
3
1
5
1
5
1
4
2
1
2
2
5
1
1
5
1
3
1
4
5
5
1
3
3
1
1
4
5
4
2
3
5
5
5
1
4
4
2
3
5
1
4
3
4
4
3
5
2
3
3
5
5
1
2
2
4
1
2
2
2
4
4
1
5
2
4
5
2
2
5
4
1
0.953
1
3
2
5
4
5
3
1
5
1
5
1
4
2
2
2
2
5
1
1
5
1
3
1
4
4
5
1
3
3
1
2
4
5
4
1
4
5
5
5
1
4
3
1
3
5
1
4
2
4
4
3
5
2
3
3
5
5
1
3
3
4
1
2
2
2
4
4
1
5
2
4
5
2
2
5
5
1
0.947
1
2
1
5
3
5
4
3
4
1
5
2
5
2
2
2
3
5
1
3
5
2
3
1
4
5
5
1
3
4
1
2
4
5
3
2
5
4
5
5
1
3
4
3
1
5
1
3
4
4
4
2
5
2
2
2
5
3
1
1
1
4
1
2
2
3
4
4
1
5
4
4
4
4
2
5
4
1
0.847
1
2
1
5
3
4
4
2
4
1
5
2
5
2
2
2
3
5
1
3
5
2
3
1
4
5
5
1
3
5
1
2
4
5
3
2
5
5
5
5
1
4
3
3
1
5
1
3
3
4
4
3
5
1
2
3
5
3
1
1
1
4
1
3
2
3
4
4
2
5
4
4
5
4
2
5
4
1
0.858
3
2
5
3
3.5
4
3
2
4
1
5
2
4
2
2
2
2
4.5
1
2
5
1
3
1
3.5
4
5
1
3
3
1
2
3.5
5
3
2
3
4
5
4
1
3
3
2
3
5
1
3
3
3.5
4
3
4.5
2
3
3
5
4
1
2.5
2
3.5
1
2
2
2
3.5
4
1
5
2
4
4
2.5
2
4.5
4
1
0.50
0.35
0.43
0.43
0.87
0.66
0.43
0.66
0.71
0.00
0.00
0.61
0.71
0.50
0.35
0.00
0.50
0.50
0.00
0.79
0.56
0.50
0.25
0.00
0.50
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.71
0.00
0.50
0.50
0.00
0.50
0.35
0.87
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.25
0.61
0.50
0.71
0.97
0.66
0.00
0.61
0.66
0.50
0.56
0.35
0.50
0.25
0.50
0.35
0.00
0.79
0.25
0.79
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.35
0.00
0.50
0.50
0.66
0.35
0.66
0.83
0.50
0.66
0.71
0.25
0.50
0.56
0.00
192
References
Acton, C., Miller, R., Fullerton, D., Maltby, J., 2009. SPSS for Social Scientists, 2nd ed.
Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire.
Agrell, P.J., Stam, A., Fischer, G.W., 2004. Interactive multiobjective agro-ecological
land use planning: the Bungoma region in Kenya. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 158,
194217.
Al-Najjar, B., Alsyouf, I., 2003. Selecting the most efcient maintenance approach
using fuzzy multiple criteria decision making. Int. J. Econ. 84, 85100.
193
Kitchener, K.S., King, P.M., 1981. Reective judgment: concepts of justication and
their relationship to age and education. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 2, 89116.
Kok, P., Collinson, M., 2006. Migration and urbanization in South Africa. In: Report
03-04-02. Statistics South Africa, Pretoria.
Kousalya, P., Reddy, M., Supraja, S., Prasad, V.S., 2012. Analytical hierarchy process
approach-An application, of engineering education. Math. Aeterna 2, 861878.
Mahini, A.S., Gholamalifard, M., 2006. Siting MSW landlls with a weighted linear
combination methodology in a GIS environment. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 3,
435445.
Malczewski, J., 1999. GIS and Multi-criteria Decision Analysis. John Wiley & Sons,
New York.
Malczewski, J., 2004. GIS-based land-use suitability analysis: a critical overview.
Prog. Plann. 62, 365.
Malczewski, J., 2006. Ordered weighted averaging with fuzzy quantiers:
GIS-based multicriteria evaluation for land-use suitability analysis. Int. J. Appl.
Earth Obs. Geoinf. 8, 270277.
Marinoni, O., 2004. Implementation of the analytical hierarchy process with VBA in
ArcGIS. Comput. Geosci. 30, 637646.
Mlisa, A., 2007. Spatial Decision Support System for Hydrological Studies in the
Table Mountain Group Aquifers, Geography & Environmental Studies.
Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch.
Musakwa, W., Van Niekerk, A., 2013. Implications of land use change for the
sustainability of urban areas: a case study of Stellenbosch, South Africa. Cities
32, 143156.
Pearson, R.K., 2002. Outliers in process modeling and identication. Control Syst.
Technol. IEEE Trans. 10, 5563.
Phua, M.-H., Minowa, M., 2005. A GIS-based multi-criteria decision making
approach to forest conservation planning at a landscape scale: A case study in
the Kinabalu Area, Sabah, Malaysia. Landscape Urban Plann. 71, 207222.
Pike, A., Rodriguez-Pose, A., Tomaney, J., 2010. Handbook of Local and Regional
Development. Taylor & Francis.
Rodrguez-Pose, A., 2013. Do institutions matter for regional development? Reg.
Stud. 47, 10341047.
Saaty, T.L., 1977. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J. Math.
Psychol. 15, 234281.
Saaty, T.L., 1978. Modeling unstructured decision problemsthe theory of
analytical hierarchies. Math. Comput. Simul. 20, 147158.
Saaty, T.L., Vargas, L.G., 1991. Prediction, Projection and Forcasting. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Boston.
Statistics South Africa, 2012. Census 2011 Census in Brief. Statistics South Africa,
Pretoria.
Subramanian, N., Ramanathan, R., 2012. A review of applications of analytic
hierarchy process in operations management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 138, 215241.
Tanguay, G.A., Rajaonson, J., Lefebvre, J.-F., Lanoie, P., 2010. Measuring the
sustainability of cities: an analysis of the use of local indicators. Ecol. Indic. 10,
407418.
Van der Merwe, J.H., 1997. GIS-aided land evaluation and decision-making for
regulating urban expansion: a South African case study. GeoJournal 43,
135151.
Van der Merwe, J.H., Ferreira, S.L.A., Van Niekerk, A., 2008. A spatial gap-analysis of
tourism development opportunity in the Western Cape province. In: Centre for
Geographical Analysis. Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch.
Van der Merwe, J.H., Ferreira, S.L.A., Van Niekerk, A., 2013. Resource-directed
spatial planning of agritourism with GIS. S. Afr. Geogr. J. 95, 1637.
Van der Merwe, J.H., Van Niekerk, A., 2013. Application of geospatial technology for
gap analysis in tourism planning for the Western Cape. S. Afr. J. Sci. 109, 110.
Van der Merwe, J.H., Von Holdt, D.S., 2006. Environmental footprint of aircraft noise
exposure at Cape Town International Airport. S. Afr. Geogr. J. 88, 177193.
Van Niekerk, A., 1997. Die Ontwikkeling Van Geograese Inligtingstelsels Vir
Omgewingsbestuur in Die Wes-kaap. Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch.
Van Niekerk, A., 2008. CLUES: A Web-based Land Use Expert System for the
Western Cape. Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, pp. 221.
Van Niekerk, A., 2009. Using CLUES to nd suitable areas for perennial crops.
Varma, V.K., Ferguson, I., Wild, I., 2000. Decision support system for the sustainable
forest management. For. Ecol. Manag. 128, 4955.
Vonk, G., Geertman, S., Schot, P., 2007. A SWOT analysis of planning support
systems. Environ. Plann. A 39, 16991714.
Voss, J., Post, T., 1988. On the solving of ill-structured problems. InM. TH Chi, R.
Glaser, & MJ Farr (Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. 311-342). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum. VossOn the solving of ill-structured problems311The nature of
expertise1988.
Vreeker, R., Nijkamp, P., Ter Welle, C., 2002. A multicriteria decision support
methodology for evaluating airport expansion plans. Transp. Res. 7, 2747.
Western Cape Government, 2013. Provincial economic review and outlook. Report
PR301/2013. Provincial Treasury, Cape Town.
Wong, C., 2002. Developing indicators to inform local economic development in
England. Urban Stud. 39, 18331863.
Wood, L.J., Dragicevic, S., 2007. GIS-based multicriteria evaluation and fuzzy sets to
identify priority sites for marine protection. Biodivers. Conserv. 16, 25392558.
Yalcin, G., Akyurek, Z., 2004. Analysing ood vulnerable areas with multicriteria
evaluation.
Zietsman, H.L., Ferreira, S.L.A., Van Der Merwe, I.J., 2006. Measuring the growth
potential of towns in the Western Cape, South Africa. Dev. S. Afr. 23, 685700.