int. j. geographical information science, 2000, vol. 14, no.

2, 173 184

Research Article

Application of fuzzy measures in multi-criteria evaluation in GIS

HONG JIANG
Department of Geography, University of Wisconsin at Madison, Madison,
WI 53706, USA

J. RONALD EASTMAN
Graduate School of Geography, Clark University, Worcester, MA 01610, USA

(Received 8 February 1997; accepted 23 June 1999 )

Abstract. Multi-criteria evaluation (MCE) is perhaps the most fundamental of

decision support operations in geographical information systems (GIS). This
paper reviews two main MCE approaches employed in GIS, namely Boolean and
Weighted Linear Combination (WLC), and discusses issues and problems associ-
ated with both. To resolve the conceptual di erences between the two approaches,
this paper proposes the application of fuzzy measures, a concept that is broader
but that includes fuzzy set membership, and argues that the standardized factors
of MCE belong to a general class of fuzzy measures and the more speci c instance
of fuzzy set membership. This perspective provides a strong theoretical basis for
the standardization of factors and their subsequent aggregation. In this context,
a new aggregation operator that accommodates and extends the Boolean and
WLC approaches is discussed: the Ordered Weighted Average. A case study of
industrial allocation in Nakuru, Kenya is employed to illustrate the di erent
approaches.

1. Introduction
Increasingly, geographical information systems (GIS) are used as an important
aid for spatial decision making (Carver 1991, Pereira and Duckstein 1993 ). Recent
developments in GIS have led to signi cant improvements in its capability for
decision making processes in land allocation and environmental management, among
which Multi-Criteria Evaluation (MCE) is one of the most important procedures
(Janssen and Rietveld 1990, Burrough et al. 1992, Jankowski 1995 ).
In the context of GIS, two procedures are common for MCE. The rst involves
Boolean overlay whereby all criteria are assessed by thresholds of suitability to
produce Boolean maps, which are then combined by logical operators such as
intersection (AND) and union (OR). The second is known as weighted linear combina-
tion, wherein continuous criteria ( factors) are standardized to a common numeric
range, and then combined by weighted averaging. The result is a continuous mapping
of suitability, that may then be masked by one or more Boolean constraints to
accommodate qualitative criteria, and nally thresholded to yield a nal decision
(Hall et al. 1992, present a similar comparison). A comparison of the two approaches
International Journal of Geographical Information Science
ISSN 1365-8816 print/ISSN 1362-3087 online 2000 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/tf/13658816.html
174 H. Jiang and J. R. Eastman

is illustrated in gure 1 using industrial allocation in Nakuru, Kenya as an example;

details are discussed in a later section.
Despite the very common use of these procedures, there are some fundamental
problems associated with their use. The rst problem has to do with di erent
aggregation methods employed in decision making. Despite a casual expectation
that the Boolean and weighted linear combination methods should yield similar
results, they very often do not (see gure 1 ). The reason has to do with their logic
of aggregation, particularly with tradeo . For example, Boolean intersection results
in a very hard AND; a region will be excluded from the result if any single criterion
fails to meet its threshold. Conversely, the Boolean union operator implements a
very liberal mode of aggregation: a region will be chosen in the result as long as a
single criterion meets its threshold. Weighted Linear Combination is quite di erent
from these Boolean options. Here a low score on one criterion can be compensated
by a high score on another a feature known as tradeo or substitutability .
The second problem with MCE has to do with the standardization of factors in
weighted linear combination. The most common approach is to rescale the range to
a common numerical basis by simple linear transformation. However, the rationale
for doing so is unclear (Voogd 1983, Eastman et al. 1993 ). Indeed, there are many
instances where it would seem logical to rescale values within a more limited range.
For example, if proximity to roads is a factor in determining suitability for industrial
development, it may be that a location 10 km away is no less suitable than one that
is 5 km away they are both simply too far to consider. In some cases, a non-linear
scaling may seem appropriate. Since the recast criteria really express suitability , there
are many cases where it would seem appropriate that criterion scores asymptotically
approach the maximum or minimum suitability level. The third problem concerns
decision risk. Decision risk may be considered as the likelihood that the decision
made will be wrong (Eastman 1996 ). For the Boolean procedure, decision risk can
be estimated by propagating measurement error through the decision rule, whereby
determining the risk that the decision made for a given location is wrong. In
comparison, the continuous criteria of weighted linear combination would appear
to express a further uncertainty that is not so easily estimated with stochastic
methods. The standardized factors of weighted linear combination each express a
perspective of suitability: the higher the score, the more suitable the location is for
the intended land use. There is no real threshold, however, that allows de nitive
allocation of areas to be chosen and areas to be excluded. How are these uncertainties
to be accommodated in expressions of decision risk? If these criteria really express
uncertainties, why are they combined through an averaging process? It is the conten-
tion here that all these questions can be resolved by considering decision making as
a set problem and through the application of fuzzy measures in MCE.

2. Decision making and fuzzy measures

A decision is a choice between alternative actions, hypotheses, locations, and so
on (Eastman et al. 1993 ). Taking each possible combination of alternative as a
subset, the decision process is essentially one of allocating alternatives to the subset
that will be chosen or acted upon. In the case of single-objective land allocation, a
decision set contains two subsets: suitable (for allocation), and not suitable (for
allocation). A decision is then derived from an assessment of suitability, the degree
to which a location belongs to the set `suitable (in most cases, fuzzy membership in
 Fuzzy measures in multi-criteria evaluation 175

Figure 1. GIS procedures for multi-criteria evaluation (MCE).

176 H. Jiang and J. R. Eastman

the set `not suitable is assumed to be the complement of `suitable set membership).
In most decision making processes, multiple criteria are considered to assess the
degree of suitability each location bears to the allocation under consideration. Thus
suitability is commonly not Boolean in character, but expresses varying degrees of
set membership, i.e. a fuzzy set. Each criterion chosen by the analyst thus constitutes
direct or indirect evidence, based on which fuzzy set membership (or suitability)
of a location can be evaluated. We recognize two kinds of criteria, factors and
constraints , with a factor signifying a continuous degree of fuzzy membership (in the
range of 0 1 ), and constraints acting to limit the alternatives altogether (i.e. fuzzy
membership is either 0 or 1 ) (Eastman et al. 1993 ). The latter is a special case of
fuzzy sets.
Fuzzy set theory has not uncommonly been applied in multi-criteria decision
making (Burrough 1989, Wang et al. 1990, Smith 1992, Xiang et al. 1992, Banai
1993 ). In the GIS context, in decision making regarding land allocation, suitability
is considered a fuzzy concept expressed as fuzzy set membership (Burrough et al.
1992, Hall et al. 1992 ). There are a variety of reasons why the application of fuzzy
set membership in criteria standardization is highly appealing. First, it provides a
very strong logic for the process of standardization. The process of criteria standard-
ization can be seen as one of recasting values into a statement of set membership,
the degree of membership in the nal decision set. Compared with linear scaling,
standardization using fuzzy set membership represents a speci c relation between
the criterion and decision set. This clearly opens the way for a broader family of set
membership functions than that of linear rescaling. For example, the commonly used
sigmoidal function provides a simple logic for cases where a function is required that
is asymptotic to 0 and 1. Second, the logic of fuzzy sets bridges a major gap between
Boolean assessment and continuous scaling in weighted linear combination. Boolean
overlay is a classical set problem and assumes a crisp boundary and certainty. By
considering the process of criteria evaluation as one of fuzzy sets, the continuity and
uncertainty in the relation between criteria and decision set are recognized. When
set membership values are reduced to 0 and 1 (i.e. certainty), the set becomes crisp
(a special case of fuzzy set ) and the results will be identical to those of Boolean overlay.
In this paper, we expand the application of fuzzy sets in MCE to a broader
concept: fuzzy measures. The term F uzzy Measure refers to any set function which
is monotonic with respect to set membership (Dubois and Prade 1982 ). As an
inclusive concept, fuzzy measures include Bayesian probabilities , the beliefs and
plausibilities of Dempster-Shafer theory, and the possibilities of fuzzy sets, thus
providing a uni ed framework for the methodologies of uncertainty studies
(Bonissone and Decker 1986 ).
Although an important concept, fuzzy measure has not been widely recognized
and applied in decision making. Since the likely mistake of reducing fuzzy measure
to fuzzy set will limit the exploration of this concept, we want to emphasize here
that fuzzy measure is a broader concept than fuzzy set, although our exploration of
its application in MCE is based largely on the experience of fuzzy set application.
Considering standardized criteria as fuzzy measures, as will be shown in later discus-
sions, expands our understanding of MCE procedures, allows more exible MCE
operations, and helps to resolve the problems associated with Boolean and weighted
linear operations as discussed earlier.
When the standardization of a single criterion is considered a fuzzy measure,
MCE concerns the manner in which multiple fuzzy measures derived from di erent
 Fuzzy measures in multi-criteria evaluation 177

evidence are combined into a single statement of set membership, which represents
the nal degree of suitability in a location. The combination approach chosen
represents an important decision rule. This leads us to explore the properties of fuzzy
measures and approaches in their combination.

3. Properties of fuzzy measures

A common trait of fuzzy measures is that they follow DeMorgans Law in the
construction of the intersection and union operators (Bonissone and Decker 1986 ).
DeMorgans Law establishes a triangular relationship between the intersection, union
and negation operators such that:
T (a,b)= ~ S(~ a,~ b )
where T = Intersection (AND) = T -Norm, S = Union (OR) = T -Conorm, and ~ =
Negation (NOT ).
The intersection operators in this context are known as triangular norms , or
simply T -Norms, while the union operators are known as triangular co-norms , or
T -Conorms.
A T -Norm can be de ned as (Yager 1988 ):
a mapping T: [0,1] * [0,1] [0,1] such that:
T (a,b)= T (b,a ), (commutative)
T (a,b)> = T (c,d ) if a > = c and b > = d (monotonic)
T (a,T (b,c)) = T (T (a,b),c) (associative)
T (1,a)= a (boundary)
Some examples of T -Norms include:
min(a,b) (the intersection operator of fuzzy sets)
ab (the intersection operator of probabilities)
1 min( 1,(( 1 a ) 9 p +(1 b ) 9 p ) 9 (1/ p ))
(for p > = 1) (Yagers T -Norm operator)
max( 0, a +b 1) (bounded di erence)
Conversely, a T -Conorm is de ned as:
a mapping S: [0,1] * [0,1] [0,1] such that:
S(a,b)= S(b,a) (commutative)
S(a,b)> = S(c,d ) if a > = c and b > = d (monotonic)
S(a,S(b,c)) = S(S(a,b),c) (associative)
S(0,a)= a (boundary)
Some examples of T -Conorms include:
max(a,b) (the union operator of fuzzy sets)
a +b ab (the union operator of probabilities)
min( 1,(a 9 p +b 9 p) 9 (1 / p ))
(for p > = 1 ) (Yagers T -Conorm operator)
min( 1, a +b ) (bounded sum)
In the above equations, a, b, c and d are fuzzy measures, and p is a power term.
These examples show that a very wide range of operations are available for fuzzy
measure aggregation, therefore multi-criteria aggregation in decision making
178 H. Jiang and J. R. Eastman

processes. Among the di erent operators, the most signi cant is MIN for T -Norm,
and MAX for T -Conorm, operations employed widely in fuzzy set membership
problems including applications in MCE. These two operators also signify the upper
and lower boundaries of T -Norm and T -Conorm, respectively:
0 < = T (a,b)< = min (a,b )
1 > = S(a,b)> = max (a,b )
The aggregation approaches of fuzzy measures release us from the limitations of
fuzzy set integrative operations (i.e. MIN and MAX), and lead us to believe that
integration methods of multi-criteria need to go beyond the common approaches of
union, intersection, and weighted linear combination. Furthermore, from the bound-
ary conditions of T -Norm and T -Conorm, the range between min(a,b ) and max (a,b)
are left un-represented, where weighted linear combination is found. It is this un-
explored range in the aggregation of fuzzy measures that is examined in the later
part of this paper in the design of MCE procedures, following Yager (1988 ). Thus,
fuzzy measures provide a theoretical base from which to explore an expanded
understanding of MCE processes and the design of new aggregation operators.

4. Weighted linear combination as a fuzzy operator

While MIN and MAX operators are used by some for Boolean overlay and fuzzy
membership aggregation in MCE, the averaging operator of weighted linear com-
bination is also widely used by others (Buckley 1988 ). There is a lack of association
between the two traditions, as the latter is not considered as a fuzzy logical operator
because it lacks the property of associativity (Bonissone and Decker 1986 ).
Can the aggregation process of weighted linear combination be seen as a fuzzy
measure aggregation? The answer is yes, and the reason lies in the practices in
decision making. Bonissone and Decker (1986 ) also indicate that although lacking
certain properties of T -Norms and T -Conorms, the averaging operator is yet another
basic function that satis es the condition of tradeo . Both MIN/ MAX and averaging
traditions are well known in human experience. The minimum operator commonly
represents a form of limiting factor analysis. Here the intent is one of risk aversion,
by characterizing the suitability of a location in terms of its worst quality. The
maximum operator is the opposite, and can thus be thought of as a very optimistic
aggregation operator: an area will be suitable to the extent of its best quality.
Interestingly, the averaging operator falls mid-way between the extreme cases of the
T -Norm (the minimum operator) and its corresponding T -Conorm (the maximum
operator). It is neither an AND nor an OR operator, but rather, one that lies halfway
in between: in essence, a perfect ANDOR operator representing attitudes at a middle
point. It is, therefore, not suprising that the averaging operator is used more often
in decision making processes. This echoes Yager (1988 ), who maintains that in many
cases the type of aggregation operator desired by decision makers lies somewhat
between `the pure ``anding of the t-norm with its complete lack of compensation
and `the pure ``oring of the S operator with its complete submission to any good
satisfaction as well as its indi erence to the individual criteria (p. 184 ). The combina-
tion of the min/ max and weighted linear traditions becomes increasingly attractive
(Yager 1988, Eastman and Jiang 1996 ).
To combine the above two traditions, it is highly appealing to consider weighted
linear combination as a fuzzy membership operator, together with the MIN and
 Fuzzy measures in multi-criteria evaluation 179

MAX operators, in the framework of fuzzy measures. It provides a strong logic to

bridge the two traditions in both decision science (i.e. MIN/ MAX and weighted
linear combination) and in GIS (i.e. Boolean operation in Vector GIS and averaging
operation in Raster GIS). Perhaps most importantly, it allows us to explore a variety
of operators that fall between the MIN (AND) and MAX (OR) operators, and as
we shall see, this allows us to control not only the degree of ANDORness but also
the degree of tradeo in MCE.

5. The Ordered Weighted Averaging (OWA)

The Ordered Weighted Averaging (OWA) operator provides continuous fuzzy
aggregation operations between the fuzzy intersection (MIN or AND) and union
(MAX or OR), the upper boundary of T -Norm and lower boundary of T -Conorm,
with weighted linear combination falling midway in between. It adopts the logic of
Yager (1988 ) and can achieve continuous control over the degree of ANDORness
of the operator and the degree of tradeo between criteria. In Yagers implementation,
criteria are weighted on the basis of their rank order rather than their inherent
qualities. For example, we might decide to apply weights of 0.5, 0.3, 0.2 to a set of
factors A, B and C based on their rank order. If at one location the criteria are
ranked BAC (from lowest to highest ), the weighted combination would be
0.5 B +0.3 A +0.2 C. However, if at another location the factors are ranked CBA, the
weighted combination would be 0.5 C +0.3 B +0.2 A.
In our implementation of Yagers concept (Eastman and Jiang 1996 ), we have
retained the concept of weights that apply to speci c criteria (factors) as in traditional
weighted linear combination techniques, yielding two sets of weights criterion
weights that apply to speci c criteria and order weights that apply to the ranked
criteria after the application of the criterion weights. In traditional weighted linear
combination, criteria weights determine how factors tradeo relative to each other.
However, the level of tradeo is not adjustable, and full tradeo is always assumed.
Here, criteria weights are adjusted according to the level of tradeo , such that they
retain their full signi cance when full tradeo is chosen and gradually lose their
meaning (i.e. criteria weights become equal ) as one approaches no tradeo . While
criteria weights are associated with the relative signi cance of a particular criterion
for the decision set as well as the way criteria compensate for each other, order
weights control the position of the aggregation operator on a continuum between
the extremes of MIN and MAX, as well as the degree of tradeo .
We use two parameters, ANDORness and TRADEOFF, to characterize the
nature of an OWA operation:
ANDness = (1 / (n 1 )) ((n i)W orde r i ) (1 )
ORness = 1 ANDness (2 )

T RADEOFF = 1 S n (W orde r i 1/ n )2
n 1
(3 )

in which n is the total number of factors, i is the order of factors, and W orde r i is the
weight for the factor of the i th order.
From the equation, ANDness or ORness is governed by the amount of skew in
the order weights and tradeo is controlled by the degree of dispersion in the order
weights. ANDORness re ects an attitude toward risk in decision making. It is
180 H. Jiang and J. R. Eastman

represented by ANDness, the degree to which an operator is close to the MIN

(AND) operation; and ORness, the degree to which an operator is close to the MAX
(OR) operation. ANDness and ORness are complimentary to each other and their
sum yields a value of 1. At one extreme, absolute ANDness (where ANDness equals 1 )
represents the most risk-aversion position, and at the other, absolute ORness (where
ORness equals 1 ) represents the most risk-taking attitude. The second parameter,
TRADEOFF, represents the degree to which di erent factors are allowed to tradeo
with one another.
The interesting feature of OWA is that it is possible to control a continuous
degree of ANDORness and tradeo ( gure 2 ). For example, using order weights of
[1 0 0] yields the minimum operator of fuzzy sets with full ANDness (totally skewed )
and no tradeo (not dispersed ). Using order weights of [0 0 1] yields the maximum
operator of fuzzy sets with full ORness (skewed in the opposite direction) and no
tradeo . Using order weights [0.33 0.33 0.33] yields the traditional averaging oper-
ator of MCE with intermediate ANDness and ORness, and full tradeo (totally
dispersed ). Order weights of [0 1 0] would yield an operator with intermediate
ANDness and ORness, but no tradeo , while the original example with order weights
of [0.5 0.3 0.2] would yield an operator with substantial tradeo and a moderate
degree of ANDness.
The OWA procedure has been incorporated in the IDRISI for Window GIS
software package. In use, the OWA procedure can be applied in a single operation,
or as part of a hybrid design. For example, if one had ve factors, where it was
desired that three should trade o but that two should not, the problem can be
solved in two stages. In the rst stage, OWA would be run using order weights with
the desired degree of tradeo , followed by a second run without tradeo in which
the result of the rst run was included as an additional factor. Criterion weights in the
two runs can easily be adjusted to maintain the original weights of all factors.

6. Case study: industrial allocation in Nakuru, Kenya

Nakuru town is a rapidly growing urban area in Kenya, where industry is also
expanding. This case study requires that certain areas of the most suitable land be
selected for industrial development. Within the study area lies Lake Nakuru National
Park, which is designated as a wildlife reserve of international importance. In discus-
sions with local groups and decision makers, the following factors were identi ed to
be important in industrial land allocation: proximity to road, because of the need
for transporting raw products and nished materials; proximity to the town, where
the labor source is located; slope gradients, which a ects construction cost; and
distance from Lake Nakuru Park, which needs to be preserved as both a wildlife
refuge and a tourist attraction. The above factors serve to either enhance or distract

Figure 2. Decision strategy space in OWA.

 Fuzzy measures in multi-criteria evaluation 181

the suitability of industrial allocation. One constraint is identi ed: land within the
park boundaries is prohibited from industrial development.
To explore di erent MCE approaches, we rst employ Boolean and weighted
linear combination techniques, and the results are shown in gure 1. The Boolean
method results in 1670 ha of land suitable for industrial development. In the right
column is weighted linear combination example, where each factor has been standard-
ized using a FUZZY sigmoid-shaped function, and factor weights, generated using
pairwise comparison method of the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) (Saaty 1980,
Eastman et al. 1993 ) have been applied. The factor weights for the four factors are
0.3770, 0.0979, 0.3605, and 0.1647, respectively. For the purpose of comparison, we
have allocated the same area of land (i.e. 1670 ha) as a result of weighted linear
combination. It is apparent from gure 1 that the results from the Boolean and
weighted linear combination traditions are very di erent.
With the same standardized factor and set of factor weights, we apply di erent
OWA approaches in MCE aggregation, and the results for industrial suitability are
shown in gure 2. Table 1 shows the order weights employed to yield the results in
gure 3. These weights determine the position of the aggregation operation along
the continuum between the MIN and MAX operators, and their corresponding
ANDness, ORness and TRADEOFF.
The di erences in the MCE results are apparent! From gure 2, as the ORness
increases from MIN to MAX, suitability scores increase (represented by the dark
green and green colours). After the suitability images are ranked and the same size
of highly suitable area selected, the spatial di erences among di erent OWA proced-
ures are also signi cant. For example, when 1670 ha is selected for industrial alloca-
tion for all OWA procedures, between the MIN and AVERAGE operators, the
spatial consistency (areas chosen by both operators) is 67%, and between the
AVERAGE and MAX operators, the consistency is only 34%.
Do the varying results of MCE make decision making easier or more di cult?
What should be the nal decision? These questions remain to be answered by
decision makers. Selection of any criteria-aggregation approach without scrutiny is
clearly questionable. The aim of this study is to point out the strong dependency
between the manner in which the decision rule is constructed and the character of
the results, as are shown in gures 1, 2 and 3. The results from di erent OWA
operators demonstrate the importance of examining di erent aggregation
approaches, and of justifying a rationale for the one that is adopted. OWA provides
a tool that allows for the exploration of a range of aggregation rules using di erent
degrees of ANDORness and TRADEOFF. Decision makers can then carefully
evaluate each decision scenario and choose the one that can best suit their needs

Table 1. Di erent OWA procedures in gure 2.

OWA operator Order weights ANDness ORness Tradeo

MIN 1, 0, 0, 0 1 0 0
0.6, 0.2, 0.15, 0.05 0.7833 0.2167 0.517
0.4, 0.3, 0.2, 0.1 0.6667 0.3333 0.7418
Average 0.25, 0.25, 0.25, 0.25 0.5 0.5 1
0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 0.3333 0.6667 0.7418
0.05, 0.15, 0.2, 0.6 0.2167 0.7833 0.517
MAX 0, 0, 0, 1 0 1 0
182 H. Jiang and J. R. Eastman

Figure 3. OWA results with di erent order weights.

 Fuzzy measures in multi-criteria evaluation 183

and expectations. Apparently, the selection process is wrought with subjectivity,

which is an important message this study tries to convey.
The application of the OWA operator in MCE has strong implications for the
decision making process and decision risk. Because di erent aggregation approaches
can yield strikingly di erent results, the decision rule is clearly a source of uncertainty
in the decision making process (in addition to measurement error), and has to be
considered in the process of decision making and the evaluation of decision risk.

7. Conclusion
This paper adopts the concept of fuzzy measure and applies it to MCE procedures.
As has been demonstrated here, the standardized criteria of MCE belong to the
general class of fuzzy measures. Therefore, integration of multiple criteria follows
the broad approaches in fuzzy measure integration. By considering weighted linear
combination as a form of fuzzy measure integration, we expand the logical fuzzy
measure operators of T -Norm and T -Conorm to include the unexplored range
between the MIN and MAX operators, in which weighted linear combination is
found at the midpoint. Furthermore, we have designed a GIS implementation of the
Ordered Weighted Average (OWA) operator that allows the exploration of a full
range of operators between MIN and MAX, with varying degrees of ANDORness
and tradeo . The OWA operator provides a consistent theoretical link between the
two common MCE logics of Boolean overlay and weighted linear combination, and
opens up the possibilities for aggregation of criteria. To this end, OWA is presented
as an extension to the traditional MCE aggregation operators, and is demonstrated
through a case study of industrial land allocation in Nakuru, Kenya.
As a relatively new topic of research, the application of fuzzy measures in MCE
in general and OWA in particular require further research. Although theoretically
appealing and capable of a wide range of MCE integrations, OWA is yet to be tested
in a variety of decision making processes and contexts to determine how it may help
decision makers in the real world; guidelines as to how decision makers may choose
the appropriate ANDORness (re ecting risk attitude) and degree of tradeo remain
to be formulated under di erent contexts.

References
Banai, R., 1983, Fuzziness in geographical information systems: contributions from the analyt-
ical hierarchy process. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 7,
315 329.
Bonissone, P. P., and Decker, K., 1986, Selecting uncertainty calculi and granularity: an
experiment in trading-o precision and complexity. In Uncertainty in Arti cial
Intelligence, edited by L. N. Kanal and J. F. Lemmer (North Holland: Elsevier Science),
pp. 217 247.
Buckley, J. J., 1984, The multiple judge, multiple criteria ranking problem: a fuzzy set
approach. Fuzzy Set and Systems, 13, 25 37.
Burrough, P. A., 1989, Fuzzy mathematical methods for soil survey and land evaluation.
Journal of Soil Science, 40, 477 492.
Burrough, P. A., MacMillan, R. A., and van Deursen, W., 1992, Fuzzy classi cation
methods for determining land suitability from soil pro le observations and topography.
Journal of Soil Science, 43, 193 210.
Caver, S. J., 1991, Integrating multi-criteria evaluation with geographical information systems.
International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 5, 321 339.
Dubois, D., and Prade, H., 1982, A class of fuzzy measures based on triangular norms.
International Journal of General Systems, 8, 43 61.
184 Fuzzy measures in multi-criteria evaluation

Eastman, J. R., 1996, Uncertainty and decision risk in multi-criteria evaluation: implications
for GIS software design. In Proceedings, UN University International Institute for
Software T echnology Expert Group Workshop on Software T echnology for Agenda21:
Decision Support Systems, February 26 March 8, Macao, China, Section 8.
Eastman, J. R., and Jiang, H., 1995, Fuzzy measures in multi-criteria evaluation. In
Proceedings, Second International Symposium on Spatial Accuracy Assessment in Natural
Resources and Environmental Studies, May 21 23 (Fort Collins, Colorado),
pp. 527 534.
Eastman, J. R., Kyem, P. A. K., Toledano, J., and Jin, W., 1993, GIS and decision making.
Explorations in Geographic Information System T echnology, 4 (Geneva: UNITAR)
(single volume).
Hall, G. B., Wang, F., and Subaryono, 1992, Comparison of Boolean and fuzzy classi cation
methods in land suitability analysis by using geographical information systems.
Environment and Planning A, 24, 497 516.
Jankowski, P., 1995, Integrating geographical information systems and multiple criteria
decision making methods. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems,
9, 251 273.
Jansen, R., and Rietveld, P., 1990, Multi-criteria analysis and geographical information
systems: an application to agricultural land use in The Netherlands. In Geographical
Information Systems for Urban and Regional Planning, edited by H. J. Scholten and
J. C. H. Stillwell (The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher), pp. 129 139.
Pereira, J. M. C., and Duckstein, L., 1993, A multiple criteria decision making approach to
GIS-based land suitability evaluation. International Journal of Geographical Information
Systems, 7, 407 424.
Saaty, T. L., 1980, T he Analytical Hierarchy Process (New York: McGraw-Hill ).
Smith, P. N., 1992, Fuzzy evaluation of land-use and transportation options. Environment and
Planning B, 19, 525 544.
Voogd, H., 1983, Multicriteria Evaluation for Urban and Regional Planning (London: Pion).
Wang, F., Hall, G. B., and Subaryono, 1990, Fuzzy information representation and pro-
cessing in conventional GIS software: database design and application. International
Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 4, 261 283.
Xiang, W-N., Gross, M., Fabos, J. G., and MacDougall, E. B., 1992, A fuzzy group multi-
criteria decision making model and its application to land-use planning. Environment
and Planning B, 19, 61 84.
Yager, R., 1988, On Ordered Weighted Averaging aggregation operators in multi-criteria
decision making. IEEE T ransactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 8, 183 190.