Geospatial Decision Support Systems
A Geospatial Decision Support System (GDSS) combines spatial analysis, mathematical models, and policy rules to help decision-makers evaluate alternative scenarios.
1. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)
MCDA is a framework used to find optimal locations by evaluating multiple criteria (e.g., land suitability, slope gradients, cost, proximity to markets, environmental regulations).
MCDA WORKFLOW PIPELINE
+-------------+ +---------------+ +-----------------+
| Raster/ | -> | Standardize | -> | Apply Weights | ---\
| Vector Data | | Range [0-100] | | (AHP / Matrix) | \
+-------------+ +---------------+ +-----------------+ \ +-----------------+
+> | Weighted Linear | -> Best Sites
+-------------+ +---------------+ / | Combination |
| Constraint | -> | Binary Mask | --------------------------/ +-----------------+
| Layer | | [0 or 1] |
+-------------+ +---------------+
-
Criterion Standardisation:
Raw values (e.g., slopes in degrees, distance in meters) cannot be added together directly.
They must be standardized into a uniform scale (e.g., \(0\) to \(100\) or \(0\) to \(10\)), where higher numbers indicate better suitability.
-
Constraint Masking:
Constraints are binary exclusions (e.g., water bodies, protected national parks).
Represented as \(1\) (suitable to build) and \(0\) (strictly excluded).
-
Synthesis (Weighted Linear Combination):
The final suitability score is calculated by multiplying each standardized criterion score by its assigned weight, and then multiplying the total by the constraint mask.
\[\text{Score} = \left( \sum_{i=1}^{n} w_i x_i \right) \times \prod_{j=1}^{m} c_j\]Where \(w_i\) is criterion weight, \(x_i\) is standardized score, and \(c_j\) is the binary constraint.
2. Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)
AHP is a structured technique for organizing and analyzing complex decisions, developed by Thomas L. Saaty. It determines weights by using pairwise comparison matrices.
-
Pairwise Comparison Matrix:
Criteria are compared in pairs on a scale of \(1\) (equal importance) to \(9\) (extremely more important).
If Criterion A has an importance of \(5\) relative to Criterion B, then Criterion B has an importance of \(1/5\) (\(0.2\)) relative to Criterion A.
-
Consistency Check:
To ensure comparison judgements are logical, we calculate the Consistency Ratio (CR):
\[\text{CR} = \frac{\text{CI}}{\text{RI}}\]Where:
\[\text{CI} = \frac{\lambda_{\text{max}} - n}{n - 1}\]-
\(n\) is the number of criteria.
-
\(\lambda_{\text{max}}\) is the principal eigenvalue.
-
\(\text{RI}\) is the Random Index (standard value based on matrix size).
-
CR Threshold: The CR must be \(< 0.10\) (\(10\%\)) to be considered consistent. If CR \(\ge 0.10\), pairwise rankings must be revised.
-
3. Hydropower Suitability Analysis Exercise
We will model suitable runoff hydropower project locations using three parameters: drainage network density (Weight \(= 50\%\)), slope gradient (Weight \(= 30\%\)), and distance to transmission lines (Weight \(= 20\%\)). Conservation areas represent a binary constraint.
-
Prepare Input Rasters:
-
flow_accum_class.tif(reclassified values \(1-10\), where \(10\) indicates high accumulation). -
slope_class.tif(reclassified values \(1-10\), where \(10\) represents optimal steep head gradient). -
grid_proximity_class.tif(reclassified values \(1-10\), where \(10\) is closest to the grid). -
conservation_mask.tif(\(0\) inside national parks, \(1\) everywhere else).
-
-
Enter Weighted Expression in Raster Calculator:
Input the equation:
(("flow_accum_class@1" * 0.50) + ("slope_class@1" * 0.30) + ("grid_proximity_class@1" * 0.20)) * "conservation_mask@1"Save output as
hydropower_suitability.tif. -
Identify Candidate Locations:
Style the output with a singleband pseudocolor ramp.
Extract pixels with suitability scores \(> 8.0\) and convert them to vector points representing candidate intake locations.