Bull Eng Geol Environ (2010) 69:235–245 DOI 10.1007/s10064-009-0247-5
ORIGINAL PAPER
Preparation of land use planning model using GIS based on AHP: case study Adana-Turkey Sule Tudes • Nazan Duygu Yigiter
Received: 5 January 2009 / Accepted: 20 July 2009 / Published online: 9 October 2009 Ó Springer-Verlag 2009
Abstract An environmental and earthquake sensitive planning approach requires a suitability evaluation based upon geo-environmental analysis before the planning phase. In land use evaluation analysis the local data from different disciplines must be synthesized as the priority and importance of the geo environmental criteria change according to the use of the site. Geographical information systems (GIS) using multiple criteria methods allow the determination of priorities and the importance of local/nonlocal data for the most efficient use of land. In this study six land use categories of Adana, one of the most earthquake prone provinces of Turkey, were determined by the use of an analytical hierarchical process (AHP) and GSI. These are high rise blocks, multi storey buildings, low storey buildings, industrial sites, waste disposal sites and green land. Keywords Geo environment Suitability evaluation Land use planning GIS AHP
Re´sume´ Une approche de planification sensible a` l’environement et au tremblement de terre, necessite une e´valuation de la conformite´ qui de´pend sur l’e´valuation ge´oenvironnementale avant sa planification. Il faut faire une synte`se des donne´es proce´dant de differentes disciplines pour les analyses de l’e´valuation de la conformite´. Dans ces analyses, la pesanteur et la priorite´ des crite`res geoenvironnementaux de´pend sur la manie`re d’utilisation de la terre. Syste`me d’information ge´ographique (SIG) permet de´terminer la pesanteur et la priorite´ des crite`res geoenvironnementaux, en faisant la synte`se et l’ analyse des donne´es locationales et non-locationales au choix de meilleure manie`re d’utilisation de la terre. Dans ce context, a` Adana, une des ville les plus dangereuses de la Turquie au regard du tremblement de terre, les cate´gories d’utilisation des sols de la ville ont e´te´ de´termine´es en utilisant SIG a` traver de la me´thode de processus analytique hie´rarchique (PAH). Selon cela, l’utilisation de terre de la ville a e´te´ cate´gorise´e dans six classes; les baˆtiments hauts, les baˆtiments moyens, les batiments bas, les zones industrielles, les zones de stockage des de´chets et les espaces verts. Mots cle´s Ge´oenvironnement E´valuation de la conformite´ Ame´nagement du territoire SIG PAH
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10064-009-0247-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. S. Tudes (&) Gazi Universitesi, Muhendislik Mimarlik Fakultesi, Sehir ve Bo¨lge Planlama Bolumu, 06570 Maltepe, Ankara, Turkey e-mail:
[email protected] N. D. Yigiter Haymana Yolu 12. km, 06830 Golbasi, Ankara, Turkey e-mail:
[email protected]
Introduction The rapid increase in population in Turkey, coupled with the migration from rural to urban areas, has meant that the creation of new settlement sites in cities has become an urgent necessity. However, it is important that the selection of such sites is based on geo-environmental criteria, i.e. taking into account both a sustainable environment and
123
236
S. Tudes, N. D. Yigiter
disaster sensitive planning. For the former, urban land-use planning should include an evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of one use of land parcels as compared to another, in order to achieve the most beneficial use of the land and conserve natural resources (Dai et al. 2001). In Turkey the latter involves an assessment of such hazards as earthquakes, landslides, floods, contamination of the ground waters, liquefaction, slope stability etc. These risks are aggravated when human activity does not take into account the morphological, geological, tectonic and hydro geological features of a site. This paper considers the various assessment and decision-making processes in order to establish a planning model based on geo environmental criteria using a GIS based multi criteria AHP analysis method. Adana, on the Seyhan River delta, was chosen as the study site. The 140 km2 city is the 5th biggest metropolis in Turkey and is currently undergoing rapid expansion. Data on topography, geology, the type of agricultural land and earthquake susceptibility were compiled and a multicriteria analysis carried out in order to create an urban suitability map which will assist planners in identifying areas for the development of high or low rise buildings, industrial complexes and waste disposal sites. Study area
Fig. 1 Geographical location map
Adana province is in the eastern Mediterranean region of Turkey, at 35°–38°N, 34°–36°E (Fig. 1). With a population of 1,530,257 (TUIK 2004), the shortage of housing is acute. On the southern side of the River Seyhan, the old traditional housing remains, while most of the newer development has taken place in the north. Here high rise buildings were constructed in an attempt to meet the high demand, but building density and inadequate infrastructure have adversely affected social and cultural norms and ‘‘shanty towns’’ have grown up, not only in the central areas but extending northwards towards the countryside. The urbanization ratio of the city is 75.58% which is higher than the corresponding ratios for the Mediterranean region (64.90%) and the whole country (59.78%). The geology of the area is discussed by Yetis¸ et al. (1991), Tekeli et al. (1984). The main formations are the Handere Clay, found along the southern coast of the Seyhan Dam Lake; terrace deposits; hard and soft caliche (C¸obanog˘lu 2005) and alluvium, on which most of the original city was built. The topography is relatively flat and Adana is one of the most productive agricultural areas in the region. However, the quality of the soil decreases northwards as the land rises to the Mid Taurus Mountains in the north. Adana is an area of active seismicity; the most recent earthquake in June 1998 had a magnitude of 5.9 (Richter
scale) and due to both the poor construction and inappropriate land use there was heavy damage (Bayu¨lke 2008). Based on the criteria in Ozmen et al. 1997), the city falls into the 2nd and 3rd of their four categories of earthquake risk in Turkey. The Seyhan Dam was built to protect the city from floods, hence although the Turkish Land and Water works (DSI) report part of the area as ‘‘risky’’, this hazard is not addressed in the present study.
123
Methodology and procedures The geo-environmental properties of the site were determined by the use of geological, hydrogeological, morphological, engineering and environmental data obtained from the studies carried out in the region by governmental organizations (Disaster Work Office, Mineral Exploration and Research Institute and State Water Works), Adana Municipality, and various workers (Ulusay and Kuru ¨ lker et al. 1998; 2004; Ulusay et al. 2005; Metin 1984; U ˘ C¸obanoglu 2005). The data were digitalized using ArcInfo_ GIS and transferred to Arc Wiew_GIS. The processing and the evaluation of the data were carried out with remote sensing techniques using the Erdas Imagine 8.7 program to land use map and the multi-criteria
Land use planning model using GIS based on AHP
237
Fig. 2 Flow chart of the land use planning using AHP with GIS based geo-environmental criteria
analysis was undertaken using AHP (analytical hierarchical process). A flow chart of the land use planning using AHP with GIS-based geo-environmental criteria is given in Fig. 2. Evaluation and processing of the data Multi-criteria analysis (MCA) techniques are well known decision-support tools for dealing with complex decision constellations where technological, economical, ecological and social aspects have to be covered to optimize land use planning (Marinoni 2004). These techniques have therefore been repeatedly combined with GIS to provide a powerful visual decision-support for rational land use mapping. The 1/25,000 scale topographical maps were digitally provided by the Maps General Directorate. The slope and elevation maps were obtained as digital contours and developed by the use of DEM. Geological maps were obtained from the Mineral Exploration and Research
Institute, Disaster Works General Directorate and C ¸ obanog˘lu’s (2005) data revised by GIS. The agricultural land class maps were digitalized from the Ministry of Agricultural and Village Works data. The earthquake hazard microzonation map was digitalized from iso resistivity, iso slide rate, iso SPT N values, iso base amplification and iso base vibration period maps developed by Cobanog˘lu (2005) for Adana province and superimposed by the use of GIS to produce a new thematic map (Fig. 3). The ground water levels which were used as an input for the analyses were obtained from the ground water iso-depth map developed by C¸obanog˘lu et al. (2006). The land use map provided by Adana municipality was revised based on site studies and GIS satellite data (Fig. 4). These vector base maps were transferred to desktop ArcView 9.1 GIS and rasterised for sequential analyses. The raster grid cell was defined as 20 9 20 m2 which allowed the mapping of small geo-morphological properties and detailed slope units.
123
238
S. Tudes, N. D. Yigiter
Fig. 3 Earthquake hazard map of the city
Land use categories of the city Urban land-use evaluation aims at providing a scientific basis for urban land-use planning and re-development as well as site selection for engineering works based on the actual geo-environmental characteristics, so as to achieve maximum socio-economic benefits at a minimum environmental cost (Shi 1993; Dai et al. 2001). Various researchers have classified land use categories based on geological risks, environmental conditions and macro formations of the cities they studied. For instance Zhang et al. (2006) classified the land use of Kin-Nanjing city, China into four categories—industrial, commercial and domestic, waste disposal and landscaping. Dai et al. (2001) categorized the land use of Lanzhou City, China, into high-rise buildings (residential buildings with C10 floors or commercial/institutional building [24 m high), multi-storey buildings, low-rise buildings, waste disposal and natural conservation areas. In this study, Adana city was classified into six categories: high rise blocks with C7 floors, multi storey buildings with 4–7 floors, low storey buildings with 1–3 floors, industrial sites, waste disposal sites and green land.
123
AHP multi criteria decision making analysis method and GIS evaluation Analytical hierarchical process (AHP) was first developed by Thomas Saaty (1977) and has been modified by various workers (e.g. Dai et al. 2001; Arau´jo and Macedo 2002; Saaty 1990; Marinoni 2005). It is sufficiently flexible to deal with both qualitative (intangible) and quantitative (tangible) factors in a multi criteria evaluation problem (Banai-Kashani 1989). Furthermore, AHP provides a methodological framework within which the inconsistency in judging the relative importance of factors in a site suitability analysis can be both detected and corrected (Banai-Kashani 1989). The technique has been employed to assist decision-making in such projects as the RastAnzali railway in Iran (Darvishsefan et al. 2004), the planning of water resources in Irsal (Lebenon) (Jabr and El-Awar 2004), the preparation of a geotechnical microzonation model in Eskisehir (Turkey) (Kolat et al. 2006), the use of geo-resources in Frankfurt (Germany) (Marinoni et al. 2005), the housing site suitability assessment in Sana’a City (Yemen) (Al-Shalabi et al. 2006) and the land use planning in Lanzhou City (China) (Dai et al. 2001).
Land use planning model using GIS based on AHP
239
Fig. 4 Land use map
Table 1 Geo environmental criteria affecting the urban land use evaluations
B base importance, S secondary importance, L low importance, N no importance
Land use categories High rising Medium storey Low storey Industrial Waste Open blocks (7?) buildings (4–7) buildings (1–3) sites disposal green sites land Slope
B
B
S
B
B
S
Elevation
B
B
L
B
B
S
Depth of the ground waters B
B
S
B
B
S
Earthquake risk
B
B
S
B
B
L
Surface geology
S
S
B
B
B
N
Bearing power (SPT N)
B
B
L
S
L
N
Agricultural land quality
B
B
B
B
B
L
Land use
B
B
B
B
B
B
Table 1 shows the geo environmental criteria used and their relative importance (base, secondary, low and no). Urban land use was divided into six categories: high rise blocks, multi storey buildings, low storey buildings, industrial sites, waste disposal sites and green land, based upon geo environmental criteria.
For the Slope category, both stability and the additional costs of construction were considered. In land where the slope is less than 1%, drainage and sub-structure problems may occur, while erosion may be a problem where the slope is higher than 50%. For roadways, the maximum slope should be c. 10%. For industrial sites, the angle should preferably be 2–3% and should not exceed 6% (Aydemir et al. 1999).
123
240
S. Tudes, N. D. Yigiter
Table 2 Standardized potential ratios (grades) Grading 0
1
2
3
4
Slope C1 HRB
[12
8–12
5–8
2–5
\2
MSB
[15
12–15
8–12
5–8
\5
LSB
[20
15–20
10–15
5–10
\5
WDS
[12
8–12
5–8
2–5
\2
IS
[6, \2
5–6
4–5
3–4
2–3
5–10
10–15
15–20
[20
GL \5 Elevation C2 HRB
[120
90–120
60–90
30–60
0–30
MSB
[150
120–150
90–120
60–90
0–60
LSB
[150
120–150
90–120
60–90
0–60
WDS
[180
150–180
120–150
90–120
0–90
IS
[150
120–150
90–120
60–90
0–60
GL
[150
120–150
90–120
60–90
0–60
Surface geology C3 HRB
–
Alluvium
Handere
Kalis¸
Terrace
MSB
–
Alluvium
Handere
Kalis¸
Terrace
LSB
–
Alluvium
Handere
Kalis¸
Terrace
WDS
Alluvium
Terrace
Kalis¸
–
Handere
IS
Alluvium
Terrace
Kalis¸
–
Handere
Ground water depth C4 HRB MSB
\10 \5
10–16 5–10
16–22 10–16
22–27 16–22
[27 [22
LSB
\5
5–8
8–13
13–19
[19
WDS
\16
16–19
19–22
22–27
[27
IS
\16
16–19
19–22
22–27
[27
AYA
[22
16–22
10–16
5–10
\5
10–40
40–60
60–80
[80
Bearing capacity C5 HRB
\10
MSB
\10
10–40
40–60
60–80
[80
LSB
\5
5–30
30–50
50–70
[70
IS
\5
5–30
30–50
50–70
[70
Agricultural land quality C6 HRB
1 class
2 class
3–4 class
5–6 class
7–8 class
MSB
1 class
2 class
3–4 class
5–6 class
7–8 class
LSB
1 class
2 class
3–4 class
5–6 class
7–8 class
WDS
1 class
2 class
3–4 class
5–6 class
7–8 class
IS 1 class Land use C7
2 class
3–4 class
5–6 class
7–8 class
HRB
Very high density settlement area, Industry and trade
Scarcely located trees
Medium density settlement area, rural settlement
Low density settlement area
Inner and outer city open areas
MSB
Very high density settlement area, Industry and trade
Scarcely located trees
Medium density settlement area, rural settlement
Low density settlement area
Inner and outer city open areas
123
Land use planning model using GIS based on AHP
241
Table 2 continued Grading 0
1
2
3
4
LSB
Very high density settlement area, Industry and trade
Scarcely located trees
Medium density settlement area, rural settlement
Low density settlement area
Inner and outer city open areas
WDS
Very high density settlement area, Industry and trade
Scarcely located trees
Medium density settlement area, rural settlement
Low density settlement area
Inner and outer city open areas
IS
Very high density settlement area, Industry and trade
Scarcely located trees
Medium density settlement area, rural settlement
Low density settlement area
Inner and outer city open areas
GL
Very high density settlement area, Industry and trade
Medium density settlement area, rural settlement
Inner city open areas, low density settlement area
Outer city open areas with scarcely located trees
Forest land
Earthquake hazard C8 HRB MSB
Very high hazard Very high hazard
High hazard High hazard
Medium hazard Medium hazard
Low hazard Low hazard
Very low hazard Very low hazard
LSB
Very high hazard
High hazard
Medium hazard
Low hazard
Very low hazard
WDS
Very high hazard
High hazard
Medium hazard
Low hazard
Very low hazard
IS
Very high hazard
High hazard
Medium hazard
Low hazard
Very low hazard
GL
Very high hazard
High hazard
Medium hazard
Low hazard
Very low hazard
5–7
7–9
[9
7–9
9–11
[11
Distance from the nearest settlement (km) C9 WDS
\3
3–5
Distance from the nearest airport (km) C10 WDS
\5
5–7
HRB high rising blocks, MSB medium storey buildings, LSB low storey buildings, IS industrial sites, GL green land, WDS waste disposal sites
Table 3 Pairwise comparison matrix for the land use and the relative weights of criteria Category
Geo environmental criteria
C1
High rising Blocks
Slope C1
1
Elevation C2
1/3
1
Surface geology C3
1/9
3
1
Ground water depth C4
1/6
2
1/2
1
Bearing power (SPT N for h = 10 m) C5
1/5
2
1/2
1
1
Agricultural land quality C6
1/7
2
1
1
1
1
Land use C7
1/7
2
1
1
1
1
1
Earthquake hazard C8
1/4
1
1
1/2
1
1
1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
Weight 0.4344 0.0578 0.1062 0.0880 0.0792 0.0804 0.0804
1
0.0736
Consistency ratio: 0.046454 Multi storey buildings
Slope C1
1
Elevation C2 Surface geology C3
1/3 1/6
1 1/2
1
Ground water depth C4
1/7
1/7
1/2
1
Bearing power (SPT N for h = 10 m) C5
1/6
1/2
1
3
1
Agricultural land quality C6
1
2
3
5
3
1
Land use C7
1/2
2
3
5
3
1
1
Earthquake hazard C8
1/6
1/2
1
2
1
1/3
1/3
0.4344 0.0578 0.1062 0.0880 0.0792 0.0804 0.0804 1
0.0736
Consistency ratio: 0.046454
123
242
S. Tudes, N. D. Yigiter
Table 3 continued C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
Category
Geo environmental criteria
C1
Low storey building
Slope C1
1
Elevation C2
1/3
1
Surface geology C3
1/9
1/3
1
Ground water depth C4
1/7
1/2
2
1
Bearing power (SPT N for h = 7.5 m) C5
1/5
1/2
1/2
2
1
Agricultural land quality C6
1/2
2
3
4
2
1
Land use C7
1/3
1
3
3
2
1
1
Earthquake hazard C8
1/3
1
3
2
2
1/2
1
C8
C9
C10
Weight 0.3345 0.1085 0.0485 0.0494 0.0616 0.1644 0.1246
1
0.1085
Consistency ratio: 0.025586 Industrial sites
Slope C1
1
Elevation C2
1/3
1
Surface geology C3
1/9
1/3
1
Ground water depth C4 Bearing power (SPT N for h = 7.5 m) C5
1/7 1/5
1/2 1/2
2 1/2
1 2
1
Agricultural land quality C6
1/2
2
3
4
2
1
Land use C7
1/3
1
3
3
2
1
1
Earthquake hazard C8
1/3
1
3
2
2
1/2
1
0.3345 0.1085 0.0485 0.0494 0.0616 0.1644 0.1246 1
0.1085
Consistency ratio: 0.025586 Waste disposal sites
Green land
Slope C1
1
Elevation C2
1/3
1
Surface geology C3
1
3
1
Ground water depth C4
1
3
1
1
Agricultural land quality C6
1
5
1
1
1
Land use C7
1
1/2
1/3
1/3
1
1
Earthquake hazard C8
1/5
1/3
1/5
1/5
1/5
1/5
1
Distance to the nearest settlement C9
1/5
1/3
1/5
1/5
1/5
1/3
1/5
1
Distance to the nearest airport C10
1/5
1/3
1/5
1/5
1/9
1/5
1/5
1
Consistency ratio: 0.07521 Slope C1
1
Elevation C2
1/3
1
Ground water depth C4
1/9
1/3
1
Land use C7
1/2
1
4
1
Earthquake hazard C8
1
3
7
2
0.1601 0.0797 0.1791 0.1791 0.1849 0.1082 0.0551 0.0284 1
0.0254 0.3526 0.1277 0.0420 0.1417
1
0.3360
Consistency ratio: 0.041427
Depth to ground water was taken into account, bearing in mind both the prevention of contamination and the implications for building foundations (Table 2). In order to preserve the agricultural land, areas previously categorised as 1st class were given zero points as regards settlement and the highest grades for recreational or open land use. Table 3 gives the eight geo-environmental criteria used to assess the suitability of the land for low storey buildings. In view of the geology, the construction of low storey buildings which do not require deep excavations was considered important. For the waste disposal category the critical concerns were the long-term geomorphic stability of the area to avoid
123
the failure of retaining structures and the protection of both surface and groundwater quality (Rockaway and Smith 1994; Dai et al. 2001). In addition, legislative control of medical waste stipulates that the distance between the final disposal area and the nearest airport and nearest settlement cannot be less than 5,000 and 3,000 m respectively (Tıbbi Atıkların Kontrolu¨ Yo¨netmelig˘i 1983). The nine criteria used for this land use category are given in Table 3. The use of green land was evaluated using five criteria (Table 3). The priorities of the criteria here were in the opposite direction to those employed for construction areas. The Seyhan Dam Lake and absolute protection areas for the Seyhan River were separated by buffer analysis and excluded from green recreational areas. In general, sites
Land use planning model using GIS based on AHP
243
Fig. 5 Simple AHP hierarchy for suitability analysis
Fig. 6 Suitability potential for high rise blocks
123
244
S. Tudes, N. D. Yigiter
Fig. 7 Suitability potential for industrial sites
with relatively high agricultural potential, low bearing capacity and/or high earthquake hazard areas were regarded suitable for the establishment of green recreational areas. Although it was possible to determine numerical values for slope, elevation, YASS, earthquake susceptibility and ground bearing capacity, it was more difficult to evaluate the nature of the agricultural land, surface geology and the current land use were necessarily more subjective. This ‘‘creative’’ part of decision has a significant effect on the outcome of the model. In the AHP, a problem is structured as a hierarchy. Prioritization involves eliciting judgments in response to questions about the dominance of one element over another with respect to property (Saaty 1994). The first step in AHP is to make a graphical presentation of the general aim, criteria and decision alternatives (Fig. 5). The first level of the hierarchy is the selection of the most suitable land use. In the second level each geo-environmental criterion is considered. The third level involves the evaluation of decision alternatives (land selection suitability for each land use) according to each criterion (Fig. 5). In this study, the judgment related to the influence of each geo-environmental criterion on each land use category was made by consulting experts. In the first stage the
123
criteria were coupled for pair-wise comparison and the one which had the higher priority for the land use was selected. In AHP the relative selection of two different criteria is by the use of a 1–9 scale developed by Saaty (2008). A pairwise comparison matrix was then developed and the importance of each criterion computed. The procedure used for this synthesis requires Eigen value and Eigenvector calculations (Table 3). The level of consistency was then measured using the following ratio: CR ¼ CI=RI where RI is the random index and corresponds to the mean consistency index of pair-wise comparisons matrix. CI is the consistency index calculated by the formula CI = (kmax - n)/n - 1 where n is the number of elements compared and kmax is the maximum Eigen value. The relative weights were computed for each of the land use categories (Table 3) These weights were inserted into ArcWiew 9.1 for GIS analysis. The multiplication of the weights and previously standardized grades gave the ranks. The superimposition and summation of these ranks for each cell gave a thematic map for each land use category
Land use planning model using GIS based on AHP
(Figs. 6, 7; see also Figs. 8, 9, 10, 11 as electronic supplementary materials). The rates (grades) were standardized 0–4. There were five equal integral classifications used between the minimum and maximum cell values computed for each suitability map. X S¼ Wi X i where S = suitability; Wi = Weight of criterion I; Xi = Potential rate of criterion I Conclusions The study has demonstrated the use of AHP and GIS to determine the suitability of the land in the city of Adana for various uses based on geo-environmental criteria. However, it is appreciated each land use category must be evaluated with regards to other urban criteria; e.g. the suitability of an area for industrial use must take account of such factors as transportation and energy as well as geoenvironmental criteria. Factors which affect the planning process can be considered under five headings: natural factors, artificial factors, economical factors, legal factors, political factors and technological factors (Aydemir et al. 1999). Nevertheless, the study has demonstrated the advantages of using AHP in the analysis and solution of such complicated decisions and can provide helpful guidance for land use planning.
References Al-Shalabi MA, Mansor SB, Ahmed NB, Shiriff R (2006) GIS based multicriteria approaches to housing site suitability assessment. Shaping the change, XXIII FIG congress, Munich, Germany, October 8–13 Arau´jo CC, Macedo AB (2002) Multicriteria geologic data analysis for mineral favorability mapping: application to a metal sulphide mineralized area, Ribeira Valley Metallogenic Province, Brazil. Nat Resour Res 11(1):29–43 ¨ kten N, O ¨ ksu¨z AM, Sancar C, O ¨ zyaba M Aydemir S¸ , Aydemir SE, O ¨_ (1999) Kentsel alanların planlanması ve tasarımı, KTU Mimarlık Faku¨ltesi., Ders notları, No: 54, Trabzon Banai-Kashani R (1989) A new method for site suitability analysis: the analytic hierarchy process. Environ Manag 13(6):685–693 Bayu¨lke N (2008) 27 Haziran 1998 Adana Ceyhan Depreminde Yapısal Hasar. http://www.deprem.gov.tr/deprem.htm _ ve Yakın C¸evresinin Jeoteknik C¸obanog˘lu I_ (2005) ‘‘Adana Ili _ ¸ in Cog˘rafi Bilgi Kos¸ ullarının Statik ve Sismik Durumlar Ic _ Deg˘erlendirilmesi’’, Doktora Tezi, C¸ukurova Sistemleri Ile ¨ niversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitu¨su¨. Adana 40–47:320–350 U C¸obanog˘lu I, Bozdag˘ S¸ , Kumsar H, C¸obanog˘lu D (2006) Cog˘rafi bilgi sistemi kullanılarak Adana ili yerles¸ im alanının hidrojeolojik o¨zellikleri ve su kalitesinin deg˘erlendirilmesi, Bilgi Teknolojileri Kongresi IV Akademik Bilis¸ im 2006 Dai FC, Lee CF, Zhang XH (2001) GIS based geo-environmental evaluation for urban land-use planning: a case study. Eng Geol 61:257–271
245 Darvishsefan AA, Setoodeh A, Makhdom M (2004) Environmental consideration in railway route selection with GIS (case study: _ Rasht-Anzali railway in Iran), Map Asia 2004, Beijing, China Jabr WM, El-Awar FA (2004) GIS and analytic hierarchy process (AHP) for siting water harvesting. ESRI proceedings. http://gis. esri.com/library/userconf/proc04/docs/pap1539.pdf Kolat C¸, Doyuran V, Ayday C, Su¨zen ML (2006) Preparation of a geotechnical microzonation model using geographical information systems based on multicriteria decision analysis. Eng Geol 87:241–255 Marinoni O (2004) Implementation of the analytical hierarchy process with VBA in ArcGIS. Comput Geosci 30:637–646 Marinoni O (2005) A discussion on the computational limitations of outranking methods for land-use suitability assessment. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 20(1):69–87 Marinoni O, Lang S, Lerch C, Hoppe A (2005) Sustainable land-use decision making from the geological point of view: an example for the use of geo-resources in a metropolitan area., ISAHP 2005, Honolulu, Hawaii, July 8–10 ¨ lc¸ekli Ac¸ınsama Nitelikli Tu¨rkiye Metin S (1984) ‘‘1/100 000 O Jeoloji Haritaları: Elbistan J 19 Paftası’’, MTA Jeoloji Etu¨tleri Dairesi, Ankara, 5–7 Ozmen B, Nurlu M, Guler H (1997) CBS ile deprem bolgelerinin _ ¸ leri incelenmesi’ Bayindirlik 577 ve Iskan Bakanligi, Afet Is Genel Mu¨du¨rlu¨g˘u¨, Ankara Saaty TL (1977) A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J Math Psychol 15:234–281 Saaty TL (1990) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 48(3):9–26 Saaty TL (1994) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Interfaces 24:19–43 Saaty TL (2008) Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Serv Sci 1:1 Shi YW (1993) Urban land use suitability assessment: a case study of Anshan City, China. Chin J Land Sci Chin Soc Land Sci 7(5):28–32 Rockaway JD, Smith RJ (1994) Geomorphic assessment for a waste disposal facilitiy. In: Proceeding of the seventh international IAEG congress. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 2393–2402 ¨ lc¸ekli Ac¸ınsama ¨ rgu¨n BM, Yetis¸ C (1984) 1/100,000 O Tekeli O, U Nitelikli Tu¨rkiye Jeoloji Haritaları: Kozan J 20 Paftası, MTA Jeoloji Etu¨tleri Dairesi, Ankara, pp 10–17 Tıbbi Atıkların Kontrolu¨ Yo¨netmelig˘i (1983) http://www.cevreorman. gov.tr/yasa/yonetmelik.asp. alındıg˘ı tarih: 7 Aug 2008 _ 2000 Yılı Nu¨fus Sayım Sonuc¸ları’’, TUIK, _ TUIK (2004) ‘‘Adana Ili Ankara, 21–25. Research 48:9–26 ¨ lker R, Celep Z, Hos¸ go¨r Z, Eyidog˘an H, Erken A, Kaypak B (1998) U _ ¨ O ¨ ngo¨ru¨s¸ u¨, ITU _ ¨, Istan_ Adana-Ceyhan Depremi Hakkında ITU bul, pp 16–18 Ulusay R, Kuru T (2004) 1998 Adana-Ceyhan (Turkey) earthquake and a preliminary microzonation based on liquefaction potential for Ceyhan Town. Nat Hazards 32:59–88 Ulusay R, Kuru T, Isik NS (2005) Engineering geological aspects of the Adana-Ceyhan earthquake of Turkey with prime consideration on ground behavior at Ceyhan Town. Proceedings of the IAEG sponsored international symposium on latest natural disasters—new challenges for engineering geology, geotechnics and civil protection, 5–8 September, Sofia, Bulgaria (on CD) ¨ nlu¨genc¸ UC (1991) 1/100,000 Yetis¸ C, Demirkol C, Lagap H, U ¨ lc¸ekli Ac¸ınsama Nitelikli Tu¨rkiye Jeoloji Haritaları: Kozan K O 20 Paftası, MTA Jeoloji Etu¨tleri Dairesi, Ankara, pp 10–17 Zhang F, Yang Q, Jia X, Liu J, Wang B (2006) Land-use optimization by geological hazard assessment in Nanjing City, China, IAEG 2006, paper number 324, Natthingam
123
