ABLE FOR 
  
STRUCTURE 
— 
  
ABLE FOR 
MMERCE 
  
  
The AUDA area along with 5 km buffer area is covered in 9 SOI topographic maps at 1:59,000 scale. 
Though the extent of the area is partial m some of the toposheets, a standard registration procedure has been adopted. 
This is done by dividing the entire area into 5' x 5' graticule (Network of latitude and longitudes) grids. On the basis of 
this spatial framework, a tile structure has been followed to capture the data with respect to different themes. 
Integration analysis has been carried out by various UNION, INTERSECT process for combining. slope, soil]and use/ 
land cover and grounwater prospects information. Finally a composite map has been prepared showing the Composite 
Urban Land Development Units (CULDU's). Each CULDU has the characteristics of all the parameters used in the 
integration analysis. A weighted index approach has been followed to identify CULDU's usefulness for construction 
purpose and conservation activities. The details of this method are as under. 
One of the classic problems in decision theory or multi-parameter analysis is the determination cf the relative 
importance (weights) of each parameter with respect to the other. This is a problem which requires human judgment 
supplemented by mathematical tools. As all parameters of the land can not be weighted equal for tie suitability 
assessment, it is essential that a weighted method needs to be employed where the relative importance of the 
parameters defines the weightage. A number of methods are available to deal with such problems. Saaty's analytic 
hierarchy process is a most-widely accepted method for scaling the weights of parameter by constructing a pair-wise 
comparison matrix of parameters whose entries indicate the strength with which one element dominates over another 
vis-a-vis the relative criterion. The pair-wise comparison of parameters results into the "importance matrix" which is 
based on a scale of important intensities and is generated by a group of experts. The Saaty's scale of importance is 
presented in Table-1. 
Table-1 : Saaty's Importance Scale 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Definition Explanation Assigned value 
Parameters of equal importance Two parameters contribute equally to the objective 1 
Parameter ‘I’ is of more importance as Experience and Judgement slightly favour parameter 3 
compared to parameter 'J’ T over 7 
Essential or strong importance of Experience and Judgement strongly favour parameter — 5 
parameter T' as compared to 'J' T over J 
Demonstrated importance Criteria T' is very strongly favoured over 'J' and its 7 
dominance is demonstrated in practice. 
Absolute importance The evidence favouring parameters I” over "JI to the 9 
highest possible order of affirmation. 
Intermediate values between two adjacent | Judgement is not precise enough to assign values of 2,4,6 and 8 
L judgement 3,5,7 and 9 
  
  
The importance matrix for ten parameters was generated based on Saaty's guidelines mentioned in Table-1. 
The importance level has been assigned based on the consensus reached through discussion and also the experience of 
AUDA towards urban planning. The importance of each parameter with respect to the other parameter is determined 
and generated a 10 X 10 matrix. The other elements of the matrix are determined by the reciprocality of the matrix. 
Two types of importance matrices were generated. In the first type, soil and slope parameters were given importance in 
assigning the weightages and in the second type, the importance was given to transportation network along with other 
parameters. The values obtained from the second stage was taken up for finalising the urban land use suitability classes. 
The importance matrix has then been analysed using two methods viz. "Eigen vector" method and "Least square” 
method to arrive at the weightages of each parameter. The matrix analysis was essential to get the weightages for each 
parameter and to. remove human bias in constructing the matrix. However, the weightages derived using the eigen 
vector method are presented Table-2. 
After determining the weightages for the parameters, a rank to each category for all the parameters has been 
assigned. The ranks to the individual categories are assigned in such a way that higher the rank, higher is the suitability 
and lesser are the limitations. Lower is the rank, lower the priority for urbanisation and higher are the limitations for 
development. So, the categories of parameters considered for suitability are studied carefully and arranged in four 
ranges for the assignment of ranks. The ranks assigned for all the categories within the ten parameters are given in 
Table-3. Urban land use suitability indices have been obtained by multiplving weightages with rank numbers of each 
category and by summing up the values of all categories. The entire area is then divided into four categories of 
suitability based upon mean and SD values. The first two suitability classes are suggested for urban development and 
the rest are suggested for conservation under greenbelt. On the basis of four suitability classess, the extent and spatial 
distribution of existing land use pattern, urban sprawl, socio-economic constraints, infrastructural facilities, financial 
allocations etc. the development plan is prepared. 
Intemational Archives of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing. Vol. XXXII, Part 7, Budapest, 1998 
261