IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirb/v27y2000i4p599-614.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Theoretical Framework for Weight-Value Set Construction in Land Suitability Assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Wei-Ning Xiang

    (Department of Geography and Earth Sciences, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC 28223 USA)

Abstract

When using the rating and weighting (RAW) method in land suitability assessment, planners often substitute the theoretical weight-value range [0, 1] with a weight-value set, an ordered set of discrete values reduced from the continuous weight-value range. In constructing such a weight-value set, one needs to decide on how many weight values should be used (size of the value set) and where in the value range they should be placed (the choice of weight values). At present, one must make these decisions and defend their credibility on the basis of “professional judgments†, as a theoretical framework for such purposes is simply not available. Can a theoretical framework be established so that one can make these decisions systematically? If so, is it advantageous to use such a framework, instead of the existing methods, in constructing weight-value sets? In this paper these two issues are explored. I found that the theoretical weight-value range [0, 1] is actually sliced into segments; that in producing land suitability scores, weight-value sets that are constructed from these segments function just as effectively as the weight-value range; and that a five-rule framework comprised of these weight-value sets offers a higher level of efficiency and greater transparency than existing methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Wei-Ning Xiang, 2000. "A Theoretical Framework for Weight-Value Set Construction in Land Suitability Assessment," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 27(4), pages 599-614, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:27:y:2000:i:4:p:599-614
    DOI: 10.1068/b2538
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/b2538
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/b2538?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rowe, Michael D. & Pierce, Barbara L., 1982. "Sensitivity of the weighting summation decision method to incorrect application," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 173-177.
    2. Yaniv, Ilan, 1997. "Weighting and Trimming: Heuristics for Aggregating Judgments under Uncertainty," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 237-249, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hajkowicz, Stefan & Higgins, Andrew, 2008. "A comparison of multiple criteria analysis techniques for water resource management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 184(1), pages 255-265, January.
    2. Alison Wood Brooks & Francesca Gino & Maurice E. Schweitzer, 2015. "Smart People Ask for (My) Advice: Seeking Advice Boosts Perceptions of Competence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(6), pages 1421-1435, June.
    3. Jose, Victor Richmond R. & Winkler, Robert L., 2008. "Simple robust averages of forecasts: Some empirical results," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 163-169.
    4. Jaeseob Lim & Sang-Hun Lee, 2020. "Utility and use of accuracy cues in social learning of crowd preferences," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-25, October.
    5. Philippos Louis & Matías Núñez & Dimitrios Xefteris, 2019. "Trimming Extreme Opinions in Preference Aggregation," University of Cyprus Working Papers in Economics 12-2019, University of Cyprus Department of Economics.
    6. Albert E. Mannes, 2009. "Are We Wise About the Wisdom of Crowds? The Use of Group Judgments in Belief Revision," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(8), pages 1267-1279, August.
    7. Goodwin, Paul & Sinan Gönül, M. & Önkal, Dilek, 2013. "Antecedents and effects of trust in forecasting advice," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 354-366.
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:3:p:265-276 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Hanea, Anca & Wilkinson, David Peter & McBride, Marissa & Lyon, Aidan & van Ravenzwaaij, Don & Singleton Thorn, Felix & Gray, Charles T. & Mandel, David R. & Willcox, Aaron & Gould, Elliot, 2021. "Mathematically aggregating experts' predictions of possible futures," MetaArXiv rxmh7, Center for Open Science.
    10. Hurley, W. J. & Lior, D. U., 2002. "Combining expert judgment: On the performance of trimmed mean vote aggregation procedures in the presence of strategic voting," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 140(1), pages 142-147, July.
    11. Budescu, David V. & Rantilla, Adrian K. & Yu, Hsiu-Ting & Karelitz, Tzur M., 2003. "The effects of asymmetry among advisors on the aggregation of their opinions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 178-194, January.
    12. Tsutomu Harada, 2021. "Three heads are better than two: Comparing learning properties and performances across individuals, dyads, and triads through a computational approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-16, June.
    13. Anil Gaba & Ilia Tsetlin & Robert L. Winkler, 2017. "Combining Interval Forecasts," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 14(1), pages 1-20, March.
    14. Yaniv, Ilan, 2004. "Receiving other people's advice: Influence and benefit," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 93(1), pages 1-13, January.
    15. Ilan Yaniv, 2006. "The Benefit of Additional Opinions," Discussion Paper Series dp422, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    16. Dirk van Straaten & Vitalik Melnikov & Eyke Hüllermeier & Behnud Mir Djawadi & René Fahr, 2021. "Accounting for Heuristics in Reputation Systems: An Interdisciplinary Approach on Aggregation Processes," Working Papers Dissertations 72, Paderborn University, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics.
    17. Lyon, Aidan & Wintle, Bonnie C. & Burgman, Mark, 2015. "Collective wisdom: Methods of confidence interval aggregation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(8), pages 1759-1767.
    18. Ilan Yaniv, 2005. "Receiving Other People's Advice: Influence and Benefit," Discussion Paper Series dp405, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    19. Sah, Sunita & Moore, Don A. & MacCoun, Robert J., 2013. "Cheap talk and credibility: The consequences of confidence and accuracy on advisor credibility and persuasiveness," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 121(2), pages 246-255.
    20. Ilan Yaniv & Shoham Choshen-Hillel & Maxim Milyavsky, 2008. "Spurious Consensus and Opinion Revision: Why Might People Be More Confident in Their Less Accurate Judgments?," Discussion Paper Series dp492, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    21. Soll, Jack B. & Mannes, Albert E., 2011. "Judgmental aggregation strategies depend on whether the self is involved," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 81-102.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envirb:v:27:y:2000:i:4:p:599-614. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.