Land Use Policy 30 (2013) 541–548

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol

Evaluation of reallocation criteria in land consolidation studies using the Analytic

Hierarchy Process (AHP)
Tayfun Cay a , Mevlut Uyan b,∗
a
University of Selcuk, Faculty of Engineering – Architecture, Department of Geomatic Engineering, 42075 Konya, Turkey
b
University of Selcuk, Hadim Vocational School of Higher Education, 42830 Konya, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Land consolidation (LC) can be described as the rearrangement of land areas according to developing
Received 28 July 2010 agricultural technology. Land reallocation is the most important phase of LC. The reallocation process is a
Received in revised form 19 April 2012 legal obligation in Turkey which takes into account landowners’ preferences. First, the planner determines
Accepted 21 April 2012
these preferences at interview. These interviews should be performed very carefully, because they are a
tool for rearranging property rights.
Keywords:
In this study, preferences for reallocation process were determined with the Analytic Hierarchy Pro-
Land consolidation
cess (AHP). The results of an AHP-based land reallocation model were compared with the results of an
Land reallocation
Analytic Hierarchy Process
interview-based land reallocation model, which is the classical model. According to the results, 62.7%
Landowner of the participants were pleased with the interview-based land reallocation model, and 91.5% with the
AHP-based land reallocation model.
© 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction developing agricultural technology (Cay, 2001; Pasakarnis and

Agriculture has been accepted as the foundation for political and
social stability since ancient times. The agricultural sector plays an
important role in the large-scale employment of people. In most
countries, agriculture is still the sector with the greatest respon-
sibility for employment and for supporting society. In Turkey, the
agricultural sector is the primary source of economic activity for
rural areas. For this reason, the agricultural sector is the driving
force behind rural development efforts as well as being an impor-
tant element of national development.
The agricultural sector, although its importance is unchanged,
faces a number of structural and institutional problems. In Turkey,
as in most places in the world, these problems include rapid pop-
ulation growth and changes to heritage laws, resulting in partial
and shared sales, irrigation, road works, and public investments in
agricultural areas.
Land degradation is the biggest barrier to sustainable agriculture
and is a global problem largely related to agricultural use. A primary
method of circumventing this barrier is legislation to prevent more
land parcels being broken up and to ameliorate existing difficulties.
This is known as land consolidation (LC).
LC can be described as rearranging land and taking precau-
tions to ensure more fruitful working of land areas according to
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 332 2232509/2231944; fax: +90 332 2410635.
E-mail address: muyan 42@hotmail.com (M. Uyan).
Maliene, 2010).
LC is generally seen as reallocation of sectioned lands. In fact,
however, LC is related more generally to social and economic
reforms. Therefore, LC in rural areas not only aims at combining
disparate land areas but also at better management of all related
areas such as agricultural, technical, social and cultural areas to
improve standards of land ownership.
LC is also an extremely efficient method for dealing with
environmental protection and environmental problems (Uhling,
1989), establishing ground for urban development (Gonzalez et al.,
2004), fighting erosion in rural areas (Mihara, 1996), developing
rural areas and managing other social and economic problems
(Quadflieg, 1997). LC is an extremely effective device (Sklenicka,
2006) for increasing land process efficiency and supporting rural
development and an essential factor in sustainable agriculture
(Niroula and Thapa, 2007; Blaikie and Sadeque, 2000).
LC projects consist of various steps. Within these steps, land real-
location is the most important and a time-consuming stage of LC
studies since high number of criteria are considered at this stage.
It is crucial for social peace to conduct land reallocation studies in
such way to meet the demands of landowners and also the princi-
ples of equity and justice. The problem encountered in LC projects
can be defined as reallocating “n” number of cadastral parcels to
“m” number of blocks (Cay and Iscan, 2011).
In LC, the reallocation stage is the core of consolidation. This is
a tool which rearranges proprietary rights: unresolved problems
at this stage are the main reason for later objections. Reallo-
cation studies rely on interviews with landowners. Initially, the

0264-8377/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.04.023
542 T. Cay, M. Uyan / Land Use Policy 30 (2013) 541–548

preferences of the landowners must be determined. In this stage,

landowners express three preferences about the blocks of land
which they want to move depending on a number of criteria. In
a multi-criteria evaluation (MCE), choosing the most appropriate
alternative among many is difficult, and some techniques have been
developed for reaching agreement and choosing the most appro-
priate alternative (Can, 2004).
MCE methods were developed in the 1960s to assist with
decision-making. MCE is a concept which has wide usage in many
fields, according to the literature. MCE is a device which enables the
most appropriate choice to be made among a number, all depend-
ing on different criteria. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is
one such multi-criteria decision-making method.
In the literature there are several examples of the use of the AHP
method in the field of LC and agriculture. Thapa and Murayama
(2008) worked on an integrated technique of AHP and the Geo-
graphic Information System (GIS) to evaluate land for peri-urban
agriculture. Soil, land use, water resources, road networks and
markets were identified as major factors affecting peri-urban agri-
culture. The authors applied the AHP method to identify the priority
weighting of each factor and prepared a suitability map.
Yua et al. (2010) applied the AHP method to data from an LC
project in Southern China to allocate weightings to the indexes of
ecological risk and to set up an integrated index system for ecologi-
cal risk identification. Their purpose was to identify and classify the
ecological risks in LC, and to develop a framework for the theory
and method needed to assess the change in terms of ecological risk
before and after LC.
Fig. 1. Geographical position of Alanozu town.
Karami (2006) conducted AHP to select an appropriate irrigation
method. A sample of landowners was separated into four groups
by means of cluster analysis. He determined the priority of three
landowners in the LC area. There were 683 cadastral parcels for
irrigation methods (border, basin and sprinkler) for each group of
these landowners, of which 53 (7.76%) were shared parcels (Fig. 2).
landowners by using AHP. The suitability of the decision of each
The average parcel size per landowner was 2235 m2 . Two hundred
farming group regarding selection of irrigation methods was deter-
and sixty (21%) of the cadastral parcels faced the cadastral road.
mined.
Yin et al. (2011) studied ecological compensation measures and
ecological effect. They applied the AHP to determine index weights. Methodology
Hayashi (2000) applied multicriteria analysis (AHP) to agricul-
tural resource management. His main purpose was to classify and MCE is a device which enables people to make the most appro-
evaluate the criteria used for modelling agricultural systems and to priate choice among many criteria and it is a widely used concept
identify problems for practitioners applying the methodology. (Jankowski, 1995; Wu, 1998; Murphy, 2003; Eastman et al., 1995).
In Turkey, reallocation studies carried out within LC projects AHP is one such multi-criteria decision-making method.
are in accordance with landowners’ preferences with surveys.
The planner first determines the preferences of the landowners
and then tries to prepare a plan to accommodate them. In this
study, the preferences of landowners in the reallocation stage of
LC were determined with the AHP method in the town of Alanozu
in Konya Province, Turkey, and this method can be called as
AHP-based land reallocation model. The results of an AHP-based
land reallocation model were compared with the results of an
interview-based land reallocation model, which was the classical
model.

Materials and methods

Study area

The town of Alanozu in the Guneysinir District of Konya

Province, Turkey, was chosen as a study area. It is situated 18 km
along the in Guneysinir and 98 km along the in Konya (Fig. 1). The
cultivated products are mostly wheat and barley. The project area
is a plain. The agricultural lands in the project area were smaller
than those in many other parts of Turkey. The project area used
for LC in Alanozu was 154 ha; 149 ha of this area were cultivated,
3 ha were meadows, and 2 ha were treasury lands. There were 331 Fig. 2. Cadastral situation of Alanozu town.
 T. Cay, M. Uyan / Land Use Policy 30 (2013) 541–548 543

Table 1 Table 2
AHP evaluation scale. RI table values (Saaty, 1990).

Numerical value of aij Definition n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 Equal importance of i and j RI 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49
3 Moderate importance of i over j
5 Strong importance of i over j
7 Very strong importance of i over j
vector C where ci value shows the relative degree of importance
9 Extreme importance of i over j
2, 4, 6, 8 Intermediate values (weight) of the ith objective.
⎡ a ⎤
⎡ 11 ⎤ 12
a a
in
c1
⎢ ai1 ai2 ain ⎥
⎢c ⎥ ⎢ n + + ... + ⎥
⎢ 2⎥ ⎢ n n ⎥
The AHP, which is used as a decision analysis device (Saaty, ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
1980), is a mathematical method developed by Saaty in 1977 for ⎢ . ⎥ ⎢ ... ... ... ... ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
analysing complex decisions involving many criteria (Kurttila et al., ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ... ... ... ... ⎥
C=⎢ . ⎥=⎢ ⎥ (3)
2000). It is widely used by decision-makers and researchers as an ⎢ . ⎥ ⎢ ... ... ... ... ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
MCE device. ⎢ . ⎥ ⎢ ... ... ... .... ⎥
Pairwise comparison, which is applied within the scope of the ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ . ⎦ ⎢ an1

an2

ann ⎥
AHP technique, provides a comparison of criteria which are used ⎣ ⎦
ai1 ai2 ain
in decision analysis and determines values for each of these cri- cn + + ... +
n n n
teria (Vaidya and Kumar, 2006). In AHP, a matrix is generated as
a result of pairwise comparisons and criteria weights are reached (d) Control the consistency of the weight values (ci ). The proce-
as a result of these calculations. Also, it is possible to determine dure to be followed in order to determine consistency is as follows:
the consistency ratio (CR) of decisions in pairwise comparison. CR First, calculate the A × C matrix (consistency vector).
reveals the random probability of values being obtained in a pair- ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
a11 a12 ... a1n c1 x1
wise comparison matrix (Yılmaz, 1999).
⎢a ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
If n number criteria are determined for comparison, AHP per- ⎢ 21 a22 ... a2n ⎥ ⎢ c2 ⎥ ⎢ x2 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
forms the following process to ascertain the weight of these criteria ⎢ . ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
(Chakraborty and Banik, 2006): A×C =⎢ . ⎥×⎢ . ⎥=⎢ . ⎥ (4)
⎢ . . ⎥ ⎢
⎥ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
(a) Create (n × n) pairwise comparison matrix A for n objectives ⎢ ⎢ . ⎥ ⎢ . ⎥
⎣ . . ⎦ ⎣ . ⎦ ⎣ . ⎦
such as (1).
an1 an2 ... ann cn xn
⎡ ⎤
a11 a12 ... a1n
Second, calculate the xi by multiplying A × C, which is a second,
⎢a ⎥ better, approximation to the eigenvector. We now estimate max
⎢ 21 a22 ... a2n ⎥
⎢ ⎥ using the following formula.
⎢ . ⎥
A=⎢ . ⎥ (1)
1 xi
n
⎢ . . ⎥
⎢ ⎥ max = (5)
⎣ . . ⎦ n ci
i=1
an1 an2 ... ann
where max is the eigenvalue of the pairwise comparison matrix.
Then, calculate an approximation to the consistency index (CI).
where aij indicates how much more important the ith objective
is than the jth objective, while making a suitable material han- max − n
CI = (6)
dling/equipment selection decision. For all i and j, it is necessary n−1
that aii = 1 and aij = 1/aji . The possible assessment values of aij in Finally, to ensure the consistency of the pairwise comparison
the pairwise comparison matrix, along with their corresponding matrix, the consistency judgment must be checked for the appro-
interpretations, are shown in Table 1. priate value of n by CR (Zou and Li, 2008), that is,
(b) Divide each value in column j by the total of the values in col-
CI
umn j. The total of the values in each column of the new Aw matrix CR = (7)
RI
must be one. Thus, a normalized pairwise comparison matrix is
found. where RI is the random consistency index. The RI values for different
numbers of n are shown in Table 2.
⎡ a11 a a ⎤ If CR ≤ 0.10 the degree of consistency is satisfactory. If CR > 0.10
 12 ... in
⎢ ai1 ai2 ain
⎥ there are serious inconsistencies. In this case, the AHP may not yield
⎢ ... ⎥ meaningful results (Chakraborty and Banik, 2006).
⎢ ... ... ... ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ... ... ... ... ⎥
Aw = ⎢ ⎥ (2) Results and discussion
⎢ ... ... ... ... ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ... ... ... .... ⎥ Reallocation stage in the LC studies is made according to
⎣ an1 a a ⎦
 n2 ... nn landowner preferences in Turkey. The planner first determines the
ai1 ai2 ain preferences of the landowners and then tries to prepare a plan
which can fit to them (Avci, 1999).
(c) In the AHP the ci are determined by finding the principal Three preference alternatives were given to the landowners to
eigenvector of the matrix A. Here we used a simplified approach choose the block which will be settled of their parcels after LC.
suitable for hand calculations with a first approximation to the The preferences are determined during the interviews with the
eigenvector by calculating the ci as the average. Calculate ci as the landowners. That gives the landowners a right for designing the
average of the values in row i of Aw matrix to yield the column LC area (Ayranci, 2007).
544 T. Cay, M. Uyan / Land Use Policy 30 (2013) 541–548

The most common preference of the landowners is that their

lands are kept non-exchanged. However, in the projects, at least
one of the parcels of a landowner having two or more parcels is
subjected to an exchange. Therefore it is the best way to maximize
the amount of land non-exchanged (Avci, 1999).
There are some criteria for preferences of landowners, who
choose blocks. For example; if there are some fixed installations
(such as building, well, glasshouse) on a parcel, this parcel is
accepted as important for landowners, landowners is that their
largest parcels are generally kept non-exchanged, or there can pre-
fer place their parcel density. Areas that high degree is preferred
after LC by landowners, too.
According to above information, four parameters were identi-
fied to determine for landowners’ preferences namely the largest
parcel, fixed installation, parcel density and high degree.
With designed AHP software, these criteria have been weighted
and gave a numerical expression. Then, landowners’ 1st preference
is given as the block in which highest weighted criteria takes in Fig. 3. Pairwise comparison calculated by the interface programme according to the
place. Same path is followed for the 2nd and 3rd preferences of the AHP method.

landowner and these preferences are given as the block in which

highest 2nd and 3rd weighted criteria takes in place. importance (Fig. 3). Scores for comparisons according to the values
Designed model is run for each landowner in study area. in Table 1 are as below:
These criteria were defined for this study as follows:
• Equally important: 1
• The largest parcel: the landowner had to choose this criterion if • Moderately important: 3
• Important: 5
s/he wanted her/his new parcel in the place of her/his previously
• Very important: 7
largest parcel.
• Fixed installation: the landowner had to choose this criterion if
s/he wanted her/his new parcel in an area close to an irrigation The pairwise comparison matrixes made by the each landowner
well or static facilities such as buildings. in Fig. 3 were created by the system. To determine the weights
• Parcel density: the landowner had to choose this criterion if s/he of reallocation criteria according to these matrices, priority vector
wanted her/his new parcel close to previous parcels which are in computation was performed by software and the CR values deter-
a high density area. mined to check the consistency of pairwise comparisons. These
• High degree: the landowner had to choose this criterion if s/he values are shown in the Results menu of the interface programme
wanted her/his new parcel in a good position. (Fig. 4).
Criteria weights and CR values of the fifth landowner calculated
by the interface software are shown in Fig. 4. The first preference of
In the classical method (interview-based model), three pref-
the fifth landowner is the biggest parcel of land with a 60% weight
erence alternatives were given to the landowners to choose the
value according to the pairwise comparison. The aim of this study
block which will be settled of their parcels after LC with interviews.
is to determine the location of each landowner in the new blocks
Landowners perform this preferences and order of preferences tak-
(Fig. 5) in the LC project. Fig. 6 shows the place of the biggest parcel
ing into account the properties of a number of previous parcels. In
of the fifth landowner. As this parcel is within 150 numbered block,
this case, it is likely to choose incorrectly. The purpose of this study
the new parcel of the fifth landowner will also be placed within
is prevented incorrect preferences for landowners during the per-
this block. Calculated preference weights of other landowners are
forming of preferences and its order. For this purpose, AHP method
shown in Table 3. For landowners who could not decide for some
was used to determine these preferences for each landowners
reason a decision can be made by considering the average values
taking into account some criteria adopted by landowners with
pairwise comparison. If value of CR > 0.10 for result of pairwise com-
parison. In this case, pairwise comparison is performed again.First,
a pairwise comparison of selected criteria was performed. Pair-
wise comparison begins by comparing the relative importance of
two selected criteria for each landowner such as Fig. 3. The weight
values based on different criteria under study were evaluated by
soliciting the opinion of 144 landowners and these weight values
were calculated separately for each landowner.
We developed a graphical interface programme so that
landowners could make their choices among pairwise compar-
isons and calculation of choice weights by AHP technique. It was
used only approximating the values for the criteria as it was not
used the complete iteration process to derive the eigenvector. For
the development of this software, the C++ programming language,
which is an object-based one, was chosen. The interface programme
developed is shown in Fig. 3.
For the determination of the weights of the criteria, the num-
ber of relevant landowners was entered in input menu form. The
landowner had to place the pairwise comparisons in order of Fig. 4. Preference weights calculated by interface.
 T. Cay, M. Uyan / Land Use Policy 30 (2013) 541–548 545

Table 3
Weights of reallocation criteria calculated by the interface for each landowner.

Landowner no The largest parcel Fixed installation Parcel density High degree Landowner no The largest parcel Fixed installation Parcel density High degree

1 0.665 0.095 0.166 0.073 103 0.254 0.397 0.284 0.065

2 0.603 0.088 0.235 0.074 106 0.582 0.074 0.212 0.133
4 0.191 0.112 0.635 0.062 107 0.399 0.083 0.357 0.161
5 0.363 0.417 0.159 0.062 108 0.538 0.074 0.231 0.157
7 0.561 0.064 0.308 0.067 110 0.162 0.601 0.162 0.075
8 0.279 0.081 0.560 0.081 111 0.603 0.088 0.235 0.074
9 0.300 0.071 0.549 0.080 112 0.594 0.054 0.212 0.140
11 0.300 0.070 0.550 0.081 113 0.539 0.093 0.282 0.086
12 0.700 0.100 0.100 0.100 115 0.551 0.064 0.270 0.115
15 0.249 0.085 0.577 0.090 117 0.589 0.116 0.235 0.061
16 0.249 0.085 0.577 0.090 119 0.582 0.074 0.212 0.133
17 0.249 0.085 0.577 0.090 121 0.560 0.081 0.279 0.081
18 0.625 0.125 0.125 0.125 122 0.361 0.363 0.202 0.075
19 0.625 0.125 0.125 0.125 123 0.436 0.082 0.341 0.141
22 0.594 0.094 0.219 0.094 124 0.417 0.082 0.376 0.125
23 0.313 0.082 0.523 0.082 126 0.551 0.064 0.270 0.115
25 0.539 0.093 0.282 0.086 127 0.390 0.390 0.161 0.059
26 0.560 0.081 0.279 0.081 129 0.450 0.189 0.184 0.177
27 0.561 0.064 0.308 0.067 130 0.272 0.555 0.122 0.051
29 0.560 0.081 0.279 0.081 133 0.560 0.081 0.279 0.081
30 0.575 0.069 0.287 0.069 134 0.539 0.093 0.282 0.086
32 0.665 0.095 0.166 0.073 137 0.623 0.073 0.218 0.086
34 0.561 0.064 0.308 0.067 138 0.594 0.094 0.219 0.094
35 0.625 0.125 0.125 0.125 140 0.660 0.104 0.155 0.081
36 0.300 0.071 0.549 0.080 145 0.587 0.070 0.265 0.079
37 0.560 0.081 0.279 0.081 147 0.660 0.104 0.155 0.081
39 0.700 0.100 0.100 0.100 154 0.608 0.122 0.172 0.099
41 0.674 0.105 0.115 0.105 155 0.613 0.049 0.219 0.119
42 0.594 0.094 0.219 0.094 159 0.272 0.555 0.122 0.051
43 0.700 0.100 0.100 0.100 161 0.594 0.094 0.219 0.094
44 0.582 0.074 0.212 0.133 162 0.669 0.076 0.179 0.076
45 0.629 0.060 0.187 0.124 170 0.665 0.095 0.166 0.073
46 0.594 0.054 0.212 0.140 171 0.603 0.088 0.235 0.074
47 0.237 0.050 0.593 0.120 178 0.603 0.082 0.237 0.078
49 0.629 0.060 0.187 0.124 179 0.551 0.064 0.270 0.115
50 0.594 0.094 0.219 0.094 182 0.562 0.072 0.242 0.123
51 0.560 0.081 0.279 0.081 185 0.184 0.585 0.164 0.066
52 0.665 0.095 0.166 0.073 187 0.608 0.122 0.172 0.099
53 0.561 0.064 0.308 0.067 195 0.212 0.582 0.133 0.074
54 0.561 0.064 0.308 0.067 197 0.594 0.094 0.219 0.094
55 0.561 0.064 0.308 0.067 198 0.603 0.082 0.237 0.078
57 0.582 0.074 0.212 0.133 213 0.669 0.076 0.179 0.076
58 0.560 0.081 0.279 0.081 216 0.644 0.054 0.199 0.104
59 0.629 0.060 0.187 0.124 219 0.560 0.081 0.279 0.081
60 0.700 0.100 0.100 0.100 220 0.579 0.080 0.261 0.080
61 0.700 0.100 0.100 0.100 222 0.700 0.100 0.100 0.100
63 0.674 0.105 0.115 0.105 227 0.541 0.059 0.260 0.140
64 0.561 0.064 0.308 0.067 231 0.179 0.615 0.148 0.057
65 0.594 0.094 0.219 0.094 233 0.651 0.070 0.206 0.073
66 0.700 0.100 0.100 0.100 237 0.551 0.064 0.270 0.115
67 0.263 0.501 0.159 0.077 244 0.263 0.558 0.122 0.057
68 0.603 0.082 0.237 0.078 245 0.263 0.558 0.122 0.057
69 0.616 0.104 0.219 0.061 246 0.220 0.548 0.165 0.068
70 0.669 0.076 0.179 0.076 247 0.220 0.548 0.165 0.068
71 0.630 0.070 0.224 0.075 248 0.539 0.093 0.282 0.086
75 0.589 0.116 0.235 0.061 249 0.594 0.094 0.219 0.094
77 0.570 0.064 0.252 0.114 253 0.575 0.069 0.287 0.069
78 0.587 0.059 0.227 0.127 254 0.575 0.069 0.287 0.069
79 0.613 0.049 0.219 0.119 261 0.539 0.093 0.282 0.086
81 0.313 0.523 0.082 0.082 267 0.594 0.094 0.219 0.094
83 0.539 0.093 0.282 0.086 275 0.642 0.102 0.183 0.074
84 0.560 0.081 0.279 0.081 286 0.575 0.069 0.287 0.069
86 0.594 0.094 0.219 0.094 287 0.523 0.082 0.313 0.082
87 0.594 0.094 0.219 0.094 295 0.642 0.102 0.183 0.074
88 0.674 0.105 0.115 0.105 301 0.560 0.081 0.279 0.081
89 0.669 0.076 0.179 0.076 306 0.270 0.551 0.115 0.064
91 0.641 0.079 0.190 0.089 308 0.560 0.081 0.279 0.081
93 0.605 0.061 0.274 0.061 315 0.560 0.081 0.279 0.081
95 0.587 0.070 0.265 0.079 322 0.315 0.529 0.105 0.051
96 0.608 0.122 0.172 0.099 325 0.295 0.539 0.110 0.056
98 0.623 0.073 0.218 0.086 327 0.539 0.093 0.282 0.086
99 0.325 0.474 0.136 0.065 331 0.660 0.104 0.155 0.081

Average 0.528 0.145 0.239 0.089

546 T. Cay, M. Uyan / Land Use Policy 30 (2013) 541–548
Fig. 5. New block map for Alanozu town.
at the end of Table 3. These values describe the general tendency
of all landowners.
In this study, determined criteria were weighted for each
landowner. According to these values of weight, LC experts deter-
mine to the landowners to choose the block which will be settled
of their parcels after LC as three preference alternatives. In the clas-
sical method, three preference alternatives were chosen for block
which will be settled of their parcels after LC by each landowner.
However, with AHP method, landowner’ preferences was per-
formed according to some criteria and aimed to get more reliable
results. AHP method was used to determine preferences which
are necessary for the reallocation process, not reallocation pro-
cess. Reallocation process was performed with traditional method
taking into consideration the preferences of each landowner.
Landowners are located in blocks by considering the landowner’
preferences both models. Landowner is directed to its first prefer-
ence in the beginning but in some situations, if the conditions are
unable then the second and the third preferences are considered
Fig. 6. The biggest parcel of the fifth landowner and the block where it is located.
Fig. 7. New parcelling plan drawn on the basis of the interview-based land reallo-
cation model.
and reallocation plan is done according to these situations. There
is a lot of repetitions in the re-reallocation process.
Land Consolidation Projects (LCPs) in Turkey are performed
by legal institutions (General Directorate of Land and Agriculture
Reform) operating under legal arrangements. In Turkey, realloca-
tion studies carried out within LC projects are in accordance with
landowners’ preferences (interviews). The planner first determines
the preferences of the landowners and then tries to prepare a plan
to accommodate them. The method by which the land reallocation
is carried out in accordance with the landowners’ preferences dur-
ing the LC is called an ‘interview-based land reallocation model’.
First, parcels are placed in the blocks according to the first pref-
erences of the landowners by looking at the interview forms. The
surpluses and the shortages in the blocks are corrected in the light
of the second and/or third choices of the landowners. Finally, the
parcelling procedure is carried out according to the location of the
landowners in the block. Land reallocation work is completed with
Fig. 8. New parcelling plan drawn on the basis of the AHP-based land reallocation
model.
 T. Cay, M. Uyan / Land Use Policy 30 (2013) 541–548 547

Fig. 9. New parcels belonging to landowners 2, 69 and 190 after the interviews and AHP-based land reallocation model.

this method, which is traditional for LCPs, after two or three repeats. Table 5
Compare results of interview and AHP-based land reallocation models with survey.
This model is based on the human factor of land reallocation, and it
depends on the educational background of people, their attitudes Interview-based model AHP-based model
and the awareness of the LC interviewer (Cay et al., 2010; Cay and
Number of % Number of %
Iscan, 2011). landowner landowner
In this study, landowners’ preferences, which are very important
Nothing pleased 2 3.4 – 0
for the reallocation stage, were ascertained according to the AHP Not pleased 11 18.6 2 3.4
method. The results of the AHP-based land reallocation model were Undecided 9 15.3 3 5.1
compared with the results of the interview-based land reallocation Pleased 22 37.3 26 44.1
model. Very pleased 15 25.4 28 47.4

First in the study area, there were 683 cadastral parcels. The Total 59 100 59 100
number of the parcels after application of the interview-based land
reallocation model decreased to 303, however (Fig. 7). Furthermore,
the number of parcels decreased to 257 after the application of Table 5 shows that 62.7% (37 people) of the interviewed
the AHP-based land reallocation model (Fig. 8). The average num- landowners stated that they were pleased with their land reallo-
ber of parcels per landowner was 2.05 before the LC. This number cation made on the basis of the interview-based land reallocation
became 0.91 in the interview-based model and 0.77 in the AHP- model. This compares with 91.5% (54 people) of the landowners
based model. who expressed that they were pleased with the outcome of the
One of the important purposes of LC is to make the land more AHP-based model. According to the results, AHP-based land reallo-
suitable for agricultural cultivation (Cay et al., 2010). Models were cation model can be more accepted by landowners.
compared in terms of parcel sizes (Table 4).
It is compared locations of new parcels belonging to the 2nd,
69th and 190th landowners after the interview and AHP-based land Conclusion
reallocation models (Fig. 9).
In all comparisons, the AHP-based reallocation model in the LC LC in rural areas not only aims at combining disorganized land
study provides better results than the interview-based land reallo- areas but also at resolving problems in all related areas of agri-
cation model. culture and taking technical, social and cultural precautions to
Surveys were conducted with the landowners in order to obtain improve landowning standards.
their opinions of the land reallocation results. The purpose of the The reallocation phase is the most important stage of LC. The
survey study was to determine which of the two land realloca- reallocation process as a legal remedy in Turkey takes into account
tion models they preferred. It was possible to interview 59 of landowners’ preferences. New land parcels are determined by con-
landowners in Alanozu village. The results obtained from the post- sidering these preferences, but it is difficult for landowners to make
reallocation survey are shown in Table 5. a decision about the new location of their parcels by consider-
ing criteria pertaining to their old parcels. One of the reasons for
objections at the end of the study was because the existing sit-
uation caused error in preference choice. This study recommends
Table 4 the AHP method so that landowners can state their preferences in a
Comparison of parcel sizes. much better context. With this method, certain distribution criteria
Parcel size Square (m2 ) Increase rate (%) are determined (the largest parcel, fixed installation, parcel den-
Cadastre parcel size 2236 –
sity and high degree) and preferences of landowners represented
Parcel size based on the 4789 114 by pairwise comparison. These preferences determine the location
interview-based model of landowners’ new land parcels after LC. Land reallocation was
Parcel size based on AHP-based 5646 153 completed for both an AHP-based model and an interview-based
model
model.
548 T. Cay, M. Uyan / Land Use Policy 30 (2013) 541–548
The results of the AHP-based land reallocation model have been
compared with the results of the interview-based land reallocation
model. The results of this comparison show that landowners pre-
fer the AHP-based land reallocation model to the interview-based
land reallocation model. Although the interview-based reallocation
model is legally recommended, the AHP-based land reallocation
model provided satisfactory results in this study.
In the interview-based land reallocation model landowners are
asked directly where they want their land parcels to be. As this does
not give an opportunity for comparison with the previous parcel,
errors can occur in decision-making. Such errors can be removed
by the AHP method.
In conclusion, land choices in AHP-based LCPs give more satis-
factory results. The average values in Table 3 can also be treated
as a general result for the land choice of landowners who did not
complete the survey.
Acknowledgements
The research is supported by Selcuk University Scientific
Research Projects, Project No. 09101033. In addition, the research
is based on a part of Mevlut UYAN’s Ph.D. Thesis, supervising by
Tayfun CAY.
References
Avci, M., 1999. A new approach oriented to new reallotment model based on
block priority method in land consolidation. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and
Forestry 23, 451–457.
Ayranci, Y., 2007. Re-allocation aspects in land consolidation: a new model and its
application. Journal of Agronomy 6 (2), 270–277.
Blaikie, P.M., Sadeque, A.Z., 2000. Policy in the High Himalayas: Environment and
Development in the Himalayan Region. ICIMOD, Kathmandu.
Can, C.İ., 2004. Çok kriterli karar verme süreci için bir karar destek sistemi
geliştirilmesi ve savunma sanayinde uygulaması. Master Thesis. Hacettepe
Üniversitesi (in Turkish).
Cay, T., 2001. Arazi düzenlemesi ve mevzuatı. Petek Ofset, Konya (in Turkish).
Cay, T., Ayten, T., Iscan, F., 2010. Effects of different land reallocation models on the
success of land consolidation projects: social and economic approaches. Land
Use Policy 27, 262–269.
Cay, T., Iscan, F., 2011. Fuzzy expert system for land reallocation in land consolida-
tion. Expert Systems with Applications 38, 11055–11071.
Chakraborty, S., Banik, D., 2006. Design of a material handling equipment selection
model using analytic hierarchy process. The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology 28, 1237–1245.
Eastman, J.R., Weigen, J., Kyem, P.A.K., Toledano, J., 1995. Raster procedures for multi-
criteria/multi-objective decisions. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote
Sensing 61 (5), 539–547.
Gonzalez, X.P., Alvarez, C.J., Crecente, R., 2004. Evaluation of land distributions with
joint regard to plot size and shape. Agricultural Systems 82, 31–43.
Hayashi, K., 2000. Multicriteria analysis for agricultural resource management:
a critical survey and future perspectives. European Journal of Operational
Research 122 (2), 486–500.
Jankowski, P., 1995. Integrating geographical information systems and multiple
criteria decision-making methods. International Journal of Geographical Infor-
mation Systems 9, 251–273.
Karami, E., 2006. Appropriateness of farmers’ adoption of irrigation methods: the
application of the AHP model. Agricultural Systems 87 (1), 101–119.
Kurttila, M., Pesonen, M., Kangas, J., Kajanus, M., 2000. Utilizing the analytic hierar-
chy process (AHP) in SWOT analysis – a hybrid method and its application to a
forest-certification case. Forest Policy and Economics 1 (1), 41–52.
Mihara, M., 1996. Effect of agricultural land consolidation on erosion processes in
semi-mountainous paddy fields of Japan. Journal of Agricultural Engineering
Research 64, 237–247.
Murphy, S., 2003. Development and assessment of a spatial decision support system
for conservation planning. Ph.D. Thesis. The University of Maine, USA.
Niroula, G.S., Thapa, G.B., 2007. Impact of land fragmentation on input use, crop
yield and production efficiency in the mountains of Nepal. Land Degradation
and Development 18, 237–248.
Pasakarnis, G., Maliene, V., 2010. Towards sustainable rural development in Central
and Eastern Europe: applying land consolidation. Land Use Policy 27, 545–549.
Quadflieg, F., 1997. An economist’s view of the measures introduced to accom-
pany the change in the agrarian structure. Berichte Uber Landwirtschaft 75,
501–514.
Saaty, T.L., 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York, 287 pp.
Saaty, T.L., 1990. How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. European
Journal of Operational Research 48, 9–26.
Sklenicka, P., 2006. Applying evaluation criteria for the land consolidation effect
to three contrasting study areas in the Czech Republic. Land Use Policy 23 (4),
502–510.
Thapa, R.B., Murayama, Y., 2008. Land evaluation for peri-urban agriculture using
analytical hierarchical process and geographic information system techniques:
a case study of Hanoi. Land Use Policy 25, 225–239.
Uhling, J., 1989. Land consolidation agriculture and environmental protection.
Berichte Uber Landwirtschaft 67, 426–456.
Vaidya, O.S., Kumar, S., 2006. Analytic hierarchy process: an overview of applications.
European Journal of Operational Research 169 (1), 1–29.
Wu, F., 1998. SimLand: a prototype to simulate land conversion through the inte-
grated GIS and CA with AHP-derived transition rules. International Journal of
Geographical Information Science 12 (1), 63–82.
Yılmaz, E., 1999. Analitik hiyerarşi süreci kullanarak çok kriterli karar verme prob-
lemlerinin çözümü. T.C. Çevre ve Orman Bakanlığı, Doğu Akdeniz Ormancılık
Araştırma Enstitüsü, DOA Dergisi, Orman Bakanlığı Yayın No. 127, DOA Yayın
No. 16, Mersin, pp. 95–122. ISSN: 1300-8544 (in Turkish).
Yin, S., Wei, C.F., Yang, X.Y., Luo, Y.J., 2011. The ecological compensation of land con-
solidation and its evaluation in hilly areas of Southwest China. Energy Procedia
5, 1192–1199.
Yua, G., Feng, J., Che, Y., Lin, X., Hu, L., Yang, S., 2010. The identification and assessment
of ecological risks for land consolidation based on the anticipation of ecosystem
stabilization: a case study in Hubei Province, China. Land Use Policy 27, 293–303.
Zou, X., Li, D., 2008. A multidisciplinary GIS-based approach for the potential evalu-
ation of land consolidation projects: a model and its application. In: 7th WSEAS
Int. Conf. on Applied Computer and Applied Computational Science, China, pp.
551–556.