SUMMARY
This paper presents theoretical and practical issues of decision-making strategies which are currently available in geographic information systems, including comparisons.
The first part, the theoretical part, deals with the main issues about the decision-making process and the associated terminology. As multi-criteria evaluations of decision-making strategies, Boolean Intersect, Weighted Linear Combination (WLC) and Ordered Weighted Average were chosen and described. These methods are characterised according to standardised techniques and weighting methods of factors and ordered weights. For multi-objective evaluation, Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique were chosen and evaluated according to the principles of decision-making, used algorithms and the area of efficient deployment. All techniques are listed with the implementation rate in GIS. The evaluated strategies are corresponding to the provided and comparable methods from the state of the art GIS software. ArcGIS provides Boolean Intersect, WLC and AHP. A complex tool for knowledge-based decision support of ecological assessments Ecosystem Management Decision Support (EMDS) is also included. The IDRISI software offers Boolean Intersect, WLC, OWA and Multi-Objective Evaluation. Criterium DecisionPlus includes AHP and SMART.
The second part is built upon the knowledge introduced in the first part and uses it to create case studies. The first two studies compare Boolean Intersect and WLC in ArcGIS and IDRISI with the example of a potential threat in the protected area CHKO Litovelské Pomoraví. As a result, the Boolean method brings up identical results in both programs. The results of WLC were slightly different in both programs, but the extremes were equal. These differences were caused by the fact that values in ArcGIS are not rounded the classical way. The third case study compares WLC and OWA in IDRISI. The main differences between these methods are explained and the solutions shows OWA with different levels of risk and trade-offs factors. The fourth case study compares AHP and SMART in CDP. The result of this case study was identifications of the same locations as appropriate for the task. There were calculated the weights with both techniques. These weights are suitable for the next step of processing in GIS. The fifth and final case study uses previous knowledge about decision-making methods and identifies the optimal locations for the construction of bio-houses. The spatial distribution of these locations is shown on a final map.
The result shows decision-making strategies from different point of views. On the bases of knowledge about them, case studies were created which demonstrate various decision-making techniques in different software and the differences between them. The case studies show the purpose and practical use of the different strategies.