Siting military base camps through an MCDA framework
Article Category: Original study
Publié en ligne: 07 nov. 2021
Pages: 10 - 21
Reçu: 01 févr. 2018
Accepté: 10 juil. 2021
© 2021 Jeffrey C. Cegan et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Fig. 1
MCDA factor distribution by alternative site. MCDA, multicriteria decision analysis.Fig. 2
Colour-coded ranking of alternative sites within an AoI. AoI, area of interest.Average ranking and importance order comparison and calculated weighting
Criteria |
Calculated weight (%) |
Roads |
12.6 |
Threat/enemy |
12.0 |
Slope |
11.7 |
Soils |
11.5 |
Population |
10.1 |
Local utilities |
9.8 |
Land cover |
8.9 |
Aquifer access |
8.1 |
Interference/signal |
7.8 |
Land use |
7.5 |
Alternative regions for suitable base camp sites based on criteria scores
Alternatives |
Roads |
Threat/enemy |
Slope |
Soil |
Local utilities |
Population |
Land cover |
Aquifer access |
Interference/signal |
Land use |
Site 1 |
0.6 |
0.8 |
0.2 |
0.8 |
0.7 |
0.3 |
0.7 |
0.3 |
0.8 |
0.5 |
Site 2 |
0.9 |
0.2 |
0.0 |
0.3 |
0.5 |
0.2 |
0.3 |
0.9 |
0.4 |
0.3 |
Site 3 |
0.9 |
0.8 |
0.3 |
0.7 |
0.8 |
0.9 |
0.3 |
0.5 |
0.0 |
0.3 |
Site 4 |
0.7 |
0.3 |
0.1 |
0.9 |
0.3 |
0.8 |
0.6 |
0.4 |
0.3 |
0.8 |
Site 5 |
0.9 |
0.8 |
0.6 |
0.9 |
0.7 |
0.7 |
0.7 |
0.5 |
0.7 |
0.9 |
Site 6 |
0.4 |
0.1 |
0.5 |
0.1 |
0.4 |
0.2 |
0.8 |
0.0 |
0.3 |
0.2 |
Site 7 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
0.6 |
0.6 |
0.7 |
0.8 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
0.5 |
Rank ordering of alternative sites across weighting schemes
Alternatives |
Calculated weight |
Equal weight |
Rank reciprocal weight |
Opposite-weight scenario |
Site 1 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
Site 2 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
Site 3 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
5 |
Site 4 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
Site 5 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
Site 6 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
Site 7 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
Key criteria for base camp siting, categorised by data type
Criteria |
Type of data |
Population |
Social/demographic |
Enemy/threat |
|
Interference/signal |
Capability analysis |
Roads |
Civil infrastructure |
Local utilities |
|
Slope |
Terrain/environment |
Soils |
|
Land cover |
|
Aquifer access |
|
Land use |
|
Ranking of alternative scores
Alternatives |
Score |
Site 7 |
0.78 |
Site 5 |
0.75 |
Site 3 |
0.58 |
Site 1 |
0.57 |
Site 4 |
0.52 |
Site 2 |
0.40 |
Site 6 |
0.30 |
Four sets of criteria weights used for sensitivity analysis
Criteria |
Calculated weight (%) |
Equal weight (%) |
Rank-reciprocal weight (%) |
Opposite-weight scenario (%) |
Roads |
12.6 |
10.0 |
34.1 |
3.4 |
Threat/Enemy |
12.0 |
10.0 |
17.1 |
3.8 |
Slope |
11.7 |
10.0 |
11.4 |
4.3 |
Soils |
11.5 |
10.0 |
8.5 |
4.9 |
Population |
10.1 |
10.0 |
6.8 |
5.7 |
Local utilities |
9.8 |
10.0 |
5.7 |
6.8 |
Land cover |
8.9 |
10.0 |
4.9 |
8.5 |
Aquifer access |
8.1 |
10.0 |
4.3 |
11.4 |
Interference/Signal |
7.8 |
10.0 |
3.8 |
17.1 |
Land use |
7.5 |
10.0 |
3.4 |
34.1 |