ArticlePDF Available

Strategy of the policy of sustainable housing development using AHP method at the village Ihamahu-Maluku, Indonesia

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

This paper focuses on the application of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) as a potential method in the context of sustainable development in housing construction in the village Ihamahu village at Maluku province, Indonesia. Election issues, sustainable housing development policy is used as an example. Some criteria such as social dimension, economy dimension, and a dimension environment used to build a hierarchical structure. In addition, sub-criteria consist of several dimensions in order to give a more detailed explanation of the problems encountered. Through the application of AHP method, criteria and sub-criteria can be prioritized and alternative made within the framework of the election the best policy alternative in sustainable residential development. Questionnaires to five key informants in the village Ihamahu used to obtain information on the factors and criteria related to alternative issues. The study found that the preference policy of housing development is the highest priority (0.602), environmental policy preferences (0.275) and the lowest priority is education policy (0.123). In addition, the study also found that the consistency of the respondents 0.04 <0.10. The study also expresses the sensitivity performance of each decision alternative. Thus, it is expected that stakeholders can apply AHP in determining preferences in decision making in the future.
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 12, Number 14 (2017) pp. 4238-4247
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com
4238
Strategy of the policy of sustainable housing development using AHP
method at the village Ihamahu-Maluku, Indonesia
AM. Pattinaja1,* and Dino Rimantho2
1 Civil Engineering Department, Pancasila University, Jakarta, Indonesia.
2 Industrial Engineering Department, Pancasila University, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Srengseng Sawah, Jagakarsa, South of Jakarta, DKI Jakarta-Indonesia (12640).
*Correspondence author
1Orcid: 0000-0002-9087-7791
Abstract
This paper focuses on the application of analytic hierarchy
process (AHP) as a potential method in the context of
sustainable development in housing construction in the village
Ihamahu village at Maluku province, Indonesia. Election
issues, sustainable housing development policy is used as an
example. Some criteria such as social dimension, economy
dimension, and a dimension environment used to build a
hierarchical structure. In addition, sub-criteria consist of
several dimensions in order to give a more detailed explanation
of the problems encountered. Through the application of AHP
method, criteria and sub-criteria can be prioritized and
alternative made within the framework of the election the best
policy alternative in sustainable residential development.
Questionnaires to five key informants in the village Ihamahu
used to obtain information on the factors and criteria related to
alternative issues. The study found that the preference policy of
housing development is the highest priority (0.602),
environmental policy preferences (0.275) and the lowest
priority is education policy (0.123). In addition, the study also
found that the consistency of the respondents 0.04 <0.10. The
study also expresses the sensitivity performance of each
decision alternative. Thus, it is expected that stakeholders can
apply AHP in determining preferences in decision making in
the future.
Keywords: Analytic Hierarchy Process, AHP, Sustainable
development, housing, Ihamahu-Maluku
INTRODUCTION
Humans and the environment are the two components are
inseparable and mutually supportive in supporting the
sustainable development process. This condition makes the
human attention to the preservation and support of the
environment becomes very important. This is because it is
consistently good nature should be preserved in order to defend
the interests of human organisms and future generations. One
of the basic necessities of human life is a residence or home.
Furthermore, in most of the world's population carry out
activities at home (Semeraro and Fregonara, 2013. For
example, the social interaction between family members and
neighbors (Olewnik and Lewis, 2008).
The UN reported that population growth grows around 1.6
billion in 1900 to approximately 6.1 billion persons in 2000
(UN, 2001). This makes the twentieth century as the century of
the population explosion that is unprecedented. Thus, this gives
a significant impact on economic development and
environmental change. World population growth over the last
few centuries encourages environmental damage such as air
pollution, climate change, plants and animal habitat loss and
depletion of natural resources. As one of the strengths that exist
in nature, population growth showed significant correlation. It
is characterized by the use of more resources and the
destruction of the earth by the waste. Furthermore, there is a
concern with the declining capacity of ecosystems for future
generations in the past few years. For example, water supply
and water, flood control, conservation and regeneration of soil,
and biodiversity. (IPCC, 2001; Daily, 1997)
Environmental crises that have concerned people concerned
about the environment since the late 20th century, however, in
1972 established a new international meeting on the
environment in Stockholm initiated by the United Nations. In
addition, as one of the efforts to determine the correlation
between the issues of economic development and
environmental stability, hence at around 1987 Brundtland
Commission made a report entitled Our Common Future. The
report is often referred because it gives a definition of the
concept of sustainable development. The concept of sustainable
development explained that the development should pay
attention to generation in the future, especially related to the
resources used (United Nations General Assembly, 1987, p.
43). Nurture economic growth and protect the environment is
the goal of the concept of sustainable development.
International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 12, Number 14 (2017) pp. 4238-4247
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com
4239
In the past, many traditional villages and forming
neighborhoods grew naturally through non-governmental. By
always applying the local knowledge possessed, the
sustainability of a traditional village very dependent on the
condition of the natural surroundings in which people live.
Currently, many settlements are planned and built by the
government, especially for low-income people in urban areas
as a new community. Settlements built by the government still
require quality housing to the process of sustainable
development. Chan & Lee, (2006) describes the development
policies in many countries is a common goal of sustainable
development. The presence of a global goal of sustainable
development to encourage the construction of environmentally
friendly housing has increased significantly in all countries in
the world in recent decades. Studies conducted by Randolph et
al., (2008) underlines that the focus of sustainable housing is
the application of several factors such as physical principles,
design, methods, and materials used. In addition, several
factors that also should be considered in the sustainable housing
such as assurance of public health, the level of productivity and
environmental impact (Nazirah, 2005).
Obviously, there are several criteria that may be considered in
decision-making regarding the provision of sustainable
housing, for example, at affordable prices, the impact of
housing on the environment, socioeconomic (Maliene et al.
2008). This paper aims to assess the potential criteria for
sustainable housing development in the Ihamahu village at
Maluku province, Indonesia. It also relates to the application of
Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) in the process of the
selection criteria for sustainable housing development.
Selection criteria and the decision of several alternatives,
sustainable housing developments is a complicated process.
This process requires the evaluation of several criteria and
alternatives are interlinked. The analysis process will evaluate
the criteria and alternatives considered appropriate sustainable
housing development.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Sustainable development issues are the increasingly complex
environment, especially in a difficult economic situation, the
decision-making regarding the appropriate sustainable
development will have important implications for the
development of an area in the future. Selection of appropriate
solution which is considered a challenging situation the
decision makers in making decisions. In addition, there are
several factors to determine that scientific decision-making
processes, such as problem identification, data collection, use
of scientific methods in the analysis and the decision
alternatives will be chosen in an objective decision-makers
(Landaeta, 2005).
Generally, there are several factors faced by decision makers,
for instance, complex systems associated with the use of
resources, targets to be achieved, a result which might arise
from the decision-making (Saaty, 1980). Thus, Stay proposed
AHP as one of the alternatives the completion of the selection
criteria in decision making (Saaty, 1980). Furthermore, the
decision-making hierarchy is determined through the
development of sub-problems that are then analyzed by
comparing the sub-problems alternately (Attaran and Celik,
2013). In addition, the AHP method provides an overview of
complex decision making based workflow through rationality
complex problem settings systematically. Saaty also explained
that the AHP method is more profitable than other decision-
making methods. This is due to the consistent and rational
comparison of the conversion of a numerical weighting of
diverse elements (Saaty, 2008).
AHP has been widely used by researchers in the field of
environment, for example, site selection limestone quarry in
Barbados (Dey and Ramcharan, 2008), the selection of the
landfill site (Sener et al., 2006), the site selection of
transshipment (Oenuet and Soner (2008), the management of
electronic waste in Surabaya (Rimantho et al., 2014), the
decision-making in the selection of the best end of life actuation
computer (Ravi et al., 2005), Choose the method of analysis of
organic substances (Rimantho et al., 2016), decision-making
prevention of work accidents on garbage collecting workers
(Rimantho and Cahyadi, 2016), making the priority hierarchy
of problem structures on the calibration of equipment in the
pharmaceutical industry (Rimantho et al., 2017). AHP is one
method of effective decision-making, especially when there is
subjectivity in the problem (Tuzmen and Sipahi, 2011). Thus,
the need to build a hierarchy and sub-hierarchy of criteria and
sub-criteria. The process is summarized in figure 1.
Studies conducted by Morrissey and Browne (2004)
highlighted the various benefits that may be obtained from the
application of AHP as the method of selecting criteria in
decision-making, for instance, the evaluation of policy options
and understanding of the issues can be made possible by a
systematic approach, the use of quantitative and qualitative
information. On the contrary, there are several notes that must
be considered in the application of AHP, such subjectivity in
the allocation of weights to each criterion as well as alternatives
(Morrissey and Browne, 2004. This is because the weight gave
a personal assessment of the preferences of the experience of
stakeholders in the decision-making that may contravene
(Qureshi et al, 1999). Thus, the weight changes can potentially
generate a different decision (Dyer, 1990).
International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 12, Number 14 (2017) pp. 4238-4247
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com
4240
Figure 1. The process of AHP model
In order to assist give an assessment in decision-making, hence
the ratio of the scale and the relative importance of the criteria
have been developed. The scale is meant here is the value in the
range of 1 to 9. Then, assigning weights to the value by
comparing among the criteria contained in the matrix. This
comparison matrix will be the main determination in the
subsequent calculations (Sharma, et al., 2008). The scale that
will be used in the assessment of the comparison matrix as the
table 1 below.
Table 1. Pairwise comparison scale (Saaty, 1980)
Intensity of
importance
Explanation
1
Two criteria contribute equally to the
objective
3
Experience and judgment slightly favor one
over another
5
Experience and judgment strongly favor one
over another
7
The criterion is strongly favored and its
dominance is demonstrated in practice
9
The importance of one over another affirmed
on the highest possible order
2, 4, 6, 8
Used to represent a compromise between the
priorities listed above
Generally, the AHP method consists of several steps such as
setting goals, formulating the problem, alternatives and criteria
set, build a hierarchical model, comparing the matrix in pairs,
and issue a decision. However, decisions with the AHP model
can be done by applying three steps specifically. Step 1: build
a matrix of pairwise comparisons based on the hierarchical
structure of the criteria, sub-criteria, and alternatives at every
level. Calculation of the relative weighting of each criterion and
sub-criteria using formulations eigenvectors as the formula
below:
Step 2: The maximum Eigenvectors and eigenvalues are
calculated. At this stage, every matrix normalized and calculate
the relative weights, wherein, the relative weighting is the result
of the multiplication of the eigenvector (w) and the largest
eigenvalue (λmax). The formula is as follows:
Aw= λmax x w (2)
Step 3: Measurements of consistency
This step is performed to determine the difference λmax, and
measure the consistency of assessment experts in pairwise
comparisons. Consistency assessment matrix can be performed
with a consistency index (CI) and the consistency ratio (CR) as
shown in Equation (3) and (4), wherein is recommended for CR
values around 0.1. Furthermore, Borajee and Yakchali (2011),
suggest repeating the evaluation of the consistency of the final
assessment if the ratio exceeds the value of 0.1 in order to
obtain good consistency. A calculated consistency index (CI)
using the following formula:
GOAL
Formulating
the problems
Alternatives, Criteria and
Sub Criteria
classification
Developing a
hierarchy of AHP
model
Make a rank by
Pairwise
comparison
Conclusion
A= (aij)nxn =
a11 a12 a1n
a21 a22 a2n
- - - (1)
- - -
an1 an2 ann
International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 12, Number 14 (2017) pp. 4238-4247
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com
4241
Table 2. Random Index (Saaty, 1980)
n
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
RI
0.00
0.00
0.58
0.90
1.12
1.24
1.32
1.41
1.45
1.49
METHODOLOGY
Decision making related to the development of sustainable
housing has integrated several criteria that include the
dimension of environmental protection, economic dimension,
and the social dimension. Every criterion can be composed of
several problems such as social relationships, security and
comfortable, access to education, access to environment and
health, access to natural resources. Furthermore, the economic
dimension criteria consist of employment, technology, and
telecommunication. In addition, the dimension of
environmental protection may consist of green space, air
quality, clean water, wastewater, solid waste and environment
conservation. Thus, the development of sustainable housing is
an issue that consists of a variety of complex criteria. It is very
appropriate to apply the method of AHP on this issue. AHP
method can be implemented in order to measure a priority in
several alternatives with the scale ratio based on the judgment
and experience of experts.
This study used a questionnaire involving key informants from
different backgrounds with the assumption that these
respondents had experience associated with this research, such
as academics, community leaders, government and relevant
stakeholders. Simple random sampling strategy used to
determine the amount of the sample population of respondents.
Thus, each member of the population has an equal chance to be
key informants in this study. By using a confidence level of
95%, 5% and the proportion of the population of 20 percentage
points absolute precision obtained a number of key informants
about five people (Lwanga and Lemeshow, 1991).
Respondents will be given a questionnaire in order to obtain a
score pairwise comparisons between factors based on AHP
method. This will help in making the pairwise matrix in
determining the weight of each criterion, sub-criteria, and
alternatives. The relative importance of using the Saaty scale of
1-9 depending assessment of each key informants. Based on
these metrics, calculation by giving each of the weights and
calculate the consistency ratio. The procedure of calculation
and assigning weights to each criterion and sub-criteria is done
repeatedly until comparing each alternative. The processing of
the data is processed using the Expert Choice software. This
program is one program that can assist in the calculation
method of AHP. Through this tool can perform sensitivity
analysis, printing charts, and calculation tables.
RESULT
The AHP method makes it easy for every member of the group
of respondents to use the experience, values, and knowledge to
solve problems in making decisions. Thus the preparation of
the hierarchy and completion of the problem will be more
focused and directed. Through brainstorming either by
questionnaires or interviews will be easier to explore the
understanding of the problems of sustainable residential
development.
CI
CR = (4)
RI
International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 12, Number 14 (2017) pp. 4238-4247
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com
4242
Table 3. Preferences on sustainable development housing policy
GOAL
Alternatives
Criteria
Sub Criteria
SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT
HOUSING
POLICY
Housing development
policy (HDP)
Economy
dimension
(Ec)
Social relationships
(SR)
Social conflict
Culture
Community relationship
Environment policy
(EnP)
Security and
comfortable (SC)
Status of house and land
Criminality
Fires
Education policy
(EdP)
Access to education
(AE)
Financial capability
Education facility
Access to
environment and
health (AEH)
Health facility
Disposal waste system
Drainage system
Access to natural
resources (ANR)
Land
Water
Air
Social
dimension
(Sc)
Employment (Em)
Technology (Tec)
Telecommunication (Tel)
Green space (GS)
Environment
dimension
(En)
Air quality (AQ)
Clean water (CW)
Wastewater (WW)
Solid waste (SW)
Environment conservation (EnC)
This study used AHP model to determine the preferences of
sustainable residential development. This model consists of
four levels, including an objective level, the level of the criteria,
sub-criteria and the level of alternative level. The goal is to
determine the most appropriate decision on the development of
sustainable housing. Multiple criteria of concern in the
construction of sustainable housing, among others, the social
dimension, the economic dimension and the environmental
dimension. Each of these criteria has sub-criteria, such as social
relationships, security and comfortable, access to education,
access to environment and health, access to natural resources,
employment, technology, telecommunication, green space, air
quality, clean water, wastewater, solid waste, and environment
conservation.
International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 12, Number 14 (2017) pp. 4238-4247
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com
4243
Figure 2. The hierarchy of decision making
In order to provide convenience on every level, then each factor
criteria grouped into homogeneous groups (Saaty, 1980). Each
factor in the criteria and sub-criteria have a significant
association at every level and a higher level. In the hierarchical
structure of the AHP, the highest level is a goal to be achieved
in decision making. The second level is all factors that support
decision making. While on the third level is a translation of the
factors that exist on the second level. At the fourth level are
alternatives that would be an option.
GOAL
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
B1
B2
B3
C1
C3
C2
C4
C5
(A)
(B)
(C)
(1)
(2)
(3)
LEVEL 1
LEVEL 2
LEVEL 3
LEVEL 4
International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 12, Number 14 (2017) pp. 4238-4247
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com
4244
Table 4. Result of pair comparison in sub-criteria
Sub Criteria
Weight
Social relationship
0.062
Social conflict
0.135
Culture
0.281
Community relationship
0.584
Status of house and land
0.651
Security and comfortable
0.103
Criminality
0.223
Fires
0.127
Financial capability
0.833
Access to education
0.160
Education facility
0.167
Health facility
0.791
Access to environment
and health
0.274
Disposal waste system
0.202
Drainage system
0.097
Land
0.584
Access to natural
resources
0.401
Water
0.281
Air
0.135
Table 5. Result of pair comparison in sub-criteria
Criteria
Weight
Social relationship
0.062
Social dimension
(A)
0.105
Security and comfortable
0.103
Access to education
0.160
Access to environment and
health
0.274
Access to natural resources
0.401
Employment
0.584
Economy dimension
(B)
0.258
Technology
0.281
Telecomunication
0.135
Green space
0.117
Environment dimension
(C)
0.637
Air quality
0.053
Clean water
0.257
Wastewater
0.078
Solid waste
0.172
Environment conservation
0.323
International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 12, Number 14 (2017) pp. 4238-4247
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com
4245
Through the hierarchy, alternative selection criteria of each
factor and sub-criteria in each stage to guide decision making.
As explained earlier that the decision-making residential
development of is composed of a variety of criteria, sub-
criteria, and alternatives. Table 2 represents the identification
of objectives to be achieved from several alternatives and
criteria. Furthermore, the hierarchy of decision making will be
shown in figure 2.
Figure 3. Priorities with respect to goal
According to on the data processing performed by assigning
weights pairwise comparison of several of the goals desired
criteria result as figure 3 above. Furthermore, the data
processing is done using the Expert Choice software. As a
result, the top priority in the decision is the environmental
dimension (0.637), while the Social dimension is the lowest
priority (0.105). In addition, the chart also provides information
that the value of the inconsistency ratio of approximately 0.04.
This is in accordance with the procedure of the AHP that the
value of consistency must be <0.10. This means that the
respondents remain consistent in providing answers to the
selection on each criterion and sub-criteria.
Based on the calculation results are weighted pairwise
comparisons on each criterion and sub-criteria, the results
obtained, as Table 5.
Table 6. Significance of used alternative sustainable housing
development policy
Alternatives Policy
Weight
Result
Housing development policy (HDP)
0.591
1
Environment policy (EnP)
0.278
2
Education policy (EdP)
0.131
3
From the table above it can be concluded that the policy of
housing development of is a top priority that must be
implemented (0.591), while the education policy is the lowest
priority (0.113) in relation to decision-making, sustainable
housing development policy.
The final step of the decision-making process is the
implementation of sensitivity analysis. Stakeholders will be
able to see the impact of changes in input data from each of the
criteria. Results of graphics performance assumed strong
sensitivity alternatives if the rating has not changed
significantly. The picture 4 above is a view of the sensitivity
performance of the alternative of choice in the selection
decision making sustainable housing policy. Furthermore, the
results of the calculations show that based on each criterion is
chosen, then the alternative dimension of the environment is a
top priority. The stakeholders may change the weighting of the
criteria to obtain other alternative priorities by shifting the
value of each criterion. However, in this study shows that there
is no significant change to the existing alternatives from
changes in the value criteria.
Figure 4. Performance Sensitivity for goal
CONCLUSION
Population growth in a world increasingly uncontrolled driving
the need for housing is increasing. Residential development in
some countries is always tailored to each country. This is
because the housing development policies of each country have
different criteria and alternatives in decision making. One
factor determining the difficulty in making decisions is the
factor criteria are very complex and complicated. AHP method
can be one of the bridges to solve the problems of decision
making that have a high complexity. This is indicated by the
approach based on knowledge and experience of experts in
determining the criteria and assessment of existing alternatives.
The results showed AHP as the proper method for selecting the
criteria and alternatives in policy decision making sustainable
residential development in the village Ihamahu village at
Maluku province, Indonesia. Thus, the results of this study can
potentially be used for the implementation of a more
comprehensive study of the factors that determines the
preference of the decision making sustainable residential
development in Indonesia.
Model Name: Sustainable development Housing
Priorities with respect to:
Goal: Sustainable Development Housing
Social Dimension
.105
Economy Dimension
.258
Environment Dimension
.637
Inconsistency = 0.04
with 0 missing judgments.
Page 1 of 112/24/2015 9:17:19 AM
Dino Rimantho
Dino Rimantho
International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 12, Number 14 (2017) pp. 4238-4247
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com
4246
REFERENCE
[1] Attaran S., and Celik B.G., (2013). Analytic
Hierarchy Process: An Application in Green Building
Market Research, International Review of
Management and Marketing, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp.122-
133, ISSN: 2146-4405
[2] Berke, P. R. & Conroy, M. M., (2000). Are We
Planning for Sustainable Development, Journal
[3] of the American Planning Association, Winter, Vol.
66, No.1, pp.21-33.
[4] Borajee, M., and Yakchali, S. H., (2011), Using the
AHP-ELECTRE III integrated method in a
competitive profile matrix, International Conference
on Financial Management and Economics
2011Proceedings, pp. 68-72.
[5] Chan, E.H.W. & Lee, G.K.L., (2007). The Analytic
Hierarchy Process (AHP) Approach for Assessment
of Urban Renewal Proposals, Journal of Springer
Science+Business Media B.V. 2007, Vol. 89:155168
[6] Daily, G. (Ed.). (1997). Nature’s services.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
[7] Dey, P.K., Ramcharan, E.K., (2008). Analytic
Hierarchy Process helps select site for limestone
quarry expansion in Barbados. Journal of
Environmental Management 88 (4), 13841395.
[8] Dyer, J., (1990). Remarks on the AHP. Management
Science 36 (3), 249258.
[9] IPCC (2001). Climate change 2001: The scientific
basis. The contribution of working group I to the third
assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on
climate change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
[10] Landaeta, R.E., (2005). “Lecture Notes in Project
Management”, Class No. 5, Old Dominion
University, Norfolk, VA, USA.
[11] Maliene, V.; Howe, J. and Malys, N. (2008).
Sustainable communities: affordable housing and
socio-economic relations. Local Economy, 23(4),
267-276.
[12] Nazirah, Z. A. dan P., (2005). Delivering
sustainability through value management: the concept
and performance overview. Engineering Construction
and Architectural Management, 168-180.
[13] Olewnik, A. and Lewis K., (2008). Limitations of the
House of Quality to provide quantitative design
information. International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management, 25 (2)
[14] Oenuet, S., Soner, S., (2008). Transshipment site
selection using the AHP and TOPSIS approaches
under fuzzy environment. Waste Management 28
(9),15521559.
[15] Qureshi, M.E., Harrison, S.R., Wegener, M.K.,
(1999). Validation of multi-criteria analysis models.
Agricultural Systems 62, 105116.
[16] Ravi, V., Shankar, R., Tiwari, M.K., (2005).
Analyzing alternatives in reverse logistics for end-of-
life computers: aNP and balanced scorecard approach.
Computers and Industrial Engineering 48, 327356.
[17] Randolph, B., Kam, M. and Graham, P. (2008) Who
Can Afford Sustainable Housing in Nelson, A (Ed.)
Steering Sustainability in an Urbanising World,
Aldershot, United Kingdom
[18] Rimantho D., Cahyadi B., Dermawan D., (2014).
Application Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP): a
case study of e-waste management in Surabaya,
Indonesia, available at: https://www.researchgate.net
/publication/279959950_APPLICATION_ANALYT
IC_HIERARCHY_PROCESS_AHP_A_CASE_STU
DY_OF_E-
WASTE_MANAGEMENT_IN_SURABAYA_IND
ONESIA (Accessed November 20, 2015)
[19] Rimantho D., Rachel M., Cahyadi B., Kurniawan Y.,
2016, Aplikasi Analytical Hierarchy Process Pada
Pemilihan Metode Analisis Zat Organik Dalam Air,
JITI, Vol.15 (1), 47 56.
[20] Rimantho D., Cahyadi B., 2016, Six Sigma Method
Approach in The Prevention of Occupational
Accidents on The Solid Waste Collector in South
Jakarta, ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied
Sciences, VOL. 11, NO. 16.
[21] Rimantho D., Rahman T.A., Cahyadi B., 2017,
Application of six sigma and AHP in analysis of
variable lead time calibration process instrumentation,
AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol: 1813 (1), 040004
[22] Saaty, T. L., (1980). “The Analytic Hierarchy
Process”, Mc-Graw & Hill, New York.
[23] Saaty, T.L. (2008), Relative Measurement and Its
Generalization in Decision Making: Why Pairwise
Comparisons are Central in Mathematics for the
Measurement of Intangible Factors - The Analytic
Hierarchy/Network Process. Review of the Royal
Spanish Academy of Sciences, Series A,
Mathematics, 102(2), 251318.
[24] Semeraro P. and Fregonara, E., (2013). The impact of
house characteristics on the bargaining outcome.
Journal of European Real Estate Research, 6 (3): 262
278.
[25] Sener, B., Su¨ zen, M.L., Doyuran, V., (2006).
International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 12, Number 14 (2017) pp. 4238-4247
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com
4247
Landfill site selection by using geographic
information systems. Environmental Geology 49,
376388.
[26] United Nations (2001), World population prospects:
the 2000 revision, highlights.ESA/P/WP.165.
[27] United Nations General Assembly. (1987). Report of
the world commission on environment and
development: Our common future. Oslo, Norway:
United Nations General Assembly, Development and
International Co-operation: Environment.
... The second level (categories and criteria) represents the main components of the affordable and sustainable housing model, which will be used in the pairwise comparisons application. Overall, AHP has been applied in built environment (Ali & Al Nsairat, 2009), in evaluating building sustainability (Markelj et al., 2014), in implementing sustainability criteria (Perello et al., 2015), in new housing development projects (Tupenaite, Lill, Geipele, & Naimaviciene, 2017), in sustainable assessment of urban regeneration (Lee & Lim, 2018), in sustainable housing development (Pattinaja & Rimantho, 2017), and in the development of a sustainable assessment method (Alyami, Rezgui, & Kwan, 2015). ...
Article
It is possible to categorize the housing problems in Saudi Arabia based on two important factors, one quantitative and the other qualitative. The quantitative aspect is indicated by the inability to meet the increasing demand for housing, and the qualitative aspect is manifested in the fact that the current housing model does not take into consideration sustainability criteria, the quality of construction, and the life span of the house. The Kingdom's 2030 vision to raise housing ownership from 47 % to 52 % makes it necessary to find models for applying affordability and sustainability criteria. This paper aims to determine an optimal model based on the design, construction, operation and deconstruction criteria of both affordability and sustainability for residential neighborhoods and detached houses (villas). It outlines a new comprehensive approach to determine the priority criteria ranking of affordability and sustainability to be applied to low- and middle-income housing projects. The approach was developed by evaluating five models of criteria according to their relative importance and impact on the initial cost. The model selected was developed according to the local needs of Saudi Arabia, thus minimizing their environmental impact. In addition to being cost-effective, where the initial cost is reduced by 16 %–45 % after applying affordability criteria, the added cost of applying the mandatory sustainability criteria does not exceed 3.91 %. In conclusion, the study showed that this model is the ideal one for affordable and sustainable housing development for middle- and low-income households.
... In order to be able to take the right decision in applying the strategy produced by the SWOT analysis, a method is needed to make/analyze decision priorities. AHP is a multi criteria decision-making technique that can help express general decision operations by describing complex problems with multipurpose, as well as alternative hierarchical structures [9]. In addition, there are many methods that can be applied to analyze the priority to an OHS problem decision, for example Evaluating and Prioritizing of Performance Indicators of Health, Safety and Environment Using Fuzzy Technique for Others Reference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) [10]. ...
Article
Full-text available
PT. XYZ has various divisions, one of them is the R&D division. This division is responsible for research and innovation. The highest impact on accidents caused by a worker injured and bleeding around 14.29%. In addition, the highest potential hazards are raw material spill around 14.29%. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to identify the factors potentially that lead to the high potential hazards in the R&D division. In addition, it also formulates the alternative to decision-making strategies. The research method used the SWOT method and AHP to determine the priority to selecting strategies for reducing the potential for occupational hazards. This study used the questionnaires and distributed among five experts in the company. The result shows that the strategy of Weakness-Opportunity (WO) is the highest weight around 3.38. Then, the calculation by using the AHP method obtained that monitoring and evaluation of occupational health and safety through improvement of Work Instruction became the main priority is equal to 0.32. The AHP method also showed the consistency value of approximately 0.09. Therefore, further research is needed to evaluate the alternatives chosen.
Article
Full-text available
Terdapat beberapa faktor yang menentukan produk roti yang berkualitas. Salah satu faktor tersebut adalah pemilihan supplier bahan baku yang tepat, sehingga hal ini menuntut perusahaan untuk melakukan pemilihan supplier secara tepat dan efisien. Penelitian ini menggunakan dua buah kuesioner yang didistribusikan kepada 9 orang responden untuk kuesioner 1 dan 3 orang reponden untuk kuesioner 2. Penelitian ini dilakukan pada PT Molek Manis Merauke dengan meggunakan metode Analytic Hiererchy Process (AHP). Hasil yang diperoleh pada penelitian ini adalah untuk kriteria kapasitas produksi bobot nilai sebesar (0,50), kualitas produk (0,31), harga (0,12), dan waktu (0,04%). Pada kriteria kapasitas produksi terdapat dua sub kriteria yaitu ketersediaan bahan baku dengan bobot (0,65), dan kuantitas supplier (0,56). Untuk kriteria kualitas produk sub kriteria yaitu ketahanan bahan baku (0,50), dan kualitas bahan baku yang di tawarkan (0,46). Untuk kriteria harga terdapat dua sub kriteria yaitu ketentuan pembayaran(0,39), dan harga yang seuai (0,25). Dan untuk kriteria waktu memiliki dua sub kriteria yaitu ketersediaan SDM (0,22), dan waktu ketersediaan barang (0,19). Dari hasil perhitungan, terpilih supplier A yaitu Toko Bintoro sebagai supplier dengan bobot nilai terbesar (0,579) dari supplier B yaitu Agen Samira dengan bobot (0,216), supplier C yaitu Agen Alian (0,251), dan supplier D yaitu Toko Mitra Sawang dengan bobot nilai sebesar (0,442).
Article
Full-text available
Terdapat beberapa faktor yang menentukan produk roti yang berkualitas. Salah satu faktor tersebut adalah pemilihan supplier bahan baku yang tepat, sehingga hal ini menuntut perusahaan untuk melakukan pemilihan supplier secara tepat dan efisien. Penelitian ini menggunakan dua buah kuesioner yang didistribusikan kepada 9 orang responden untuk kuesioner 1 dan 3 orang reponden untuk kuesioner 2. Penelitian ini dilakukan pada PT Molek Manis Merauke dengan meggunakan metode Analytic Hiererchy Process (AHP). Hasil yang diperoleh pada penelitian ini adalah untuk kriteria kapasitas produksi bobot nilai sebesar (0,50), kualitas produk (0,31), harga (0,12), dan waktu (0,04%). Pada kriteria kapasitas produksi terdapat dua sub kriteria yaitu ketersediaan bahan baku dengan bobot (0,65), dan kuantitas supplier (0,56). Untuk kriteria kualitas produk sub kriteria yaitu ketahanan bahan baku (0,50), dan kualitas bahan baku yang di tawarkan (0,46). Untuk kriteria harga terdapat dua sub kriteria yaitu ketentuan pembayaran(0,39), dan harga yang seuai (0,25). Dan untuk kriteria waktu memiliki dua sub kriteria yaitu ketersediaan SDM (0,22), dan waktu ketersediaan barang (0,19). Dari hasil perhitungan, terpilih supplier A yaitu Toko Bintoro sebagai supplier dengan bobot nilai terbesar (0,579) dari supplier B yaitu Agen Samira dengan bobot (0,216), supplier C yaitu Agen Alian (0,251), dan supplier D yaitu Toko Mitra Sawang dengan bobot nilai sebesar (0,442).
Article
Full-text available
Sustainability has become a necessity in the building industry. In recent years, as the general public is more informed and aware of sustainability related issues, they are becoming major players in the decision making process regarding their built environment. However, there are still challenges with how sustainability is communicated to occupants and owners of buildings. As the global economic crisis is continuing, the marketing of green buildings needs to be refined to communicate the lifetime benefits of sustainability. One of the ways to develop effective marketing strategies, is to understand what the occupants value the most among many aspects of green buildings thus develop focused marketing solutions. Authors present a conceptual methodology using Analytic Hierarchy Process toward identifying consumer ranking and weights of a major green building rating system’s categories. Authors use sample non-representative data to illustrate the proposed methodology, while sharing preliminary qualitative data from the research in progress. Keywords: LEED; Sustainable Buildings; Sustainability Marketing; Occupant Value; Criteria Weightings; AHP JEL Classifications: C44; D81; M31
Conference Paper
Full-text available
In this paper, the competitive profile matrix (CPM) method, which identifies firm's major competitors and its particular strengths and weaknesses in relation to a sample firm's strategic position, is adopted by the concept Multiple-Attribute Decision Making (MADM).Hence, an integrated approach which employs analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and ELECTREIII together, is proposed for the CPM method. The AHP method is used to determine the weights of factors and while ECTREIII is employed to determine the priorities of the competitors. ELECTREIII method takesinto defining of indifference, preference and veto threshold for the factors, determinedby the decision-makers.
Article
Full-text available
Six Sigma method is one method of management approaches aimed at making decisions based on facts and based on the use of data using special tools and methodologies. This study deals with the methodology of Six Sigma approach in reducing the incidence of occupational accidents in the collection of solid waste in South Jakarta. The fundamental problem-solving approach is done by following the DMAIC (Define-Measure-Analyze-Improve-Control) in order to reduce the process variation and improvement process results. Analysis of the problem also using some tools such as Pareto diagrams, Fishbone diagrams and Analytical Hierarchy Process. Research conducted at the Department of cleanliness of South Jakarta as research subjects in order to analyze and determine the cause of the problem of workplace accidents solid waste collection. Results show DPU approximately 0.22 and approximately 220000 and a target DPMO sigma level is 3.554. Moreover, the results of AHP calculation using Expert Choice software indicate the most significant factor is the method with 0.392 weights. In addition, the sub-causes of the most dominant in workplace accidents collecting solid waste, such as, lack of safety equipment around 0.833 and pleasant environment around 0.833.
Article
Full-text available
Water is one of the food products analyzed in water chemistry and environmental laboratories. One of the parameters analyzed are organic substances. The number of samples that were not comparable with the analytical skills can cause delays in test results. Analytical Hierarchy Process applied to evaluate the analytical methods used. Alternative methods tested include titrimetric method, spectrophotometry, and total organic carbon (TOC). Respondents consisted of deputy technical manager, laboratory coordinator, and two senior analysts. Alternative results obtained are methods of TOC. Proposed improvements alternative analytical method based on the results obtained, the method of the TOC with a 10-15 minute analysis time and use of CRM to the validity of the analysis results. Abstrak. Air merupakan salah satu produk pangan yang dianalisis di laboratorium kimia air dan lingkungan. Salah satu parameter yang dianalisis adalah zat organik. Banyaknya sampel yang masuk tidak sebanding dengan kemampuan analisis dapat menyebabkan keterlambatan hasil uji. Metode Analytical Hierarchy Process diaplikasikan untuk mengevaluasi metode analisis yang digunakan. Alternatif metode yang diuji meliputi metode titrimetri, spektrofotometri, dan total organic carbon (TOC). Responden terdiri dari deputi manajer teknis, koordinator laboratorium, dan dua orang analis senior. Alternatif hasil yang didapat adalah metode TOC. Usulan perbaikan metode analisis berdasarkan alternatif hasil yang didapat, yaitu metode TOC dengan waktu analisis 10-15 menit serta penggunaan CRM untuk validitas hasil analisis.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Increasing the quantity of e-waste is a concern to all stakeholders in most countries in the globe. The paper explains the method of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is applied with Expert Choice software to choose some variables that influence the management of electronic waste in the city of Surabaya. There are five variables contained in the management of electronic waste such as: Technology, Financial, Environmental, Social and Methods. Questionnaires carried out to select the five variables. Replication and questionnaire design was modified from the World Bank and UNEP. Questionnaires were distributed to five key informants located in the city of Surabaya. The result using Expert Choice software shows the values of the preference variables electronics waste management in the city of Surabaya i.e. Technology = 0.095, Financial = 0.251, = 0.455 Environmental, Social = 0.154, Method = 0.046. The judgments were found to be consistent, precise and justifiable with narrow marginal inconsistency values. This paper also provides a thorough sensitivity analysis to express the confidence in the drawn conclusions.
Chapter
This chapter provides an overview of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), which is a systematic procedure for representing the elements of any problem hierarchically. It organizes the basic rationality by breaking down a problem into its smaller constituent parts and then guides decision makers through a series of pair-wise comparison judgments to express the relative strength or intensity of impact of the elements in the hierarchy. These judgments are then translated to numbers. The AHP includes procedures and principles used to synthesize the many judgments to derive priorities among criteria and subsequently for alternative solutions. It is useful to note that the numbers thus obtained are ratio scale estimates and correspond to so-called hard numbers. Problem solving is a process of setting priorities in steps. One step decides on the most important elements of a problem, another on how best to repair, replace, test, and evaluate the elements, and another on how to implement the solution and measure performance.
Article
According to the great mathematician Henri Lebesgue, making direct comparisons of objects with regard to a property is a fundamental mathematical process for deriving measurements. Measuring objects by using a known scale first then comparing the measurements works well for properties for which scales of measurement exist. The theme of this paper is that direct comparisons are necessary to establish measurements for intangible properties that have no scales of measurement. In that case the value derived for each element depends on what other elements it is compared with. We show how relative scales can be derived by making pairwise comparisons using numerical judgments from an absolute scale of numbers. Such measurements, when used to represent comparisons can be related and combined to define a cardinal scale of absolute numbers that is stronger than a ratio scale. They are necessary to use when intangible factors need to be added and multiplied among themselves and with tangible factors. To derive and synthesize relative scales systematically, the factors are arranged in a hierarchic or a network structure and measured according to the criteria represented within these structures. The process of making comparisons to derive scales of measurement is illustrated in two types of practical real life decisions, the Iran nuclear show-down with the West in this decade and building a Disney park in Hong Kong in 2005. It is then generalized to the case of making a continuum of comparisons by using Fredholm's equation of the second kind whose solution gives rise to a functional equation. The Fourier transform of the solution of this equation in the complex domain is a sum of Dirac distributions demonstrating that proportionate response to stimuli is a process of firing and synthesis of firings as neurons in the brain do. The Fourier transform of the solution of the equation in the real domain leads to nearly inverse square responses to natural influences. Various generalizations and critiques of the approach are included.
Article
Purpose – The paper proposes a statistical approach to investigate the role played by each house characteristic on the selling process. The paper aims to compare the impact of building characteristics, apartment characteristics and location on the bargaining outcome based on a case study in the Italian real estate market. Design/methodology/approach – The paper first measures the overall contribution of characteristics and location to prices and bargaining outcome. Second, it studies the association between each characteristic and list price – the starting point of the selling process – and between each characteristic and selling price, i.e. the price agreed on to close a transaction. In order to focus on bargaining, the paper computed the association between each characteristic and bargaining outcome. Findings – Structural characteristics empirically showed low association with bargaining outcome. In contrast, the paper found that location had a significant impact on the bargaining: location is the most important factor in negotiation. On the other hand, location amenities and disamenities may be attractive or unattractive depending on the buyers, and this could influence the bargaining outcome. Originality/value – The paper findings confirm that factors influencing house prices are not always important factors in negotiation, in line with the literature on negotiation. Hedonic analysis showed the importance of house characteristics to explain house prices. Nevertheless, structural characteristics did not explain bargaining outcome variation. The findings also support the importance of a geographical segmentation to improve price prediction and bargaining outcome variation.