IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v13y2023i9p1722-d1229366.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Land Use Suitability Model for Grapevine ( Vitis vinifera L.) Cultivation Using the Best Worst Method: A Case Study from Ankara/Türkiye

Author

Listed:
  • Mevlut Uyan

    (Vocational School of Technical Sciences, Konya Technical University, Konya 42003, Türkiye)

  • Jarosław Janus

    (Department of Agricultural Land Surveying, Cadastre and Photogrammetry, Faculty of Environmental Engineering and Land Surveying, University of Agriculture in Krakow, 31-120 Krakow, Poland)

  • Ela Ertunç

    (Department of Geomatics Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences, Konya Technical University, Konya 42250, Türkiye)

Abstract

The product of grapes with the highest added value is wine. Wine grapes play an important role in the evaluation of barren lands, where no other plants generally grow. Viticulture in Türkiye is generally conducted on small areas of agricultural land. In order to develop viticulture, it is important to determine suitable areas. This study presents a model for assessing land suitability for cultivation of grapevines ( Vitis vinifera L.) in the Ankara region (Türkiye). The aim is to provide a spatial decision support system based on geographic information system multi-criteria assessment, taking into account the perspectives of expert agricultural engineers and local product growers. In this study, 11 criteria were evaluated to determine the most suitable locations for grapevine cultivation. The best worst method was used to calculate the weights of the determined evaluation criteria. When the spatial distribution of the areas suitable for grapevine cultivation was examined from the resulting map produced, it was seen that 1879.29 km 2 (7%) of highly suitability areas, 5062.03 km 2 (20%) of medium suitability areas, 4706.20 km 2 (18%) of low suitability areas, and 8355.36 km 2 (33%) of unsuitable areas were detected. According to the results obtained, the southern parts of the study area are more suitable for grapevine cultivation. This study will be an important and useful regional guide for agricultural land use planning and the cultivation of grapevines.

Suggested Citation

  • Mevlut Uyan & Jarosław Janus & Ela Ertunç, 2023. "Land Use Suitability Model for Grapevine ( Vitis vinifera L.) Cultivation Using the Best Worst Method: A Case Study from Ankara/Türkiye," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-20, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:13:y:2023:i:9:p:1722-:d:1229366
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/13/9/1722/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/13/9/1722/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ertunç, Ela & Uyan, Mevlut, 2022. "Land valuation with Best Worst Method in land consolidation projects," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    2. Kheybari, Siamak & Javdanmehr, Mahsa & Rezaie, Fariba Mahdi & Rezaei, Jafar, 2021. "Corn cultivation location selection for bioethanol production: An application of BWM and extended PROMETHEE II," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).
    3. Ustaoglu, E. & Sisman, S. & Aydınoglu, A.C., 2021. "Determining agricultural suitable land in peri-urban geography using GIS and Multi Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) techniques," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 455(C).
    4. Stefano Salata & Sila Ozkavaf-Senalp & Koray Velibeyoğlu & Zeynep Elburz, 2022. "Land Suitability Analysis for Vineyard Cultivation in the Izmir Metropolitan Area," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-20, March.
    5. Hasan Zabihi & Mohsen Alizadeh & Philip Kibet Langat & Mohammadreza Karami & Himan Shahabi & Anuar Ahmad & Mohamad Nor Said & Saro Lee, 2019. "GIS Multi-Criteria Analysis by Ordered Weighted Averaging (OWA): Toward an Integrated Citrus Management Strategy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-17, February.
    6. Alon Tal, 2018. "Making Conventional Agriculture Environmentally Friendly: Moving beyond the Glorification of Organic Agriculture and the Demonization of Conventional Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-17, April.
    7. Akpoti, Komlavi & Kabo-bah, Amos T. & Zwart, Sander J., 2019. "Agricultural land suitability analysis: State-of-the-art and outlooks for integration of climate change analysis," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 172-208.
    8. Wójcik - Leń, Justyna & Postek, Paweł & Stręk, Żanna & Leń, Przemysław, 2020. "Proposed algorithm for the identification of land for consolidation with regard to spatial variability of soil quality," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    9. Rezaei, Jafar, 2016. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 126-130.
    10. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    11. Zhao, Haoran & Guo, Sen & Zhao, Huiru, 2019. "Comprehensive assessment for battery energy storage systems based on fuzzy-MCDM considering risk preferences," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 450-461.
    12. Rezaei, Jafar & van Roekel, Wilco S. & Tavasszy, Lori, 2018. "Measuring the relative importance of the logistics performance index indicators using Best Worst Method," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 158-169.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Paola D'Antonio & Costanza Fiorentino & Mohamed A. E. AbdelRahman & Maura Sannino & Emanuele Scalcione & Giovanni Lacertosa & Felice Modugno & Antonella Marsico & Angelo R. Donvito & Luis Alcino Conce, 2025. "Modeling climatic, terrain and soil factors using AHP in GIS for grapevines suitability assessment," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(1), pages 970-991, February.
    2. Marcelo Werneck Barbosa & María de los Ángeles Raimann Pumpin & Gonzalo Vargas, 2025. "Prioritization of Water Footprint Management Practices and Their Effect on Agri-Food Firms’ Reputation and Legitimacy: A Best–Worst Method Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(8), pages 1-24, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nan Li & Haining Zhang & Xiangcheng Zhang & Xue Ma & Sen Guo, 2020. "How to Select the Optimal Electrochemical Energy Storage Planning Program? A Hybrid MCDM Method," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-20, February.
    2. Chong Li & He Huang & Ya Luo, 2022. "An Integrated Two-Dimension Linguistic Intuitionistic Fuzzy Decision-Making Approach for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Supplier Selection," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-24, September.
    3. Gholamreza Haseli & Reza Sheikh & Jianqiang Wang & Hana Tomaskova & Erfan Babaee Tirkolaee, 2021. "A Novel Approach for Group Decision Making Based on the Best–Worst Method (G-BWM): Application to Supply Chain Management," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(16), pages 1-20, August.
    4. Wu, Qun & Liu, Xinwang & Zhou, Ligang & Qin, Jindong & Rezaei, Jafar, 2024. "An analytical framework for the best–worst method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    5. Siamak Kheybari & Mohammad Reza Mehrpour & Paul Bauer & Alessio Ishizaka, 2024. "How Can Risk-Averse and Risk-Taking Approaches be Considered in a Group Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Problem?," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 33(4), pages 883-909, August.
    6. Hamid Reza Fazeli & Qingjin Peng, 2023. "Integrated approaches of BWM-QFD and FUCOM-QFD for improving weighting solution of design matrix," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 1003-1020, March.
    7. Liu, Aijun & Zhao, Yingxue & Meng, Xiaoge & Zhang, Yan, 2020. "A three-phase fuzzy multi-criteria decision model for charging station location of the sharing electric vehicle," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 225(C).
    8. Ertunç, Ela & Uyan, Mevlut, 2022. "Land valuation with Best Worst Method in land consolidation projects," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    9. Penjani Hopkins Nyimbili & Turan Erden, 2021. "Comparative evaluation of GIS-based best–worst method (BWM) for emergency facility planning: perspectives from two decision-maker groups," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 105(1), pages 1031-1067, January.
    10. Mi, Xiaomei & Tang, Ming & Liao, Huchang & Shen, Wenjing & Lev, Benjamin, 2019. "The state-of-the-art survey on integrations and applications of the best worst method in decision making: Why, what, what for and what's next?," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 205-225.
    11. Hashem Omrani & Arash Alizadeh & Ali Emrouznejad & Tamara Teplova, 2024. "Data envelopment analysis model with decision makers’ preferences: a robust credibility approach," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 339(3), pages 1269-1306, August.
    12. Haoran Zhao & Sen Guo, 2024. "Risks assessment on island micro-grids construction schemes employing a fuzzy-MCDM framework," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(5), pages 13185-13216, May.
    13. Kheybari, Siamak & Kazemi, Mostafa & Rezaei, Jafar, 2019. "Bioethanol facility location selection using best-worst method," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 242(C), pages 612-623.
    14. Rabia Bovkir & Eda Ustaoglu & Arif Cagdas Aydinoglu, 2023. "Assessment of Urban Quality of Life Index at Local Scale with Different Weighting Approaches," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 165(2), pages 655-678, January.
    15. van de Kaa, Geerten & Janssen, Marijn & Rezaei, Jafar, 2018. "Standards battles for business-to-government data exchange: Identifying success factors for standard dominance using the Best Worst Method," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 182-189.
    16. James J. H. Liou & Perry C. Y. Liu & Huai-Wei Lo, 2020. "A Failure Mode Assessment Model Based on Neutrosophic Logic for Switched-Mode Power Supply Risk Analysis," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-19, December.
    17. Halil Ibrahim Cicekdagi & Ertugrul Ayyildiz & Mehmet Cabir Akkoyunlu, 2023. "Enhancing search and rescue team performance: investigating factors behind social loafing," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 119(3), pages 1315-1340, December.
    18. Junnan Wu & Xin Liu & Dianqi Pan & Yichen Zhang & Jiquan Zhang & Kai Ke, 2023. "Research on Safety Evaluation of Municipal Sewage Treatment Plant Based on Improved Best-Worst Method and Fuzzy Comprehensive Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-15, May.
    19. Feng, Jianghong & Guo, Ping & Xu, Guangyi & Xu, Gangyan & Ning, Yu, 2024. "An integrated decision framework for resilient sustainable waste electric vehicle battery recycling transfer station site selection," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 373(C).
    20. Liang, Fuqi & Brunelli, Matteo & Rezaei, Jafar, 2020. "Consistency issues in the best worst method: Measurements and thresholds," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:13:y:2023:i:9:p:1722-:d:1229366. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

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

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

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

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

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

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