Developing Policy for Suitable Harvest Zone using Multi Criteria Evaluation and GIS-Based Decision Support System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Natural resources management often entails making choices among alternatives. Decision support tools are instruments for making rational decisions, particularly geographical information system (GIS) technology-incorporates the multi criteria evaluations (MCE) and analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Therefore, the objective of this study is to determine the suitable forest harvest zone in hill tropical forest in Peninsular Malaysia using MCE and GIS as a tool for decision support system. The implementation of the AHP method for MCE has shown the capabilities of integration of a GIS and decision support system, where the data was prepared spatially in a GIS, an analysis is performed with the systematic evaluation method. The MCE allows both constraint and criteria maps to be combined in arithmetic operation in a suitability analysis, and also allows for criteria maps to be assigned variable weights. From the weights derived from the AHP method, it can be seen that slope and elevation were strong factors in allocating the suitable harvest zone (0.63 and 0.29). The hydrological aspect is the third most important factor, with 0.07. The total suitable area for productive forest zone was 9757.30 ha (96.06%) and the designated protected forest was about 399.20 ha (3.94%). This implies the importance of certain forest land to be classified as a restricted area for logging purposes to ensure the sustainable forest ecosystem and water resources. This result demonstrated that the methodology used has high potential and functionality for determining suitable forest harvest zone from several criteria for hill forest. Finally, it can be concluded that, MCE incorporating GIS provides an ideal tool and essential in modelling with flexibility and the ability for spatial modelling operation for site suitability study in hill forest of Peninsular Malaysia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".