Table 3.10. Assessment criteria
No Policy Objectives
Assessment Criteria Unit
Land
1 Tourism Development Rehabilitation
Cost Aesthetic Value
Rp million Ordinal Scale 1 – 5
2 Sustainable Development
Fertilizer Use
Multiple use Kg Nitrogenhayr
Number of Polygon 3
Economic Development Gross Margin
Rp millionhayr
Marine
1. Economic Aspect
Investment Benefit
Rp millionhayr Rp millionhayr
Source: Joan Loijen, Khairul Jamil and experts Explanation:
Rehabilitation Cost : The higher the rehabilitation cost, the worse Fertilizer Use
: The higher fertilizer use, the worse Multiple Use
: The more polygon per alternatives, the higher the multiple landuse value diversity
Gross Margin : The higher gross margin, the better
Benefit : The higher the gross margin, the better
Aesthetic Value : Total of area per alternative total of aesthetic value sum of multiplying
each landuse with its ordinal scale Investment
: The higher investment, the worse Benefit
: The higher benefit, the better
3.10.5. Selection of the Evaluation Criteria
Evaluation criteria, objectives and attributes, should be identified with respect to the problem. A set of criteria selected should adequately represent the
decision-making environment and must contribute towards the final goal. The set of attributes or criteria has been known to depend upon the system that is being
analyzed. This part determines all alternatives that will be selected to acquire best
alternative. To arrange ranks of alternatives coastal ecosystem development, determining criteriasub criteria that has been appropriate in research location by
using MCDM DEFINITE software is needed. MCDMMCA itself is a technique to assist the decision making in selecting from a number of choice alternatives.
Relevant criteria have to be identified, analyzed, combined, and evaluated in order
43
to meet specific objectives. Multi criteria methods provide a flexible way of
dealing with land allocation decisions.
Assessment Criteria Ecology
Economy Sustainable
Alternative Alt 1
Alt 2a Alt 3b
Alt 3c ------
Comparison Pair-wise
Standardization Criteria Weight Linear transformation 0,25
MaxMin 0,50
Weight Standardization
Overall Score Map
Set of alternative Set of criteria
Criterion score Effect table
DM Preference Alt1 Alt2 Alt3
C1 C2
C3
Comparison of Alternative and Ranking
Final Recommendation
Fig 3.6. MCA flow
44
IV. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Digital Image Processing
4.1.1. Radiometric Correction
Complete result of radiometric correction on all channels is shown in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1. Radiometric correction on digital imagery data
Channel First Image
Last Image Min. Value
Max.Value Min. Value
Max.Value TM1 57
255 198
TM2 34 255
221 TM3 23
255 232
TM4 9 255
246 TM5 8
255 247
TM7 7 255
248
As shown in Table 4.1, channels TM1 has highest atmosphere bias effect, followed by band 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7, respectively. These minimum values were then
used to subtract the corresponding channel band so that the minimum value of each band become 0 zero. In other words, to reduce this bias effect, all spectral
values will be reduced by its minimum value itself in each bands become 0 zero.
4.1.2. Geometric Correction
The Indonesian marine environment map was used for image geometric correction as referencing. A polynomial rectification with linear order was
selected and applied using 12 reference points Ground Control Points GCPs. The number of GCPs was used 12 points only, because the area is relatively flat.
45
