4.7 Article

Comparison of different models for land consolidation projects: Aydin Yenipazar Plain

期刊

LAND USE POLICY
卷 127, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106590

关键词

Land reallocation; Fuzzy logic; Western Turkey

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the success of two different methods, interview-based reallocation and fuzzy logic-based reallocation, in land consolidation projects. The results showed that both methods were successful, with better results in consolidation rate, number of enterprises, and average parcel size achieved with the fuzzy logic method. The number of parcels per enterprise was equal in both methods. The fuzzy logic method had more single share parcels, while the interview-based method had larger single share parcel areas. In conclusion, the fuzzy logic method was more successful than the interview-based method.
Reallocation of land is one of the most essential and challenging stages of land consolidation (LC) projects. In this study, the success of two different methods used in the reallocation phase was evaluated. One of these methods is interview-based reallocation, and the other is fuzzy logic-based reallocation method. The projects' success was determined by consolidation rate, number of enterprises, number of parcels per enterprise, average parcel size, and shareholding status of the parcels. As a result of the study, it was revealed that the project carried out by both methods was successful. Consolidation rate, number of enterprises, and average parcel size values give better results with the fuzzy logic method. The number of parcels per enterprise turned out to be equal (1) in both methods. It was found that the number of single shares in the shareholding status of the parcels is higher in the fuzzy logic method. It was also revealed that single share parcel areas are more in the interview-based distri-bution method. It is possible to say that the fuzzy logic method is more successful than the interview-based method.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据