GeoJournal 43: 135–151.

 1997 (October) Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

GIS-aided land evaluation and decision-making

for regulating urban expansion: A South African
case study
Van der Merwe, Johannes Hendrik, Department of Geography and
Environmental Studies, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch,
South Africa

Received 28 April 1997; accepted 12 May 1997

Abstract: A computerised aid to the land use planning process is demonstrated on the urban
edge of Cape Town, South Africa. Multi-criteria analysis is performed in the IDRISI GIS
package to evaluate development suitability for four land use categories according to appro-
priately measured and weighted criteria. The four suitability images are then subjected to
multi-objective land allocation to demarcate optimum locations for each land use type. The
decision-making process entails execution of seven consecutive steps which are discussed
in detail and applied in the case study. Technical decisions are rationalised and results
displayed. The paper concludes with a call for the development of applications which can
incorporate public participation in this type of decision-making process to ensure the wider
acceptance of advanced GIS technology as ‘appropriate technology’.

Urban growth and containment
Urbanization and urban growth are some of the most
prevalent problems modern societies have to deal
with. Macro-societal structural processes are often at
the root of urban-rural boundary conflicts, as Razin
and Hasson (1994) so ably demonstrate. South
African cities face many rather unique structural
problems typical of the ‘apartheid city’ – especially
those related to low-density sprawl through residen-
tial expansion of development for all socio-economic
classes. Managed containment of such growth along
sensitive environmental margins of the city forms the
major subject of this paper.
As is testified by the voluminous literature, con-
taining urban growth has become a world focus in
planning, although reservations about the necessity
for rural preservation are expressed by some com-
mentators (Evans 1991) on socio-political grounds.
In most countries spatial control strategies aimed at
curbing city growth have pragmatically been replaced
by strategies to manage growth, since growth is
inevitable anyway (Urban Foundation 1993, p. 4).
What makes the case of Cape Town in South
Africa somewhat unique is the huge expansion of
low-income housing following the influx of large
numbers of black migrants after the abolishment of
control measures in 1986. Formerly the present
Western Cape province, of which Cape Town is the
prime metropole, had been designated a ‘labour pref-
erence area’ for the ‘coloured’ population group. The
resultant explosive growth of low-cost housing and
informal settlements along the eastern and the south-
eastern margins of the city, in addition to middle- and
high-income suburban growth in the north-western
edge zone, have catapulted containment strategies,
such as urban edge delimitation (Western Cape
Regional Services Council 1994), into prominence
on the urban policy agenda (Bridgman et al. 1992,
pp. 12–15). The current demand for the establishment
of small-farm agriculture near the city as a means to
boost food production and to provide subsistence
means to as many of the urban destitute as possible,
adds a further dimension to the planning and espe-
cially the decision-making dilemma in this regard.
The decision-making dilemma
Historically planning decisions on urban growth had
been made in a typically top-down fashion through
institutionalised structures and methods. Planning
136
structures were often appointed bodies staffed by
professional planners, in some instances lacking
executive powers but acting principally according
to national (Physical Planning Act 125 of 1991)
and provincial (Land Use Planning Ordinance 15 of
1985) regulations. Planning decision-making was
often based on one-dimensional application of single
criteria, for instance rating land for agricultural suit-
ability only, instead of determining ‘. . . the most
appropriate allocation of land uses from among a set
of uses’ (Smit et al. 1987, p. 361). To date, demar-
cations of the urban edge in Cape Town have mainly
been determined by high agricultural soil potential as
mapped out during the 1960s. However inadequate,
these measures did afford some protection to pro-
ductive agricultural land in this topographically and
environmentally diverse urban edge zone displayed
in Figure 1. Currently land-use planning is at an
impasse – mainly for two reasons. The new local
government system has allowed the excision of the
eastern Stellenbosch district from metropolitan gov-
ernment and at the same time abolished the Regional
Services Council, to leave this area virtually without
effective over-arching land use planning and control
Figure 1. Topography of Cape Town’s urban edge.
J. H. Van der Merwe
to ensure orderly development. Provided that the new
modes of participatory, transparent decision making
(Metropolitan Development Framework 1993a, 1995)
move beyond mere slogans and co-optation to a
process of participatory democracy in South Africa
and in the metropolitan area in particular, planners
may now look forward to applying new planning
technology appropriately to aid this process. The
implied shift in the role of planners from ‘. . . pre-
venting and controlling, to promoting and guiding,
development . . .’ in an ‘. . . adaptable and flexible
mode with full accountability assured’ (Urban
Foundation 1993, p. 7) raises the imperative for
adoption of new technologies in planning practice.
Fortunately a range of related methods for multi-
criteria decision-making, which literature has clam-
oured for over a number of years, has now become
operational. The marriage of multi-criteria analysis
and Geographical Information Systems (GIS) into
what has been called a ‘. . . melting-pot integrating
spatial data and human knowledge via a given model’
(Whitley et al. 1993), offers the opportunity to put
technology to work.
GIS-aided land evaluation and decision-making for regulating urban expansion
The multi-criteria method
Multi-criteria evaluation (MCE) for land use issues
is not a new concept. Already a quarter-century ago
McHarg (1971) pioneered the so-called sieve tech-
nique with which geographers and planners are
familiar. The McHarg epistemology entailed the sub-
sequent physical overlaying of numerous transparent
maps, each depicting determining variables, to isolate
areas suitable for specific land uses. Despite its
obvious tedium and relative inaccuracy the method
became firmly established in planning practice as
a method of multidisciplinary-based suitability
analysis, now perpetuated in GIS methodology (GIS
World Interview 1995). Appropriate examples of
such applications are provided by Hendrix and
Buckley (1992) and Davidson et al. (1994) in their
respective searches for land suitable for sewage
receipt and for crop cultivation, using Boolean logic
and fuzzy set methodologies. The new concept of
MCE is based on the same principle, but implements
explicitly reasoned decision rules to enable the com-
bination of many criteria into a single index of suit-
ability. It is therefore akin to what is normally
understood under the term ‘modelling’. It has the
ability to incorporate the wide variety of land rating
typologies distinguished by Smit et al. (1987, p. 356)
and Smit and Kristjanson (1989) which include inter
alia, physical quality, productivity indices, market
value, sensitivity for development and ‘hazardous-
ness’ (Haefner et al. 1991) of land.
Nijkamp et al. (1990) provide a comprehensive
technical discussion on the general principles of
MCE, which will not be repeated here. To date MCE
has not been implemented on vector-based GIS.
Applications have been developed, but GIS func-
tionality was limited to the display and digital storage
of mapped overlays only. For purposes of physical
planning, computer programmed models based on
linear programming optimisation were developed
externally from GIS to carry out multi-criteria eval-
uation. Spatial data (normally transformed to ASCII
or appropriate data base format) was imported to
these programs from GIS overlays and after program
execution the spatial results were exported back
to GIS for display purposes. A fair number of
examples of such procedures have been reported in
the literature. Janssen (1989, 1990, 1991), Janssen
and Rietveld (1990) and Van Herwijnen, Janssen
and Rietveld (1990) developed various applications
culminating in a unique programming system (called
DEFINITE) to evaluate alternative agricultural land
use options and site selection in the Netherlands.
Carver (1991a, 1991b) used Fortran programming for
locating potential sites for nuclear power stations in
Britain, while Massam (1991) located waste transfer
stations in Israel using decision support software
called DAS (Decision Analysis System). Jankowski
and Richard (1994) used Lotus BEST CHOICE
137
software to model route selection for a water trans-
mission line near Seattle. Wang (1994) broke new
ground by applying the concept of artificial neural
networks programmed in C language together with
GIS to adapt FAO methodology for the identification
of land suitable for specific agricultural crops.
These solutions solved most of the accuracy
problems of the sieve technique, but maintained
much of the tedium. Fortunately, raster-based GIS
– traditionally best suited for spatial modelling
purposes – has now come to the rescue. Since Version
4.1 the IDRISI package (Eastman 1993) provides a
modelling application tool for land suitability assess-
ment and land allocation. It performs a weighted-
linear combination procedure, rather than the
computationally impractical alternative of concor-
dance-discordance analysis (Eastman 1993, p. 38).
The next section explains the seven-step process of
what is basically a resource allocation method and
which is applied in the remainder of the paper.
The seven-steps of MCE
The discussion which follows has a dual purpose: it
principally structures the actual procedural steps
followed in this study, but at the same time hypo-
thetical participants in the public decision-making
process deemed ideal for their respective purposes
are indicated. For the purpose of demonstration, all
technical and judgmental decisions were taken by the
researcher.
As illustrated in Figure 2, the first step is to define
the particular land use objectives to be set for the
targeted planning area – i.e., the land use classes to
be permitted. These objectives will, of course, differ
from setting to setting and should be based on locally
negotiated consensus while also being in line with
regional planning guidelines. Concomitantly, specific
area goals for land use allocation will be set to
satisfy agreed local needs. Typically this step will
entail the formulation and testing of various experi-
mental scenarios and viewing and debating of real-
istically displayed graphic results.
The second step is to define adequate and appro-
priate criteria through which the suitability of land
parcels for each objective may be measured. Both the
factors which enhance a land parcel’s viability for
a particular use and the constraints to all or some
uses must be stipulated. These criteria or factors need
to be of a spatial nature so that their locational
distributions may be digitally mapped (on GIS) as a
third step. Typically digitising will take place in
vector format, so that subsequent rasterisation
(prior to, or after transfer to IDRISI) will have to be
done. Since, at this point, each criterion map is still
uniquely feature coded, the fourth step entails the
standardization of all criteria/factors to a common
measurement scale.
138
Figure 2. A step-wise procedure for multi-criteria evaluation.
While the first two steps require consultation
among participants, the third step is purely technical.
Step 4 is also rather technical in nature, but since
the standardised value range replacing the unique
variable codes must correlate with suitability rating,
some judgement is involved. For Step 5 the partici-
pants will be called upon to rate the relative impor-
tance of each objective by applying a system of
differential criteria weights for each – once more
through joint consultation. During the penultimate
step (Step 6) the constraints and criteria weights are
applied to the factors in a single procedure (running
the MCE-module in IDRISI) to produce separate
image-maps of suitability for each land use objective.
This computer application step is followed by another
(running the MOLA-module) which effects multiple-
objective decision-making logic and produces an
optimum allocation map. These last two steps are
largely instrumental and are performed by technical
GIS experts once more, although a judgmental
element is involved when participants weight the
different objectives in order of priority in the final
step. The application of this procedure is demon-
strated next for the region along the eastern fringe
of the Cape Town inner metropole (see Figure 3).
J. H. Van der Merwe
MCE application: The Cape Town case
The discussion of results follows the basic procedure
set out above by providing the logic and arguments
which may develop during such an application. The
application involves a regional level land allocation
exercise to find the land most suitable for broad use
categories, rather than for specific detailed use types
(although the procedure for the latter would be vir-
tually identical). The basic assumption is therefore
that all 67200 ha of land in the study area (see Figure
3) must be allocated to the different objective classes,
while accounting for the realities of existing usage.
Land use objectives and area goals
Since MCE entails the allocation of land parcels to
the uses for which they are best suited, the actual uses
to be considered need to be selected very carefully.
At the regional level these objectives need to reflect
and should be formulated by regional interests (more
government/planning expertise, less local commu-
nity), while decisions at a more localised level
require a reversal in focus and representation. As
indicated in Table 1, and considering the realities
implicit in the current land use pattern in Figure 3,
the high-potential agricultural character of the
Stellenbosch fringe area makes the large (40%) allo-
GIS-aided land evaluation and decision-making for regulating urban expansion 139

Figure 3. Urban edge land use in Cape Town.

Table 1. Land allocation objectives

Land use type Area (ha) Weight

Current Objective

Agriculture: Perennial 25066 (37.3%) 27000 (40%) 1

Agriculture: Annual 12163 (18.1%)
Small-farming/-holdings 08000 (12%) 2
Nature conservation: Forestry 02688 0(4.0%) 17000 (25%) 3
Nature conservation: Veld 17338 (25.8%)
Urban and related development 09946 (14.8%) 12000 (18%) 4
Reserved for allocation 03200 0(5%)

Total 67200 (100%)

cation to perennial (mainly vineyards and lately fruit
orchards) and annual (vegetables, tobacco and
grazing) agricultural crops a first imperative, since
crop lands are under threat globally (Walker 1994)
and nationally.
Agriculture not only provides the district with a
stable and highly successful economic base, but to
the large and growing tourist industry the district’s
expanses of vineyards have become synonymous
with the famous winelands of the Cape. Quick and
Pistorius (1994) and the Metropolitan Development
Framework (1993b), among a plethora of sources,
140
provide concise recent overviews of these natural and
human environmental resources, threats to them and
the high priority rating planning authorities accord to
them. Although agriculture currently occupies some
55% of all land, it seems logical to budget most of
the small-farming allotment (12% of the area) from
this stock. Small-scale farming and the search for
land suitable for that purpose has recently become
the focus of attention, not least because it can serve
as a means to demonstrate economic change under
the new political dispensation. Furthermore, small-
holding development is a fixture finding a ready
market in the fringes of most large cities. Its impor-
tance therefore warrants a second place rating in the
weights table.
A large part of the study area encompasses the
scenic mountains delineating the eastern extremity of
the Cape Town outer metropolitan area containing
ecosystems which have outstanding aesthetic value
and are reservoirs of biodiversity or rare species
(Quick and Pistorius 1994, p. 52). Forestry and
natural veld (mostly indigenous fynbos) cover nearly
30% of the study area. Some of this land needs to
be appropriated for alternative uses, while the pristine
heartland of natural veld needs to be maintained as
a biosphere reserve at current conservation levels.
Large parts of these mountains are already protected
through various statutory measures and it would
therefore not only be necessary to provide for con-
served nature, but it would also be realistic to accom-
modate its current usage in the model.
Similarly large areas are already urbanized (some
15% of the total), so that the medium term urban
expansion demands a modest 3% increase in this
category. As indicated, this increase is to be at the
expense of both agriculture and natural veld/forestry
– made possible by the availability of adequate
amounts of marginal land, as will be shown later.
Nevertheless, since urbanisation is the least suitable
use in a tourist-sensitive cultural haven such as this,
and given the expressed preference for urban densi-
fication instead of lateral growth in Cape Town,
urban allocation takes the lowest priority in the
weights table.
A further 5% of the land was not allocated in order
to experimentally show where the most marginal land
is situated once the main uses had been optimally
allocated. At this point it should be emphasized that
the weights listed in Table 1 are relative and can be
adjusted to have real numeric value during the actual
model application.
Criteria (factors and constraints) for the
valuation of objectives
In this section arguments for the inclusion of various
decision variables or criteria (here called factors as
Eastman (1993, p. 36) labels a ‘. . . criterion that
J. H. Van der Merwe
enhances or detracts from the suitability of a specific
alternative . . .’) for determining the suitability of
land for each land use objective are provided.
Likewise, factors or goals (constraints) which serve
to limit the location of uses are justified. It needs to
be emphasized that this selection of criteria is not
exhaustive – only the salient factors for which infor-
mation is fairly readily obtainable were considered.
Each land use objective is discussed separately
following Table 2. The correlation between the
measured land parcel value in the map image and its
suitability warrants some explanation: positive cor-
relation implies that a high image value (e.g. greater
distances from existing perennial crop) endows high
suitability for urban development, while negative
correlation implies the reciprocal (i.e. greater
distance from major roads, lower suitability for urban
development).
Factors determining selection for the commercial
agriculture objective
For this category three factor groups comprising six
separate sets of land attributes were isolated. Soil
potential, rated according to soil suitability for,
firstly, perennial crops was used. Highly suitable
soils (rated 4 or 5) include red and yellow apedal
soils along the lower slopes and the well-drained
alluvial soils in the valleys as well as on higher
mountain slopes. In contrast, virtually useless
brackish duplex alluvials and stony outcrops on the
mountains are rated very low (0 or 1). Similar ratings
were made for annual crops, another major com-
mercial income earner in the district. These ratings
concur with the previous group, but subtle differences
do occur.
Topography forms an important determinant of
suitability for agriculture. Absolute height is con-
sidered because, on aesthetic and bioconservancy
grounds, it is deemed necessary to prohibit agricul-
tural development above critical contour heights
along the mountains and hills to protect landscape
integrity. Slope is even more important from an ease
of cultivation and construction and an erosion hazard
point of view.
To enhance the spatial compacting of use types
and to prevent the dysfunctional intrusion of other
(often incompatible) uses, the distance to current
perennial crop stands (logically presumed to already
occupy land most suitable for this purpose) was
positively associated with suitability and is an impor-
tant measure to protect agriculture. Naturally, existing
perennial crop utilisation is considered as an impor-
tant protection measure and also to ensure functional
clustering.
Already developed urban land and river flood
plains were constrained out as being not available for
commercial agriculture at all. The latter factor is
defined as the area below the 50-year flood line.
GIS-aided land evaluation and decision-making for regulating urban expansion 141

Table 2. Selection of factors and constraints (Step 2)

Factors Correlation Land use objective

(Images generated) (Image value
with suitability) Commercial Small- Urban Nature
Agriculture Farming Development Conservation

Soil Potential
: Perennial crops Positive jjj
: Perennial crops Negative jjj
: Annual crops Positive jjj jjj
: Engineering suitability Positive jjj
Topography
: Height Positive jjj
: Height Negative jjj jjj jjj
: Slope Positive jjj
: Slope Negative jjj jjj jjj
Distance to
: Major roads Negative jjj jjj
: Existing urban use Negative jjj jjj
: Metropolitan edge Negative jjj jjj
: Drainage lines Negative jjj
: Existing perennial crops Positive jjj jjj
: Existing perennial crops Negative jjj
Current use (0/5)
: Perennial crops Positive jjj
: Urban use Positive jjj
Current use (0/1)
: Urban use (0) r
: Perennial crops (0) r
: Flood plain (0) r r r
: Urban & Perennial (0) r r

jjj Factors; r = Constraints; 0/5 and 0/1 = two-value alternatives.

‘Urban land’ is taken as contiguously built-up areas
as well as uses of an urban nature scattered around
the city fringes, concurring with what Pond and Yeats
(1994) signifies as ‘direct’ and ‘indirect visible’
urban land.
Factors determining selection for the
small-farming objective
In the virtual absence of existing small-farming or
even clear models for the type of small-farming
envisaged for Cape Town, criteria developed else-
where (e.g. Bdliya 1991) could not simply be
adopted. Consequently, suitability for small-farming
was determined on seven factors for which data was
available. Similar to commercial agriculture, soil
potential for annual crop production – the more
likely speciality for small market-oriented farmers –
is a critical factor. Perennial crop potential is not con-
sidered here, in order to protect that use class as the
district’s agricultural mainstay. The same topo-
graphical factors (absolute height and slope) as for
commercial agriculture were included and for the
same purpose. Several distance factors become
important for the economic survival of small-farmers.
Distances to existing infrastructure (roads) and to
urban and metropolitan centres is vital for getting
fresh produce (the likely main commodity) to
markets efficiently. Current perennial crops are pro-
tected by lower potential ratings for small-farming
closer to such stands.
Land currently under urban and perennial crops
is not available for small-farming at all and, together
with river flood plains, act as constraints.
Factors determining selection for the nature
conservation objective
Only three factors were considered for this objective.
All land with low agricultural potential (for both
perennial and annual crops), high topographical
location and steep slopes was rated highly for con-
servation. This argument is logical because all pro-
ductively marginal land would then qualify for
potential conservation. Conversely all existing urban
and perennial cropland would act as constraints
(unavailable for conservation), while reserving all
flood plains for conservation exclusively.
142
Factors determining selection for the urban usage
objective
The last objective, being the most controversial usage
and having an irreversible impact on any land use
landscape, was determined by nine factors and con-
strained by two. An additional soil attribute was
used, namely soil rating for engineering suitability.
The likelihood for construction problems to be
encountered on different soil types was accounted
for by considering characteristics such as bearing
capacity, shear strength and compressibility (Jali and
Choudhury 1992). For aesthetic, economic and land-
scape reasons high-lying and steep land were con-
sidered less suitable for urban building. Since urban
development is the most intrusive type of land use
and therefore detrimental to the functional integrity
of other (especially agricultural) uses, five distance
parameters were employed to control urban alloca-
tion. Distance to the skyline (calculated as distance
from drainage lines captured in the data base) is
important for landscape aesthetics, while distance
to roads encourages possible development near
already developed infrastructure corridors. Likewise
distance to the metropole and to other existing urban
development is important as measures to ensure
contiguous development and to prevent leapfrog
sprawling. Distance from existing perennial crops
acts to protect the latter, while current urban use
needs to be retained during modelling.
As can be expected perennial croplands and flood
plains are constrained out (totally unavailable) for
urbanisation. Having concluded the listing of criteria
considered in modelling land use allocation, the focus
now shifts to the practicalities of digitally mapping
these factors and constraints.
Mapping and digital manipulation of criteria
Mapping of the criteria demands diligence in com-
piling detailed and accurate base maps from which
to work – traditionally the domain of geographers/
cartographers. The following base maps were origi-
nally compiled at a scale of 1:50000 for the 67200
ha (28 × 24 km) study area: soil types, drainage lines,
road infrastructure and land use. For topographical
detail a 50 m horizontal resolution digital elevation
model (DEM) data was purchased from the Chief
Directorate of Surveys and Land Information and
imported into GIS via a program adapted to trans-
late the South African National Exchange Standard
(NES) of the original data. As attributes each soil
unit’s suitability for perennial and annual crop culti-
vation, as well as engineering (for construction
purposes) properties, were recorded separately as
ratings on a scale of 0 to 5 (where 0 is unsuitable
for any use, 1 is least and 5 is most suitable). These
ratings are in accordance with relevant FAO guide-
J. H. Van der Merwe
lines for land capability evaluation (Davidson 1992).
The land use map was compiled from 1988 and 1993
aerial photographs at a scale of 1:50000 and finally
thoroughly field checked by the author and assistants.
Thirteen land use categories, generalized to five, as
depicted in Figure 3, were distinguished. Four classes
of publicly maintained roads – ranging from ‘local
gravel’ through ‘local tarred’ to ‘regional tarred’ and
‘double-lane freeways’ – were mapped. Digitising
was done on the PC version of the vector-based
ARC/INFO GIS running on a 486-computer.
These vector base maps were subsequently ras-
terised (using the ARC/INFO GRID module) because
efficient GIS-modelling still requires this format. The
raster images were exported (as ERDAS images) to
the raster-based IDRISI GIS-package, since the MCE
programs are available on that platform only, where
the modelling exercise took place. A cell size of 1 ha
(100 m × 100 m) was decided upon, creating an
image of 67200 cells which proved to be well within
the hard- and software capacities and providing a suf-
ficiently detailed resolution for decision-making.
In the IDRISI software environment several base
images for other criteria could then be generated
–especially the critical distance calculations between
all cells as required. These included distance from
drainage lines, roads, perennial crops, urban uses and
the metropolitan fringe. Carrying out these calcula-
tions required the prior creation of images containing
only those spatial elements (e.g. land uses) from
which distances needed to be calculated. These could
then also act as images for constraint maps when
required.
Standardised criteria measurements across
factors and constraints (Step 4)
One of the primary steps in the evaluation process
is to ensure a standardised measurement system
across all factors considered. Since most images
(except the three soil images) still held image values
for the original map codes (i.e. land use types or dis-
tances in metres), these had to be standardised to a
uniform suitability rating scale – in this case between
0 and 5. Assigning values to specific factors amounts
to the making of decision rules (Eastman 1993, p. 36)
in the shape of thresholds for each criterion. The
decision rules devised in this case are discussed and
rationalised here.
As a general guideline a positive correlation
between the value awarded and suitability is
assumed. Aside from rating soil potential which
required external expert assistance acknowledged
elsewhere, various statistical and empirical guidelines
from the literature and from the real mapped land-
scape were used to assign values to critical class
groupings. Table 3 shows the class boundaries and
standardised measurements employed for each factor.
GIS-aided land evaluation and decision-making for regulating urban expansion 143

Table 3. Standardised potential rates table

Factors Objective* Potential rating (image value)

0 1 2 3 4 5

Height 1. AGRI > 500 .400–499 0300–399 0200–299 100–199 < 100
(metres) 2. S-F > 300 .200–299 0– 0100–199 .– < 100
3. NAT – 0– < 300 0300–399 400–499 > 500
4. URB > 300 .200–299 0– 0100–199 .– < 100
Slope 1. AGRI > 21.0 14.0–20.9 0 9.0–13.9 0 5.0–8.9 .2.0–4.9 < 2.0
(%) 2. S-F > 14.0 05.0–13.9 0– 0 2.0–4.9 .– < 2.0
3. NAT – < 2.0 0 2.0–4.9 0 5.0–8.9 .9.0–13.9 > 14.0
4. URB > 21.0 14.0–20.9 0 9.0–13.9 0 5.0–8.9 .2.0–4.9 < 2.0
Distance to
drainage 4. URB – > 2400 1200–2399 0600–1199 300–599 < 300
(metres)
Distance to
roads 2. S-F – > 3400 2000–3399 1200–1999 600–1199 < 600
(metres) 4. URB
Distance to
metropole 2. S-F – > 15.0 10.0–14.9 0 6.0–9.9 .2.0–5.9 < 2.0
(km) 4. URB
Distance to
urban area 2. S-F – > 3000 2000–2999 1000–1999 500–999 < 500
(metres) 4. URB
Distance to
perennial 1. AGRI – > 1200 0600–1199 0300–599 100–299 < 100
agriculture 2. S-F – < 100 0100–299 0300–599 600–1199 > 1200
(metres) 4. URB – < 100 0100–299 0300–599 600–1197 > 1200

* 1. Perennial and annual agriculture; 2. Small-farming; 3. Nature conservation; 4. Urban.

Class values for absolute height were mostly
assigned according to the actual location of real land
use features shown on 1:50000 topographical maps,
while a general principle was followed that lower-
lying land should be developed first. This order is,
of course, reversed in the case of nature conserva-
tion. Slope is a more vital factor and numerous
sources could be employed to delineate critical
classes. Concerning agricultural potential there was
consensus among various sources (Cooke and
Doornkamp 1990, p. 34; Dent and Young 1981; Vink
1975) that at slopes steeper than 5%, free ploughing
creates erosion risks, above 9% weeding and sowing
machines become inoperable, above 14% heavy
equipment can no longer be used and tractors find a
use limit at 21%. Because the Soil Conservation
Act prohibits all cultivation at slopes above 20%
and even slopes above 12% on certain soil series
(Elsenburg, personal communication), the slopes
above 20% were rated at zero – i.e. no potential for
development of any sort. Pragmatic adjustments were
allowed for in some cases, such as that of small-
farming, without contravening these basic principles.
For urban potential the ease of construction provided
the logic: Cooke and Doornkamp (1990) lists 2% as
the slope level where major infrastructure encounters
construction problems, 5% where house- and road
building costs become a problem, 9% the limit for
railways and industrial development and 17% the
absolute development limit.
None of the distance measures could totally
prohibit development of any sort – hence the lack of
zero ratings. Nor was there any empirical evidence
to support particular ratings. In these cases the sta-
tistical principle of quintile division was applied to
ensure approximately equal amounts of land in each
distance category.
As Table 4 indicates, several constraint images
were constructed. Implementing Boolean logic, a
value of 1 was assigned to cells available for devel-
opment of a particular objective, while unavailable
cells received a zero-value. Floodplains were delim-
ited in this fashion by rasterising the drainage line
overlay and assigning zeros to a one-cell width (100
m or 50 m on both stream banks) along each drainage
line – the maximum width possible with the current
cell-size. This attempts to approximate the extent of
a 50-year flood line in the absence of actual data.
Various single-class land use images removed the
respective areas which apply to specific objectives as
144
Table 4. List of constraint images
Factors Objective Image value (Boolean)
0 (unavailable)
Floodplain 1. Agriculture Drainage lines (1 cell = 100 m)
2. Small-farming
4. Urban
Land use 1. Agriculture All urban uses
2. Small-farming All urban and industrial agriculture
3. Nature conservation Rest of the image
4. Urban Perennial crops/industrial agriculture
indicated in Table 3 and discussed in the previous
section.
A selection of some raw-potential raster images
is displayed in Figures 4 to 9. Comparison with the
land use pattern in Figure 3 helps to comprehend
these patterns of development potential. Figures 4–6
show each cell’s rating for commercial agriculture
according to soil potential, absolute height and
slope steepness. Similarly Figures 7–9 depict the
diminishing potential for urban or small-farm use
with increasing distance from rivers, roads and the
metropolitan edge respectively.
The development of criteria weights
The fifth step, and another primary issue in the pro-
cedure, entails assigning weights to each criterion
separately prior to running the MCE module. The
importance of this step is well demonstrated in Xiang
and Whitley (1994), where a computerised method
(prioritisation for land use suitability – PLUS) was
developed for long-range land use planning in a city
region. The IDRISI procedure provides a similar
best-fit weighting system developed by Saaty (1977)
whereby a pair-wise comparison matrix is con-
structed for each objective. The matrix is subse-
quently (and repeatedly, if necessary) analysed for
consistency and adjusted until satisfactory. In the
weighting system each factor is rated against every
other factor by assigning a ‘relative dominance value’
between 1 and 9 to the intersecting cell. When the
factor on the vertical axis is more important than
the factor on the horizontal axis, this value varies
between 1 and 9. In the converse case the value
varies between the reciprocals 1/2 and 1/9. The
weighting module is then run and a consistency check
performed through an index which indicates the prob-
ability that random ratings had been used. A consis-
tency ratio above 0.1 (Saaty 1977) requires resetting
of the weights because of an inconsistent treatment
of particular factor ratings (For example, when Factor
1 is weighted above Factor 2 and below Factor 3, but
Factor 2 is weighted above Factor 3). Once a satis-
factory consistency ratio is obtained, the resultant
J. H. Van der Merwe
1 (available)
Rest of the image
Rest of the image
Rest of the image
Annual crop, forestry, veld, drainage lines
Rest of the image
weights are reported and applied. The weights sum
to a total of 1.0, as the weighted linear combination
procedure requires, and as is documented for this
application in Table 5.
It needs to be emphasized that this weighting
system can, although rationally defensible in this
case, be fairly arbitrarily applied and depends entirely
on perceptions and priorities of (the) modeler(s) –
only the consistency check is stringently performed
through machine logic. Having completed this last
personal decision-making step, the GIS may now be
applied to perform the digital evaluation.
Application of multi-criteria evaluation
The penultimate step combines factors and con-
straints in weighted linear combinations by running
the MCE-module in IDRISI. This procedure is
repeated for each objective separately to create a
»suitability map with a value range per cell matching
that of the standardised factor maps used – a range
of 0 to 5 in this case. Figures 10–13 display the
results for each of the objectives investigated here.
Each of these images may be studied separately
to evaluate the effects which suitability rating,
weighting and constraint application have had on
suitability allocation for each objective. Commercial
agriculture (Figure 10) is clearly concentrated in
existing cultivated and high soil potential areas, while
urban use and high topographical locations are
avoided. Likewise, small-farming potential (Figure
11) concentrates in the low-lying metropolitan
vicinity. The potential for nature conservation (Figure
12) seems similarly well-modelled with high suit-
ability along the mountain and hill ranges. Suitability
for urban development (Figure 13) is also satisfac-
torily distributed, although the existing town of
Stellenbosch is rated ‘high’ (value 4) instead of ‘very
high’ (value 5) as one would expect existing devel-
opment to be classified. Clearly this demonstrates the
extent to which the preservation of the surrounding
commercial agriculture is prioritised in the model.
GIS-aided land evaluation and decision-making for regulating urban expansion
Figures 4–9. Potential maps (coarse resolution examples).
Multiple-objective decision-making
When applying multiple-objective decision-making
as a final step, two options are available on IDRISI’s
MOLA module. Firstly the complementary objectives
option, based on a multiple use principle (e.g. both
recreation and conservation in the same tract of
natural land) uses the set of suitability maps from the
previous step as factors to be weighted, linearly
combined and constrained as for the single objectives
previously. The resulting map shows the degree to
which areas meet all the objectives considered. The
second option assumes conflicting objectives, where
competition between uses exist and land is allocated
to single objectives exclusively. This option is
applied here and offers two solutions: prioritised or
compromised. The former solution requires objec-
tives to be prioritised by rank and for which spatial
needs are then satisfied by rank. Each use acts as
constraint to the next ranked objective. The latter
145
solution is often computed outside GIS platforms
(e.g. using linear programming) because of its com-
plexity and because massive raster data bases beyond
available computing power may result. The proce-
dure starts by ranking the suitability maps in
descending order, standardising the results at the
same time. Tied ranks are checked and resolved
through histogram equalization – a standard proce-
dure in most image processing systems. Because of
its perceived greater degree of realism towards real
world aims, and because decision makers understand
its conceptual and methodological basis better, the
compromise solution has been applied here and the
results are shown in Table 6 below.
The procedure iteratively allocates best-ranked
cells to objectives (land uses) according to the area
goals specified previously. It checks for allocation
conflict between objectives and resolves these based
on weighted minimum-distance-to-ideal-point logic
applied to cells in conflict. The allocation process
146 J. H. Van der Merwe

Table 5. Relative weighting of factors for each objective

Objective 1: Commercial agriculture

Factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 Weights

1. Soil potential (Perennial) 1 0.2016

2. Soil potential (Annual) 1/6 1 0.0773
3. Topographical height 1/4 1/2 1 0.0512
4. Topographical slope 2 3 5 1 0.2217
5. Distance to perennial agriculture 1/6 1/4 1/2 1/7 1 0.0346
6. Existing perennial use 3 5 5 4 5 1 0.4136

Consistency ratio: 0.09

Objective 2: Small-scale farming

Factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Weights

1. Soil potential (Annual) 1 0.0841

2. Topographical height 1/3 1 0.0529
3. Topographical slope 4 4 1 0.2750
4. Distance to roads 1/5 1/4 1/6 1 0.0275
5. Distance to metropole 4 6 1 7 1 0.3074
6. Distance to urban use 2 3 1/3 5 1/4 1 0.1089
7. Distance to perennial agriculture 3 3 1/3 4 1/3 2 1 0.1442

Consistency ratio: 0.06

Objective 3: Nature Conservation

Factors 1 2 3 Weight

1. Soil potential nature conservation 1 0.0914

2. Topographical height 6 1 0.6910
3. Topographical slope 3 1/4 1 0.2176

Consistency ratio: 0.05

Objective 4: Urban development

Factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Weights

1. Soil potential engineering 1 0.0441

2. Topographical height 2 1 0.0602
3. Topographical height slope 2 1 1 0.0553
4. Distance to drainage 1/3 1/5 1/3 1 0.0201
5. Distance to roads 1/5 1/7 1/6 1/2 1 0.0150
6. Distance to metropole 3 3 5 7 8 1 0.1545
7. Distance to urban use 2 2 1 5 6 1/4 1 0.0778
8. Distance to perennial agriculture 4 3 4 8 9 1 1 1 0.1333
9. Existing urban use 6 9 9 9 9 6 7 6 1 0.4396

Consistency ratio: 0.07

continues until exact area targets are achieved. The
solution maximises the suitability of land allocated
for each objective, given the weights assigned.
MOLA allows up to 15 objectives to be analysed, but
only four were defined here. The relative ranking and
weighting of objectives shown in Table 6 ensure that
conflict resolution will give precedence to existing
uses (perennial agriculture and urban development),
followed by ‘new use’ allocation (small-farming) and
that the remaining marginal land should go to con-
servation as the lowest priority.
This, of course, shows a bias towards development
rather than conservation, but serves to demonstrate
the ability to build policy into allocation decisions.
The tolerance level for final allocation determines
how precisely area goals are met and strongly influ-
ences computer run times (i.e., lower tolerance forces
a higher degree of area satisfaction and longer
GIS-aided land evaluation and decision-making for regulating urban expansion 147

Figure 10–13. Suitability for land use objectives.

runs). This explains the shortfall of 46 ha in alloca-
tion to the lowest ranked objective at a tolerance
level of 100 ha. The latter is also included in the 5%
of the total area not allocated to any specific use
(indicated in Table 1). These lands represent the most
marginal tracts for the objectives considered and
should be the first to be considered for alternative
uses.
The results obtained by the MOLA procedure is
mapped as the final product of the exercise (Figure
14). Comparison with the preceding maps shows a
high degree of logical convergence between actual
148 J. H. Van der Merwe

Table 6. Multiple-objective weighting and allocation results

Rank order 1. Commercial agriculture 2. Urban development 3. Small-farming 4. Nature conservation

Constraint Urban development Small-farming Nature conservation

Weight 00040 00030 0018 00012

Allocation (Ha) 27000 12000 8000 16954
Area satisfied (100%) (100%) (100%)

Figure 14. Optimum land use allocation.

GIS-aided land evaluation and decision-making for regulating urban expansion
land use patterns and the modelled allocation, empha-
sizing the planning potential of these methods.
Among the modelling results two salient aspects may
be highlighted. Firstly, the extent to which urban-
related land uses have already penetrated the fringe
zone is the most alarming. When urban expansion is
modelled as in this case the likelihood of continued
urban encroachment through the process of building
accretion becomes evident – existing development
acting as the ‘softening-up’ impetus to further (irre-
versible) development. Secondly, the concentration
of unallocated land in the central-southerly part of
the study area may be seen as an indication of a
region in which the land market and land use prac-
tices are likely to be more volatile and hence pose
greater threats to the preservation of a contiguous
rural edge to Cape Town.
Evaluation of results and future applications
The results presented here succeeded in achieving the
main aim of the study, namely to demonstrate the fea-
sibility and great potential of GIS-based multi-criteria
decision-making in physical planning. Sceptics
often doubt whether GIS represents ‘appropriate
technology’ in developing regions. This application
proves that such technology need not necessarily be,
as Klosterman (1995, p. 1) puts it ‘old-fashioned or
unsophisticated’ but has in fact become relatively
‘cheap, effective, reliable and easy to use’ and a tool
for conflict ‘provention’ (Xiang and Furuseth 1993).
The process and application developed here leaves
room for improvement on several counts, notably the
accuracy of the data base and hence the reliability
of the suitability maps produced. Furthermore, the
fact that all procedural decisions (notably the assign-
ment of weights) were solely taken by the researcher,
which, while based on logical argumentation and
expert evidence from literature, fails the test of trans-
parency, public participation and hence legitimacy
and acceptance by the community. The latter aspect
is currently being investigated by the writer as an
extension of this study and will be reported on in the
near future. Results from the technique are, of course,
highly sensitive to the weights applied. Altering the
weights assigned to the various criteria will have
significant effects on the final allocations of land,
so that the gleaning of as accurate, yet realistic,
values as possible from participants is one of the very
real challenges to those wishing to implement the
method in real-life situations. In South Africa, imag-
inative innovations for extracting realistic and oper-
ational weighting from unsophisticated participants
have been reported, while computerised techniques
applied at the level of corporate decision-making
have also been developed. These simultaneously
ensure the highest degree of scientific integrity in
weighting, and the acceptance and proper compre-
149
hension of the process from participants. The
problem of data accuracy is less serious, since the
resolution of one hectare was probably acceptable for
the meso-level planning scale intended. Incorporating
fuzzy theory (as in Davidson et al. 1994; Sui 1992;
Hall et al. 1992) may serve to account for the
problem of data uncertainty inherent in most spatial
data sets. The physical data base may also be
expanded to include more landscape information, on
which resourceful innovations, such as the environ-
mental land classification system devised by Cherrill
and Lane (1995), are possible. Landscape modelling
abilities in GIS offer other exciting possibilities.
Likewise the integration of socio-economic infor-
mation to incorporate contemporary geodemographic
techniques (Martin and Bracken 1993) in the context
of land use planning needs to be developed.
Regarding public participation Xiang and Whitley
(1994, p. 290) demonstrate the process of identifying
representative human experts for obtaining value
judgements on land use decisions. While this may
constitute an acceptable practice in the United States,
it does not accommodate broad community partici-
pation in this type of decision-making – clearly no
longer acceptable for South African planning
practice. Furthermore, as indicated in Cocklin (1988),
a clearer understanding of participants’ environ-
mental values, potential for conflict and crucial
evaluation issues must be developed separately. This
has to be followed by a real world exercise involving
GIS specialists, planning professionals, institutional
and community representatives and community
members. These participants will carry out the tasks
envisaged in Figure 2 and discussed in the text, to
ensure full participatory decision-making. Including
these procedures in the dynamic process for local
structure planning currently underway in most of the
urban fringe of Cape Town, could go a long way
towards gaining public acceptance of final planning
proposals so often lacking elsewhere. GIS now
provides high planning functionality for the tasks
of communication (through ‘collaborative human-
computer interface’ which Shiffer (1992) advocates),
inventory, monitoring and modelling (Kliskey 1995,
p. 19) in natural resource and regional planning – it
merely needs to be applied imaginatively.
Acknowledgements
Bennie Schloms provided pedology expertise in
rating the suitability of soil types for the various
applications. Marl_ Kunneke was instrumental in
creating, updating and digitising the land use and
other maps.
The financial assistance of the Centre for Science
Development (HSRC, South Africa) towards this
research is hereby acknowledged. Opinions expressed
and conclusions arrived at are those of the author and
150
are not necessarily to be attributed to the Centre for
Science Development.
References
Bdliya, H. H.: Complementary land evaluation for small-scale
farming in Northern Nigeria. Journal of Environmental
Management 33, 105–116 (1991).
Bridgman, D. H. M.; Palmer, I.; Thomas, W. H.: South Africa’s
Leading Edge? A Guide to the Western Cape Economy.
Wesgro, Cape Town 1992.
Carver, S.: Site search and multicriteria evaluation. Planning
Outlook 34(1), 27–36 (1991a).
Carver, S.: Integrating multi-criteria evaluation with geographical
information systems. International Journal of Geographical
Information Systems 5(3), 321–339 (1991b).
Cherrill, A.; Lane, M.: The survey and prediction of land cover
using an environmental land classification: A case study in
northern England. Applied Geography 15(1), 69–85 (1995).
Cocklin, C.: Environmental values, conflicts and issues in
evaluation. The Environmentalist 8(2), 93–105 (1988).
Cooke, R. U.; Doornkamp, J. C.: Geomorphology in Environ-
mental Management – A New Introduction. Second Edition,
Clarendon Press, II, Oxford 1990.
Davidson, D. A.: The Evaluation of Resources. Longman, London
1992.
Davidson, D. A.; Theocharopoulos, S. P.; Bloksma R. J.: A
land evaluation project in Greece using GIS and based on
Boolean and fuzzy set methodologies. International Journal of
Geographical Information Systems 8(4), 369–384 (1994).
Dent, D.; Young, A.: Soil Survey and Land Evaluation. George
Allen and Unwin, London 1981.
Eastman, J. R.: IDRISI: A Grid Based Geographical Analysis
System – Version 4.1 Update Manual. Graduate School
of Geography, Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts
1993.
Evans, A. W.: ‘Rabbit hutches on postage stamps’: Planning,
development and political economy. Urban Studies 28(6),
853–870 (1991).
GIS World Interview: Ian McHarg Reflects on the Past Present
and Future of GIS. GIS World, October 1995.
Haefner, H.; Gresch, P.; Hugentobler, F.; Marti, S.: Land-
schaftswandel und Landschaftsschutz: Das Beispiel des
Malcantone, Kanton Tessin. Regio Basiliensis 32(2), 125–135
(1991).
Hall, G.; Wang, B.; Subaryono, F.: Comparison of Boolean and
fuzzy classification methods in land suitability analysis by
using geographical information systems. Environment and
Planning A 24, 497–516 (1992).
Hendrix, W. G.; Buckley, D. J. A.: Use of a Geographic infor-
mation system for selection of sites for land application of
sewage waste. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 47(3),
271–275 (1992).
Jali, D.; Choudhury, J. E. E.: Soils: Agricultural and engineering
properties. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 13(1),
1–13 (1992).
Jankowski, P.; Richard, L.: Integration of GIS-based suitability
analysis and multi-criteria evaluation in a spatial decision
support system for route selection. Environment and Planning
B: Planning and Design 21, 323–340 (1994).
Janssen, R.: Beslissingsondersteund Systeem voor Discrete
Alternatieven (BOSDA); Systeembeschrijving en Handleiding.
Instituut voor Milieuvraagstukken, Amsterdam 1989.
Janssen, R.: Multiobjective Decision Support for Environmental
Problems. PhD-dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
1991.
Janssen, R.; Rietveld, P.: Multicriteria analysis and geographical
information systems: An application to agricultural land use
J. H. Van der Merwe
in the Netherlands. In: Scholten, H. J.; Stillwell, J. C. H.
(eds.), Geographical Information Systems for Urban and
Regional Planning, pp 129–139. Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Amsterdam 1990.
Kliskey, A. D.: The role and functionality of GIS as a planning
tool in natural-resource management. Computers, Environment
and Urban Systems 19(1), 15–22 (1995).
Klosterman, R. E.: The appropriateness of geographic informa-
tion systems for regional planning in the developing world.
Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 19(1), 15–22
(1995).
Martin, D.; Bracken, I.: The integration of socio-economic and
physical resource data for applied land management informa-
tion systems. Applied Geography 13, 45–53 (1993).
Massam, B. H.: The location of waste transfer stations in
Ashdod, Israel, using a multi-criteria decision support system.
Geoforum 22(1), 27–37 (1991).
McHarg, I. L.: Design with Nature. Doubleday, New York 1971.
Metropolitan Development Framework: Principles for Planning
and Development in the Cape Metropolitan Area. City
Planners Department, City Council, Cape Town 1993a.
Metropolitan Development Framework: The Environmental
Evaluation for the Cape Metropolitan Area. City Planners
Department, City Council, Cape Town 1993b.
Metropolitan Development Framework: A Guide for Spatial
Development in the Cape Metropolitan Region (Draft). Urban
Development Commission, Western Cape Economic
Development Forum, Cape Town 1995.
Nijkamp, P.; Rietveld, P.; Voogd, H.: Multi-Criteria Evaluation
in Physical Planning. North Holland, Amsterdam 1990.
Pond, B.; Yeats, M.: Rural-urban land conversion II: Identifying
land in transition to urban use. Urban Geography 15(1), 25–44
(1994).
Quick, A. J. R.; Pistorius, P. A.: Environmental issues and man-
agement strategies in metropolitan Cape Town. Urban Forum
5(2), 45–68 (1994).
Razin, E.; Hasson, S.: Urban-rural boundary conflicts: The
reshaping of Israel’s rural map. Journal of Rural Studies 10(1),
47–59 (1994).
Saaty, T. L.: A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical
structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 15, 234–281
(1977).
Shiffer, M. J.: Towards a collaborative planning system.
Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 19,
709–722 (1992).
Smit, B.; Ludlow, L.; Johnston, T.; Flaherty, M.: Identifying
important agricultural lands: A critique. Canadian Geographer
31(4), 356–365 (1987).
Smit, B.; Kristjanson, J.: Parametric approaches to rating the
importance of lands for agriculture. Journal of Environmental
Management 29, 345–362 (1989).
Sui, D. Z.: A fuzzy GIS modelling approach for urban land
evaluation. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 16,
101–115 (1992).
Urban Foundation: Managing Urban Growth: The International
Experience. DSPU, Urban Foundation, Johannesburg 1993.
Van Herwijnen, M.; Janssen, R; Rietveld, P.: Herbestemming
van Landbouwgrond: Een Multicriteria Benadering. KNAG,
Amsterdam 1990.
Vink, A. P. A.: Land Use in Advancing Agriculture. Springer-
Verlag, Berlin 1975.
Voogd, H.: Multicriteria Evaluation for Urban and Regional
Planning. Pion, London 1983.
Walker, L.: Urban Sprawl: The Vine’s Worst Enemy. Wines &
Vines, February (1994).
Wang, F.: The use of artificial neural networks in a geographical
information system for agricultural land-suitability assessment.
Environment and Planning A 26, 265–284 (1994).
Western Cape Regional Services Council: Urban Edge Study: Pre-
liminary Urban Edge Phase (Draft Report Prepared as Input
GIS-aided land evaluation and decision-making for regulating urban expansion 151

to the Metropolitan Development Framework Workshop,
September 1994). RSC Engineering Services, Cape Town
1994.
Whitley, D. L.; Xiang, W.-N.; Young, J. J.: Use a GIS ‘Melting
Pot’ to Assess Land Use Suitability. GIS World, July, 48–51
(1993).
Xiang, W.-N.; Furuseth, O. J.: Conflict provention in rural land
use planning using a GIS-based system. Geography Research
Forum 13, 139–151 (1993).
Xiang, W.-N.; Whitley, D. L.: Weighting land suitability by the
PLUS method. Environment and Planning B: Planning and
Design 21, 273–304 (1994).