Pak. J. Agri. Sci., Vol.

57(6),1509-1519; 2020
ISSN (Print) 0552-9034, ISSN (Online) 2076-0906
DOI: 10.21162/PAKJAS/20.9507
http://www.pakjas.com.pk

WEIGHTED OVERLAY BASED LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS OF

AGRICULTURE LAND IN AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR USING
GIS AND AHP
Iqbal Hassan1, *, Muhammad Asif Javed1, Muhammad Asif2, Muhammad Luqman3, Sajid Rashid
Ahmad1, Adeel Ahmad4, Shoaib Akhtar5, Basharat Hussain6
1
College of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan; 2World Wide Fund for
Nature Pakistan, Lahore, Pakistan; 3School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia;
4
Department of Geography, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan; 5Mines and Minerals Department, Govt. of
Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan; 6Lentil Botanist Pulses Research Institute, Faisalabad, Pakistan;
*
Corresponding Author’s e-mail: [email protected]

Agriculture land suitability plays an important role in sustainable agriculture production by improving the use of current land
resources and in the identification of new land that maybe prepare for agriculture. The present research aimed to focus on the
agricultural land suitability of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK), where the existing agriculture land is only 8% and dense
forest and glaciers are covering 46.06% of the total area. Based on the literature review and local expert’s knowledge, eight
different criteria have been taken to scale the available land for the suitability of agriculture practices. These parameters are
soil orders, soil pH, Land-use Land-cover (LULC), slope, elevation, temperature, precipitation, and Potential
Evapotranspiration (PET). Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) technique in integration with Geographical Information
System (GIS) and Weighted Overlay Analysis (WOA) had been incorporated to classify the land for agriculture production.
In AHP, weights were determined with the use of pairwise comparison matrix based on expert opinions. According to the
guidelines of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the land suitability map was divided into five
zones. After subtracting the areas of permanent features like mountains, forest, and glaciers, it was estimated that a highly
suitable area was 13.21%, moderately suitable area was 11.61%, marginally suitable area was 13.14% and 62.05% was not
suitable permanently. It is concluded that the integration of GIS and AHP in land suitability, is efficient and it will help the
policymakers to improve the management of their land resources.
Keywords: GIS (Geographic Information System), AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process), WOA (Weighted Overlay Analysis),
Remote Sensing, Land Suitability, Agriculture, Land Cover, Pakistan.

INTRODUCTION farming practices (Al-shalabi et al., 2006). The suitability

analysis becomes a complex process when multiple criteria
The simultaneous increase in population and irregular urban are selected based on the inherent properties of the land unit,
spread has increased the pressure on the utilization of socio-economic, and environmental factors (Duc, 2006;
agricultural resources and that may leave the land in lack of Bandyopadhyay et al., 2009). There are no certain or fixed
nutrition (Elaalem et al., 2011; Hovhannisyan and Devadoss, standards in the selection of criteria for agricultural land
2020; Jonah and May, 2020). Thus, it is critical to prepare the suitability. Generally, most of the researchers used different
land utilization plans for agriculture that empower the use of soil, climatic, and topographical parameters prior to the
land assets according to their potential and use. Land availability to determine the land suitability (Akinci et al.,
suitability relates to sustainability (Taghizadeh-Mehrjardi et 2013).
al., 2020). The World Commission on Environment and Zengin and Yılmaz (2008) used soil depth, soil
Development defined it as ‘‘growth that meets present-day characteristics, water availability, erosion, slope, aspect,
requirements, without jeopardizing future generation needs’’ rainfall, temperature, vegetation cover, and road network in
(Marrewijk, 2013). The principal prerequisite of land-use the assessment of land suitability for cultivation. Likewise,
planning is land suitability evaluation. The land suitability Akbulak et al. (2010) used slope, erosion, soil depth,
technique determines the most suitable land-use with the elevation, and road access parameters. Bandyopadhyay et al.
consideration of land characteristics and user needs (Jamil et (2009) on the other hand, used soil texture parameters,
al., 2018; Purnamasari et al., 2019). organic matter content, soil depth, slope, and Land-use Land-
The significance of land suitability is decided by the number cover (LULC) to determine appropriate soil for agriculture.
of criteria that influence the suitability of agrarian and Feizizadeh and Blaschke (2013) conducted a research in
 Hassan, Javed, Asif, Luqman Ahmad, Ahmad, Akhtar & Hussai

Tabriz (Iranian city) for agriculture suitability analysis with and later WOA, was performed on these layers in a GIS
the help of Weighted Overlay Analysis (WOA) based on environment.
Geographical Information System (GIS) and Analytical Study Area: Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) frequently
Hierarchical Process (AHP) techniques for soil information named ‘Paradise on the Earth’ by vacationers for its beautiful
they used soil fertility and soil pH data, for topographical common magnificence and staggering scenes, snow-secured
information they used elevation, slope and aspect data, for tops, timberlands, waterways, streams, valleys, and velvet
climatic understanding they used temperature and rainfall green levels. Its charming climatic conditions and rich
data along with the groundwater data. biodiversity may prompt the advancement of agriculture
The process of finding suitable sites depends on different practices, tourism, and socio-economic improvement
variables or criteria. These criteria have a different level of (Nadeem et al., 2017). The study area covers a range of
importance and many techniques are used to determine the latitudes from 32° 46' 2.23" N to 35° 8' 9.34" N and longitudes
weights of criteria. It always remains the concern of from 73° 23' 54.34" E to 74° 48'2.38" E, having 13,297 km 2
researchers that how to combine different datasets to form a area (Figure 1). This region has a total population of
single index of assessment since 1960 (Yu et al., 2011). Saaty 4,045,366 persons (AJK, 2017). The hilly terrain is
(1980) first introduced the AHP multi-criteria decision- dominated, and elevation varies from 205meters (m) to
making technique for suitability analysis. AHP calculates the 6212meters, and the average elevation is around 1560m.The
weights of criteria using pairwise comparison matrix based on main sources of water are Jhelum, Neelum, and Poonch
expert opinions and local knowledge (Wu, 1998; Zurayk et Rivers which support agriculture at stable slopes. Maize
al., 2001; Cools et al., 2003; Oudwater and Martin, 2003; accounts for 41% of Kharif (May-November cultivation
Ohta et al., 2007; Saaty and Vargas, 2008). The integration of season) season's annual crop area in major crops. The overall
Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) and GIS methods economy of AJK depends vigorously on farming,
is more useful as compare to standard map overlay methods domesticated animals, remittances, industry, and tourism
in many applications (Carver, 1991; Malczewski, 1999). (Hameed et al., 2020).
It has been utilized effectively in GIS-based MCDM for land
suitability since the mid-1990s (Feizizadeh et al., 2017; Nouri
et al., 2017; Jamil et al., 2018; Ebrahimi et al., 2019; Shokati
and Feizizadeh, 2019). Kihoro et al. (2013) used GIS and
AHP technique for the identification of suitable sites for rice
crop. Feizizadeh and Blaschke (2013) established a land
suitability assessment method based on GIS and AHP
techniques to examine the land resources for agricultural
production. Furthermore, Mokarram and Aminzadeh (1996)
established agriculture suitability using multi-criteria, ordered
weight averaging, and fuzzy quantifier methods. In recent
studies, Muhsin et al. (2018) performed the land suitability
evaluation for agriculture and industrial sites in Bangladesh
using the integration of GIS and AHP. Purnamasari et al.
(2019) have evaluated land suitability for explicit crop yield
in Indonesia using different spatial datasets in the multi-
criteria AHP technique. Furthermore, Masih et al. (2018) Figure 1. Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) Location
have assessed the ecological capability to support the tourism Map.
in mountainous area of Iran using AHP and GIS integration.
The primary goal of this research is to use GIS and AHP to MATERIALS AND METHODS
categorize the available land into five suitability levels
according to the guidelines of Food and Agriculture AHP has been a great multi-criterion decision-making method
Organization FAO. used to generate the promising results for agriculture land
This study of finding suitable sites for agriculture will be suitability assessment together with WOA (Khahro et al.,
completed by the use of eight variables representing the local 2014). The methodology used in the current study is
topography, climate, and land-use land-cover. These variables summarized in Figure 2. The following steps have been
are the soil orders, soil pH, (LULC), slope, elevation, involved as performed by Elaalem et al. (2011) during the
temperature, precipitation, and Potential Evapotranspiration implementation of AHP.
(PET) that have been playing the main role in controlling the • Selection of related factors or criteria
local agriculture pattern and yield. The level of importance of • The determination of weights or relative significance of
each variable has been determined through the use of AHP all factors by using a pair-wise comparison matrix based

1510
 Land Suitability Analysis of Agriculture Land of AJK

on the opinions of experts.

• The evaluation of the degree of consistency.

Figure 3. GIS based criterion maps a) Soil Order b) LULC

c) Elevation e) Temperature f) Precipitation g)
Soil pH, h) PET.

In this study, the thematic layer of LULC was developed by

using the Sentinel 2A satellite images dated October2018
produced to compare it with suitability map, also to use in
AHP. The Sentinel 2A images were used to produce the
LULC by applying object-based classification technique in
eCognition Developer Software by using the multi-resolution
segmentation algorithm that grouped or formed the objects
based on the spectral values, shape, and compactness of the
pixels. The study area has been classified into Agriculture,
Built-up Area, Deciduous Forest, Ever Green Forest, Grasses
Figure 2. Procedure followed in generating agriculture / Shrubs, Snow / Glaciers, Soil / Rock, Sparse Forest and
land suitability map. Water.
The overall accuracy was determined to assess the results of
Preparation of Spatial Datasets: In this study eight criteria classification that was 82.37% by taking the spatially well-
have been selected i.e. soil order (Figure 3a), LULC distributed random samples. In the end, the results were
(Figure 3b), elevation (Figure 3c), slope (Figure 3d), compared with LULC to mask out the permanent features like
temperature (Figure 3e), precipitation (Figure 3f), soil orders forest and glaciers as our focus was to study agricultural land.
(Figure 3g) and PET (Figure 3h). These eight factors under Soil pH determines the amount of nutrient availability for
consideration are chosen by means of literature inputs and the plant growth and productivity (Mustafa et al., 2011).
availability of data (Ayalew and Yamagishi, 2005). The According to FAO (2016) pH falls between 6.2 - 8.0
details about data sources are written in Table 1. considered to be nominal for plant growth. In this research

Table 1. The data sources for various datasets used in the agriculture land suitability.
Parameter Details or source Period
Administrative Units United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA), 2011
Type: Level-4
Slope, Elevation Space Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission (30m) 2014
LULC Sentinel 2A Satellite images (10m) 10-24-2018
Soil Orders, Soil pH International Soil Reference and Information Centre (ISRIC), Soil Grid 1km. 2014
Temperature, Precipitation 1 km resolution provided by CHELSA (Climatologies at high resolution for the 1979 - 2013
earth’s land surface areas) (Karger et al., 2017).
PET Antonio Trabucco and Robert Zomer global potential evapotranspiration data 2019
(Trabucco and Zomer, 2018)

1511
 Hassan, Javed, Asif, Luqman Ahmad, Ahmad, Akhtar & Hussai

soil-order and soil-pH data sampled at a depth of 0.30 meters CR=CI/RI

have been used. This data was acquired from International λ −n
𝐶𝐼 = max …… (Equation 1)
n−1
Soil Reference and Information Centre (ISRIC), a global 3D
Where the highest eigenvector has been represented by λmax
soil information system with 110,000 soil profiles worldwide,
and is equal to 8.29 and n represents the order of matrix and
with 23-51% accuracy (Hengl et al., 2014).
it is equal to 8. These RI values were given by Saaty (1977)
The slope was calculated by using the Shuttle Radar
and shown in Table 2. Saaty (1977) calculated the Random
Topographic Mission’s (SRTM) Digital Elevation Model
Index (RI) by taking the average of consistency index based
(DEM) (Farr et al., 2007).
on computed matrix order.
The temperature and precipitation datasets were acquired
The value of CR less than 0.10 has been indicating that the
from the CHELSA (Table 1) at the spatial resolution of 1 km
pairwise comparison matrix holds an acceptable consistency.
in raster file format. The PET data was acquired from the
Else, CR value greater than or equal to 0.10 showed that there
Antonio Trabucco and Robert Zomer global potential
was a deficiency in consistency due to improper comparisons
evapotranspiration data (Trabucco and Zomer, 2018).
in the pairwise matrix, and there was a need to adjust the
All the datasets had different spatial resolution. So, all the
values in the matrix (Bodin and Gass, 2003; Chen et al.,
datasets were resampled to 10 m resolution to match with the
2010). In this study the CR value was 0.029, confirming that
Sentinel 2A data and to get a fine resolution at the end.
weight values were logically valid as shown in Table 3 and
Assessment of Weights: In the pairwise comparison matrix,
Table 4.
criteria have been weighed on a scale of 1-9 where 9 indicates
Standardization of Criteria: In the process of
extreme importance and 1 indicates equal importance (Saaty,
standardization, vector layers were converted to thematic
1980; Leake and Malczewski, 2000; Feizizadeh et al., 2014).
layers by using a reclassify tool in ArcGIS software. After
AHP simultaneously allowed consistency and inconsistent
standardization, the resulted raster lost its dimension as well
interactions in pairwise comparison matrix but it also
as measuring units (Effat and Hassan, 2013).
measured the level of consistency or inconsistency as
All parameters reclassified into five classes (Figure 4) or
Consistency Ratio (CR) index (Forman and Selly, 2001; Chen
categories or sub-criteria and scored on a scale of 1-5 where
et al., 2010; García et al., 2014). The value of CR depends on
5 represent the greatest meaning and 1 has the least meaning.
the Consistency Index (CI) and Ratio Index (RI) in the form
The aerial distribution, weights and score of each class have
of Equation 1.
been given in Table 5.
Table 2. Random index (RI) values.
N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Random Index (RI) 0 0 0.58 0.9 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49

Table 3. The pairwise comparison matrix.

Soil Soil pH LULC Slope Elevation Temperature Precipitation PET
Soil 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Soil pH 1/2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
LULC 1/3 1/2 1 2 3 4 5 6
Slope 1/4 1/3 1/2 1 2 3 4 5
Elevation 1/5 1/4 1/3 1/2 1 2 3 4
Temperature 1/6 1/5 1/4 1/3 1/2 1 2 3
Precipitation 1/7 1/6 1/5 1/4 1/3 1/2 1 2
PET 1/8 1/7 1/6 1/5 1/4 1/3 1/2 1

Table 4. The pairwise comparison matrix.

Soil Soil pH LULC Slope Elevation Temperature Precipitation PET Weight
Soil 0.3679 0.4355 0.4027 0.3545 0.3109 0.2748 0.2456 0.2222 0.3268
Soil pH 0.1840 0.2177 0.2685 0.2659 0.2487 0.2290 0.2105 0.1944 0.2273
LULC 0.1226 0.1089 0.1342 0.1773 0.1865 0.1832 0.1754 0.1667 0.1569
Slope 0.0920 0.0726 0.0671 0.0886 0.1244 0.1374 0.1404 0.1389 0.1077
Elevation 0.0736 0.0544 0.0447 0.0443 0.0622 0.0916 0.1053 0.1111 0.0734
Temperature 0.0613 0.0435 0.0336 0.0295 0.0311 0.0458 0.0702 0.0833 0.0498
Precipitation 0.0526 0.0363 0.0268 0.0222 0.0207 0.0229 0.0351 0.0556 0.0340
PET 0.0460 0.0311 0.0224 0.0177 0.0155 0.0153 0.0175 0.0278 0.0242

1512
 Land Suitability Analysis of Agriculture Land of AJK

Table 5. The aerial distribution, weights, and score.

Main criteria Weight Influence (%) Sub-criteria Score Area (km2) Area (%)
Soil orders 0.3268 32.68 Mollisols 5 466.34 3.97
Alfisols 4 3660.16 31.14
Spodosols 3 432.75 3.68
Entisols 3 3072.31 26.14
Ultisols 3 1815.30 15.44
Andisols 1 7.18 0.06
Inceptisols 1 1508.59 12.83
Water / Snow 1 792.45 6.74
Soil pH 0.2273 22.73 Water / Snow 1 792.45 6.74
5 - 5.5 1 305.82 2.60
5.6– 6 1 3592.05 30.56
6.1 - 6.5 3 3856.38 32.81
6.6 - 7.5 5 2342.20 19.93
7.6 - 8.1 4 866.47 7.37
Land-use Land-cover 0.1569 15.69 Agriculture 5 954.92 8.12
Grasses / Shrubs 4 1810.99 15.41
Sparse Forest 2 1878.50 15.98
Soil / Rock 2 1637.91 13.93
Built-up Area 1 57.93 0.49
Desiduos Forest 1 1119.39 9.52
Ever Green Forest 1 2977.30 25.33
Snow / Ice 1 1138.06 9.68
Water 1 180.01 1.53
Slope (degree) 0.1077 10.77 0.005 – 3 5 3893.93 33.13
3.1– 6 4 2965.33 25.23
6.1– 9 3 2199.03 18.71
9.1– 13 2 1747.30 14.86
13.1– 26 1 949.41 8.08
Elevation (meter) 0.0734 7.34 205 – 980 5 3675.84 31.27
981– 1779 4 2671.65 22.73
1780– 2603 3 2129.33 18.11
2604– 3550 2 1827.65 15.55
3551– 6212 1 1450.54 12.34
Temperature oC 0.0498 4.98 -13.1 - -1 1 1273.38 10.83
-1.1– 4 2 1372.86 11.68
4.1– 10 3 2308.61 19.64
10.1– 16 4 2851.46 24.26
16.1– 23 5 3948.69 33.59
Precipitation (mm) 0.0340 3.40 32.44 - 65.07 3 1346.19 11.49
65.08 - 87.57 5 3130.45 28.13
87.58 - 107.82 4 3501.73 29.63
107.83 - 132.01 2 2602.02 21.17
132.02 - 175.89 1 1174.61 9.59
PET (mm / day) 0.0242 2.42 559 – 1252 1 2437.65 11.45
1253– 1414 2 2315.82 26.63
1415– 1513 3 2354.75 29.79
1516– 1650 4 2334.56 22.14
1651– 1766 5 2312.21 9.99

Model for Land Suitability Using the Weighted Overlay weight value with the cell value of each raster in the ArcGIS
Method: The weighted overlay analysis was applied by model builder (Figure 5).
overlapping all thematic layers in GIS and by multiplying the

1513
 Hassan, Javed, Asif, Luqman Ahmad, Ahmad, Akhtar & Hussai

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The determination of weights had been completed by the use

of pair-wise cross-comparison matrix in the AHP technique
and later these weights were utilized in the WOA method in
ArcGIS to form the final suitability levels or zones.
The study area was divided into; 1. ‘Highly suitable
agricultural land’, 2. ‘Moderately suitable agricultural land’,
3. ‘Marginally suitable agricultural land’, 4. ‘Currently not
suitable for agriculture’ and 5. ‘Permanently not suitable for
agricultural activities’. It was determined with the help of
suitability map (Figure 6a) that 14% (1704 km2) of the study
area would be highly suitable for agricultural production, 20%
(2385 km2) moderately suitable, 21% (2469 km2) marginally
suitable land, 18% (2188 km2) currently not suitable land for
Figure 4. GIS based standardized criterion maps a) Soil agricultural production and in the end 25% (3007 km 2) area
Order b) LULC c) Elevation e) Temperature f) was found permanently unsuitable.
Precipitation g) Soil pH, h) PET.

Figure 5. Land suitability model for agriculture.

1514
 Land Suitability Analysis of Agriculture Land of AJK

before and after removing permanent features has been

presented in Figure 6 and Figure 7.

Figure 6. Suitability comparison before and after

removing permanent features.

In a comparison between the suitability map (Figure 6a) and

land-use map (Figure 4b), The features like an evergreen
forest, deciduous forest, water bodies, and glaciers were
permanently not suitable for agriculture and they affected
each suitability zone. Evergreen forest, deciduous forest,
water bodies, and glaciers were covering the 25% (2977 km 2),
9% (1119 km2), 1% (180 km2) and 9% (1138 km2) of the total
study area, respectively. The permanent features covered 9% Figure 7. Suitability maps (a) before removing permanent
(162 km2) in highly suitable zone, 43% (1049 km2) in the features (b) after removing permanent feature.
moderately suitable zone, 38% (955 km2), and 50.76% (1113
km2) was a marginally suitable zone in the agriculture It was investigated that approximately 33% (3893 km2) area
suitability map. These regions were masked out from the ranges from 0o to 3o slope, consist of permanent features like
suitability map (Figure 7a) and developed the final suitability dense forests, water bodies and glaciers were covering ~46 %
map (Figure 7b). The comparison of the suitability map (~5414 km2) land area, soil pH range 5.1-6.5 was 68% (2585

Table 6. Highly suitable land characteristics.

Criteria Sub-criteria Contribution in zone area (km2) Contribution in zone area (%)
Elevation 981 - 1779 84.77 5.46
205 - 980 1467.51 94.54
LULC Agriculture 520.54 33.53
Grasses / Shrubs 745.37 48.02
Sparse Forest 286.37 18.45
PET 1514 - 1650 465.06 29.96
1651 - 1766 1087.22 70.04
Precipitation 87.58 - 107.82 689.63 44.43
65.08 - 87.57 862.65 55.57
Slope 3.1 - 6 250.70 16.15
0.005 - 3 1301.58 83.85
Soil Order Entisols 159.13 10.25
Alfisols 1393.15 89.75
Soil pH 6.6 - 7.5 858.14 55.28
6.1 - 6.5 107.52 6.93
7.6 - 8.1 586.62 37.79
Temperature 10.1 - 16 84.78 5.46
16.1 - 23 1467.50 94.54

1515
 Hassan, Javed, Asif, Luqman Ahmad, Ahmad, Akhtar & Hussai

Table 7. Moderately suitable land characteristics.

Criteria Sub-criteria Contribution in Zone Area (km2) Contribution in Zone Area (%)
Elevation 1780 - 2603 110.25 8.08
981 - 1779 772.52 56.62
205 - 980 481.61 35.30
LULC Agriculture 188.63 13.83
Grasses / Shrubs 656.96 48.15
Soil / Rock 296.38 21.72
Sparse Forest 222.39 16.30
PET 1415 - 1513 582.40 42.69
1514 - 1650 565.81 41.47
1651 - 1766 216.17 15.84
Precipitation 65.08 - 87.57 229.53 16.82
87.58 - 107.82 588.55 43.14
107.83 - 132.01 417.69 30.61
132.02 - 175.89 128.61 9.43
Slope 9.1- 13 114.65 8.40
6.1 - 9 292.79 21.46
3.1 - 6 497.51 36.46
0.005 - 3 459.44 33.67
Soil Order Mollisols 112.32 8.23
Entisols 400.35 29.34
Alfisols 465.72 34.13
Ultisols 385.99 28.29
Soil pH 6.1 - 6.5 808.44 59.25
6.6 - 7.5 449.29 32.93
5.6 - 6 106.66 7.82
Temperature 10.1 - 16 805.47 59.04
16.1 - 23 558.91 40.96

km2), area with an elevation higher than 980 m was 68% Entisols had been the most common with 6.1 - 6.5 pH.
(2019 km2) and area under Spodosols, Entisols, Ultisols, Furthermore, most of the agriculture had been found on the
Andisols, and Inceptisols was 58.16 % (6836 km 2). On lower terraces. The other details of this zone are given in Table 7.
elevations and gentle slopes, the most dominant soil order was Marginally Suitable: The major part of this zone (63%) was
Alfisols that was covering 31.14% (3660 km2) with broad- above 1000 m with a dominated rocky surface and instable
leaved deciduous forest. It was important to note that the local slopes ranging from 6.1o to 9o. The agriculture spread was
people used to generate terraces on slopes and perform tiny over the 8.37% area (the least covered agriculture area) and
rain-fed agriculture activities on the land that was presently mostly in the form of terraces. Ultisols had been covering
and permanently unfit for agricultural activities. 45% of the area with a 6.1 - 6.5 pH range, not favorable for
Highly Suitable Agriculture Land: That was a flat zone agriculture (Table 8).
comparatively, in which 95% area was below 980 m, the slope Currently and Permanently Not Suitable: The land was not
was varying from 0.005o to 3o only, the most dominant land- suitable for agriculture due to dense forest cover, glaciers,
cover was open fields consisted of grasses and shrubs, most built-up, water bodies, and due to the dominant spread of not
of the agriculture part (54% of the total agriculture) was suitable soil order and soil pH. Mostly elevation was varying
cultivating. In this zone, the most dominant soil order was from 2604 - 3550 m with exposed rocky lands and precipitous
Alfisols with ideal pH range of 6.6 to 7.5 with the availability slopes.
of highest rate of potential evapotranspiration. In addition to
it, Bong Canal originating from the Mangla Dam has been Conclusion: The main objective of this research was to
fulfilling the water needs for agriculture. The details are given identify the appropriate land in support of sustainable
in Table 6. agriculture growth in AJK which has been facing the low
Moderately Suitable: In this zone elevation was varying as annual temperature range, rugged steep slopes, exposed rocky
205 - 980 (57%), 981 - 1779 (35%) and 1780 - 2603 (8%), the surface, dense forest cover, and permanent ice and snow cover
slope was varying from gentle to stiff (0 o - 13o), Alfisols and in the form of glaciers. This technique has been recognized to

1516
 Land Suitability Analysis of Agriculture Land of AJK

Table 8. Marginally suitable land characteristics.

Criteria Sub-criteria Contribution in Zone Area (km2) Contribution in Zone Area (%)
Elevation 1780 - 2603 408.72 26.47
981 - 1779 973.31 63.02
205 - 980 162.34 10.51
LULC Agriculture 129.29 8.37
Grasses / Shrubs 319.64 20.70
Soil / Rock 780.79 50.56
Sparse Forest 314.62 20.37
PET 1253 - 1414 204.80 13.26
1415 - 1513 919.94 59.57
1514 - 1650 419.63 27.17
Precipitation 87.58 - 107.82 455.12 29.47
65.08 - 87.57 83.13 5.38
132.02 - 175.89 279.94 18.13
107.83 - 132.01 726.18 47.02
Slope 13.1 - 26 96.83 6.27
9.1 - 13 323.81 20.97
6.1 - 9 453.11 29.34
3.1 - 6 459.57 29.76
0.005 - 3 211.04 13.67
Soil Order Entisols 382.14 24.74
Inceptisols 122.12 7.91
Alfisols 344.79 22.33
Ultisols 695.32 45.02
Soil pH 5.5 - 6 287.57 18.62
6.1 - 6.5 1112.90 72.06
6.6 - 7.5 143.91 9.32
Temperature 4.1 - 10 269.68 17.46
10.1 - 16 1058.36 68.53
16.1 - 23 216.33 14.01

be very effective in identifying suitable land for agriculture. With the help of very high-resolution satellite images, the
The most suitable area was only 13% (1552 km 2) and 52% finer details can be identified in the region. During the final
(6134 km2) area has been declared unsuitable for agriculture implementation at ground level, the other regional parameters
permanently. The permanently not suitable area was brought should be taken into account.
about by geomorphological features such as high elevations,
sharp slopes, the existence of bare rocks, and poor Acknowledgement: We acknowledge the kind cooperation
accessibility of irrigation water. These threats led to the and support of Mr. Bilal Ahmad from Irrigation Department,
identification of small suitable land for agricultural activities. Government of Punjab, Pakistan whose continuous support
This research gives an insight into the suitability zones of made this research possible. We also acknowledge the
agriculture and it could bring improvements in regional land- College of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of
use policy. the Punjab, Lahore Pakistan’s whole staff for providing us the
This study only based on topographical, climatic, and soil platform to conduct this research.
properties and there is a need to include the socio-economic
factors. The AHP should be applied carefully because any off- Conflict of interest: None
base judgment on any chosen parameter could affect the
designated scores and weights. This is the main disadvantage
of the AHP (Kritikos and Davies, 2011; Nefeslioglu et al., REFERENCES
2013). There is a need to highlight the suitable land for some
important species similar to Saffron (Crocus sativus) and AJK, P. 2017. Azad Jammu & Kashmir At A Glance 2017.
some medicinal plants/species that have substantial financial Available online with updates at
worth. It will encourage the scope of tourism in the region.

1517
 Hassan, Javed, Asif, Luqman Ahmad, Ahmad, Akhtar & Hussai

https://www.pndajk.gov.pk/uploadfiles/downloads/At% Feizizadeh, B. and T. Blaschke.2013. Land suitability

20a%20Glance%202017.pdf analysis for Tabriz County, Iran: A multi-criteria
Akbulak, C., Ç. Onsekiz and M. Üniversitesi. 2010. Analitik evaluation approach using GIS. J. Environ. Plan. Manag.
hiyerarşi süreci ve coğrafi bilgi sistemleri ile Yukarı 56:1-23.
Menderes Havzası’nın arazi kullanımı uygunluk analizi. Feizizadeh, B., P. Jankowski and T. Blaschke. 2014. A GIS
Uluslar. İnsan Bilim. Derg. 7:557-576. based spatially-explicit sensitivity and uncertainty
Akinci, H., A.Y. Özalp and B. Turgut. 2013. Agricultural land analysis approach for multi-criteria decision analysis.
use suitability analysis using GIS and AHP technique. Comput. Geosci. 64:81-95.
Comput. Electron. Agric. 97:71-82. Feizizadeh, B., M.S. Roodposhti, T. Blaschke and J. Aryal.
Al-shalabi, M.A, S.B. Mansor, N.B. Ahmed and R. Shiriff. 2017. Comparing GIS-based support vector machine
2006. GIS Based Multicriteria Approaches to Housing kernel functions for landslide susceptibility mapping.
Site Suitability Assessment, in: XXIII FIG Congress. Arab. J. Geosci.10:1-3.
Shaping the Change. Munich, Germany. pp.1-17. Forman, E.H. and M.A. Selly. 2001. Decision by objectives:
Ayalew, L. and H. Yamagishi.2005. The application of GIS- how to convince others that you are right. World
based logistic regression for landslide susceptibility Scientific Publishing, Singapore.
mapping in the Kakuda-Yahiko Mountains, Central García, J.L., A. Alvarado, J. Blanco, E. Jiménez, A.A.
Japan. Geomorphology. 65:15-31. Maldonado and G. Cortés. 2014. Multi-attribute
Bandyopadhyay, S., R.K. Jaiswal, V.S. Hegde, and V. evaluation and selection of sites for agricultural product
Jayaraman. 2009. Assessment of land suitability warehouses based on an analytic hierarchy process.
potentials for agriculture using a remote sensing and GIS Comput. Electron. 100:60-69.
based approach. Int. J. Remote Sens. 30:879-895. Hameed, G., A. Saboor, K.N. Sadozai, G. Ali, D. Jan and M.
Bodin, L. and S.I. Gass. 2003. On teaching the analytic Rasheed. 2020. Correlates of Poverty in Azad Jammu and
hierarchy process. Comput. Oper. Res. 30:1487-1497. Kashmir: A Logit Analysis. Sarhad J. Agric. 36:593-602.
Carver, S.J.1991. Integrating multi-criteria evaluation with Hengl, T., J.M. De Jesus, R.A. MacMillan, N.H. Batjes,
geographical information systems. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. G.B.M. Heuvelink, E. Ribeiro and M.R. Gonzalez. 2014.
Syst. 5:321-339. SoilGrids1km - Global soil information based on
Chen, Y., J. Yuand S. Khan. 2010. Spatial sensitivity analysis automated mapping. PLoS ONE 9:e105992.
of multi-criteria weights in GIS-based land suitability Hovhannisyan, V. and S. Devadoss. 2020. Effects of
evaluation. Environ. Model. Softw. 25:1582-1591. urbanization on food demand in China. Empir. Econ.
Cools, N., E. De Pauw and J. Deckers. 2003. Towards an 58:699-721.
integration of conventional land evaluation methods and Jamil, M., R. Ahmed andH. Sajjad. 2018. Land suitability
farmers’ soil suitability assessment: A case study in assessment for sugarcane cultivation in Bijnor district,
northwestern Syria. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 95:327- India using geographic information system and fuzzy
342. analytical hierarchy process. Geo J. 83:595-611.
Ebrahimi, M., H. Nejadsoleymani and M.R. Mansouri Jonah, C.M. and J.D. May. 2020. The nexus between
Daneshvar. 2019. Land suitability map and ecological urbanization and food insecurity in South Africa: does
carrying capacity for the recognition of touristic zones in the type of dwelling matter? Int. J. Urban Sustain. Dev.
the Kalat region, Iran: a multi-criteria analysis based on 12:1-13.
AHP and GIS. Asia-Pac. J. Reg. Sci. 33:1-22. Karger, D.N., O. Conrad, J. Böhner, T. Kawohl, H. Kreft,
Effat, H.A. and O.A. Hassan. 2013. Designing and evaluation R.W. Soria-Auza and M. Kessler. 2017. Climatologies at
of three alternatives highway routes using the Analytical high resolution for the earth’s land surface areas. Sci.
Hierarchy Process and the least-cost path analysis, Data 4:170122.
application in Sinai Peninsula, Egypt. Egypt. J. Remote Khahro, S.H., A.N. Matori, I.A. Chandio and M.A.H Talpur.
Sens. Space Sci. 16:141-151. 2014. Land suitability analysis for installing new petrol
Elaalem, M., A. Comber and P. Fisher. 2011. A Comparison filling stations using GIS. Procedia Eng. 77:28-36.
of Fuzzy AHP and Ideal Point Methods for Evaluating Kihoro, J., N.J. Bosco and H. Murage. 2013. Suitability
Land Suitability. Trans. GIS 15:329-346. analysis for rice growing sites using a multicriteria
FAO (Ed.). 2016. Forests and agriculture: land-use challenges evaluation and GIS approach in great Mwea region,
and opportunities, State of the world’s forests. FAO, Kenya. SpringerPlus 2:265.
Rome. Kritikos, T.R.H. and T.R.H Davies. 2011. GIS-based Multi-
Farr, T.G., P.A. Rosen, E. Caro, R. Crippen, R. Duren, S. Criteria Decision Analysis for landslide susceptibility
Hensley, M. Kobrick, M. Paller, E. Rodriguez, and L. mapping at northern Evia, Greece [GIS-basierte
Roth. 2007. The shuttle radar topography mission. Rev. multikriterielle Entscheidungsanalysen zur Kartierung
Geophys. 45:1-33.

1518
 Land Suitability Analysis of Agriculture Land of AJK

von Massenverlagerungspotenzialen im nördlichen Evia. hospitals in Sapporo city using GIS and AHP. Int. J.
Griechenl. Z. Dtsch. Ges. Für Geowiss. 162:421-434. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 21:687-698.
Leake, C. and J. Malczewski. 2000. GIS and Multicriteria Oudwater, N. and A. Martin. 2003. Methods and issues in
Decision Analysis. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 51:247-248. exploring local knowledge of soils. Geoderma 111:387-
Malczewski, J., 1999. GIS and Multicriteria Decision 401.
Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA. Purnamasari, R.A., T. Ahamed and R. Noguchi. 2019. Land
Marrewijk, M. 2013. Concepts and definitions of CSR and suitability assessment for cassava production in
corporate sustainability: Between agency and Indonesia using GIS, remote sensing and multi-criteria
communion. Cit. Class. J. Bus. Ethics Celebr. First Thirty analysis. Asia-Pac. J. Reg. Sci. 3:1-32.
Years Publ. 44:641-655. Saaty, T.L. 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-
Masih, M., S.A. Jozi, A.A.M. Lahijanian, A. Danehkar and A. Hill, New York.
Vafaeinejad. 2018. Capability assessment and tourism Saaty, T.L. 1977. A scaling method for priorities in
development model verification of Haraz watershed hierarchical structures. J. Math. Psychol. 15:234-281.
using analytical hierarchy process (AHP. Environ. Saaty, T.L. and L.G. Vargas. 2006. Decision making with the
Monit. Assess. 190:468. analytic network process. 251. Springer Science+
Mokarram, M. and F. Aminzadeh. 1996. Gis-Based Business Media.
Multicriteria Land Suitability Evaluation Using Ordered Shokati, B. and B. Feizizadeh. 2019. Sensitivity and
Weight Averaging With Fuzzy Quantifier: a Case Study uncertainty analysis of agro-ecological modeling for
in Shavur Plain, Iran. Archives 38:508-512. saffron plant cultivation using GIS spatial decision-
Muhsin, N., T. Ahamed and R. Noguchi. 2018. GIS-based making methods. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 62:517-533.
multi-criteria analysis modeling used to locate suitable Taghizadeh-Mehrjardi, R., K. Nabiollahi, L. Rasoli, R. Kerry
sites for industries in suburban areas in Bangladesh to and T. Scholten. 2020. Land Suitability Assessment and
ensure the sustainability of agricultural lands. Asia-Pac. Agricultural Production Sustainability Using Machine
J. Reg. Sci. 2:35-64. Learning Models. Agronomy 10:573.
Mustafa, A.A., M. Singh, R.N. Sahoo, N. Ahmed, M. Khanna Trabucco, A. and R.J. Zomer. 2018. Global Aridity Index and
and A. Sarangi. 2011. Land Suitability Analysis for Potential Evapotranspiration (ET0) Climate Database v2.
Different Crops: A Multi Criteria Decision Making CGIAR Consortium for Spatial Information (CGIAR-
Approach using Remote Sensing and GIS. Water CSI).
Technol. 3:61-84. Wu, F. 1998. SimLand: A prototype to simulate land
Nadeem, A., A.S. Nisar, S. Hassnain, M. Shari and T. Sajida. conversion through the integrated GIS and CA with
2017. Economics of Vegetable Production In Azad AHP-derived transition rules. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci.
Jammu And Kashmir, Pakistan. J. Sustain. Dev. 4:8-16. 12:63-82.
Nefeslioglu, H.A., E.A. Sezer, C. Gokceoglu and Z. Ayas. Yu, J., Y. Chen, J. Wu and S. Khan. 2011. Cellular automata-
2013. A modified analytical hierarchy process (M-AHP) based spatial multi-criteria land suitability simulation for
approach for decision support systems in natural hazard irrigated agriculture. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 25:131-148.
assessments. Comput. Geosci. 59:1-8. Zengin, M. and S. Yılmaz. 2008. Ardahan Kura Nehri ve
Nouri, H., R.J. Mason and N. Moradi. 2017. Land suitability Yakın Çevresi Alan Kullanımlarının Belirlenmesi ve
evaluation for changing spatial organization in Urmia Optimal Alan Kullanım Önerileri. Atatürk Üniversitesi
County towards conservation of Urmia Lake. Appl. Ziraat Fakültesi Derg. 39:43-54.
Geogr. 81:1-12. Zurayk, R., F. El-Awar, S. Hamadeh, S. Talhouk, C. Sayegh,
Ohta, K., G. Kobashi, S. Takano, S. Kagaya, H. Yamada, H. A.G. Chehab and K.A. Shab. 2001. Using indigenous
Minakami and E. Yamamura. 2007. Analysis of the knowledge in land use investigations: A participatory
geographical accessibility of neurosurgical emergency study in a semi-arid mountainous region of Lebanon.
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 86:247-262.

1519