Optimal location of fields and markets for fruits, vegetables, and agricultural products using the Analytical Hierarchy Process model

The creation of new public service centers requires considerable expenditure, and it is necessary to determine their optimal location such that it can effectively benefit all citizens. The convenient access of citizens to all kinds of urban services is considered an important goal of urban planning. Fruit and vegetable fields and markets can be considered special places for the supply of daily necessities of citizens that significantly affect the optimal management of urban transportation. Given the importance of this topic, this article aims to determine the optimal location for fruit, vegetable, and agricultural product fields and markets using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) model. This is an applied, descriptive-correlational, and survey study in terms of the objective, nature, and method, respectively. The study area was fruit and vegetable fields in districts of the Alexandria metropolis. The statistical population included agricultural experts of the fruit and vegetable field organization of Alexandria Municipality in 2013. The study sample was determined by the purposive sampling method, and ten experts were selected for the markets in districts of Alexandria Municipality. In this research, the location and socioeconomic indicators were considered the dependent and independent variables, respectively. The relationships and prioritization of the criteria in this research were determined using multi-criteria decision-making models and the AHP model. Data were analyzed using Super Decision software. The results of the District showed that the economic and social criteria with normalized weights of 0.807 and 0.193 were in the first and second priorities, respectively. The highest economic and social priorities belonged to the sub-criteria of the regional land value and access to fuel stations, respectively. The results of District 22 indicated that the economic and social criteria with normalized weights of 0.805 and 0.195 were in the first and the second priorities, respectively. The highest priorities of economic and social indicators belonged to the sub-criteria of the regional land value and personal/social security, respectively.