Changes in the structure and fragmentation of land plots, arising from the process of privatization and restitution, as well as from the realization of large-scale infrastructural projects in Southeast Europe and similar, actualize problems in terms of intensive agricultural production, and aesthetic and functional spacing design. The need for initiating new projects regarding land consolidation cycles is increasing with the aim to solve spatial, environmental, and strategic issues in agriculture, as well as to provide appropriate conditions for the application of modern land treating methods. However, land consolidation projects are very complex, long-lasting and financially very demanding. To minimize risk and exclude the possibility of inadequate selection methods, this paper describes the methodology for integrated assessment, which allows decision making on the basis of two or more methods. Per integrated assessment methodology, this study includes several multi-criteria analysis methods, which do not exclude the possibility of integrating other methods. The results obtained in this study are not only beneficial to the South-Eastern Europe region, but also to all countries where land redistribution is expanding.
Wang J, Yan S, Guo Y, J. L, Sun G. The effects of land consolidation on the ecological connectivity based on ecosystem service value: A case study of Da’an land consolidation project in Jilin province. Journal of Geographical Sciences, J Geogr Sci. 2015;25(5):603-616,.
2.
J. Y, F. X, Q L. Top strategy design of comprehensive land consolidation in China. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering. 2012;28(14):1–9.
3.
Food, United Nations AO. The design of land consolidation pilot projects in Central and Eastern Europe. 2003;
4.
Ivkovic M, Barković Đ, Speckled S. Land consolidation and rural development, Geodesy list br. 2010;297-312,.
5.
Guangming Y, Jing F, C. Y, L. X, H. L, Y S. The identification and assessment of ecological risks for land consolidation based on the anticipation of ecosystem stabilization: A case study in Hubei Province, China. Land Use Policy. 2010;27:293–303.
6.
Trifković M, Marinković G, Ilić B, Pejičić G, Lazić J. Land consolidation and irrigation, case study Municipality of Velika Plana. Archives for Technical Sciences. 2016;14(1):35–45.
7.
Pasakarnis G, V M. Towards sustainable rural development in Central and Eastern Europe: Applying land consolidation. Land Use Policy. 2010;27:545–9.
8.
In: Proceedings of the 20th Symposium of the European Association of Agricultural Economists (EAAE. 1989.
9.
Triantaphyllou E. Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methodologies: A Comparative Study. Vol. 44. 2000.
10.
Marinković G, Ninkov T, Trifković M, Nestorović Ž, Pejičić G. On the land consolidation projects and cadastral municipalities ranking. Technical Gazette. 2016;23(4):1147-1153,.
11.
Figuerira J, Greco S, Ehrgot M. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys. Springer Science + Business Media, Inc., Boston; 2005.
12.
Marinkovic G. Contribution to the development of the methodology and accuracy of optimization work in projects of land consolidation. 2015;
13.
Huylenbroeck G. A The conflict analysis method: bridging the gap between ELECTRE, PROMETHEE and ORESTE. European Journal of Operational Research. 1992;82:490–502.
14.
Coelho JC, Portela J, Pinto JA. A social approach to land consolidation schemes. A Portuguese case study: the Valenca project. Land Use Policy. 1996;13(2):129–47.
15.
Hoobler BM, Vance GF, Hamerlinck JD, Munn LC, Hayward JA. Applications of land evaluation and site assessment (LESA) and a geographic information system (GIS) in East Park County, Wyoming. J Soil Water Conserv. 2003;58:105–12.
16.
Gonzalez XP, Alvarez CJ, Crecente R. Evaluation of land distributions with joint regard to plot size and shape. Agricultural Systems. 2004;82:31–43.
17.
Sklenicka P. Applying evaluation criteria for the land consolidation effect to three contrasting study areas in the Czech Republic. Land Use Policy. 2006;23:502–10.
18.
Crecente R, Alvarez C, Fra U. Economic, social and environmental impact of land consolidation in Galicia. Land Use Policy. 2002;19:135–47.
19.
Hiironen J, Riekkinen K. Agricultural impacts and profitability of land consolidations. Land Use Policy. 2016;55:309–17.
20.
Čupić M, Suknović M. Multiple criteria decision making – methods and examples, University ” Braca Karic ”. 1995;
21.
Miladinović M. Land consolidation, AGG faculty, Banja Luka (Serbian). 2013;
22.
Bogdanović B, Gačević J. The development of land consolidation after the First World War memoir readjustment. 2002;
23.
Mihajlovic R. Optimizing distribution of land consolidation with the mass redistribution of agricultural land. 2010;
24.
Thomas J. What’s on regarding land consolidation in Europe? In: Proceedings of the XXIII International FIG Congress 8–13 October. 2006. p. 16.
25.
Tan S, Heerink N, Kruseman G, Qu F. Do fragmented landholdings have higher production costs? Evidence from rice farmers in Northeastern Jiangxi province, P.R. China China Econ Rev. 2008;19:347–58.
26.
Damjanovic T, Benka P. Basis of Planning and protection of land and property in the territory of Serbia. Faculty of Agriculture, Novi Sad (Serbian); 2011.
27.
Vitikainen A. An Overview of Land Consolidation in Europe FIG Commission VII Symposium (10-11.9.2004). 2004;12.
28.
Sundqvist P, Andersson L. A study of the impacts of land fragmentation on agricultural productivity in Northern Vietnam. In: Bachelor Thesis. 2006. p. 30.
29.
Simovic Đ. Edited rural territories and settlements, construction books. 1993.
30.
Myyrä S. Tilusrakenteen vaikutus tuotannon järjestämiseen ja kannattavuuteen (Impact of property division on the organising and profitability of production—in Finnish. Agrifood Research Finland. 2002;27.
31.
Đorović B. The horizontal drainage pipe. 1995.
32.
Bogdanov N. Small rural households in Serbia and the rural non-farm economy. UNDP, Belgrade (Serbian); 2007.
33.
Najafi A. Land Consolidation: An Important Step in Increasing of Productivity (A Case Study and Implementation. In: Impact of Land Utilization Systems on Agricultural Productivity Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo. 2003. p. 76–93.
34.
Sonnenberg J. The European Dimensions and Land Management—Policy Issues (Land Readjustment and Land Consolidation as Tools For Development. In: Land Management in the Process of Transition FIG Commission 7. 1996.
35.
Lier HN. Land use planning and land consolidation in the future in Europe. Zeitschrift fu ̈r Kulturtechnik und Landentwicklung. 2000;41(3):138–44.
36.
Saaty TL. Absolute and relative measurement with the AHP. The most livable cities in the United States, Socio-econ. Plann Sci. 1986;20(6):327–31.
37.
Dong Y, Zhang G, Hong WC, Y X. Consensus models for AHP group decision making under row geometric mean prioritization method. Decision Support Systems. 2010;49(281):289.
38.
Keyser WD, P P. A note on the use of PROMETHEE multicriteria methods. European Journal of Operationa Research. 1996;89:457–61.
39.
Opricović S, Tzeng GH. Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European Jouranal of Operational Research. 2004;156(2):445-455,.
40.
Brans JP, B M. PROMETHEE Methods. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science. 2005;78:163–86.
41.
Marinković G, Ninkov T, Trifković M. Ranking commasative projects using the SAW method, the geodetic service. 2015;(119):20–8.
Citation
Copyright
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
