Open Access

Suitability analysis for Jatropha curcas production in Ethiopia - a spatial modeling approach

Environmental Systems Research20143:25

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40068-014-0025-7

Received: 14 April 2014

Accepted: 21 November 2014

Published: 16 December 2014

Abstract

Background

Jatropha is an oil-bearing plant growing in tropical and subtropical regions of the world within 30°N and 35°S latitudes. It is considered as a potential solution to the prevailing shortage of fossil fuel and environmental challenges. However, in most parts of Africa including Ethiopia, traditional land allocation systems for biodiesel investment do not involve integration of multiple variables. This research tries to introduce the advantages of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and Spatial Analytical Hierarchy Process (SAHP) to identify suitable areas for jatropha production in Ethiopia. Combination of these methods enables integration of different environmental data in a multi-criteria analysis. The study will provide basic information in the biodiesel investment, which has been susceptible to failure due to poor land allocation. The methods used in this study will also be available for similar endeavors in the future.

Results

In general, although individual factor evaluations provided varying amounts of suitability, results of weighted overlay analysis for biophysical suitability evaluation using spatial modeling methods identified 15.07% (166,082 km2), 76.57% (844,040 km2) and 8.36% (92114 km2) of the land as highly suitable, moderately suitable and not suitable for jatropha production, respectively.

Conclusion

The methods used in this study provided considerably reliable estimate of suitable sites for jatropha production in Ethiopia. In this study, the main limiting factors of jatropha production identified were elevation, climate (temperature and rainfall extremities) and water logging conditions. Suitable sites do not compete with existing land use systems ensuring that biodiesel production will not risk food security programs.

Keywords

SAHPGISLand suitabilityJatropha curcas LSpatial modeling

Background

Located in the horn of Africa, Ethiopia is the second populous country in the continent with an estimated population of about 89.2 million in 2013 (PRB [2013]). Its energy demand is increasing tremendously and cost of petroleum import exceeded export earnings by 2008 (NBE [2010]).

Recently, declining trends in the global energy supply and consequences of climate change have created huge global concern. Due to this huge concern, many countries are making efforts in developing clean energy options (Van der Putten [2010]; Achten et al. [2008]; Wu et al. [2009]).

In Africa, for instance, high fossil fuel prices and national security concerns have sparked interest in bio-based fuel development in different parts of the continent (Koikai [2008]; Pillay and Da Silva [2009]; Nyebenge et al. [2009]). Ethiopia has designed a biodiesel development strategy to promote biodiesel investment. The strategy will help the country evade its reliance on import of fossil fuels for its energy consumption and reduce impacts of climate change (CRGE [2011]; Nyebenge et al. [2009]; Makkar and Becker [2009]). Jatropha, palm tree and castor bean were identified in the strategy as promising biodiesel bearing plants. This paper was inspired by the multiple products and services obtained from jatropha to ameliorate land degradation, negative energy balance, fertility loss and poor health condition of the rural community (Brittaine and Lutaladio [2010]; Grass [2009]; Heller [1996]).

Jatropha curcas L. is an oil-bearing plant growing in the tropical and subtropical regions of the world within the limits of 30°N and 35°S latitudes (Jongschaap et al. [2007]). The plant belongs to the Euphorbiaceae family and sets fruits that contain seeds with an oil content of more than 30%.

Some survey reports, estimates (using conventional methods) and author’s personal observation revealed presence of jatropha around home gardens and farmlands in different regions of the country. Plantations were also established by different actors; however, the methods used so far for site identification were ineffective (Nyebenge et al. [2009]; Wendimu [2013]; MELCA [2008]). Consequently, failure accounts of investment projects have been reported (Wendimu [2013]). The conventional techniques of identifying marginal land for jatropha investment lack scientific foundation (Wendimu [2013]) and decisions were dependent on old data (Birega et al. [2010]).

This study employs Spatial Analytic Hierarchy Process (SAHP) and Geographic Information System (GIS) to generate valuable information in land allocation for jatropha production.

SAHP is a derivative of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), which is used to resolve highly complex decision making problems involving multiple factors (Saaty [1977], Saaty and Vargas [1991]). Its spatial equivalent, SAHP, is now becoming an emerging tool for multi-criteria analysis in which positional relationship between features is relevant (Ghamgosar et al. [2011], Emami and Zarkesh [2011]). SAHP was used by several researchers for land use site selection due to its paramount advantages. Some of the special features of SAHP were explained by Emami and Zarkesh ([2011]) as the ability to review both quantitative and qualitative criteria simultaneously, the possibility of simplifying complex issues into a form of hierarchy, pair-wise comparisons and weighing criteria, simple calculations and possibility of ranking the final options. It also works well with various factor weighting and quantifies experts’ opinions (Zarkesh et al. [2011]).

A combination of SAHP and GIS has been used in determining suitable areas for rangeland management (Jafari and Zaredar [2011]), ecotourism (Zarkesh et al. [2011]), municipal solid waste landfill (Javaheri [2006]; Paul [2012]), and forestry (Store and Kangas [2001]; Babaie-Kafaky et al. [2009]). This implies these methods can be customized to specific features of a particular field.

Spatial modeling technique is a useful method of overlaying multiple datasets in a GIS to assess suitability (Duc [2006]). Generally, there are two approaches to model ecological suitability; namely, correlative approach and mechanistic approach (Figure 1). Correlative habitat models identify distribution of a species with environmental data like soil, temperature and topography. Examples of correlative habitat suitability models include BRT (Boosted Regression Tree), MaxEnt (Maximum Entropy), and CART (Classification and Regression Tree) models, which rely on occurrence data. These models are appropriate to identify habitat requirements of a species (Valavanis et al. [2008]) and relate that with a larger landscape dataset.
Figure 1

Two approaches for modeling habitat suitability: (a) correlative modeling, and (b) mechanistic modeling approaches (adopted from Kearney[2006]).

Mechanistic habitat suitability model, on the other hand, is used to determine the mechanistic link between an organism’s environment and its fitness with the environmental conditions (Kearney [2006]). It generates information about conditions in which the species can ideally persist based on observations made in laboratory studies or documented realities.

This study uses a mechanistic suitability modeling approach since it deals with a plant whose environmental requirements are well documented. The approach is adopted from FAO ([1976]).

Findings of this study will have paramount significance in supporting decision making in the biodiesel energy development sector. Local communities, universities, investors, researchers, community-based organization (CBO’s) and non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) will benefit from the research results. The research idea was originally derived from information requests from different actors since previous estimates were neither accessible nor dependable. Availability of this publication will answer those questions of partners and serve as an alternative source of information. The methods used in this study will contribute to replacing the existing ineffective ones; and will be useful for future efforts of research and development initiatives.

Therefore, specific objectives of this investigation were to identify factors and select criteria of growth and yield requirements of jatropha, classify and weigh environmental variables into different levels of suitability, and produce a suitability map for jatropha production in Ethiopia.

Results and discussion

Assessment of environmental requirements for growth and yield of jatropha

The factors presented in Figure 2 were identified as important criteria influencing jatropha production. They influence the amount and quality of products derived from jatropha, most importantly oil. Land suitability studies basically make a matching between land use requirements and existing land characteristics (FAO [1976]). So, this portion of the study focused on assessing land use requirements of jatropha for achieving optimal growth and yield (Table 1).
Figure 2

Analytical structure of the criteria (factors) influencing growth and yield of jatropha.

Table 1

Environmental attributes required for jatropha production categorized under three classes of suitability

Factor or criterion

Unit

Total range

Suitability classesaof environmental attributes

Source of information (reference)

Suitable (S1)

Moderately suitable (S2)

Not suitable (N1)

1. Rainfall

mm/year

250 - 3000

1000 – 1500

600 – 1000

< 600 or >1500

Grass [2009]; Heller [1996]

2. Temperature

Degree Celsius

17 – 28

20 – 28

17 – 20

<=17 or >28

Wu et al. [2009]; Achten et al. [2008]; Gour [2006]

3. Elevation

Meters from sea level

0 - 2150

0 – 1500

1500 – 2150

< 0 or >2150

Gour [2006]; ICRAF [2009]; Achten et al. [2008]; Wiesenhütter [2003]

4. Soils

Soil type

Any soil type without (or with little) clay content

Well drained sand and loam soils

Small proportion of clay or little water logging potential

Heavy clayey soils, which have water logging effect

Ouwens et al. [2007]; Brittaine and Lutaladio [2010]; Achten et al. [2008]

5. Slope

Degree

0 - 30

<=15

15 – 30

>30

Achten et al. [2008]; Wu et al. [2009]

6. Land cover (use)

Cover type

Land cover other than waterlogged, conservation areas, settlements and water bodies

Well drained marginal lands, open grasslands, wooded grasslands

Disturbed forests and bush/shrub lands, salt and flats

Water logged, conservation sites, settlements, cultivated areas, etc.

Brittaine and Lutaladio [2010]

Data source: Existing literature and experts’ views.

aSuitability classes indicate environmental conditions in which large scale jatropha production is evaluated.

Single factor suitability evaluation for Jatropha curcas production

Several studies have examined the correlation between jatropha production and environmental conditions; and there is a consensus that climate, terrain and soil properties are key factors determining growth and yield of jatropha (Jingura et al. [2011]; Wu et al. [2009]; Jongschaap et al. [2010]). To grow well and give high yields, the plant needs enough water, appropriate temperature and altitude; and the soil type has to be right. Ouwens et al. ([2007]) indicated that ecological conditions do not only affect yield but also determine length and degree of injury by pests and diseases. So, selection of appropriate ecological conditions for proper growth and yield of jatropha was a very essential aspect of this study.

Literature review has been conducted to identify environmental requirements of Jatropha curcas based on experiences in tropical and subtropical regions. The information obtained from literature review has been summarized to define the different classes of suitability for each criterion or factor.

In Table 1, total range of each factor represents the environmental conditions in which the plant can survive; but production might not be possible across some portions of the range. Literature shows three major suitability ranges for assessing compatibility of an environmental condition for normal growth and yield of jatropha. The plant bears optimum production as long as it grows in the suitable (S1) condition of each factor. Moderately suitable (S2) condition represents friendly situations to support good production of jatropha as far as other factors are not beyond threshold ranges; otherwise, seed setting and production of fruits will be impaired. Ranges of values of environmental variables that fall under the not suitable (N1) category are difficult conditions where jatropha cannot survive unless improvement is made; or if it survives, seed or fruit production may not be attainable. Brief descriptions of factors influencing jatropha production are indicated below.

Rainfall

The minimum amount of annual rainfall that jatropha needs to produce fruits is 600 mm (Ouwens et al. [2007]; Grass [2009]). At this moisture condition, the plant will give poor yields. However, the optimal annual rainfall is between 1000 and 1500 mm (Grass [2009]). If it rains more than 1500 mm, jatropha will have problems with fungal attack, root rot and other diseases (Franken [2010]). Thus, rainfall data was classified into three of the suitability classes (S1, S2 and N1).

Temperature

It was attested that if the annual mean temperature is less than 17°C, the area is not suitable for jatropha production (Heller [1996]; Gour [2006]). Low temperature affects metabolic activities that influence germination, growth and development of most tropical plants including Jatropha curcas (Divakara et al. [2009]; Garg et al. [2011]; Liang et al. [2007]). Jatropha establishment requires mean temperature between 17°C and 28°C and seedlings will be injured if temperature is lower than the optimal range (Achten et al. [2008]; Ye et al. [2009]). In contrast, it was observed that very high temperature depresses yields (Gour [2006]; Makkar and Becker [1997]). So, temperature data was classified into three classes of suitability (S1, S2 and N1).

Elevation

Effect of elevation on yield of jatropha is manifested in the damage imposed by frost since frost is a direct consequence of elevation. It was explained by several researchers that jatropha is unable to withstand frost (Heller [1996]; Grass [2009]). Experiences in different countries indicate that the optimum elevation for growth and productivity of jatropha ranges from sea level to 1500 meters above sea level (Muok and Kallback [2008]; Brittaine and Lutaladio [2010]) because at this elevation, risk of frost is minimal. Altitudes from 1500 to 2150 meters above sea level are moderately suitable. All areas above 2150 meters are not suitable for jatropha production because of frost (ICRAF [2009]). So, elevation data was classified into the three levels of suitability (S1, S2 and N1).

Soils

A soil with good infiltration rates and without water logging tendencies is suitable for jatropha cultivation, while soils with bad infiltration rates and a high tendency for water logging are not suitable. In heavy clayey soils, root formation of jatropha is hindered (Heller [1996]; Brittaine and Lutaladio [2010]; Ouwens et al. [2007]; Biswas et al. [2006]; Singh et al. [2006]; Achten et al. [2008]). The best soils for jatropha are well-drained aerated sands and loams (Gour [2006]; Heller [1996]). It was revealed that jatropha is tolerant to saline soil condition (Sahoo et al. [2009]; Gao et al. [2008]). Jatropha is also known for its ability to survive in very poor dry soils in conditions considered marginal for agriculture and can even root into rock crevices though productivity may be limited (Makkar and Becker [1997]). Therefore, the soil data of the study area was classified into suitable, moderately suitable and not suitable categories.

Slope

Slope is an important indicator of land suitability since it affects drainage, irrigation and soil erosion (Wu et al. [2009]). Steep slopes reduce infiltration efficiency of rainfall because it facilitates runoff. Slopes up to 15° are ideal for optimum growth and yield of jatropha; whereas slopes between 15° and 30°, exhibit linear decrease in suitability. Slopes greater than 30° are not suitable for jatropha production. Therefore, slope data was classified into three levels of suitability, which is in accordance with similar studies (Achten et al. [2008]; Wu et al. [2009]; Grass [2009]).

Land cover (use)

The national bio-fuel development and utilization strategy clearly indicates that land allocated for biodiesel development must not jeopardize farmers’ food production needs (MME [2008]). Likewise, settlers should not be evacuated; and reserve areas must not be affected by such projects. Therefore, land under cultivation, urban settlements and conservation areas are regarded as not suitable for jatropha production although they are biophysically conducive sites to the plant (Muok and Kallback [2008]; Grass [2009]). Furthermore, jatropha dislikes permanent wetness (Ouwens et al. [2007]); thus, permanent water bodies and wetlands were masked out from land cover (use) data. Woodlands and bush land areas may be converted to jatropha investment given priority sites are exhaustively utilized and thus are considered moderately suitable for jatropha investment (Wu et al. [2009]). Grass lands and marginal land are suitable for jatropha investment.

Criteria weights

In this research, weights of the selected criteria were derived using SAHP method. A pair-wise comparison matrix of the SAHP is presented in Table 2.
Table 2

Weight and consistency ratio (CR) of pair-wise comparison matrix of factors that affect jatropha production

Criteria

Precipitation

Elevation

Temperature

Soils

Land cover

Slope

Weight

CR

Precipitation

1.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

9.00

0.43

0.045

Elevation

0.50

1.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

0.26

0.036

Temperature

0.25

0.50

1.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

0.15

0.024

Soils

0.17

0.25

0.50

1.00

2.00

4.00

0.08

0.012

Land cover

0.13

0.17

0.25

0.50

1.00

2.00

0.05

0.007

Slope

0.11

0.13

0.17

0.25

0.50

1.00

0.03

0.005

Column total

2.15

4.04

7.92

13.75

21.50

30.00

1.00

 

Source: Expert interview data and author’s calculation.

The numbers in the above table indicate preference (intensity of importance) of the factors being compared based on experts’ opinions. These numbers were obtained during expert consultations for comparing the different factor combinations that affect jatropha production. The weight and CR column values were calculated from the intensity of importance values based on a series of procedures (Saaty [2008]; Triantaphyllou and Mann [1995]). The importance weight is unit-less measure of relative preference of the factors.

The weights indicate that rainfall, elevation and temperature have respectively greater importance values contributing more to the overall multivariate analysis. On the other hand, slope, land cover and soil type have importance values less than 10% each.

This shows that most of the influence to the resultant suitability comes from characteristics of rainfall, elevation and temperature of the area. These are factors affecting growth performance of the plant and thus are basic to influence analysis of suitability. Furthermore, it is evident from literature that even if there may be variation in performance, jatropha generally grows on most soils except those experiencing water logging conditions. Slope is not a limiting factor for growth and yield of jatropha. Its effect is reflected on soil moisture and fertility status of the land. Both soil moisture and fertility do not significantly influence performance of jatropha (ICRAF [2009]). Land cover is a factor considered to ensure conformity of the results with existing national development strategies; thus, it is not a determinant factor to influence agronomic suitability.

Multi-factor analysis of suitability for jatropha production in Ethiopia

Suitability maps of individual factors of climate, soils, land cover and topography are shown in Figure 3. Based on single factor evaluation, landscape characteristics like slope and elevation were found extensively suitable. However, less than half of the land area of the country was found suitable in terms of rainfall, soils and land cover characteristics.
Figure 3

Suitability of individual environmental factors for jatropha production in Ethiopia.

The results indicate that topographically most part of the country is suitable for jatropha production. It was revealed from this investigation that 97% of the slopes and 65.8% of the elevation of Ethiopia are suitable for jatropha. It was also apparent that high altitude areas and areas below sea level, which account for 34.2% of the landmass of Ethiopia, are not appropriate for jatropha production.

On the other hand, it appears that climatic variables are limiting factors controlling growth and yield of the target plant. Effect of rainfall on jatropha production was considerable. This effect is manifested in its influence on germination, growth, seed production and its likely impacts on attracting diseases and pests.

In terms of area, a significant amount of the country is actually suitable for jatropha production. However, more than three-fourths of the land is potentially (moderately) suitable with some limitations that may require socio-economic and environmental management mechanisms to make use of them for investment in this sector (Figure 4; Table 3).
Figure 4

Suitability map for jatropha production in Ethiopia.

Table 3

Proportion of land suitability classes for jatropha production

No.

Level of suitability

Area (square kilometer)

Proportion (%)

1

Not suitable

92114.31

8.36

2

Moderately suitable

844039.72

76.57

3

Highly suitable

166082.41

15.07

 

Total

1,102,236.43

100.00

Source: Own generated.

Figure 5 shows interplay of the different factors that affect performance of jatropha. It was found that large coverage of the suitable areas of temperature and terrain factors do not notably contribute to the final suitability index. For example, although 97% of the slope is suitable for jatropha, its percentage influence was minimal (only 3%) in providing more suitable sites in the resultant suitability index. However, rainfall (only 18.8% of which is suitable) has the maximum percentage influence (43%) to the resultant suitability map (Table 2 and Figure 5).
Figure 5

Extent of suitability of major environmental variables (factors) that influence jatropha production.

The result of the multivariate analysis indicates that 15.07% of the land area of Ethiopia is agronomically suitable for jatropha production. This area refers to biophysically suitable sites that are compatible with the current development strategies of the country (CRGE [2011]). Suitable areas for jatropha production were predominantly attributed to characteristics of rainfall, elevation and temperature with importance weights of 43%, 26% and 15% respectively (Table 2).

However, the above suitability evaluation results are just based on natural conditions. Whether or not these lands could be used to plant jatropha is still subject to social and economic evaluation. These results should be regarded as theoretically potential land that could be used for jatropha plantation. But further evaluation of social and economic factors is still important. In addition, it is obvious that suitability is subject to temporal dynamics of environmental variables. Therefore, effect of climate variability and changes in other environmental variables need to be evaluated to plan for future investment opportunities.

Conclusions

Careful selection of all the possible variables that affect growth and yield of jatropha is a basic step to make sure that the result will be consumed by decision makers. This research is intended to support investment decision making in the energy sector. Investment decisions must depend on reliable evidence since environmental, social and economic crises arising from an intervention may be devastative or irreversible. Therefore, this study identified and selected potential factors that determine growth and yield performance of jatropha. Climate variables (temperature and rainfall), soil, land cover/use, slope and elevation were identified as the major factors.

Multi-criteria analysis techniques were used to integrate the different environmental data in a spatial modeling environment. SAHP and GIS were used for mechanistic suitability modeling of jatropha production sites in Ethiopia. This research has introduced these approaches to solve drawbacks of existing conventional techniques like remote sensing and expert opinions or judgments for assessing suitable areas. For studies like this one, mechanistic modeling is preferred over correlative modeling since it explicitly incorporates potential range-limiting processes. For instance, a mechanistic modeling can provide information on proximate constraints limiting distribution and abundance of a species.

Classification of the datasets of the identified factors into three levels of suitability enables measuring each factor in terms of fixed suitability classes. This further enabled combination of all variables in a weighted overlay analysis. The classes used in this study were “suitable”, “moderately suitable” and “not suitable”.

A “suitable” area in the map shows that the area has favorable biophysical and climatic conditions for successful production of jatropha and is explained in terms of suitability with respect to all the factors considered. A “moderately suitable” area indicates a second priority for jatropha production, which must be allotted for this purpose only after detailed scrutiny of all the factors and decisions on the feasibility of this investment over other opportunities. On the other hand, “not suitable” areas represent those sites that are not appropriate for jatropha growing. They are limited by frost, water logging, inadequate rainfall, scorching temperature, terrain steepness and/ or occupied land cover/use types.

The study has shown that there is ample opportunity for jatropha investment in the country. However, considerable attention should be given to proper technologies for establishment, management and processing of jatropha products to get optimum benefit from the sector. Establishment of jatropha plantations should depend on the identified geographic locations to avoid conflicting use interests on a piece of land. Land preparation and agronomic practices must be supported with appropriate technologies. Furthermore, processing industries should be established on appropriate sites based on future trends of plantation establishment.

Methods

Site description

Ethiopia is geographically located within the tropics between 3 degrees and 15 degrees of north latitude and between 33 degrees and 48 degrees of east longitude. It has common borders with Kenya, Sudan, South Sudan Republic, Somalia, Eritrea and Djibouti (Figure 6).
Figure 6

Location map of the study area.

There is great variation in altitude ranging from about 116 meters below sea level to 4620 meters above sea level (IBC [2007]; EPA [1998]). The country has an undulating topography providing ample opportunity to satisfy bio-based development interests.

The mean annual temperature of the country is 22.2°C. The lowest temperature ranges from 4°C to 15°C in the highlands, and the highest mean temperature is 31°C in the lowlands at the Denakil Depression (Awulachew et al. [2007]). The country receives mean annual rainfall of 812.4 mm, with a minimum of 91 mm and a maximum of 2,122 mm.

Relief variability and the resulting climatic characteristics make the country home to a wide range of plant, animal and microbial diversity. Consequently, the country is regarded as a centre of endemism (IBC [2007]; Vivero et al. [2010]).

Jatropha is one of the plant species that is traditionally used by the Ethiopian population for a number of domestic purposes. Even though there is no in-depth study of identifying optimal sites for large scale production of jatropha and other oil bearing plants in general, some sources indicate presence of oil bearing plants including jatropha in many parts of the country. For example, castor bean is located elsewhere in many parts of the country. Another oil-bearing plant, pongamia, was introduced by Indians in Beninshangul Gumuz regional state of Ethiopia. Moreover, existing plantations and wildings of jatropha in different areas signify that the country has huge potential for large scale bio-diesel production.

Selecting criteria for suitability assessment

The criteria of suitability assessment were selected through an intensive literature review on site requirements of jatropha for optimum growth and yield. Besides review of international experience from literature about the subject matter, expert consultation was a helpful tool used in the rating of factors using pair-wise comparisons. Availability of data was also a key element considered during selection of factors for this study.

Standardization of the criteria

To compare the criteria, values of each dataset need to be transformed to the same unit of measurement scale. The different input maps (like rainfall, soil type, temperature, etc.) have various units of measurement. Each dataset was converted into raster data format. Pixels of the derived raster data represent values of the different criteria. These pixel values, though having the same unit of measurement scale, were classified into suitability classes for jatropha production. After classification, all raster data of each factor had values of 3, 2 and 1 representing “suitable”, “moderately suitable” and “not suitable areas”, respectively.

Weighing of the criteria

For determining the relative importance of each criterion in the resultant overlay analysis, a pair-wise comparison matrix using a modified form of Saaty’s nine-point weighing scale was applied (Table 4).
Table 4

Definition of weighing scale for pair-wise comparison

Intensity of importance (numerical value)

Definition (verbal judgment of preference)

1

Equal preference

2

Somewhat moderate preference

4

Moderate preference

6

Strong preference

8

Very strong preference

9

Extreme preference

Reciprocals of the above

If criterion i has one of the above non-zero numbers assigned to it when compared with criterion j, then j has the reciprocal value when compared with i.

Source: Modified by the author from Saaty ([1977]).

For preventing bias during criteria weighing, consistency ratio was used as a tool to ensure coherent comparisons. Consistency ratio is a general measure of the comparative judgments’ goodness in building up decision matrices within the AHP. It was calculated as the ratio of consistency index (CI) and random consistency index (RI). The RI is the random index representing consistency of a randomly generated pair-wise comparison matrix. Consistency ratio is a decision tool to evaluate whether an AHP is acceptable for decision making or not (Saaty [1999]). It was computed from expert preference values using equations (1) and (2).
C I = λ max n n 1
(1)
C R = C I R I
(2)

Where;n = number of items being compared, and

λ max = the largest Eigen value

CR = consistency ratio

CI = consistency index

RI = is the consistency index of a randomly generated pair-wise comparison matrix.

Values of RI depend on the number of elements being compared (see Table 5).
Table 5

Random consistency index values in a pair-wise comparison matrix

Number of items being compared (n)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

RI

0

0

0.52

0.9

1.12

1.24

1.32

1.41

Source: Adopted from Saaty and Vargas ([1991]).

Therefore, CR = CI/1.24, in this case.

Values of consistency ratio exceeding 0.10 are indicative of inconsistent judgments; whereas values of 0.10 or less indicate reasonable level of consistency in the pair-wise comparison.

Spatial modeling

Spatial model was built in ArcGIS (version 10.0); where data format conversion, reclassification and the final weighted overlay analysis were performed (see Figure 7). The various factors (i.e. precipitation, elevation, temperature, soils, land use/cover and slope) were combined to a suitability map of three levels of suitability. In the overall weighted overlay analysis, each criterion was weighed by its importance value, which reflects influence of the criteria in the overall suitability (S).
S = i = 1 n W i × C i
(3)
Figure 7

Schematic illustration of spatial model of suitability assessment for Jatropha curcas production.

Where Wi represents weight of each criterion (Ci).

Model feasibility

Different evaluation techniques were applied to make sure that the methods applied in this study were feasible. The first effort was ensuring the factors identified are relevant environmental variables that influence growth and yield of jatropha. This was verified through intensive literature review. Consistency ratio was the other mechanism to ensure whether the factor ranking process was reliable. Moreover, the model was verified with field realities by comparing the model results with location coordinates of actual occurrence data that were collected using global positioning system (GPS). Although the field data collection was not exhaustive, most of the suitable areas identified in this study complied with the field observation data.

The model is feasible for the current environmental conditions of the study area. However, if one or more of the environmental variables considered in this study changes, the model result will also be different. For instance, climate change may influence the patterns of suitability. Hence, this study assumes that the resultant suitable sites are identified based on the current environmental settings of the study area. This suitability index is sensitive to any change in the variables.

Author’s contribution

HT has carried out the research design, data collection, analysis, synthesis, field checking and write up of the research paper. The author organized, read and approved the final manuscript.

Author’s information

Habitamu Taddese is a lecturer and researcher in Hawassa University, Wondo Genet College of Forestry and Natural Resources, Ethiopia. Habitamu has interest in spatial modeling exercises.

Abbreviations

AHP: 

Analytical Hierarchy Process

BRT: 

Boosted Regression Tree

CART: 

Classification and Regression Tree

CBO: 

Community based organization

CI: 

Consistency index

CR: 

Consistency ratio

CRGE: 

Climate Resilient Green Economy

DEM: 

Digital Elevation Model

EPA: 

Environmental Protection Authority

FAO: 

Food and Agriculture Organization (of the Unites Nations)

GIS: 

Geographic Information Systems

GPS: 

Global Positioning Systems

IBC: 

Institute of Biodiversity Conservation

MaxEnt: 

Maximum Entropy

MELCA: 

Movement for Ecological Learning and Community Action

MME: 

Ministry of Mines and Energy

NBE: 

National Bank of Ethiopia

NGO: 

Non-governmental organization

PRB: 

Population Reference Bureau

RI: 

Random Consistency Index

SAHP: 

Spatial Analytic Hierarchy Process

Declarations

Acknowledgements

I am grateful of the efforts of the late Bayush Dessalegn, my mother, for the fruitful contributions she made to enable such an accomplishment. Let God rest her in peace. The researcher conveys special gratitude to the Ethiopian Meteorological Agency for providing data. I want to thank the Ministry of Agriculture of Ethiopia for additional data provision. I also appreciate the contribution of Mr. Kebede Wolka, Mr. Be’eminet Mengesha, Mr. Yidnekachew Habte and Mr. Solomon Abate who encouraged me to engage in this study. Special thanks to Tatum Branaman for helping in language editing. I also acknowledge the anonymous reviewers and the editor of this journal for their detailed and constructive comments to rectifying the overall structure and enriching the contents of the paper.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Hawassa University, Wondo Genet College of Forestry and Natural Resources

References

  1. Achten WMJ, Verchot L, Franken YJ, Mathijs E, Singh VP, Aerts R, Muys B: Jatropha bio-diesel production and use. Biomass Bioenergy 2008,32(12):1063–1084. 10.1016/j.biombioe.2008.03.003View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Awulachew SB, Yilma AD, Loulseged M, Loiskandl W, Ayana M, Alamirew T: Water Resources and Irrigation Development in Ethiopia. International Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka; 2007.Google Scholar
  3. Babaie-Kafaky S, Mataji A, Ahmadi SN: Ecological capability assessment for multiple-use in forest areas using GIS- based multiple criteria decision making approach. Am J Environ Sci 2009,5(6):714–721. 10.3844/ajessp.2009.714.721View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Birega G, Maina A, Anderson T: Biofuels - a Failure for Africa. African Biodiversity Network, Ethiopian Society for Consumer Protection, the Gaia Foundation. 2010.Google Scholar
  5. Biswas S, Kaushik N, Srikanth G: Biodiesel: Technology and Business Opportunities - an Insight. In Proceedings of the Biodiesel Conference Toward Energy Independence - Focus of Jatropha. Edited by: Singh B, Swaminathan R, Ponraj V. Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi, India; 2006:303–330.Google Scholar
  6. Brittaine R, Lutaladio NB (2010) Jatropha: A Smallholder Bioenergy Crop - The Potential for Pro-Poor Development. Integrated Crop Management. ISBN 1020–4555 Brittaine R, Lutaladio NB (2010) Jatropha: A Smallholder Bioenergy Crop - The Potential for Pro-Poor Development. Integrated Crop Management. ISBN 1020–4555Google Scholar
  7. CRGE:Ethiopia’s Climate-Resilient Green Economy. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; 2011.Google Scholar
  8. Divakara BN, Upadhyaya HD, Wani SP, Laxmipathi-Gowda CL: Biology and genetic improvement of Jatropha curcas L . A review. Appl Energy 2009, 87: 732–742. 10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.07.013View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Duc TT: Using GIS and AHP Techniques for Land-use Suitability Analysis. International Symposium on Geo-informatics for Spatial Infrastructure Development in Earth and Allied Sciences, Polytechnic University of Hochiminh city, Vietnam; 2006.Google Scholar
  10. Emami B, Zarkesh MMK: Application of spatial analytical hierarchy process in land suitability: case study on urban development of Tabriz Province, Iran. J Food Agric Environ 2011,9(2):561–567.Google Scholar
  11. EPA:Environmental Protection Authority. National Action Program to Combat Desertification. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa; 1998.Google Scholar
  12. FAO:Food and Agricultural Organization. A framework for land Evaluation. FAO, Rome; 1976.Google Scholar
  13. Franken YJ: Plantation Establishment and Management. In The Jatropha Handbook - From Cultivation to Application (9 - 29). FACT Foundation, Eindhoven; 2010.Google Scholar
  14. Gao S, Ouyang C, Wang S, Xu Y, Tang L, Chen F: Effects of salt stress on growth, antioxidant enzyme and phenylalanine ammonialyase activities in Jatropha curcas L. seedlings. Plant Soil Environ 2008,54(9):374–381.Google Scholar
  15. Garg KK, Karlberg L, Wani SP, Berndes G: Jatropha production on wastelands in India: opportunities and trade-offs for soil and water management at the watershed scale. Bioenerg Water 2011,5(4):410–430.Google Scholar
  16. Ghamgosar M, Haghyghy M, Mehrdoust F, Arshad N: Multicriteria decision making based on analytical hierarchy process (AHP) in GIS for tourism. Middle-East J Sci Res 2011,10(4):501–507.Google Scholar
  17. Gour VK: Production Practices Including Post-Harvest Management of Jatropha Curcas . In Proceedings of the Biodiesel Conference Toward Energy Independence - Focus of Jatropha. Edited by: Singh B, Swaminathan R, Ponraj V. Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi, India; 2006:223–351.Google Scholar
  18. Grass M: Jatropha curcas L. Visions and realities. J Agric Rural Dev Trop Subtrop 2009,110(1):29–38.Google Scholar
  19. Heller J: Physic nut, Jatropha curcas . In Promoting the Conservation and Use of Underutilized and Neglected Crops. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI), Rome, Italy; 1996.Google Scholar
  20. IBC:Institute of Biodiversity Conservation. Ethiopia: Second Country Report on the State of PGRFA (Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture) to FAO, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; 2007.Google Scholar
  21. ICRAF:Jatropha Reality Check - A Field Assessment of the Agronomic and Economic Viability of Jatropha and Other Oilseed Crops in Kenya. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH, Washington, DC and Nairobi; 2009.Google Scholar
  22. Jafari S, Zaredar N: Land suitability analysis using multi-attribute decision making approach. Intern J Environ Sci Dev 2011,1(5):441–445.Google Scholar
  23. Javaheri H: Site selection of municipal solid waste landfill using analytical hierarchy process method in geographical information system technology environment in Giroft. Iran J Environ Health Sci Eng 2006,3(3):177–184.Google Scholar
  24. Jingura RM, Matengaifa R, Musademba D, Musiyiwa K: Characterization of land types and agro-ecological conditions for production of Jatropha as a feedstock for bio-fuels in Zimbabwe. Biomass Bio-Energy 2011, 35: 2080–2086. 10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.02.004View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Jongschaap REE, Corré WJ, Bindraban PS, Brandenburg WA: Claims and Facts on Jatropha Curcas L. Global Jatropha Curcas Evaluation. Breeding and Propagation Programme. Plant Research International, Wageningen University & Research Centre, Wageningen, the Netherlands; 2007.Google Scholar
  26. Jongschaap REE, Montes OLR, De Ruijter FJ, Van ENL: Highlights of the Jatropha Curcas Evaluation Program (JEP): Crop Management and the Fate of Press-Cake and Other by-Products With its Effects on Environmental Sustainability. Plant Research International Wageningen UR, Wageningen, the Netherlands, Groningen; 2010.Google Scholar
  27. Kearney M: Habitat, environment and niche: what are we modeling? OIKOS 2006,115(1):186–191. 10.1111/j.2006.0030-1299.14908.xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Koikai JS: Utilizing GIS-Based Suitability Modeling to Assess the Physical Potential of Bioethanol Processing Plants in Western Kenya. Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota University Central Services Press, Winona, MN; 2008.Google Scholar
  29. Liang Y, Chen H, Tang M, Yang P, Shen S: Responses of Jatropha curcas seedlings to cold stress: photosynthesis-related proteins and chlorophyll fluorescence characteristics. Physiol Plant 2007, 131: 508–517. 10.1111/j.1399-3054.2007.00974.xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Makkar, H. P. S. & Becker, K. 1997. Potential of Jatropha curcas seed meal as a protein supplement to livestock feed, constraints to its utilization and possible strategies to overcome constraints. In: Biofuels and Industrial Products from Jatropha curcas (eds. Gubitz GM, Mittelbach M, Trabi M), Managua, Nicaragua, Graz, Austria, pp. 190–205Google Scholar
  31. Makkar HPS, Becker K: Jatropha curcas , a promising crop for the generation of biodiesel and value-added co-products. Review Article Eur J Lipid Sci Technol 2009,111(8):773–787. 10.1002/ejlt.200800244View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. MELCA (2008) Rapid assessment of biofuels development status in Ethiopia and proceedings of the National Workshop on Environmental Impact Assessment and Biofuels (eds. Anderson T, Million B), MELCA Mahiber, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia MELCA (2008) Rapid assessment of biofuels development status in Ethiopia and proceedings of the National Workshop on Environmental Impact Assessment and Biofuels (eds. Anderson T, Million B), MELCA Mahiber, Addis Ababa, EthiopiaGoogle Scholar
  33. MME:Ministry of Mines and Energy. Ethiopian Bio-fuels Development and Utilization Strategy, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; 2008.Google Scholar
  34. Muok B, Kallback L (2008) Feasibility Studies of Jatropha curcas as a Bio-fuel Feedstock in Kenya. http://kerea.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Feasibility-Study-of-Jatropha-Curcas-as-a-Biofuel-Feedstock-in-Kenya.pdf
  35. NBE:National Bank of Ethiopia. Annual Report of 2008/2009. NBE, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; 2010.Google Scholar
  36. Nyebenge M, Wanjara J, Owuor J, Theuri W: Geographical Information Systems (GIS) Production and Spatial Analysis of Suitability Maps for Biofuel Feedstock for Ethiopia, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda, and Kenya. Final Report. ICRAF-GTZ Project. World Agro-forestry Centre (ICRAF), Nairobi, Kenya; 2009.Google Scholar
  37. Ouwens KD, Francis G, Franken YJ, Rijssenbeek W, Riedacker A, Foidl N, Jongschaap R, Bindraban P: Position Paper on Jatropha Curcas - State of the Art, Small and Large Scale Project Development. FACT Foundation, Wageningen; 2007.Google Scholar
  38. Paul S: Location allocation for urban waste disposal site using multi-criteria analysis: A study on Nabadwip Municipality, West Bengal, India. Intern J Geomat Geosci 2012,3(1):74–88.Google Scholar
  39. Pillay D, Da Silva E: Sustainable development & bio-economic prosperity in Africa: Bio-fuels & the South African gateway. Afr J Biotechnol 2009,8(1):2397–2408.Google Scholar
  40. PRB:Population Reference Bureau. World Population Datasheet, Washington DC, USA; 2013.Google Scholar
  41. Saaty TL: A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J Math Psychol 1977, 15: 231–281. 10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Saaty TL: Basic theory of the analytic hierarchy process: how to make a decision. Rev R Acad Cienc Exact Fis Nat (Esp) 1999,93(4):395–423.Google Scholar
  43. Saaty TL: Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Serv Sci 2008,1(1):83–98.Google Scholar
  44. Saaty TL, Vargas LG: Prediction, Projection and Forecasting. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston; 1991.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Sahoo NK, Kumar A, Sharma S, Naik SN (2009) Interaction of Jatropha curcas plantation with ecosystem. Proceeding of International Conference on Energy and Environment. ISSN: 2070–3740. Sahoo NK, Kumar A, Sharma S, Naik SN (2009) Interaction of Jatropha curcas plantation with ecosystem. Proceeding of International Conference on Energy and Environment. ISSN: 2070–3740.Google Scholar
  46. Singh L, Bargali SS, Swamy SL: Production Practices and Post-Harvest Management. In Proceedings of the biodiesel conference toward energy independence - Focus of Jatropha. Edited by: Singh B, Swaminathan R, Ponraj V. Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi, India; 2006:252–267.Google Scholar
  47. Store R, Kangas J: Integrating spatial multi-criteria evaluation and expert knowledge GIS-based habitat suitability modeling. Landsc Urban Plan 2001, 55: 79–93. 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00120-7View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Triantaphyllou E, Mann SH: Using the analytic hierarchy process for decision making in engineering applications: some challenges. Intern J of Industrial Eng 1995,2(1):35–44.Google Scholar
  49. Valavanis VD, Pierce GJ, Zuur AF, Palialexis A, Saveliev A, Katara I, Wan J: Modeling of essential fish habitat based on remote sensing, spatial analysis and GIS. Hydrobiologia 2008, 612: 5–20. 10.1007/s10750-008-9493-yView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Van der Putten E: General Data on Jatropha. In FACT Foundation - The Jatropha Handbook - From Cultivation to Application (1–7). FACT Foundation, Eindhoven; 2010.Google Scholar
  51. Vivero JL, Ensermu K, Sebsebe D: The red List of Endemic Trees & Shrubs of Ethiopia and Eritrea. Fauna & Flora International, Cambridge, UK; 2010.Google Scholar
  52. Wendimu MA: Jatropha Potential on Marginal Land in Ethiopia: Reality or Myth?. University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics (IFRO), Denmark; 2013.Google Scholar
  53. Wiesenhütter J (2003) Use of the Physic nut (Jatropha Curcas L.) to Combat Desertification and Reduce Poverty: Possibilities and Limitations of Technical Solutions in a Particular Socio-Economic Environment, the Case of Cape Verde. GTZ, Convention Project to Combat Desertification Wiesenhütter J (2003) Use of the Physic nut (Jatropha Curcas L.) to Combat Desertification and Reduce Poverty: Possibilities and Limitations of Technical Solutions in a Particular Socio-Economic Environment, the Case of Cape Verde. GTZ, Convention Project to Combat DesertificationGoogle Scholar
  54. Wu WG, Huang JK, Deng XZ (2009) Potential land for plantation of Jatropha curcas as feedstock for biodiesel in China. Sci China Series Earth Sci, doi: 10.1007/s11430–009–0204-y Wu WG, Huang JK, Deng XZ (2009) Potential land for plantation of Jatropha curcas as feedstock for biodiesel in China. Sci China Series Earth Sci, doi: 10.1007/s11430-009-0204-yGoogle Scholar
  55. Ye M, Li C, Francis G, Makkar HPS: Current situation and prospects of Jatropha curcas as a multipurpose tree in China. Agroforest Syst 2009, 76: 487–497. doi:10.1007/s10457–009–9226-x doi:10.1007/s10457-009-9226-x 10.1007/s10457-009-9226-xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  56. Zarkesh MMK, Almasi N, Taghizadeh F: Ecotourism land capability evaluation using spatial multi-criteria evaluation. Res J Appl Sci Eng Technol 2011,3(7):693–700.Google Scholar

Copyright

© Taddese; licensee Springer. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.