Expert Systems With Applications 82 (2017) 10–18

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Expert Systems With Applications

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eswa

A novel approach for automated land partitioning using genetic

algorithm
Hüseyin HAKLI∗, Harun UĞUZ
Department of Computer Engineering, Selcuk University, 42075 Konya, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Land consolidation is an important tool to prevent land fragmentation and enhance agricultural produc-
Received 17 December 2016 tivity. Land partitioning is one of the most significant problems within the land consolidation process.
Revised 16 February 2017
This process is related to the subdivision of a block having non-uniform geometric shapes. Land partition-
Accepted 22 March 2017
ing determines the location of new land parcels and is a complex problem containing many conflicting
Available online 2 April 2017
demands, so conventional programming techniques are not sufficient for this NP optimization problem.
Keywords: Therefore, it is necessary to have an intelligent system with a standard decision-making mechanism capa-
Genetic algorithm ble of processing many criteria simultaneously and evaluating a number of different solutions in a short
Automated land partitioning time. To overcome this problem and accelerate the land partitioning process, we proposed automated
Optimization land partitioning using a genetic algorithm (ALP-GA). Besides the parcel’s size, shape and land value, the
Land consolidation proposed method evaluates fixed facilities, and the degree and location of cadastral parcels to generate
a land partitioning plan. The proposed method automated the land partitioning process using an intelli-
gent system and was implemented over a real project area. Experimental study shows that the proposed
method is more successful and efficient than the designer with respect to the results meeting the objec-
tive function. In addition, the land partition process is greatly simplified by the proposed method.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction LC traditionally consists of many stages, and is a long and la-

Agriculture forms the basic economic and social sector neces-
sary to sustain human life. In spite of increases in the human pop-
ulation, the total area of farmland has remained stable. Also, due
to land fragmentation, the efficiency of farmland has decreased
day by day. This situation will get worse unless land consolida-
tion and urban transformation projects can solve this problem
(FAO, 2003). Land consolidation (LC) is the most useful land man-
agement approach for solving land fragmentation (Hakli, Uguz, &
Cay, 2016). The demand for LC arises in many countries where
there is a need to readjust roads and water canals, consolidate
small and inefficient land parcels, and promote the appropriate
use of the property without changing the status of ownership
(Vitikainen, 2004). LC is not just an excellent tool to implement
rural development projects but it also allows for the improvement
of agricultural structures, the implementation of nature and envi-
ronmental projects, and the incorporation of national and local in-
frastructure projects (Pasakarnis & Maliene, 2008).
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: hhakli@selcuk.edu.tr (H. HAKLI), harun_uguz@selcuk.edu.tr
(H. UĞUZ).
borious process. Land reallocation, the most important process in
land consolidation, is split into two sub-processes: land redistribu-
tion and land partitioning (Demetriou, Stillwell, & See, 2012). Both
of these stages are complex, time consuming and challenging parts
of the LC process (Rosman, 2012; Uyan, Cay, Inceyol, & Hakli, 2015).
In land reallocation, blocks are formed in the project area at the
block-planning stage, while land redistribution is related to deter-
mining blocks of cadastral parcels, and land partitioning deals with
determining the locations of these new parcels inside that block.
Land partitioning is the final stage of LC and directly affects the
success of the whole process.
Currently, a land partitioning plan is generated manually with
respect to strict criteria and rules by a designer with the help
of computer software. The designer is a human land partition-
ing expert. This process take up a considerable amount of time
– possibly weeks or months – depending on the structure of the
project, the size of the project area and the number and exper-
tise of designers on the project (Hakli et al., 2016). Furthermore,
a land partitioning plan will most likely vary depending on the
knowledge and skill of the designers. It is difficult for designers
to carry out this process because ideally it includes many contra-
dictory criteria. There are insufficient designers using conventional
methods to perform ideal land partitioning plans. While there are

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2017.03.067
0957-4174/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 H. HAKLI, H. UĞUZ / Expert Systems With Applications 82 (2017) 10–18
studies to automate the land redistribution stage, such as math-
ematical models (Ayranci, 2007), fuzzy logic (Cay & Iscan, 2011),
decision-support machines (Uyan, Cay, & Akcakaya, 2013) and ge-
netic algorithms (Uyan et al., 2015), there are few studies to au-
tomate the land partitioning stage. Rosman (2012), proposed two
approaches containing different sets of constraints to form par-
cel boundaries with respect to distance, fixed facilities and exist-
ing parcels. To support the designer, Buis and Vingerhoeds pre-
sented a semi-automatic system combining a knowledge-base with
GIS (Buis & Vingerhoeds, 1996). Tourino et al. carried out the land
partitioning stage automatically using a regional-growth algorithm
and simulated annealing techniques (Tourino et al., 2003). Firstly,
locations of new parcels were determined by a domain growth
and merging process, and then a refinement of the shapes of
new parcels were completed with a simulated annealing technique.
Also, Tourino et al. implemented their system for two different pi-
lot project areas instead of sample blocks, unlike the other stud-
ies in published literature. Although the results of Tourino et al.’s
study are sufficient to a degree, some of LC’s criteria, such as fixed
facilities, were not considered. Also, Demetriou et al. stated that
Tourino’s method is more dependent on block shapes and the size
of the cadastral parcels (Demetriou, See, & Stillwell, 2013). Tourino
et al. did not mention computation times for their method; the
refinement of the sample block of five parcels was completed in
10,0 0 0 stages using a simulated annealing technique. Demetriou
et al. automated the land partitioning stage by designing and op-
timizing land parcels with respect to their shape, size and value.
In their study, a genetic algorithm (GA) was used with single and
multi-objective approaches. Their method was implemented for
two sample blocks having six parcels: 3 hectares (block I) and 10
parcels: 5 hectares (block II). The calculation time was 4.8 h for
block I and 12 h for block II in terms of the parcel’s shape only.
Despite the fact that these results are a step forward for land parti-
tioning, they need more improvement with regard to the accuracy
of results and the calculation time. Furthermore, when Demetriou
et al.’s method is implemented for a real project area, the calcu-
lation time would be not acceptable for the land partitioning pro-
cess.
Although results of studies in literature are promising, new ap-
proaches are needed for this process to reduce the computation
time, to consider the important criteria of the land partitioning
process and to achieve the ideal land partitioning plan. A parcel’s
shape, size, land value and road access are indispensable criteria
for land partitioning. In our previous study (Hakli et al., 2016), pro-
Fig. 1. The design axes and subdivision of two sample blocks.
11
duction of a pre-land partitioning plan is realized using both a bi-
nary search method and the Delaunay triangulation method, tak-
ing into consideration, shape, size, value and road access criteria.
The result of the previous study produced a basis for an ideal land
partitioning plan which meets all the criteria. In addition to this,
to generate an ideal land partitioning plan, the location of new
parcels inside the block is determined with respect to fixed facili-
ties, and the location and degree of cadastral parcels. In this study,
a new approach is proposed to automatically generate ideal land
partitioning using a genetic algorithm with respect to all the pre-
viously mentioned criteria. The proposed method is implemented
for a real project area on which an LC process has already been
completed. The land partitioning plan is obtained automatically in
hours with the proposed method. Experimental results show that
the proposed method’s land partitioning plan is more successful
than the designer’s plan with respect to the objective function.
Also, the proposed method significantly reduced the computation
time to generate a suitable land partitioning plan.
The rest of the paper is arranged as follows: The Materials and
Method (Section 2) defines the land partitioning problem and the
basic genetic algorithm concept. The proposed approach is imple-
mented for a land partitioning problem in Section 3. The perfor-
mance of the proposed method is also investigated and compared
with the results of a designer in Section 4. Finally, the conclusions
and future direction for our work is given in Section 5.
2. Materials and method
2.1. The land partitioning problem
The blocks and sizes of new parcels are determined in the land
redistribution phase. The output data from land redistribution is
used as input to the land partitioning (Demetriou et al., 2013). The
location of each new parcel inside its block is decided in the land
partitioning process. In other words, land partitioning includes the
subdivision of blocks into smaller land parcels to generate the final
land reallocation plan (Demetriou et al., 2013).
Cadastral parcels: The current parcels in the project area before
land consolidation.
Block: The project area is divided into subareas by surrounding
roads, irrigation channels etc. Each subarea represents a block.
Fixed facilities: Such as buildings, wells, orchards, glasshouses
etc. Due to the fact that fixed facilities are unmovable, parcels con-
taining fixed facilities are very important to the landowner.
--- Primary design axis
--- Secondary design axis
12 H. HAKLI, H. UĞUZ / Expert Systems With Applications 82 (2017) 10–18

1. Check starting conditions,

2. Select a block; stop if all blocks are completed,
3. Select a new parcel from the pool of new parcels of the block,
4. Select a suitable location for the new parcel,
5. Form a boundary,
6. Check the pool for unselected parcels until the all parcels of the block have been selected.

Fig. 2. Summary of the land partitioning process (Rosman, 2012).

Fig. 3. Degree map of project area (Alanozu Town).

Land value (or degree): The quality of the parcel within the
project area varies with regard to several criteria such as location,
productivity, soil etc. Therefore, each parcel has a land degree.
Real size of parcel: Real size of parcel is the known size of the
parcel.
1st degree size of parcel: Due to the different degree value of
each parcel, all parcels are converted into 1st degree parcels for
ease of computation. The 1st degree size of a parcel is calculated
by Eq. (1). If the degree of the parcel is 1, the real size of the parcel
is equal to the 1st degree size.
1st Degree size o f parcel = Parcel Degree ∗ Parcel Size
Firstly, the design axes of each block are determined according
to the block’s inclination (Rosman, 2012). The direction and shape
of the sub-division is determined with these design axes. Fig. 1
shows the design axes and land partitioning of two sample blocks.
The primary design axis represents the direction of the subdivision.
The new parcels are generally positioned parallel to the secondary
design axis. The designer simply determines the primary design
axis and divides the new parcels as he/she wants with the help
of software. The designer enters the size of the parcel individually
and selects the direction of division; the software only performs
the division of the parcel as the designer wants. The land parti-
tioning generally starts from the bottom of the block and requires
the designer to redo the whole process if he/she wants to reform
it (Hakli et al., 2016). The land partitioning process is summarized
in Fig. 2 (Rosman, 2012).
Generally, the quality of land is not all the same in the project
area. It depends on its suitability for agriculture, its proximity to
the center of a village, the minerals it contains etc. Therefore, a
degree map is generated for each project area. The project area
is separated into subareas with respect to a degree map. Fig. 3
shows that degree map for the project area. For detailed informa-
tion about the degree map, please refer to (Hakli et al., 2016). For
ease of calculation, the size of all cadastral parcels are transformed
into 1st degree size for the land redistribution process.
In our previous study, a pre-land partitioning plan is extracted
with respect to a parcel’s size, shape, land value (or degree) and
road access. These criteria are not enough for generating an ideal
and suitable land partitioning plan. Fixed facilities, and the degree
and location of cadastral parcels are important and they are signif-
icant criteria for the land partitioning process. The detailed expla-
(1)
nation of these criteria is given below:
Fixed facilities: The new parcels generated during land parti-
tioning have to cover the fixed facilities of the landowners. If this
condition is not met, the loss to the landowner would be huge.
The landowner’s fixed facilities must remain inside the new par-
cel because they are unmovable. Keeping fixed facilities accurately
inside the parcel is of primary concern and an important criterion
for land partitioning.
Degree of cadastral parcels: The degree of a landowner’s
cadastral parcels is supposed to be close to the degree of the
landowner’s new parcel. If the degree of the new parcel is sig-
nificantly smaller than the degree of the cadastral parcel, the
landowner will be aggrieved.
For the exact opposite situation, one landowner will have
an advantage, but the other landowners will have been unfairly
treated. Therefore, this criterion is important to ensure equality be-
tween landowners.
Location of cadastral parcels: The landowner’s new parcels of
are supposed to be located on their cadastral parcels as much
 H. HAKLI, H. UĞUZ / Expert Systems With Applications 82 (2017) 10–18
as possible. Thus, landowners will keep their previous locations
where possible.
2.2. Genetic algorithm
GA was first introduced by Holland (1975) and was inspired by
natural adaptation. Since then, Goldberg’s study (Goldberg, 1989)
showed that GA has been used in many fields where it tries
to generate the optimum solution using crossover and mutation
operations. The basic principle of GA is to create new genera-
tions by using strong individuals, and eliminating weak individuals,
to obtain better solutions. Individuals are modified by crossover
and mutation operations in the same way as biological evolu-
tion. Thus, GA gets rid of local minima by providing a diversity
of population. GA is increasingly used in many real-world prob-
lems and engineering, such as scheduling problems (Asadzadeh,
2015; Casas, Taheri, Ranjan, Wang, & Zomaya, 2016), designing
packing systems (Thomas & Chaudhari, 2014), facility layout prob-
lems (Pourvaziri & Naderi, 2014), planning patient transport ser-
vices (Fogue, et al., 2016), face recognition systems (Sukhija, Behal,
& Singh, 2016), forest fire spread prediction (Denham, Wendt, Bian-
chini, Cortes, & Margalef, 2012), land use planning (Porta, Parapar,
Doallo, Rivera, Sante, & Crecente, 2013) and filtering problems (Ar
& Bostanci, 2016) etc. Due to their simple structure, ease of im-
plementation and direct use in discrete problems, GA is used for
this land partitioning problem. For detailed information about GA,
please refer to (Goldberg, 1989; Holland, 1975).
3. Automated land partitioning using the genetic algorithm
(ALP-GA)
The land partitioning problem is time-consuming, laborious and
contains many conflicting criteria. Because of this, there are insuffi-
cient designers using conventional methods to generate ideal land
partitioning plans. In this study, the genetic algorithm is used to
evaluate simultaneously conflicting criteria and to reduce the com-
putation time for the land partitioning problem.
3.1. The objective function
To implement GA for this problem, the objective function is de-
termined from the aforementioned land partitioning criteria. The
objective function is very important to the success of the algo-
rithm and has to make an accurate assessment for different land
partitioning plans. Land partitioning plans are evaluated using the
objective function with three different criteria: fixed facilities, the
degree of cadastral parcels and the location of cadastral parcels.
F ixed f acilities : C1 = (AF F Bi − AF F N Pi ) /AF F Bi
where AFFBi represents the fixed facilities area of the
landowner’s ith parcel inside the block and AFFNPi is the fixed fa-
cilities area of the landowner’s ith parcel inside the new parcel.
Eq. (2) shows the percentage of the area the new parcel covers
after land partitioning with regard to the landowner’s fixed facil-
ities falling within the current block. This criterion is of primary
importance for land partitioning. To increase the influence of this
criterion on the objective function, the resulting value is multi-
plied by two. For instance, suppose that the fixed facilities area
of a landowner is 20 0 0 m2 inside the current block. We granted a
new parcel to this landowner covering 1500 m2 of the fixed facil-
ities. So, in this situation, the result is (20 0 0 − 150 0)/20 0 0 = 0.25.
This result is then multiplied by two.
Location o f cadastral parcels : C2 = (C PABi − C PAN Pi ) /C PABi
where CPABi is the sum of the landowner’s cadastral parcel
areas in the ith parcel inside the block, and CPANPi stands for
13
the sum of the landowner’s cadastral parcel areas in the ith par-
cel inside the new parcel. Eq. (3) indicates the percentage of the
area that the new parcel covers, after the land partitioning, in re-
gard to the landowner’s cadastral parcels falling into the current
block. The evaluation process is the same as the fixed facilities
criterion.
Degree o f cadastral parcels : C3 = abs(ADC Pi − DN Pi ) (4)
where ADCPi represents the average degree of cadastral parcels
which makes up the ith parcel, and DNPi is the degree of the new
parcel after the land partitioning. The degree of the new parcel
formed after land partitioning is subtracted from the average de-
gree of cadastral parcels in the new parcel – formed by the merger
of the one or more cadastral parcels after the land redistribution
phase. For instance, suppose that a new parcel is formed by the
consolidation of 4 cadastral parcels and that the average degree
of these cadastral parcels is 0.83. The degree of the new parcel
granted after land partitioning is 0.78. So, for this situation, the
result is abs(0.78 − 0.83) = 0.05.
The sum of the three specified functions gives us the objective
function:
Ob jective F unction = (C1 ∗ 2 ) + C2 + C3 (5)
3.2. The implementation of GA for land partitioning
The input data for the land partitioning is the size of parcels
and number of parcels for each block. Land partitioning is per-
formed sequentially and separately for each block with the genetic
algorithm. A flowchart of the proposed method is given in Fig. 4,
showing the GA implementation steps.
3.2.1. Step 1. Determining the initial population
Each parcel within the block has a unique id number. The ini-
tial population is randomly generated using these id numbers with
permutation coding. The dimensions of the population are equal to
the number of parcels within the current block. Fig. 5 shows the
initial sample population for the 164 numbered blocks containing
19 parcels.
There are ten individuals (or chromosomes) and ten different
land partitioning plans for the 164 numbered blocks in Fig. 5. If
we examine the candidate solution for the tenth chromosome, first
parcel numbered 3 is allocated and then the parcels are allocated
in sequence and numbered 4, 19, 5… 12, 18, 2. So, a land partition-
ing plan is obtained for this block. GA tries to improve this initial
population and to seek a more optimal candidate solution with re-
spect to the objective function. Alongside the id number, the coor-
dinates of the new parcels within the block are needed to evaluate
(2)
the objective function. All the other necessary information is kept
in a separate population.
3.2.2. Step 2. Evaluating the initial population
The fitness value is calculated for each chromosome using the
objective function to determine the quality of the candidate solu-
tions.
3.2.3. Step 3. Elitism
Candidate solutions are sequenced by their fitness value. A
small proportion of the fittest candidates are copied into the next
generation without modification. Elitism is performed to retain the
best chromosomes and to increase the performance of the GA.
3.2.4. Step 4. Generating the new population with natural selection
(3)
In natural selection, while the strong individuals survive, the
others will not. Natural selection may be achieved by different
methods. The most commonly used natural selection methods are
14 H. HAKLI, H. UĞUZ / Expert Systems With Applications 82 (2017) 10–18
Fig. 4. Flowchart of the proposed method.
roulette wheel selection and tournament selection. For the pro-
posed method, roulette wheel selection was used. In this method,
the probability of being selected is determined for each individ-
ual with respect to fitness value, and the probabilities of being
selected are collected cumulatively. A random number is gener-
ated at interval [0, 1]. The individual which has the smallest cu-
mulative value greater than the random number is then selected.
The process is repeated until the desired number of individuals
has been obtained. Individuals with high quality fitness have a
higher probability of being selected and will be selected more
times.
Fig. 5. Initial sample population for 164 numbered blocks.
3.2.5. Step 5. Crossover
The population diversity is provided by crossover and mutation
operations. There are different crossover techniques, and the one-
point crossover technique is used in the proposed method. Firstly,
parent individuals are randomly selected within the population. A
crossover point is randomly generated and id numbers from the
beginning of the chromosome to the crossover point are copied
from the first parent; the rest is copied from the second parent.
But, the child chromosome is not suitable for permutation cod-
ing. So, id numbers from the beginning of the chromosome to the
crossover point are copied from one parent and the rest are respec-
tively added on the condition that it has not already been passed
to the child from the other parent. A sample crossover operation is
seen in Fig. 6.
3.2.6. Step 6. Mutation
Some genes of the child individuals obtained by crossover op-
erations are mutated to increase the diversity of the population.
Normally, one gene is selected in the chromosome and generated
randomly in the search space. Due to permutation coding, two
genes are randomly selected in the chromosome and their posi-
tions swapped. Fig. 7. shows a sample mutation operation.
3.2.7. Step 7. Evaluating the new population
New candidate land partitioning plans are generated with re-
spect to the new population’s id numbers. Then, these candidate
solutions are evaluated with the objective function. Until the ter-
mination condition is met, steps 3 to 7 are repeated.
3.2.8. Step 8. Terminating the algorithm
If the maximum number of iterations is met, the algorithm is
terminated and the best solution is reported.
4. Experimental results and discussion
In this study, all the experiments were run on a machine with
an Intel Core i7 3.50 GHz CPU, 16 GB RAM and Windows 8 oper-
ating system, and the codes were implemented using Matlab 2014
(8.3).
The proposed method was implemented over a real project
area. The town of Alanozu – whose LC process had already been
completed and used in a few previous studies – was selected as
the project area (Hakli et al., 2016; Uyan et al., 2013; Uyan et al.,
2015). The size of the project area is about 109 ha and it contains
18 blocks. For further information about the study area, please re-
fer to Uyan et al. (2013).
For the experimental results, the population and iteration num-
bers were determined to be 20 and 50, respectively. The muta-
tion ratio was taken to be 0.1, while the crossover ratio was 0.8.
The dimension number for each block was equal to the number of
parcels in that block. Each gene in a chromosome represents one
parcel. Moreover, positional information for each parcel is kept.
 H. HAKLI, H. UĞUZ / Expert Systems With Applications 82 (2017) 10–18 15

Fig. 6. A sample crossover operation.

Fig. 7. A sample mutation operation.

Table 1
The experimental results of ALP-GA.

Blocks Number of parcels Results of objective function Time (s)

Worst Best Avg. Std. dev. Worst Best Avg. Std. dev.

149 5 1.68 1.68 1.68 0.00 82.86 73.80 79.77 3.56

150 7 2.04 1.85 1.92 0.10 212.27 162.91 193.62 19.15
151 10 4.59 3.90 4.20 0.29 497.56 392.53 434.54 43.45
152 11 5.52 4.89 5.15 0.24 435.55 384.29 406.03 22.58
153 16 11.31 10.05 10.51 0.48 836.83 717.04 794.85 48.28
154 20 15.92 14.95 15.35 0.36 1256.08 991.21 1103.81 97.66
155 25 20.67 18.82 19.64 0.69 3170.37 2928.77 3097.54 103.92
156 24 12.68 11.47 11.92 0.46 1763.51 1554.93 1642.29 79.81
157 24 15.16 12.85 14.11 0.87 1489.06 1300.30 1387.36 74.56
158 33 29.10 27.75 28.47 0,58 4221.25 3987.63 4097.14 89.75
159 20 15.61 14.79 15.17 0.36 2276.57 1906.63 2131.23 158.00
160 15 9.31 6.89 8.04 1.18 2558.78 2014.88 2246.11 228.24
161 15 13.91 11.43 12.91 0.93 2271.50 1944.30 2146.24 149.05
162 21 22.20 19.56 20.75 0.98 3097.85 2243.32 2786.15 375.74
163 16 15.53 14.42 15.07 0.44 2740.58 2190.05 2484.36 239.76
164 19 19.83 16.42 18.11 1.29 1845.16 1501.93 1706.42 176.61
165 21 17.58 16.00 16.87 0.72 2661.56 2566.67 2615.07 43.92
166 1 – – – – – – – –
Total 303 231.51 205.97 219.03 10.55 31,417.34 26,815.63 29,255.43 1946.62

Because it takes time to calculate the degree, the fixed facility
and cadastral parcel for each gene by using the proposed objec-
tive function, the population and iteration numbers were set low
to finish the experiment in a reasonable time. When the positions
of two genes in the chromosome were changed through mutation,
the positions of other parcels are affected and modified by that
change. Thus, the newly obtained land partitioning plan needs to
be evaluated according to the new positions of each parcel. A fit-
ness value for each parcel in the block is calculated by the objec-
tive function for the specified three criteria and then summed. The
chromosome having the minimum fitness value reveals the best
solution. Selection of the chromosomes was determined using the
roulette wheel technique for crossover. Furthermore, elitism was
performed to transfer the best solution obtained from each itera-
tion to the next population without being subject to crossover or
mutation operations, and the elitism ratio was determined to be
0.1. Therefore, the best 2 out of 20 chromosomes, in terms of suit-
ability, were directly transferred to the next population.
The proposed method was run five times to test the robustness
and show the validity of the results for each block. Table 1 shows
the best, worst and average results of the objective function and
the time for the 5 runs. Also, standard deviations for the objec-
tive function and time values are included in Table 1. The proposed
method was not applied to 166 numbered blocks – and is not in-
cluded in the process – because it contained only one parcel.
When examining Table 1, the standard deviation values of the
objective function – except for two blocks (160 and 164 – are
less than 1. This shows us that the proposed method is highly ro-
bust when applied to the land partitioning problem. A 109 hectare
study area containing 18 blocks was completed in approximately
eight hours with the proposed method. Thus, the land partition-
ing process was reduced from weeks to hours. In addition, stan-
dard deviation values of the time are not high, so the ALP-GA
shows consistency in the completion time for the land partitioning
process.
The best land partitioning plan obtained by the proposed
method from 5 runs was compared to the land partitioning plan
of a designer according to the objective function. The comparison
results are given in Table 2 for each block. Table 2 shows the de-
tailed results of the objective function for both plans.
16 H. HAKLI, H. UĞUZ / Expert Systems With Applications 82 (2017) 10–18

Table 2
The comparison of the land partitioning plan of a designer and ALP-GA with respect to the detailed results of the objective functions.

Blocks Number of parcel Detailed results of objective function

Designer ALP-GA (Best run)

Fixed Fac. Location of Cad. Par Degree of Cad. Par Total Fixed Fac Location of Cad. Par Degree of Cad. Par Total

149 5 0.00 2.30 0.04 2.34 0.00 1.64 0.04 1.68

150 7 1.09 1.12 0.00 2.21 0.89 0.96 0.00 1.85
151 10 0.00 5.44 0.00 5.44 0.00 3.90 0.00 3.90
152 11 0.00 5.00 0.03 5.03 0.00 4.86 0.03 4.89
153 16 0.00 12.10 0.26 12.36 0.00 9.79 0.26 10.05
154 20 0.00 14.96 0.83 15.79 0.00 14.22 0.73 14.95
155 25 2.00 16.82 1.13 19.95 0.14 17.60 1.08 18.82
156 24 0.00 12.43 1.08 13.51 0.00 10.40 1.07 11.47
157 24 2.00 14.52 1.38 17.89 0.00 11.50 1.35 12.85
158 33 0.25 25.92 4.97 31.15 0.00 24.11 3.64 27.75
159 20 0.00 13.25 2.61 15.86 0.00 12.53 2.26 14.79
160 15 0.82 10.54 0.47 11.83 0.57 5.99 0.33 6.89
161 15 1.34 11.28 1.58 14.20 2.78 7.20 1.45 11.43
162 21 2.04 15.46 3.07 20.57 2.03 14.76 2.77 19.56
163 16 6.03 10.22 2.79 19.04 2.54 9.50 2.38 14.42
164 19 2.75 14.46 1.61 18.82 1.40 13.33 1.69 16.42
165 21 0.00 15.84 2.76 18.60 0.00 13.26 2.74 16.00
166 1 – – – – – – – –
Total 303 18.32 201.66 24.61 244.59 12.47 172.8 20.67 205.97

The block number, the number of parcels for each block, sep-
arate (fixed facilities, the location of cadastral parcels and the de-
gree of cadastral parcels) and collective results for the objective
function of the designer and the ALP-GA are shown in Table 2.
As we see in Table 2, the proposed method obtained better re-
sults than the designer for all blocks with respect to the total re-
sults for the objective function. In addition, the proposed method
is considerably more successful than the designer in properly eval-
uating fixed facilities, except for 161 numbered blocks. The fitness
value for the land partitioning plan performed by the proposed
method was found to be 205.97, while the overall fitness obtained
for the plan performed by the designer was 244.69. It is not pos-
sible for the designer to take into consideration all criteria simul-
taneously. By comparison, the ALP-GA performs complex compu-
tation, controls the determined criteria concurrently and appraises
many solutions in a short time. When the total and individual re-
sults are examined for each block with respect to the aforemen-
tioned criteria in Table 2, the ALP-GA outperforms the designer ex-
cept for a few blocks.
The criterion for fixed facilities is of primary importance com-
pared to the others. Fig. 8 shows that the designer’s, and the pro-
posed method’s, land partitioning plan for 155, 163 and 164 num-
bered blocks. In addition, fixed facilities and the area of the fixed
facilities settled in the accurate parcel for these blocks is given in
Fig. 8.
With the 155 numbered blocks, while the fixed facility is not
covered with the right parcel by the designer, the ALP-GA does
place the parcel correctly for the fixed facility. ALP-GA is more suc-
cessful than the designer with respect to settling the area of fixed
facilities in the right parcels for 163 and 164 numbered blocks.
In this study, a system – that can evaluate and measure land
partitioning plans – was prepared by using the proposed objective
function according to three criteria determined by experts. Land
consolidation process was done for Alanozu Village in 2008 and
the land partitioning plan was prepared by a designer. The land
partitioning plan prepared by the designer was compared with the
land partitioning plan obtained by the ALP-GA using the objective
function, and the proposed method was shown to be more suc-
cessful. When Table 2 is examined, the ability of the proposed
method to simultaneously evaluate conflicting criteria in can be
observed in the results obtained for a block number of 155. The
designer has 2 points for not satisfying the fixed facilities criteria,
while the ALP-GA satisfied the fixed facilities criteria by tolerating
the placement of cadastral parcels and therefore decrease the fit-
ness value. The ALP-GA identified a solution– that a designer may
never consider – from many solutions, on time using the GA algo-
rithm. Moreover, low standard deviation values related to the cal-
culation time and the results, as shown in Table 1, revealed the
robustness and utility of the technique. So, according to an overall
assessment of all of the experimental results, we can say that the
land partitioning plan produced by the proposed method is more
suitable and more complete than the designer’s plan.
A directly comparison of methods used in different countries
for the land partitioning problem on the same study area is not
possible due to differences in law, data and evaluation. How-
ever, studies can be compared in terms of structure, the consid-
ered criteria and the calculation time. In the studies performed
by Tourino et al. (2003) and Demetriou et al. (2013), locations
of parcels in the block were determined using various techniques
and then the shapes of these parcels were corrected. Tourino used
a domain growth strategy to determine the locations of parcels,
and the correction of parcel shapes was done using a simu-
lated annealing method. Demetriou used Thiessen polygons and
GA, respectively. In the proposed method, parcel shapes were de-
termined correctly and directly by finding the center of gravity
of the block and no correction steps were performed. Tourino’s
method is strongly dependent on the size of cadastral parcels
and the shapes of blocks because it is performed on cadastral
parcels (Demetriou et al., 2013). On the other hand, in Demetriou’s
method, for single-purpose optimization (parcel shapes) – even if
results reached an optimum value for both blocks when multi-
purpose optimization with two or three criteria was used – the re-
sults revealed a different outcome depending on the complexity of
the block, and it diverged from the optimum as the complexity of
the blocks increased. ALP-GA comes into prominence at this point
because it is independent of block and cadastral parcels. However,
the proposed method completes land partitioning in one direction
only, while other methods can perform land partitioning in differ-
ent directions.
When the criteria considered by the methods are evaluated,
Demetriou considered only basic criteria for land partitioning, such
as parcel area, shape and value. These criteria are essential for
a land partitioning plan to be valid. For example, if you do not
correctly determine the area of a parcel, the parcel plan is not
 H. HAKLI, H. UĞUZ / Expert Systems With Applications 82 (2017) 10–18 17

Border of parcels

Border of fixed facilities

Area of the fixed facilities s

settled in the right parcel

(a) (b)

(1) 155 numbered blocks

(a) (b)

(2) 163 numbered blocks

(a) (b)
(3) 164 numbered block

Fig. 8. Comparing designer (a) and ALP-GA (b) with respect to settling fixed facilities in the three sample blocks.

considered and evaluated. Tourino ignored the fixed facilities cri-
teria, but determined extra different criteria. The main goal here
is to determine what criteria are taken into account and how they
are assessed while the land partitioning plan realized by experts.
In this study, the GA method with proposed objective function was
used to obtain land partitioning plan that is close to the ideal, not
just considering the basic conditions. In the ALP-GA, the criteria
included fixed facilities, the location and degree of the cadastral
parcels in addition to shape, area and value of parcels. Demetrio’s
study remains insufficient at this stage and needs to be developed
in terms of criteria. The proposed method does not take into ac-
count any neighboring relationship criteria mentioned in Tourino’s
study. For the application area, while Tourino’s study and ALP-GA
used the whole project area, Demetriou applied his method to only
two blocks.
Finally, algorithms were compared according to calculation time
by considering study area sizes. Although Tourino did not mention
any time criteria, 10,0 0 0 stages were necessary for a block with
5 parcels using the simulated annealing technique. The Demetriou
method spent 4.8 h for a block of 3 ha with six parcels and 12 h
for a block of 5 ha with ten parcels. On the other hand, the pro-
posed method completed land partitioning of all the study area of
109 ha with 333 parcels and 18 blocks in 8 h. ALP-GA is superior
to Demetriou’s study in terms of time. There are limited numbers
of studies on land partitioning in the literature, these studies are
important and form a basis for future studies.
5. Conclusion and future work
In this study, a new approach was proposed to automate the
land partitioning process. Besides the parcel’s size, shape and land
value, the proposed method evaluates fixed facilities, the degree
and location of cadastral parcels using a genetic algorithm to gen-
erate ideal land partitioning plans. The proposed method was im-
plemented over a real project area and compared with a de-
signer’s solution. Experimental results showed that a land parti-
tion plan produced by the ALP-GA is adequate and more success-
ful than the designer’s plan with respect to the objective func-
18 H. HAKLI, H. UĞUZ / Expert Systems With Applications 82 (2017) 10–18
tion. In their study, Demetriou et al. mentioned that 4.8 hours
were spent just to ensure only the shape optimization for a block
of approximately 3 ha with 6 parcels (Demetriou et al., 2013). A
109 ha project area containing 18 blocks was completed in ap-
proximately 8 h using the ALP-GA, and the duration of the land
partitioning process was decreased from weeks to hours. Auto-
matically generating a land partitioning plan within a short time,
and obtaining more successful results than a designer with re-
spect to the determined criteria, indicate the achievement of the
proposed method. In addition, many computations were simul-
taneously evaluated against the aforementioned criteria by us-
ing the proposed method which cannot be made with manpower
alone.
For future work, other optimization techniques can be used to
automate the land partitioning problem and then compared to this
study. Also, the criteria for the land partitioning problem can be
increased and varied for different countries.
Acknowledgement
This study has been supported by the Scientific Research Project
of Selcuk University and is Project No. 2140015 of the Scientific and
Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK).
References
Ar, Y., & Bostanci, E. (2016). A genetic algorithm solution to the collaborative filter-
ing problem. Expert Systems with Applications, 61, 122–128.
Asadzadeh, L. (2015). A local search genetic algorithm for the job shop schedul-
ing problem with intelligent agents. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 85,
376–383.
Ayranci, Y. (2007). Re-allocation aspects in land consolidation: A new model and its
applications. Journal of Agronomy, 6(2), 270–277.
Buis, A. M., & Vingerhoeds, R. A. (1996). Knowledge-based systems in the design of
a new parcelling. Knowledge-Based Systems, 9, 307–314.
Casas, I., Taheri, J., Ranjan, R., Wang, L., & Zomaya, A. Y. (2016). GA-ETI: An enhanced
genetic algorithm for the scheduling of scientific workflows in cloud environ-
ments. Journal of Computational Science Article In Press.
Cay, T., & Iscan, F. (2011). Fuzzy expert system for land reallocation in land consoli-
dation. Expert Systems with Applications, 38, 11055–11071.
Demetriou, D., See, L., & Stillwell, J. (2013). A spatial genetic algorithm for automat-
ing land partitioning. International Journal of Geographical Information Science,
27, 2391–2409.
Demetriou, D., Stillwell, J., & See, L. (2012). Land consolidation in Cyprus: Why is an
integrated planning and decision support system required. Land Use Policy, 29,
131–142.
Denham, M., Wendt, K., Bianchini, G., Cortes, A., & Margalef, T. (2012). Dynamic
data-driven genetic algorithm for forest fire spread prediction. Journal of Com-
putational Science, 3, 398–404.
FAO. (2003). The design of land consolidation pilot projects in central and eastern Eu-
rope. Rome: FAO Land Tenure Studies.
Fogue, M., Sanguesa, J. A., Naranjo, F., Gallardo, J., Garrido, P., & Martinez, F. J. (2016).
Non-emergency patient transport services planning through genetic algorithms.
Expert Systems with Applications, 61, 262–271.
Goldberg, D. E. (1989). Genetic algorithms in search, optimization and machine learn-
ing. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Hakli, H., Uguz, H., & Cay, T. (2016). A new approach for automating land partition-
ing using binary search and Delaunay triangulation. Computers and Electronics
in Agriculture, 125, 129–136.
Holland, J. H. (1975). Adaption in natural and artificial systems. The University of
Michigan Press.
Pasakarnis, G., & Maliene, V. (2008). Land consolidation: An essential tool for sus-
tainable rural development. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual BEAN Conference
(pp. 118–129). Liverpool.
Porta, J., Parapar, J., Doallo, R., Rivera, F. F., Sante, I., & Crecente, R. (2013). High
performance genetic algorithm for land use planning. Computers Environment
and Urban Systems, 37, 45–58.
Pourvaziri, H., & Naderi, B. (2014). A hybrid multi-population genetic algorithm for
the dynamic facility layout problem. Applied Soft Computing, 24, 457–469.
Rosman, F. (2012). Automated parcel boundary design systems in land consolidation.
FIG Working Week, 1–13.
Sukhija, P., Behal, S., & Singh, P. (2016). Face recognition system using genetic algo-
rithm. Procedia Computer Science, 85, 410–417.
Thomas, J., & Chaudhari, N. S. (2014). Design of efficient packing system using ge-
netic algorithm based on hyper heuristic approach. Advances in Engineering Soft-
ware, 73, 45–52.
Tourino, J., Parapar, J., Doallo, R., Boullon, M., Rivera, F. F., Bruguera, J. D.,
et al. (2003). A GIS-embedded system to support land consolidation plans in
Galicia. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 17, 377–396.
Uyan, M., Cay, T., & Akcakaya, O. (2013). A spatial decision support system design
for land reallocation: A case study in Turkey. Computers and Electronics in Agri-
culture, 98, 8–16.
Uyan, M., Cay, T., Inceyol, Y., & Hakli, H. (2015). Comparison of designed different
land reallocation models in land consolidation: A case study in Konya/Turkey.
Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 110, 249–258.
Vitikainen, A. (2004). An overview of land consolidation in Europe. Nordic Journal of
Surveying and Real Estate Research, 1, 15–34.