Fig 1.
Conceptual methodological process.
All diagrams were produced by the authors. No copyrighted or proprietary data were used.
Fig 2.
Country boundaries were obtained from Natural Earth (public domain). Administrative boundaries were derived from the General Directorate of Mapping, Türkiye (open-access vector data, no copyright restrictions). Beekeeper location data were collected by the authors during field surveys using GPS devices. All maps were created by the authors using publicly available datasets processed in ArcGIS without any proprietary basemap. No copyrighted material was used.
Table 1.
Evaluation criteria, justifications, and supporting references for beekeeping suitability.
Table 2.
Reclassification values and hierarchical scores for the sub-criteria.
Fig 3.
Thematic maps for the assessed criteria; (a) Elevation, (b) Slope, (c) Aspect, (d) Distance to water resource, (e) Distance to road, (f) Distance to settlement, (g) Temperature (March-June), (h) Annual precipitation, (i) Land use/cover.
All maps were created by the authors using ArcGIS software. Administrative boundaries were obtained from the General Directorate of Mapping, Türkiye (open-access vector data, no copyright restrictions). Thematic layers were generated from publicly available datasets described in the Data Collection section, including CORINE Land Cover (EEA, 2018), SRTM (NASA), WorldClim, and OpenStreetMap (vector data). No copyrighted or proprietary data were used.
Table 3.
Ranking and comparison values of the criteria for FUCOM.
Table 4.
Pairwise comparison matrix for AHP.
Table 5.
Comparisons of weighted values based on AHP and FUCOM.
Fig 4.
Land suitability maps for beekeeping.
Administrative boundaries were obtained from the General Directorate of Mapping, Türkiye (open-access vector data, no copyright restrictions). The suitability map was generated by overlaying weighted thematic layers produced by the authors according to the FUCOM–AHP model. Beekeeper location points were collected by the authors during field surveys using GPS devices. All map elements were created by the authors; no copyrighted or proprietary data were used.
Fig 5.
Comparison of suitability class and existing beekeepers.
This figure compares classified suitability areas with actual beekeeping locations to evaluate spatial consistency.
Fig 6.
The area under the ROC curve (AUC) for beekeeping.
This figure presents the ROC curve showing model accuracy and predictive performance.
Fig 7.
Correlation graphic of FUCOM and AHP methods.
This figure illustrates the correlation between FUCOM- and AHP-derived suitability results.