SWOT | Pralong | Reynard | AHP | Pereira | Topsis | Delphi | QSPM | Fassoulas et al. | Dynamic | ANP | Makhdoum | Comanescu | CVM | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SWOT | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | |
Pralong | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | ||
Reynard | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2 | |||
AHP | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | ||||
Pereira | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | |||||
Topsis | 5 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | ||||||
Delphi | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | |||||||
QSPM | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | ||||||||
Fassoulas et al. | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | |||||||||
Dynamic | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | ||||||||||
ANP | 3 | 3 | 3 | |||||||||||
Makhdoum | 3 | 1 | ||||||||||||
Comanescu | 3 | |||||||||||||
CVM |
SWOT | Pralong | Reynard | AHP | Pereira | Topsis | Delphi | QSPM | Fassoulas et al. | Dynamic | ANP | Makhdoum | Comanescu | CVM | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SWOT | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 4 | |
Pralong | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | ||
Reynard | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | |||
AHP | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | ||||
Pereira | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |||||
Topsis | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | ||||||
Delphi | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | |||||||
QSPM | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | ||||||||
Fassoulas et al. | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |||||||||
Dynamic | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | ||||||||||
ANP | 2 | 2 | 2 | |||||||||||
Makhdoum | 2 | 1 | ||||||||||||
Comanescu | 3 | |||||||||||||
CVM |
No | Criteria | Weight |
---|---|---|
1 | Easy to understand | 0.417 |
2 | Order in structure | 0.083 |
3 | Fit with the watershed | 0.083 |
4 | Ability of assessment | 0.417 |
SWOT | Pralong | Reynard | AHP | Pereira | Topsis | Delphi | QSPM | Fassoulas et al. | Dynamic | ANP | Makhdoum | Comanescu | CVM | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SWOT | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 5 | |
Pralong | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 4 | ||
Reynard | 3 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 | |||
AHP | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 5 | ||||
Pereira | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | |||||
Topsis | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 2 | ||||||
Delphi | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | |||||||
QSPM | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 2 | ||||||||
Fassoulas et al. | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | |||||||||
Dynamic | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | ||||||||||
ANP | 3 | 3 | 3 | |||||||||||
Makhdoum | 2 | 1 | ||||||||||||
Comanescu | 2 | |||||||||||||
CVM |
No | Model title | Number of repetitions in the statistical sample (451 articles) | Rank in the statistical society from the point of the number of use |
---|---|---|---|
1 | SWOT | 62 | 1 |
2 | Pralong | 37 | 2 |
3 | Reynard | 28 | 3 |
4 | AHP | 16 | 4 |
5 | Pereira | 11 | 5 |
6 | Topsis | 8 | 6 |
7 | Delphi | 6 | 7 |
8 | QSPM | 5 | 8 |
9 | Fassoulas et al. | 4 | 9 |
10 | Dynamic | 4 | 9 |
11 | ANP | 4 | 9 |
12 | Ecologic | 4 | 9 |
13 | Comanescu | 4 | 9 |
14 | CVM | 4 | 9 |
Criteria | Easy to understand | Order in structure | Fit with the watershed | Ability of assessment |
---|---|---|---|---|
Easy to understand | 1 | 5 | 5 | 1 |
Order in structure | 1/5 | 1 | 1 | 1/5 |
Fit with the watershed | 1/5 | 1 | 1 | 1/5 |
Ability of assessment | 1 | 5 | 5 | 1 |
No | Model title | Weight | Rank |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Pralong | 0.112 | 1 |
2 | SWOT | 0.109 | 2 |
3 | Reynard | 0.106 | 3 |
4 | Pereira | 0.088 | 4 |
5 | Comanescu | 0.086 | 5 |
6 | AHP | 0.083 | 6 |
7 | ANP | 0.081 | 7 |
8 | Fassoulas et al. | 0.075 | 8 |
9 | Delphi | 0.058 | 9 |
10 | Topsiss | 0.043 | 10 |
11 | QSPM | 0.043 | 11 |
12 | Ecologic | 0.043 | 12 |
13 | Dynamic | 0.041 | 13 |
14 | CVM | 0.031 | 14 |
No | The models | Number of repetitions in the selected articles | The rank of each model based on the frequency of use |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Nabavi | 2 | 11 |
2 | Amri Kazemi | 2 | 11 |
3 | Nazeri | 1 | 12 |
4 | SWOT | 62 | 1 |
5 | Fassoulas et al. | 4 | 9 |
6 | GAM | 3 | 10 |
7 | Reynard | 28 | 3 |
8 | Pralong | 37 | 2 |
9 | Topsis | 8 | 6 |
10 | Dynamic | 4 | 9 |
11 | AHP | 16 | 4 |
12 | Delphi | 6 | 7 |
13 | ANP | 4 | 9 |
14 | Fuzzy | 3 | 10 |
15 | MCDM | 3 | 10 |
16 | Climate comfort | 1 | 12 |
17 | Ecologic | 4 | 9 |
18 | Tourism climate index | 1 | 12 |
19 | Geotourismic | 1 | 12 |
20 | SVM | 1 | 12 |
21 | Ecotourism potential index | 3 | 10 |
22 | Comanescu | 4 | 9 |
23 | Rocha | 1 | 12 |
24 | Nicolas | 1 | 12 |
25 | Pereira | 11 | 5 |
26 | Hybrid | 1 | 12 |
27 | TCL | 1 | 12 |
28 | CVM | 4 | 9 |
29 | QSPM | 5 | 8 |
30 | Cluster analysis | 1 | 12 |
31 | Citation | 1 | 12 |
32 | Kuchin | 2 | 11 |
33 | The objective function | 1 | 12 |
34 | SDAC | 1 | 12 |
35 | Bulin | 1 | 12 |
36 | Zanganeh Asadi et al. | 1 | 12 |
SWOT | Pralong | Reynard | AHP | Pereira | Topsis | Delphi | QSPM | Fassoulas et al. | Dynamic | ANP | Makhdoum | Comanescu | CVM | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SWOT | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 4 | |
Pralong | 1 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | ||
Reynard | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | |||
AHP | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | ||||
Pereira | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | |||||
Topsis | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | ||||||
Delphi | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 | |||||||
QSPM | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | ||||||||
Fassoulas et al. | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |||||||||
Dynamic | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | ||||||||||
ANP | 4 | 2 | 2 | |||||||||||
Mahdoum | 2 | 1 | ||||||||||||
Comanescu | 2 | |||||||||||||
CVM |