Identifying the Most Effective Geosite Evaluation Models in Iran Using Delphi and Analytic Hierarchy Process Methods
, oraz | 30 wrz 2021
O artykule
Data publikacji: 30 wrz 2021
Zakres stron: 21 - 31
Otrzymano: 12 sie 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/quageo-2021-0021
Słowa kluczowe
© 2021 Moslem Ghasemi et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The pairwise comparison matrix chart for ‘Order in Structure’ criterion in the expert choice software environment.
| 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 |
The pairwise comparison matrix chart for ‘Fit with the Watershed’ criterion in the expert choice software environment.
| 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 |
The weight of criteria based on AHP method.
| 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 |
The pairwise comparison matrix chart for ‘Ability of Assessment’ criterion in the expert choice software environment.
| 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 |
The most repetitive models within the statistical sample.
| 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 |
Paired comparison matrix for the criteria used to evaluate the efficiency of geosites evaluation models.
| 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 |
The rank of efficient geosites evaluation models based on all criteria.
| 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 |
The repetition of geosite evaluation models within statistical sample.
| 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 |
The pairwise comparison matrix chart for ‘Easy Measurement’ criterion in the expert choice software environment.
| 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 |