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 |