Identifying the Most Effective Geosite Evaluation Models in Iran Using Delphi and Analytic Hierarchy Process Methods

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

Table 2

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

Table 3

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

Table 4

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

Table 5

The pairwise comparison matrix chart for ‘Easy Measurement’ criterion in the expert choice software environment.

	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

[i] Incon:0.08.

Table 6

The pairwise comparison matrix chart for ‘Order in Structure’ criterion in the expert choice software environment.

	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

[i] Incon:0.09.

Table 7

The pairwise comparison matrix chart for ‘Fit with the Watershed’ criterion in the expert choice software environment.

	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

[i] Incon:0.06.

Table 8

The pairwise comparison matrix chart for ‘Ability of Assessment’ criterion in the expert choice software environment.

	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

[i] Incon:0.04.

Table 9

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

References

Authors

Metrics

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/quageo-2021-0021 | Journal eISSN: 2081-6383 | Journal ISSN: 2082-2103 (formerly 0137-477X)

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 21 - 31

Submitted on: Aug 12, 2020

Published on: Sep 30, 2021

Published by: Adam Mickiewicz University

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Keywords:

geotourism,

geosite,

evaluation models,

Delphi,

AHP,

Iran

Related subjects:

Geosciences,

Geography

© 2021 Moslem Ghasemi, Ezatollah Ghanavati, Jebrail Kazemi, published by Adam Mickiewicz University
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Volume 40 (2021): Issue 3 (September 2021)