Skip to main content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Using Analytic Hierarchy Process and Best–Worst Method in group evaluation of urban park quality

Author(s):

Bojan Srdjevic
Zorica Srdjevic
Milena Lakicevic
Senka Zdero

Year:

2022

Publication type:

Scientific Journal (JRNL)

Primary Station(s):

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Source:

Forests. 13(2): 290.

Description

The paper compares two multi-criteria methods, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and the best–worst method (BWM), in assessing criteria related to the quality of urban parks. The criteria assessed were accessibility, location, biodiversity preservation, park equipment, water elements, terrain configuration, cultural and historical value, and the presence of small architectural objects. Five decision-makers participated in the research, having expertise in urban greenery, urban forestry, environmental protection, landscape design, and cultural and historical heritage. The results of decision-makers’ evaluations were compared at individual and group levels after the application of three aggregation procedures: CRITIC, ENTROPY, and WGGM (weighted geometric mean method). Similarities in results, i.e., priorities of analyzed criteria after applying the two different decision support methods, indicated high consistency between experts during the cognitive evaluation processes. All applied aggregation schemes performed well and may be considered trustworthy in identifying the group solution. One of the conclusions is that either the AHP or the BWM can be efficiently used in evaluations of criteria for assessing the quality of urban parks if the members of a group are consistent, regardless of whether the consensus process is properly carried out before the decision-making process.

Citation

Srdjevic, Bojan; Srdjevic, Zorica; Reynolds, Keith M.; Lakicevic, Milena; Zdero, Senka. 2022. Using Analytic Hierarchy Process and Best–Worst Method in group evaluation of urban park quality. Forests. 13(2): 290. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13020290.

Cited

Publication Notes

  • We recommend that you also print this page and attach it to the printout of the article, to retain the full citation information.
  • This article was written and prepared by U.S. Government employees on official time, and is therefore in the public domain.
https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/64471