1681 4. RESULTS 4.1 Group pairwise comparison matrix Based on the responses provided by the ï=8 surveyed experts, the individual pairwise comparison matrices were consolidated into a single group pairwise comparison matrix }¯ through elementwise geometric mean aggregation, as defined in Eq. (1). This step combines all participants judgments into one matrix while preserving the reciprocal structure required by AHP. The group matrix }¯ is presented in Table 2. Table 2 – Group pairwise comparison matrix }¯ obtained via geometric mean aggregation of 8 experts. C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C1 1.00 0.59 0.39 0.73 0.58 0.58 C2 1.70 1.00 0.52 1.80 1.25 1.77 C3 2.58 1.93 1.00 1.74 1.06 1.92 C4 1.38 0.55 0.57 1.00 0.76 0.78 C5 1.73 0.80 0.94 1.31 1.00 0.76 C6 1.71 0.57 0.52 1.29 1.31 1.00 The priority vector 2 was computed from the aggregated matrix }¯ using Eqs. (2) and (3). First, }¯ was column-normalized to obtain the normalized matrix }∗ =[k) ∗ *] by applying Eq. (2), that is, dividing each entry k¯)* by the sum of its corresponding column = k¯&* $ &/! . This procedure yields a dimensionless matrix in which each column sums to 1, facilitating subsequent weight estimation. Then, the weight of each criterion was obtained by averaging the elements of each row of the normalized matrix }∗, according to Eq. (3). Operationally, this involves computing, for each criterion T, the average of its normalized values across all criteria Á, yielding the priority vector 2=[2!,…,2$] with Å= 6 and satisfying the normalization condition ∑ 2) $ )/! =1. The resulting values correspond to the relative weights assigned to each criterion within the proposed integrated indicator framework. The final weights computed for the six criteria, along with their corresponding ranking, are reported in Table 3 in percentage terms. Table 3 - AHP weights and ranking of socio-environmental criteria Criteria Weights Ranking C1 9.84% 6 C2 19.61% 2 C3 25.69% 1 C4 12.70% 5 C5 16.64% 3 C6 15.51% 4 It is important to indicate that at this stage, the resulting group matrix represents a preliminary synthesis of expert judgment, which serves as the basis for subsequent consistency assessment and priority derivation.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2