A multi-criteria decision analysis with special reference to loess and archaeological sites in Serbia (Could geosciences and archaeology cohabitate?)

Geoarcheology is a term used to describe the work of experts who deal with the archeological record and combine the expertise of their different disciplines, mainly archeology and geology. Because such scientists have different educational backgrounds and use different research methods it was expect...
Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Vujičić Miroslav D. [verfasserIn] Vasiljević Djordjije A. [verfasserIn] Hose Thomas A. [verfasserIn] Tasić Nenad [verfasserIn] Morar Cezar [verfasserIn] Ðurić Aleksandar [verfasserIn] Marković Slobodan B. [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2018

Schlagwörter:	geoarcheology analytical hierarchy process gam attitudes loess

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: Open Geosciences - De Gruyter, 2015, 10(2018), 1, Seite 333-343
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:10 ; year:2018 ; number:1 ; pages:333-343

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.1515/geo-2018-0026

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ054740932

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ054740932
003	DE-627
005	20230308183958.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230227s2018 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1515/geo-2018-0026 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ054740932
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJ644d87b557954e5185e39598f288eadd
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
050		0	\|a QE1-996.5
100	0		\|a Vujičić Miroslav D. \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	2	\|a A multi-criteria decision analysis with special reference to loess and archaeological sites in Serbia (Could geosciences and archaeology cohabitate?)
264		1	\|c 2018
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a Geoarcheology is a term used to describe the work of experts who deal with the archeological record and combine the expertise of their different disciplines, mainly archeology and geology. Because such scientists have different educational backgrounds and use different research methods it was expected that they might value archeological sites (or geoarchaeological geosites) somewhat differently. The principal aim of this study is to show the results of the application of a GAM’s (Geosite Assessment Model) main values, rank indicators and sub-indicators according to the experts’ preferences and attitudes, as it was presumed that they are not of the same importance. For this purpose, the authors used a AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process), widely used in decision-making analysis, to define the criteria weights and rank the indicators. Two main groups of expert respondents, geoscientists and archeologists, were surveyed and gave their criteria weights. The results obtained by application of the AHP showed that there is a difference in indicator weights. While both groups gave their highest value to the scientific/educational indictor, the geoscientists gave their higher rank to the scenic/aesthetic rather than to the protection indicator, the archeologists ranked them opposite, and gave their higher rank to the protection indicator and lowest rank to the scenic/aesthetic indicator. This paper further provides information on group decision or consensus on weights and shows the final rankings for both groups, which are further examined and discussed.
650		4	\|a geoarcheology
650		4	\|a analytical hierarchy process
650		4	\|a gam
650		4	\|a attitudes
650		4	\|a loess
653		0	\|a Geology
700	0		\|a Vasiljević Djordjije A. \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Hose Thomas A. \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Tasić Nenad \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Morar Cezar \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Ðurić Aleksandar \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Marković Slobodan B. \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t Open Geosciences \|d De Gruyter, 2015 \|g 10(2018), 1, Seite 333-343 \|w (DE-627)804403066 \|w (DE-600)2799881-2 \|x 23915447 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:10 \|g year:2018 \|g number:1 \|g pages:333-343
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2018-0026 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/644d87b557954e5185e39598f288eadd \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2018-0026 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/2391-5447 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a GBV_ILN_11
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_31
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_70
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_370
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 10 \|j 2018 \|e 1 \|h 333-343

Indexfelder

author_variant	v m d vmd v d a vda h t a hta t n tn m c mc ð a ða m s b msb
matchkey_str	article:23915447:2018----::mlirtraeiinnlssihpcarfrneoosadrhelgclieisricud
hierarchy_sort_str	2018
callnumber-subject-code	QE
publishDate	2018
allfields	10.1515/geo-2018-0026 doi (DE-627)DOAJ054740932 (DE-599)DOAJ644d87b557954e5185e39598f288eadd DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng QE1-996.5 Vujičić Miroslav D. verfasserin aut A multi-criteria decision analysis with special reference to loess and archaeological sites in Serbia (Could geosciences and archaeology cohabitate?) 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Geoarcheology is a term used to describe the work of experts who deal with the archeological record and combine the expertise of their different disciplines, mainly archeology and geology. Because such scientists have different educational backgrounds and use different research methods it was expected that they might value archeological sites (or geoarchaeological geosites) somewhat differently. The principal aim of this study is to show the results of the application of a GAM’s (Geosite Assessment Model) main values, rank indicators and sub-indicators according to the experts’ preferences and attitudes, as it was presumed that they are not of the same importance. For this purpose, the authors used a AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process), widely used in decision-making analysis, to define the criteria weights and rank the indicators. Two main groups of expert respondents, geoscientists and archeologists, were surveyed and gave their criteria weights. The results obtained by application of the AHP showed that there is a difference in indicator weights. While both groups gave their highest value to the scientific/educational indictor, the geoscientists gave their higher rank to the scenic/aesthetic rather than to the protection indicator, the archeologists ranked them opposite, and gave their higher rank to the protection indicator and lowest rank to the scenic/aesthetic indicator. This paper further provides information on group decision or consensus on weights and shows the final rankings for both groups, which are further examined and discussed. geoarcheology analytical hierarchy process gam attitudes loess Geology Vasiljević Djordjije A. verfasserin aut Hose Thomas A. verfasserin aut Tasić Nenad verfasserin aut Morar Cezar verfasserin aut Ðurić Aleksandar verfasserin aut Marković Slobodan B. verfasserin aut In Open Geosciences De Gruyter, 2015 10(2018), 1, Seite 333-343 (DE-627)804403066 (DE-600)2799881-2 23915447 nnns volume:10 year:2018 number:1 pages:333-343 https://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2018-0026 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/644d87b557954e5185e39598f288eadd kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2018-0026 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2391-5447 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 10 2018 1 333-343
spelling	10.1515/geo-2018-0026 doi (DE-627)DOAJ054740932 (DE-599)DOAJ644d87b557954e5185e39598f288eadd DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng QE1-996.5 Vujičić Miroslav D. verfasserin aut A multi-criteria decision analysis with special reference to loess and archaeological sites in Serbia (Could geosciences and archaeology cohabitate?) 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Geoarcheology is a term used to describe the work of experts who deal with the archeological record and combine the expertise of their different disciplines, mainly archeology and geology. Because such scientists have different educational backgrounds and use different research methods it was expected that they might value archeological sites (or geoarchaeological geosites) somewhat differently. The principal aim of this study is to show the results of the application of a GAM’s (Geosite Assessment Model) main values, rank indicators and sub-indicators according to the experts’ preferences and attitudes, as it was presumed that they are not of the same importance. For this purpose, the authors used a AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process), widely used in decision-making analysis, to define the criteria weights and rank the indicators. Two main groups of expert respondents, geoscientists and archeologists, were surveyed and gave their criteria weights. The results obtained by application of the AHP showed that there is a difference in indicator weights. While both groups gave their highest value to the scientific/educational indictor, the geoscientists gave their higher rank to the scenic/aesthetic rather than to the protection indicator, the archeologists ranked them opposite, and gave their higher rank to the protection indicator and lowest rank to the scenic/aesthetic indicator. This paper further provides information on group decision or consensus on weights and shows the final rankings for both groups, which are further examined and discussed. geoarcheology analytical hierarchy process gam attitudes loess Geology Vasiljević Djordjije A. verfasserin aut Hose Thomas A. verfasserin aut Tasić Nenad verfasserin aut Morar Cezar verfasserin aut Ðurić Aleksandar verfasserin aut Marković Slobodan B. verfasserin aut In Open Geosciences De Gruyter, 2015 10(2018), 1, Seite 333-343 (DE-627)804403066 (DE-600)2799881-2 23915447 nnns volume:10 year:2018 number:1 pages:333-343 https://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2018-0026 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/644d87b557954e5185e39598f288eadd kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2018-0026 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2391-5447 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 10 2018 1 333-343
allfields_unstemmed	10.1515/geo-2018-0026 doi (DE-627)DOAJ054740932 (DE-599)DOAJ644d87b557954e5185e39598f288eadd DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng QE1-996.5 Vujičić Miroslav D. verfasserin aut A multi-criteria decision analysis with special reference to loess and archaeological sites in Serbia (Could geosciences and archaeology cohabitate?) 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Geoarcheology is a term used to describe the work of experts who deal with the archeological record and combine the expertise of their different disciplines, mainly archeology and geology. Because such scientists have different educational backgrounds and use different research methods it was expected that they might value archeological sites (or geoarchaeological geosites) somewhat differently. The principal aim of this study is to show the results of the application of a GAM’s (Geosite Assessment Model) main values, rank indicators and sub-indicators according to the experts’ preferences and attitudes, as it was presumed that they are not of the same importance. For this purpose, the authors used a AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process), widely used in decision-making analysis, to define the criteria weights and rank the indicators. Two main groups of expert respondents, geoscientists and archeologists, were surveyed and gave their criteria weights. The results obtained by application of the AHP showed that there is a difference in indicator weights. While both groups gave their highest value to the scientific/educational indictor, the geoscientists gave their higher rank to the scenic/aesthetic rather than to the protection indicator, the archeologists ranked them opposite, and gave their higher rank to the protection indicator and lowest rank to the scenic/aesthetic indicator. This paper further provides information on group decision or consensus on weights and shows the final rankings for both groups, which are further examined and discussed. geoarcheology analytical hierarchy process gam attitudes loess Geology Vasiljević Djordjije A. verfasserin aut Hose Thomas A. verfasserin aut Tasić Nenad verfasserin aut Morar Cezar verfasserin aut Ðurić Aleksandar verfasserin aut Marković Slobodan B. verfasserin aut In Open Geosciences De Gruyter, 2015 10(2018), 1, Seite 333-343 (DE-627)804403066 (DE-600)2799881-2 23915447 nnns volume:10 year:2018 number:1 pages:333-343 https://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2018-0026 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/644d87b557954e5185e39598f288eadd kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2018-0026 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2391-5447 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 10 2018 1 333-343
allfieldsGer	10.1515/geo-2018-0026 doi (DE-627)DOAJ054740932 (DE-599)DOAJ644d87b557954e5185e39598f288eadd DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng QE1-996.5 Vujičić Miroslav D. verfasserin aut A multi-criteria decision analysis with special reference to loess and archaeological sites in Serbia (Could geosciences and archaeology cohabitate?) 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Geoarcheology is a term used to describe the work of experts who deal with the archeological record and combine the expertise of their different disciplines, mainly archeology and geology. Because such scientists have different educational backgrounds and use different research methods it was expected that they might value archeological sites (or geoarchaeological geosites) somewhat differently. The principal aim of this study is to show the results of the application of a GAM’s (Geosite Assessment Model) main values, rank indicators and sub-indicators according to the experts’ preferences and attitudes, as it was presumed that they are not of the same importance. For this purpose, the authors used a AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process), widely used in decision-making analysis, to define the criteria weights and rank the indicators. Two main groups of expert respondents, geoscientists and archeologists, were surveyed and gave their criteria weights. The results obtained by application of the AHP showed that there is a difference in indicator weights. While both groups gave their highest value to the scientific/educational indictor, the geoscientists gave their higher rank to the scenic/aesthetic rather than to the protection indicator, the archeologists ranked them opposite, and gave their higher rank to the protection indicator and lowest rank to the scenic/aesthetic indicator. This paper further provides information on group decision or consensus on weights and shows the final rankings for both groups, which are further examined and discussed. geoarcheology analytical hierarchy process gam attitudes loess Geology Vasiljević Djordjije A. verfasserin aut Hose Thomas A. verfasserin aut Tasić Nenad verfasserin aut Morar Cezar verfasserin aut Ðurić Aleksandar verfasserin aut Marković Slobodan B. verfasserin aut In Open Geosciences De Gruyter, 2015 10(2018), 1, Seite 333-343 (DE-627)804403066 (DE-600)2799881-2 23915447 nnns volume:10 year:2018 number:1 pages:333-343 https://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2018-0026 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/644d87b557954e5185e39598f288eadd kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2018-0026 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2391-5447 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 10 2018 1 333-343
allfieldsSound	10.1515/geo-2018-0026 doi (DE-627)DOAJ054740932 (DE-599)DOAJ644d87b557954e5185e39598f288eadd DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng QE1-996.5 Vujičić Miroslav D. verfasserin aut A multi-criteria decision analysis with special reference to loess and archaeological sites in Serbia (Could geosciences and archaeology cohabitate?) 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Geoarcheology is a term used to describe the work of experts who deal with the archeological record and combine the expertise of their different disciplines, mainly archeology and geology. Because such scientists have different educational backgrounds and use different research methods it was expected that they might value archeological sites (or geoarchaeological geosites) somewhat differently. The principal aim of this study is to show the results of the application of a GAM’s (Geosite Assessment Model) main values, rank indicators and sub-indicators according to the experts’ preferences and attitudes, as it was presumed that they are not of the same importance. For this purpose, the authors used a AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process), widely used in decision-making analysis, to define the criteria weights and rank the indicators. Two main groups of expert respondents, geoscientists and archeologists, were surveyed and gave their criteria weights. The results obtained by application of the AHP showed that there is a difference in indicator weights. While both groups gave their highest value to the scientific/educational indictor, the geoscientists gave their higher rank to the scenic/aesthetic rather than to the protection indicator, the archeologists ranked them opposite, and gave their higher rank to the protection indicator and lowest rank to the scenic/aesthetic indicator. This paper further provides information on group decision or consensus on weights and shows the final rankings for both groups, which are further examined and discussed. geoarcheology analytical hierarchy process gam attitudes loess Geology Vasiljević Djordjije A. verfasserin aut Hose Thomas A. verfasserin aut Tasić Nenad verfasserin aut Morar Cezar verfasserin aut Ðurić Aleksandar verfasserin aut Marković Slobodan B. verfasserin aut In Open Geosciences De Gruyter, 2015 10(2018), 1, Seite 333-343 (DE-627)804403066 (DE-600)2799881-2 23915447 nnns volume:10 year:2018 number:1 pages:333-343 https://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2018-0026 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/644d87b557954e5185e39598f288eadd kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2018-0026 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2391-5447 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 10 2018 1 333-343
language	English
source	In Open Geosciences 10(2018), 1, Seite 333-343 volume:10 year:2018 number:1 pages:333-343
sourceStr	In Open Geosciences 10(2018), 1, Seite 333-343 volume:10 year:2018 number:1 pages:333-343
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	geoarcheology analytical hierarchy process gam attitudes loess Geology
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Open Geosciences
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Vujičić Miroslav D. @@aut@@ Vasiljević Djordjije A. @@aut@@ Hose Thomas A. @@aut@@ Tasić Nenad @@aut@@ Morar Cezar @@aut@@ Ðurić Aleksandar @@aut@@ Marković Slobodan B. @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2018-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	804403066
id	DOAJ054740932
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ054740932</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230308183958.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230227s2018 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1515/geo-2018-0026</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ054740932</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ644d87b557954e5185e39598f288eadd</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">QE1-996.5</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Vujičić Miroslav D.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">A multi-criteria decision analysis with special reference to loess and archaeological sites in Serbia (Could geosciences and archaeology cohabitate?)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Geoarcheology is a term used to describe the work of experts who deal with the archeological record and combine the expertise of their different disciplines, mainly archeology and geology. Because such scientists have different educational backgrounds and use different research methods it was expected that they might value archeological sites (or geoarchaeological geosites) somewhat differently. The principal aim of this study is to show the results of the application of a GAM’s (Geosite Assessment Model) main values, rank indicators and sub-indicators according to the experts’ preferences and attitudes, as it was presumed that they are not of the same importance. For this purpose, the authors used a AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process), widely used in decision-making analysis, to define the criteria weights and rank the indicators. Two main groups of expert respondents, geoscientists and archeologists, were surveyed and gave their criteria weights. The results obtained by application of the AHP showed that there is a difference in indicator weights. While both groups gave their highest value to the scientific/educational indictor, the geoscientists gave their higher rank to the scenic/aesthetic rather than to the protection indicator, the archeologists ranked them opposite, and gave their higher rank to the protection indicator and lowest rank to the scenic/aesthetic indicator. This paper further provides information on group decision or consensus on weights and shows the final rankings for both groups, which are further examined and discussed.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">geoarcheology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">analytical hierarchy process</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">gam</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">attitudes</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">loess</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Geology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Vasiljević Djordjije A.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hose Thomas A.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Tasić Nenad</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Morar Cezar</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ðurić Aleksandar</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Marković Slobodan B.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Open Geosciences</subfield><subfield code="d">De Gruyter, 2015</subfield><subfield code="g">10(2018), 1, Seite 333-343</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)804403066</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2799881-2</subfield><subfield code="x">23915447</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:10</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2018</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:333-343</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2018-0026</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/644d87b557954e5185e39598f288eadd</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2018-0026</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2391-5447</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">10</subfield><subfield code="j">2018</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="h">333-343</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
callnumber-first	Q - Science
author	Vujičić Miroslav D.
spellingShingle	Vujičić Miroslav D. misc QE1-996.5 misc geoarcheology misc analytical hierarchy process misc gam misc attitudes misc loess misc Geology A multi-criteria decision analysis with special reference to loess and archaeological sites in Serbia (Could geosciences and archaeology cohabitate?)
authorStr	Vujičić Miroslav D.
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)804403066
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
callnumber-label	QE1-996
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	23915447
topic_title	QE1-996.5 A multi-criteria decision analysis with special reference to loess and archaeological sites in Serbia (Could geosciences and archaeology cohabitate?) geoarcheology analytical hierarchy process gam attitudes loess
topic	misc QE1-996.5 misc geoarcheology misc analytical hierarchy process misc gam misc attitudes misc loess misc Geology
topic_unstemmed	misc QE1-996.5 misc geoarcheology misc analytical hierarchy process misc gam misc attitudes misc loess misc Geology
topic_browse	misc QE1-996.5 misc geoarcheology misc analytical hierarchy process misc gam misc attitudes misc loess misc Geology
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Open Geosciences
hierarchy_parent_id	804403066
hierarchy_top_title	Open Geosciences
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)804403066 (DE-600)2799881-2
title	A multi-criteria decision analysis with special reference to loess and archaeological sites in Serbia (Could geosciences and archaeology cohabitate?)
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ054740932 (DE-599)DOAJ644d87b557954e5185e39598f288eadd
title_full	A multi-criteria decision analysis with special reference to loess and archaeological sites in Serbia (Could geosciences and archaeology cohabitate?)
author_sort	Vujičić Miroslav D.
journal	Open Geosciences
journalStr	Open Geosciences
callnumber-first-code	Q
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2018
contenttype_str_mv	txt
container_start_page	333
author_browse	Vujičić Miroslav D. Vasiljević Djordjije A. Hose Thomas A. Tasić Nenad Morar Cezar Ðurić Aleksandar Marković Slobodan B.
container_volume	10
class	QE1-996.5
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Vujičić Miroslav D.
doi_str_mv	10.1515/geo-2018-0026
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	multi-criteria decision analysis with special reference to loess and archaeological sites in serbia (could geosciences and archaeology cohabitate?)
callnumber	QE1-996.5
title_auth	A multi-criteria decision analysis with special reference to loess and archaeological sites in Serbia (Could geosciences and archaeology cohabitate?)
abstract	Geoarcheology is a term used to describe the work of experts who deal with the archeological record and combine the expertise of their different disciplines, mainly archeology and geology. Because such scientists have different educational backgrounds and use different research methods it was expected that they might value archeological sites (or geoarchaeological geosites) somewhat differently. The principal aim of this study is to show the results of the application of a GAM’s (Geosite Assessment Model) main values, rank indicators and sub-indicators according to the experts’ preferences and attitudes, as it was presumed that they are not of the same importance. For this purpose, the authors used a AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process), widely used in decision-making analysis, to define the criteria weights and rank the indicators. Two main groups of expert respondents, geoscientists and archeologists, were surveyed and gave their criteria weights. The results obtained by application of the AHP showed that there is a difference in indicator weights. While both groups gave their highest value to the scientific/educational indictor, the geoscientists gave their higher rank to the scenic/aesthetic rather than to the protection indicator, the archeologists ranked them opposite, and gave their higher rank to the protection indicator and lowest rank to the scenic/aesthetic indicator. This paper further provides information on group decision or consensus on weights and shows the final rankings for both groups, which are further examined and discussed.
abstractGer	Geoarcheology is a term used to describe the work of experts who deal with the archeological record and combine the expertise of their different disciplines, mainly archeology and geology. Because such scientists have different educational backgrounds and use different research methods it was expected that they might value archeological sites (or geoarchaeological geosites) somewhat differently. The principal aim of this study is to show the results of the application of a GAM’s (Geosite Assessment Model) main values, rank indicators and sub-indicators according to the experts’ preferences and attitudes, as it was presumed that they are not of the same importance. For this purpose, the authors used a AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process), widely used in decision-making analysis, to define the criteria weights and rank the indicators. Two main groups of expert respondents, geoscientists and archeologists, were surveyed and gave their criteria weights. The results obtained by application of the AHP showed that there is a difference in indicator weights. While both groups gave their highest value to the scientific/educational indictor, the geoscientists gave their higher rank to the scenic/aesthetic rather than to the protection indicator, the archeologists ranked them opposite, and gave their higher rank to the protection indicator and lowest rank to the scenic/aesthetic indicator. This paper further provides information on group decision or consensus on weights and shows the final rankings for both groups, which are further examined and discussed.
abstract_unstemmed	Geoarcheology is a term used to describe the work of experts who deal with the archeological record and combine the expertise of their different disciplines, mainly archeology and geology. Because such scientists have different educational backgrounds and use different research methods it was expected that they might value archeological sites (or geoarchaeological geosites) somewhat differently. The principal aim of this study is to show the results of the application of a GAM’s (Geosite Assessment Model) main values, rank indicators and sub-indicators according to the experts’ preferences and attitudes, as it was presumed that they are not of the same importance. For this purpose, the authors used a AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process), widely used in decision-making analysis, to define the criteria weights and rank the indicators. Two main groups of expert respondents, geoscientists and archeologists, were surveyed and gave their criteria weights. The results obtained by application of the AHP showed that there is a difference in indicator weights. While both groups gave their highest value to the scientific/educational indictor, the geoscientists gave their higher rank to the scenic/aesthetic rather than to the protection indicator, the archeologists ranked them opposite, and gave their higher rank to the protection indicator and lowest rank to the scenic/aesthetic indicator. This paper further provides information on group decision or consensus on weights and shows the final rankings for both groups, which are further examined and discussed.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	1
title_short	A multi-criteria decision analysis with special reference to loess and archaeological sites in Serbia (Could geosciences and archaeology cohabitate?)
url	https://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2018-0026 https://doaj.org/article/644d87b557954e5185e39598f288eadd https://doaj.org/toc/2391-5447
remote_bool	true
author2	Vasiljević Djordjije A. Hose Thomas A. Tasić Nenad Morar Cezar Ðurić Aleksandar Marković Slobodan B.
author2Str	Vasiljević Djordjije A. Hose Thomas A. Tasić Nenad Morar Cezar Ðurić Aleksandar Marković Slobodan B.
ppnlink	804403066
callnumber-subject	QE - Geology
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1515/geo-2018-0026
callnumber-a	QE1-996.5
up_date	2024-07-04T00:24:51.895Z
_version_	1803605971456491521
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ054740932</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230308183958.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230227s2018 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1515/geo-2018-0026</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ054740932</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ644d87b557954e5185e39598f288eadd</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">QE1-996.5</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Vujičić Miroslav D.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">A multi-criteria decision analysis with special reference to loess and archaeological sites in Serbia (Could geosciences and archaeology cohabitate?)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Geoarcheology is a term used to describe the work of experts who deal with the archeological record and combine the expertise of their different disciplines, mainly archeology and geology. Because such scientists have different educational backgrounds and use different research methods it was expected that they might value archeological sites (or geoarchaeological geosites) somewhat differently. The principal aim of this study is to show the results of the application of a GAM’s (Geosite Assessment Model) main values, rank indicators and sub-indicators according to the experts’ preferences and attitudes, as it was presumed that they are not of the same importance. For this purpose, the authors used a AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process), widely used in decision-making analysis, to define the criteria weights and rank the indicators. Two main groups of expert respondents, geoscientists and archeologists, were surveyed and gave their criteria weights. The results obtained by application of the AHP showed that there is a difference in indicator weights. While both groups gave their highest value to the scientific/educational indictor, the geoscientists gave their higher rank to the scenic/aesthetic rather than to the protection indicator, the archeologists ranked them opposite, and gave their higher rank to the protection indicator and lowest rank to the scenic/aesthetic indicator. This paper further provides information on group decision or consensus on weights and shows the final rankings for both groups, which are further examined and discussed.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">geoarcheology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">analytical hierarchy process</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">gam</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">attitudes</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">loess</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Geology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Vasiljević Djordjije A.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hose Thomas A.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Tasić Nenad</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Morar Cezar</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ðurić Aleksandar</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Marković Slobodan B.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Open Geosciences</subfield><subfield code="d">De Gruyter, 2015</subfield><subfield code="g">10(2018), 1, Seite 333-343</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)804403066</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2799881-2</subfield><subfield code="x">23915447</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:10</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2018</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:333-343</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2018-0026</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/644d87b557954e5185e39598f288eadd</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2018-0026</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2391-5447</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">10</subfield><subfield code="j">2018</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="h">333-343</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.400193

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

A multi-criteria decision analysis with special reference to loess and archaeological sites in Serbia (Could geosciences and archaeology cohabitate?)

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?