Rough and Standard AHP Evaluation of Measures for Reducing Drought Risks in Wetlands

This paper presents the basic settings for the standard and rough treatment of individual and group comparisons within AHP. An example from the field of environmental and water management demonstrates how standard and rough versions of the method are used and the results are commented upon when the problem scope is relatively large (twelve decision-makers/seven decision elements). The general conclusion is that there are no significant differences in the results between the two versions of the method, except that the rough method reduces the weight of the highest-ranked element to some extent compared to the standard method. In allocation tasks, this can have a greater impact on the final resource distribution if the entire method (which includes synthesis of all local evaluations) is used. In selection tasks, only ordinal information (ranks) is usually important, and importance intensities (weights) are not necessarily of primary interest. The second conclusion is that the standard and rough versions of the method are comparable in group applications and that they give similar results and can be used interchangeably depending on the availability of software.