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.

Wetland ecosystems are vital in maintaining the ecological balance of the wider area. The increase of frequent and intense droughts due to accelerated climate changes poses a threat to wetlands as fragile ecosystems which further require a holistic approach and cooperation between stakeholders to define long-term sustainable solutions. This paper focuses on identifying nature-based solutions to mitigate drought in Ramsar-designated sites through understanding the preferences of stakeholders for effective implementation. An interval version of the analytic hierarchy process is proposed as a systematic framework for selecting solutions considering multiple objectives (climate change mitigation, biodiversity preservation, and human welfare) and six alternatives applicable to Ramsar wetlands. The Serbian case study demonstrates the evaluation of alternatives using interval values in pairwise comparison matrices and priority weights were computed by linear programming. Top-ranked measures identified by three experts involve increasing water availability, supporting agroforestry practices, and utilizing natural reservoirs. Mulch and wastewater reuse are excluded due to implementation investments. The added value of the proposed approach is that the results can be used by managers and decision-makers in many ways; for example, weights of the alternatives could indicate resource allocation, while rankings serve as indicators for optimizing the number of applied solutions.

One of the most important issues in multi-criteria decision making is the number of requited judgments decision-maker/analyst has to perform. This paper presents a comparison of the results obtained by standard analytic hierarchy process (AHP), limited AHP, and best-worst method (BWM) if the number of criteria is 6, 7, and 8. The examples show that BWM's results are comparable with the results if standard AHP is used, while the limited version of AHP is generally inferior to the other two methods.

In the assessment of principles and guidelines to achieve specific goals before strategies in water resources and related sectors are formulated, the quality of experts participating in making group decisions should be evaluated. This paper introduces an innovative approach designed to evaluate the quality of group members based on their consistency and deviations from the group's decision. The group members are considered as alternatives within a multi-criteria framework, employing several typical performance indicators as criteria to assess their competence and compliance with the group. Considering the policy-making, the paper provides a rationale for possibly excluding certain members from the decision-making process to prevent making unsustainable decisions. A case study is presented about the evaluation of the importance of six Ramsar sites in Serbia, facing imminent threats from water regime disturbances and climate change-induced droughts. Seven experts participated in the process and the results revealed that several experts displayed the poorest performance across all three prioritization schemes. This suggests the necessity for re-evaluating their judgments or considering their exclusion from the final decision-making process. The proposed assessment procedure holds promise for enhancing the potential to derive sustainable solutions in any complex and critical domain of water resources policy-making and strategic planning.

The comprehensive environmental, economic, and societal analysis plays a vital role in the strategic planning and management process for wetlands in the Landscape of Outstanding Features—Vlasina, Serbia. Given its simplicity and practicality, a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis will be conducted, followed by the application of two analytical tools, DEMATEL and AHP, for an in-depth evaluation of potential causal relationships. These tools will also help prioritize SWOT aspects and sub-aspects, guiding further development within the study area.