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.

Selection of the most suitable wastewater treatment method is a difficult task that requires the assessment of alternative methods across usually conflicting criteria. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is applied to evaluate four possible methods (chemical treatment, evaporation, separation by the use of the membranes, and biological treatment) applicable to the manufacture of coloured metals in Serbia. Seven typical criteria are used in the assessment of the treatment methods: energy consumption, price of the chemicals, effectiveness, simplicity of the process, price of the facilities, ecological impact, and necessary educational level of the workers. Following the standard AHP application to identify the most desirable treatment method, a sensitivity analysis is performed to explore the robustness of the final solution (the method to be applied in the factory) if ecological impact and energy consumption receive an increased relative weight compared to other criteria.

The study evaluated nine empirical methods for estimating reference evapotranspiration (ET_o) in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) across different climatic zones. The methods compared were the Hargreaves–Samani method (HS), the modified Hargreaves–Samani method (HM), the calibrated Hargreaves–Samani method (HC), the Priestley–Taylor method (PT), the Copais method (COP), the Makkink method (MAK), the Penman–Monteith method based on air temperature and overall average windspeed (PMT₂), the Penman–Monteith method based on air temperature and regional average windspeed (PMT_1.3), and the Penman–Monteith method based on air temperature and site-specific windspeed (PMT_lok). These methods were tested against the “Food Agricultural Organization-Penman Monteith approach” (FAO-PM). The evaluation was performed using data from 20 meteorological stations in BiH, considering a common irrigation season (April–October) for two periods (2000–2005 and 2018–2022). The stations represented three climatic zones: semi-arid (SA), dry sub-humid (DSH), and moist sub-humid (MSH). The performance and ranking of the ET_o methods were analyzed using the TOPSIS method. The trend of ET_o during the common irrigation season for the period from 2018 to 2022 was determined using the Mann–Kendall test. The results of the study indicated that the HC method showed the best performance across all three climatic zones. The average root mean square error (RMSE) was 0.67 mm day⁻¹, 0.49 mm day⁻¹, and 0.50 mm day⁻¹ for the SA, DSH, and MSH zones, respectively. As an alternative to the HC method, the PT method is recommended for its favorable results in both periods and in all zones. On the other hand, the HS method exhibited the highest average overestimation, particularly in the MSH zone, where ET_o values were 18% higher compared with those of the FAO-PM method. The COP method also showed high overestimation and was not recommended for use. Regarding the MAK method, it resulted in underestimation during the period from 2000 to 2005, ranging from 17% in the DSH zone to 11% in the MSH zone. However, its performance improved during the period from 2018 to 2022, for which it ranked second place in the MSH zone. Among the PMT methods, the PMTl_ok, which utilized local average windspeed, yielded the best results. Despite performing well in the neighboring country of Serbia, the HM method showed poor overall performance in BiH. The findings of this study can serve as a foundation for further research in BiH to enhance irrigation practices in response to climate changes.