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 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