prilagođeno pretraživanje po punom tekstu

ŠUMARSKI LIST 7-8/2013 str. 49     <-- 49 -->        PDF

Results and discussion
Rezultati istraživanja i rasprava
We derived group priority vectors using the eigenvector method from group comparison matrices. The group priorities of alternatives according to each SWOT factor were synthesized with the weights of the SWOT factors from Figure 1 to obtain the weights of alternatives according to each SWOT group; the results are shown in Table 3. Higher weights at strengths and opportunities and smaller weights at weaknesses and threats indicate better results. For final evaluation, we assumed that all SWOT factors are equally important. There are several ways to synthesize the results of alternatives according to SWOT factors. We used a multiplicative formula, (Wijnmalen 2007), where the weights of strengths and opportunities are multiplied and divided by weights of weaknesses and threats. The final results are presented in Figure 4.
The final results show that benefits for people is the most appropriate alternative for Pohorje development. It is somehow the most neutral alternative and takes into account all aspects from timber production to biodiversity conservation. It was ranked in either second or third place by all of the SWOT groups. Its weight (46.3 percent) is much higher than the weights of the next two alternatives; namely, biodiversity (22.6 percent) and environmental advantages (15.9 percent). The biodiversity alternative is good for reducing weaknesses and avoiding threats in Pohorje, but was ranked last in terms of strengths and opportunities. Environmental advantages did not stand out in any SWOT