An assessment of AHP found that it is well understood by participants after
sufficient explanations have been given by qualified facilitators, and the process can
be checked for consistency and – if inconsistencies are found – pairwise
comparisons revisited and weighed again, followed by another consistency check.
In our study, farmers told the researchers that the AHP is a helpful and robust tool
for eliciting judgments in a transparent way and for enabling formal weightings to
be assigned in quantitative terms, not just in a descriptive form. The process was
found to be engaging, and some sessions took the whole day; participants were
satisfied with the results and accepted them because they were engaged in the
process from the beginning. Figures 9.2 and 9.3 give examples of the AHP structure
and a session held with the farmers respectively.
While the results of weighting using the Ror Tor Sor program are more consistent for homogeneous groups with a focus on less controversial topics, the tool can
Fig. 9.3 Ror Tor Sor sessions with the study farmers
Fig. 9.2 Structure of an AHP, with criteria and options
334
A. Neef et al.