## 3 Results
### Cyberattacks in Smart Grids: Challenges and Implications of Cybersecurity
#### 3.2.2 Pairwise Comparison Matrix, Relative Weights of Criteria, and Weighted Sum of Alternatives  
In this section, we explore the evaluation of cybersecurity options by comparing them against a set of described criteria (Section 3.2.1). We construct a pairwise comparison matrix (Table 3), which allows us to assess the relative importance of each criterion compared to the others (Table 4). Using these relative weights, we compute the weighted sum for each cybersecurity option (Table 5), providing an overall score that considers the importance of each criterion. Each element of the matrix (Table 3) represents the relative importance or preference of one criterion over another. The values in the matrix are the pairwise comparison judgments based on a scale of 1 to 9, where 1 represents equal importance or preference and 9 represents extreme importance or preference. For instance, the value of 7 in the cells C1-C2 indicates that the criterion \"Security Effectiveness (C1)\" is considered to be seven times more important than the criterion \"Scalability (C2)\". Similarly, the value of 5 in the cells C4-C10 suggests that the criterion \"Performance impact (C4)\" is considered to be five times more important than the criterion \"Future Readiness (C10)\". The values in Table 4 indicate the relative contribution of each criterion in the decision-making process. Higher weights indicate greater importance, while lower weights indicate lesser importance. From Table 4, we can categorize the criteria as follows:  
* **The criteria with high relative weights (above 10%)**: \"Security effectiveness (C1)\" has the highest relative weight (25%), indicating its significant importance in cybersecurity options for smart grids. Emphasizing security effectiveness ensures that the chosen options can accurately and effectively detect and prevent cybersecurity threats. * **The criteria with medium relative weights (between 7% and 10%)** suggest that they are moderately important in the evaluation process. They should be considered alongside other factors to ensure the overall suitability and performance of the cybersecurity options. * \"Cost-effectiveness (C5)\" (10.18%) holds significant importance in evaluating cybersecurity options. It indicates the need to consider the overall cost-benefit  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Criteria** & **C1** & **C2** & **C3** & **C4** & **C5** & **C6** & **C7** & **C8** & **C9** & **C10** & **C11** & **C12** & **C13** & **C14** \\  
ratio, ensuring that the chosen options provide effective security enhancements while being cost-effective\". * \"Scalability (C2)\" (7.89%): this criterion highlights the importance of considering the ability of the options to scale and accommodate the growing complexity and size of the smart-grid systems. * \"Integration and compatibility (C3)\" (7.89%): this criterion emphasizes the need for seamless integration with the existing smart-grid infrastructure and technologies, minimizing disruptions and ensuring compatibility. * **The criteria with low relative weights (below 7%)**:
* \"Performance impact (C4)\" (6.93%): this criterion suggests that the performance impact of cybersecurity options is relatively less influential but still important to consider. * C6 to C14: these criteria, including manageability and usability \"C6\" (6.32%), compliance and regulatory requirements \"C7\" (5.93%), resilience and redundancy \"C8\" (4.97%), vendor support and collaboration \"C9\" (4.84%), and future readiness \"C10\" (1.76%), have relatively lower weights but still contribute to the overall evaluation. While their impact is slightly smaller compared to higher-weighted criteria, they should be considered in conjunction with other factors. After performing the calculations, the consistency ratio (CR) for the obtained pairwise comparison matrix (Table 3) is approximately 0.063. The CR value indicates that the matrix is consistent since it is below the threshold of 0.1.