## 6 Results and Discussion  
Each of the 14 experts who participated in the study read the questionnaire and understood the description of the 10 criteria, gave them ranks and percentage weights and filled in the AHP method pairwise comparison matrix using their personal expertise, knowledge, experience, and intuition. The ranks given to the criteria by all experts are presented in Table 4. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Expert** & & & & & & & & & & & \\
**j = 1, 2, \(\ldots\), n** & **A** & **B** & **C** & **D** & **E** & **F** & **G** & **H** & **I** & **J** & **Sum** \\ \hline E1 & 9 & 5 & 8 & 2 & 7 & 4 & 3 & 10 & 6 & 1 & 55 \\ E2 & 6 & 3 & 7 & 9 & 10 & 5 & 1 & 2 & 8 & 4 & 55 \\ E3 & 8 & 6 & 10 & 1 & 3 & 7 & 5 & 9 & 4 & 2 & 55 \\ E4 & 2 & 8 & 9 & 4 & 7 & 3 & 5 & 10 & 6 & 1 & 55 \\ E5 & 6 & 8 & 9 & 1 & 10 & 2 & 4 & 7 & 5 & 3 & 55 \\ E6 & 8 & 9 & 10 & 2 & 5 & 6 & 4 & 7 & 1 & 3 & 55 \\ E7 & 10 & 9 & 8 & 1 & 7 & 3 & 2 & 5 & 4 & 6 & 55 \\ E8 & 10 & 5 & 9 & 1 & 7 & 3 & 4 & 8 & 6 & 2 & 55 \\ E9 & 8 & 6 & 9 & 2 & 3 & 5 & 1 & 10 & 7 & 4 & 55 \\ E10 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 2 & 1 & 9 & 3 & 10 & 4 & 5 & 55 \\ E11 & 8 & 10 & 9 & 2 & 5 & 3 & 4 & 7 & 6 & 1 & 55 \\ E12 & 8 & 5 & 6 & 4 & 2 & 7 & 1 & 9 & 10 & 3 & 55 \\ E13 & 9 & 2 & 1 & 4 & 3 & 8 & 5 & 10 & 7 & 6 & 55 \\ E14 & 4 & 6 & 7 & 2 & 5 & 3 & 8 & 9 & 10 & 1 & 55 \\ \hline \(\sum\limits_{j=1}^{n}R_{ij}\) & 102 & 89 & 110 & 37 & 75 & 68 & 50 & 113 & 84 & 42 & 770 \\ \(\overline{R}_{i}\) & 7.286 & 6.357 & 7.857 & 2.643 & 5.357 & 4.857 & 3.571 & 8.072 & 6.000 & 3.000 & 55.000 \\ \(\sum\limits_{j=1}^{n}R_{ij}-\overline{R}\) & 25 & 12 & 33 & \(-\)40 & \(-\)2 & \(-\)9 & \(-\)27 & 36 & 7 & \(-\)35 & 0 \\ \(\left(\sum\limits_{j=1}^{n}R_{ij}-\overline{R}\right)^{2}\) & 625 & 144 & 1089 & 1600 & 4 & 81 & 729 & 1296 & 49 & 1225 & 6842 \\ ARTIW-L method \(\omega_{i}=\frac{(m+1)-\overline{R}_{i}}{\sum_{i=1}^{n}R_{i}}\) & 0.0675 & 0.0844 & 0.0572 & 0.1519 & 0.1026 & 0.1117 & 0.1351 & 0.0532 & 0.0909 & 0.1455 & 1.0000 \\ \(u_{i}\) & 0.3628 & 0.4158 & 0.3364 & 1 & 0.4934 & 0.5442 & 0.7401 & 0.3274 & 0.4405 & 0.8810 & 5.5416 \\ Priority & 8 & 7 & 9 & 1 & 5 & 4 & 3 & 10 & 6 & 2 & 55 \\ ARTIW-N method \(\omega_{i}=\frac{u_{i}}{\sum_{i=1}^{n}u_{i}}\) & 0.0655 & 0.0750 & 0.0607 & 0.1804 & 0.0890 & 0.0982 & 0.1336 & 0.0591 & 0.0795 & 0.1590 & 1.0000 \\ Priority & 8 & 7 & 9 & 1 & 5 & 4 & 3 & 10 & 6 & 2 & 55 \\ \(\sigma=\sqrt{\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left(R_{ij}-\overline{R}\right)^{2}}{n-1}}\) & 2.2678 & 2.3074 & 2.2823 & 2.1342 & 2.7903 & 2.2138 & 1.9499 & 2.3358 & 2.4179 & 1.7974 & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: The significance of the factors increasing the relative amount of \(K_{Roc}\) (the percentage ratio of the amount of old asphalt pavement RAP \(Q_{Roc}\) used in hot and warm asphalt mixtures to the total amount of RAP \(Q_{RAP}\)) in the country of asphalt pavement recycling in ranks. For the arithmetic averages \(\overline{R}_{i}\) (Formula (2)) of the ranks \(R_{ij}\) given by all experts for each criterion to be reasonably taken as the general (collective) opinion of the expert group, the compatibility of their opinions was checked, which is shown by the concordance coefficient \(W\) (Formula (4)). When calculating \(W\), the sum of squares of deviations \(S\) (Formula (5)) is determined, which consists of \(\sum_{j=1}^{m}R_{ij}\) and \(\overline{R}\).