Evaluating suitability of a GIS–AHP combined method for sustainable urban and environmental planning in Beykoz District, Istanbul
Bibliographic record
Abstract
many metropolitan areas in the world currently face challenges of rapid urbanisation. at the urban peripheries, the balance between 'urban areas' designated for new settlements for city inhabitants and 'green areas,' which provide ecosystem functions, has come under heavy pressure because of this rapid urbanisation. Spatial planning research provides methods for a thorough evaluation of urban development strategies. in this paper, a method is proposed that provides a systematic Suitability assessment for the metropolitan territory, from the perspective of both urban planning basic principles and environmental sustainability. this approach, which combines analytical Hierarchy Process (aHP) and geographic information System (giS) techniques, is applied to a case study in istanbul, turkey, to evaluate current urbanisation patterns. beykoz district spans an area of more than 30,000 ha at the anatolian side of istanbul, along the bosphorus. currently 79% of the total area is forested, 15% is agricultural land and 6% is urbanised. these characteristics make it a unique and financially precious area. it is thus particularly important to ensure that urban planning and development in this district are sustainable. in the Suitability assessment, six main parameters are included, namely slope, streambed, natural conservation status priority, forested areas, agricultural areas and watershed areas. twenty-four sub-parameters are weighted by the aHP technique and integrated levels of suitability are determined by weighted overlay using giS. the final map produced using this combined technique shows how urban constructions are spreading on the urban fridge of the beykoz district. the resulting suitability map provides for a better comprehension of alternative settlement locations for preserving nature and sustainable development. the systematic and fact-based characteristics of the described methodology add to the legitimacy of its outcomes. the proposed method can serve as a suitability assessment instrument to analyse future urbanisation plans on their wider implications in terms of sustainability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".