Comparison of the Analytic Network Process and the Best–Worst Method in Ranking Urban Resilience and Regeneration Prioritization by Applying Geographic Information Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Urbanization without planning causes concerns about biodiversity loss, congestion, housing, and ecosystem sustainability in developing countries. Therefore, resilience and regeneration following urbanization are critical to city planning and sustainable development. Integrating multi-criteria decision-making methods (MCDM) with geographic information systems (GIS) can be a promising method for analyzing city resilience and regeneration. This study aims to use two MCDMs, the Analytic Network Process (ANP) and the Best–Worst Method (BWM), to evaluate the resilience of metropolitan neighborhoods in Tehran. Fourteen criteria were selected to represent the city’s resilience, and the weights of two models were evaluated for their spatial patterns using GIS. The results showed that the building age was the most important criterion in both methods, while the per capita green space was the least important criterion. The weights of the most important criterion, the building age, for the ANP and BWM, were 19.56 and 18.98, respectively, while the weights of the least important criterion, the per capita green space, were 2.197 and 1.655, respectively. Therefore, the MCDM with GIS provides an approach for assessing city resilience and regeneration priority.
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 | 0.022 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".