The Role of Topography in Coastal City Planning Using a Comparison of Two Hierarchical Analysis Methods: AHP and AHP Fuzzy (Case Study: Nour City)

As cities develop and expand, their encounters with various topographic and geomorphological units and related issues increase. Geomorphological units are always related to the dynamics and dynamism of the natural environment, and any action taken in the direction of the development and construction of cities in some way intersects with the aforementioned dynamics and dynamism and, as a result, with morphological phenomena. In this encounter, if some essential principles and points are not observed, the morphodynamic balance of the environment will be disrupted and major risks will threaten the majority of urban equipment and facilities. The purpose of the present study is to investigate the role of unevenness in coastal city planning by comparing the two analytical hierarchy process methods, AHP and AHP FUZZY, in the city of Noor. The research method is descriptive, analytical and field-based in terms of applied and developmental purpose and in terms of data collection, in which the researcher-made questionnaire was used as a tool. The result of the sensitivity analysis showed that AHP is sensitive to uncertainty in the decision model; However, the comparative analysis shows that the differences between the criteria rankings in the two models do not necessarily result in the selection of different options (as focal points), but rather differences in the spatial extent of the selected options are more important. The findings provide a new direction for the selection of MCDM methods for urban planning. If the planning objective is to identify priority areas for development as focal points, then simpler MCDM methods such as AHP should suffice; but in more detailed planning where the identification of spatial boundaries is required (such as determining the master plan), a multiple approach using two or more MCDM techniques would be ideal.