ArticleScientific reports2026
Evaluating coastal urban underground space for ecological and marine-pollution suitability using AHP-TOPSIS.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An integrated Analytic Hierarchy Process–TOPSIS framework is developed to evaluate the ecological and marine-pollution suitability of urban underground space (UUS) projects in coastal cities. The AHP–TOPSIS hybrid approach is particularly suitable for coastal infrastructure evaluation because it integrates structured expert judgement with transparent aggregation of distance-to-ideal performance, enabling balanced consideration of ecological, marine, technical, and social objectives in complex planning environments. A structured hierarchy of 10 criteria, grouped into Environmental/Marine, Economic/Technical, and Social/Governance dimensions, is weighted based on judgements from 50 experts in planning, underground engineering, coastal and marine environments, and infrastructure finance. Environmental/Marine factors receive the highest aggregate weight (0.53), ahead of Economic/Technical (0.25) and Social/Governance (0.22), with energy efficiency, air quality, stormwater management, marine impact, and lifecycle cost emerging as the most influential criteria. Five representative UUS alternatives—underground transit hub, subsurface retail complex, underground green park, multi-level underground parking, and subterranean mixed-use complex, are assessed using TOPSIS. The underground green park and transit hub have the highest closeness coefficients (0.72 and 0.65), while retail and parking options systematically underperform due to weaker Environmental/Marine and social profiles. Sensitivity and scenario analyses confirm the robustness of the rankings to substantial variations in criteria weights, supporting the prioritisation of ecologically oriented and transit-supportive UUS concepts in coastal planning. The framework provides operational guidance for coastal planning authorities seeking to align investment in underground infrastructure with ecological resilience and long-term marine pollution mitigation objectives.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.