ArticleScientific reports2026
Comparative assessment of urban plants carbon sink and storage estimation methods: an integrated AHP-fuzzy comprehensive evaluation framework.
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
Abstract
Amid rapid urbanization, urban plants measurably contribute to climate change mitigation by carbon sink and storage, rather than constituting a singular dominant solution. This necessitates a robust, standardized framework for method evaluation and selection. This study adopts the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation as its methodological core, developing a multi-level evaluation model with 9 specific indicators based on 3 primary criteria: Accuracy, Generality, and Advancement. The model was applied to systematically compare and comprehensively assess 8 prevalent methods used to estimate urban plants' carbon sink and storage. Consistency checks (CR < 0.10) for all judgment matrices confirmed the statistical robustness of the evaluation data. The results revealed that among the evaluation criteria, Advancement carried the highest weight (52.00%), highlighting the importance of methodological innovation in the face of rapid technological progress. Accuracy ranked second (28.90%), while Generality was assigned the lowest weight (19.10%). In terms of comprehensive performance scores, the Optical Remote Sensing Method (Score: 97/100) outperformed others in carbon sink estimation. Similarly, the Remote Sensing Estimation Method (Score: 82/100) led the field in carbon storage measurement. In contrast, the Average Biomass Method received the lowest score (48/100), indicating significant performance disparities in addressing urban environmental complexity.
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.