Applying Kodas Technique to Measure Urban Infrastructure in Metropolises of Iran

Due to the rapid expansion of urban areas, the lack of urban infrastructure in the countrychr('39')s metropolises is strongly felt. This infrastructure, in parallel with urban development, is vital for improving the quality of life in the countrychr('39')s metropolises. The present study was conducted using the CODAS multi-indicator technique with the aim of analyzing indicators related to urban infrastructure in Iranian metropolises.

The present analytical-comparative study was conducted using the information obtained through the statistics of Tehran in 2019. 10 metropolises of Tehran, Mashhad, Isfahan, Shiraz, Qom, Kermanshah and Hamedan, Rasht, Zahedan, and Kerman to study the indicators of the number of health services under the supervision of the municipality, the number of indoor sports facilities, the number of fire stations, the number of firefighters, the number of firefighting operations Fire, number of operated metro stations, the total number of parks, number of urban and forest parks, number of open parking lots and multi-story car parks owned by the municipality, number of simple and mechanized overpass bridges, number of open sports spaces, number of fuel stations CNG, owned by the municipality and the private sector, selected a number of permanent and temporary fruit and vegetable markets. Using Excel software, the weights of the indices were analyzed through the Shannon entropy model and used in the CODAS decision technique.

The highest Euclidean distance belonged to the Tehran metropolis (0.242) and the lowest Euclidean distance belonged to the Zahedan metropolis (0.009). According to the amount of h_ik obtained from THE CODAS technique, metropolises of Tehran (9.254), Mashhad (0.297), Isfahan (0.198), Shiraz (-0.131), Qom (-0.771), Hamedan (-1.555), Kermanshah (-1.960), Kerman (-2.143), Rasht (-2.199), and Zahedan (-2.496) were ranked first to tenth, respectively. The results showed that the Tehran metropolis was far away 8.957, 9.056, 9.385, 10.025, 11.214, 11.453, 10.809, 11.75, and 11.397 scores compared to Mashhad, Isfahan, Shiraz, Qom, Kermanshah, Rasht, Hamedan, Zahedan, and Kerman were, respectively.

The difference in scores obtained from the CODAS technique indicates the inequality of the studied metropolises in the amount of urban infrastructure in them.