# Adaptive Cluster-Based Normalization for Robust TOPSIS in Multicriteria Decision-Making
## 4 Case Study
The lower the rating, the higher the cost of living, business operations, and general expenses. 2. Infrastructure (C2): Should be as high as possible (fuzzy number (0.8, 0.95, 1)) to ensure world-class facilities. This includes cutting-edge public transportation, advanced healthcare systems, efficient digital connectivity, and modern urban planning. 3. Safety (C3): Should be as high as possible (fuzzy number (0.95, 0.95, 1)) since these cities are known for their stability and security. Low crime rates, strong law enforcement, and a secure environment make them attractive for businesses and residents alike. 4. Accessibility (C4): Should be as high as possible (fuzzy number (0.7, 0.95, 1)) to ensure global connectivity. These cities have major international airports, excellent public transit systems, and strong infrastructure to host international conferences and business events. Cluster 3: Balanced Cities with a Mix of Features. This cluster includes cities that strike a strong balance between affordability and quality, offering good infrastructure, high safety ratings, and excellent accessibility at reasonable costs. Their versatility makes them ideal for events that seek to combine cost-effectiveness with a high-quality experience for attendees. While these cities may not be as affordable as those in Cluster 1 or have infrastructure as advanced as those in Cluster 2, their overall balance makes them strong contenders for hosting successful events. Choosing between similarly balanced options in this cluster might require additional considerations, but their high safety and accessibility scores enhance the experience for all participants. The following analyzes and discusses the values for each criterion in Cluster 3 using fuzzy numbers, which define the optimal range for cost, infrastructure, safety, and accessibility within this category. 1. Cost (C1): Should be moderate (fuzzy number (0.5, 0.6, 0.7)) because these cities balance quality and affordability. They are neither excessively expensive nor extremely cheap, making them attractive for middle-income professionals and businesses looking for cost-effective but well-equipped locations. 2. Infrastructure (C2): Should be good but not premium (fuzzy number (0.5, 0.6, 0.7)). These cities provide high-quality public services, efficient transportation, and modern urban planning, but they may lack the cutting-edge facilities of world-class metropolises. 3. Safety (C3): Should be high but not extreme (fuzzy number (0.5, 0.6, 0.7)). These cities offer a safe environment with low to moderate crime rates, ensuring a comfortable living and working atmosphere without reaching the ultra-secure standards of Cluster 2 cities. 4. Accessibility (C4): Should be high but not at the maximum level (fuzzy number (0.5, 0.6, 0.7)). These cities have strong regional and international connectivity, including well-developed airports and transport networks, but they do not match the global reach of the top-tier business hubs in Cluster 2. Table 2 provides a summary of the optimal scores for each cluster discussed in this section, with the centroids of each cluster defined using fuzzy numbers for each criterion considered. The scores presented in Table 3 were developed through a collaborative process involving a diverse panel of experts and analysts. This group combined professional experience in event planning and logistics with insights drawn from tourist feedback and reviews published in reputable travel and tourism journals. By integrating these perspectives, the evaluation captured not only the logistical and operational dimensions of hosting an international event but also traveler perceptions and experiences.