## 4 Results and Analysis
### SWARA Weighting  
The weighting of the alternatives and criteria are presented in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. Furthermore, the weighting layers are given in Figure 4. According to the SWARA results, in the case of geotechnical, structural, socio-economic, and physical distance to needed facilities and away from dangerous facilities criteria, SWARA values were the highest for peak ground acceleration (0.61), construction materials of structures (0.34), population density (0.28), open spaces (0.25), and gas stations (0.40), respectively. Also, SWARA values were the lowest for slope (0.39), seismic resonance coefficient of structures (0.18), population of employment status density (0.08), disaster management centers (0.08), and high-voltage electrical power transmission lines (0.26) for aforementioned criteria, respectively. On the other hand, from Table 3, it can be seen that geotechnical and physical distance had the maximum and minimum SWARA values, respectively. Additionally, as an example, the weights of each class for the police station alternative obtained by SWARA can be found in Table 4 [10]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Alternatives**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{\(S_{j}\)}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{\(K_{j}\)}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{\(Q_{j}\)}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{\(W_{j}\)}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{**Description**}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{**References**}} \\ \multicolumn{1}{c}{**(Sub-Indicators)**} & & & & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{Geotechnical} \\ \multicolumn{10}{l}{(PGA)} \\ \hline Slope & 0.55 & 1.55 & 0.65 & 0.39 & Surface stability and landslide severity \\ \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{Structural} \\ \hline Construction materials of structures & - & 1.00 & 1.00 & 0.34 & - \\ \hline Age of construction & 0.35 & 1.35 & 0.74 & 0.26 & Degradation in the structural system \\ \hline Structure quality & 0.15 & 1.15 & 0.64 & 0.22 & Quality of workmanship and supervision \\ \hline Seismic resonance coefficient of structures & 0.25 & 1.25 & 0.52 & 0.18 & Closeness of natural frequency of structure and the dominant frequency of ground motion \\ \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{Socio-Economic} \\ \hline Population density & - & 1.00 & 1.00 & 0.28 & Reduction in the ability of rescue \\ \hline Children population density & 0.55 & 1.55 & 0.65 & 0.18 & Physical vulnerability; lack of training and emotional dependencies \\ \hline Elderly population density & 0.00 & 1.00 & 0.65 & 0.18 & Physical vulnerability; possibility of illness \\ \hline Female population density & 0.20 & 1.20 & 0.54 & 0.15 & - \\ \hline Population of education level density & 0.10 & 1.10 & 0.49 & 0.14 & Education for performing post-disaster undertakings and helping rescue teams \\ \hline Population of employment status density & 0.70 & 1.70 & 0.29 & 0.08 & Further helping rescue teams \\ \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{Physical Distance to Needed Facilities} \\ \hline Open spaces (OS) & - & 1.00 & 1.00 & 0.25 & Closeness to immediate occupancy sites/undamaged buildings \\ \hline Road network (RN) & 0.15 & 1.15 & 0.87 & 0.22 & Improvement in rescue \\ \hline Police stations (PS) & 0.05 & 1.05 & 0.83 & 0.21 & Security for search/rescue teams \\ \hline Fire stations (FS) & 0.50 & 1.50 & 0.55 & 0.14 & Preventing fire spread \\ \hline Hospitals (H) & 0.25 & 1.25 & 0.44 & 0.11 & Improvement in rescue \\ \hline Disaster management centers (DMC) & 0.45 & 1.45 & 0.30 & 0.08 & - \\ \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{Physical Distance from Dangerous Facilities} \\ \hline Gas stations (GS) & - & 1.00 & 1.00 & 0.40 & High probability of fire and explosion \\ \hline Gas pipelines (GP) & 0.15 & 1.15 & 0.87 & 0.35 & High probability of fire and explosion \\ \hline High-voltage electrical power transmission lines (HVEP) & 0.35 & 1.35 & 0.64 & 0.26 & High probability of fire and electrification \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Calculated weight of alternatives using SWARA.