## 4 Application of the Proposed Methodology Under Uncertainty
### Comparison of the Cities  
This section compares the results of [PERSON] et al. [42]'s Sustainable Cities Index with our proposed method. As stated earlier, their index consists of economic, social, environmental and institutional dimensions and evaluated 30 metropolitans in Turkjye. Table 5 presents the ranking of 30 major cities obtained by the methods used in both studies. Although [PERSON] et al. [42]'s work includes sustainability-related dimensions, it is important to understand the deficiencies in the following main criteria before analyzing the order of the cities. Firstly, the environmental indicators used in their Sustainable Cities index, one of the most critical dimensions of sustainability, are statistics about the water and sewage system. Additionally, important city statistics regarding the negative impact on the environment, such as greenhouse emissions, have been ignored. Secondly, there is no indicator regarding the use and production of renewable energy resources in terms of reducing environmental impact. Thirdly, there is no dimension regarding accidents that can interrupt business continuity in the city and business life. Fifthly, most importantly, there are no risks/threads to which cities are exposed or potential dangers. Sixthly, a dimension related to the information technology infrastructure of cities and the transportation infrastructure, which Turkjye emphasizes due to its geostrategic location, has been ignored again. Seventhly, while the indicators expressed on the social side in our study reflect the workplace environment of institutions and employees, they are not mentioned in [PERSON] et al. [42]'s study. Finally, operational capacity in cities and institutions has not been taken into account at the technical level.  
[PERSON] et al. [42] found the Sustainable Cities Index for the metropolitan cities of Turkjye and reported that Antalya, Mugla and Eskisehir are the most sustainable cities. The authors explained that the first two sustainable cities are important tourism destinations and the number of tourists coming to the cities. The UN's Sustainable Development Goals are misguided by implying that unsustainable cities should invest and pay attention to tourism activities in order to achieve a better score. On the other hand, the authors found that Van, Mardin, Diyarbakir and Sanlurra less sustainable cities due to the terrorist incidents and migrations. The reasons stated in the study for the cities with low sustainability scores are not included in the proposed index, and the reports that are cited to be compatible were written more than ten years ago.  
With an overall the proposed method score of 0.274, Antalya ranks 20 th out of 30 metropolitan cities. Its three crucial weaknesses are safety, hazard risk and process/operation criteria. On the other hand, economic, legal risk and environmental impact and utilization are the three most vital factors. In addition, the proposed method ranks Mugla and Eskisehir as 15 th and 28 th, respectively. At the other end of the spectrum, Van, with a score of 0.75, ranks 16 th. Energy, transportation infrastructure and social performance are its three critical weaknesses. Conversely, safety, hazard risk and legal risk are the three most vital components. Furthermore, the proposed method ranks Diyarbakir and Mardin as 24 th and 12 th, respectively.