## 3 Methodology
### Integrating Survey Results  
The procedure described previously leads to ranking values for the different alternatives--individual compositions of SETs--suggesting to decision makers which composition is preferable. While technically straightforward, the determination of the preferences--especially for the citizens' opinions--is delicate. On the other hand, the sensible determination of the \(\mathcal{CC}\) values is also key, as these are dependent on personal preferences and on several local and global surveys at different points in time. The subjectivity of this composition  
Figure 1: Flowchart illustrating the steps of the decision support methodology.  
poses a challenge. Presenting additional facts and information based on the contextual data of the opinion-poll-like incisive events between the surveys, as well as the socioeconomic factors of the participants, may help decision makers in choosing their preferences in a less subjective way, essentially providing understanding as to why specific participants have certain attitudes. For one, direct correlation between events and socioeconomic factors and attitudes can be determined and communicated in comprehensible ways, as illustrated in the study in the following section, which shows a typical case of NIMBY. Furthermore, deep datamining for statistical analysis can provide even more insights and help decision makers to better identify hidden patterns in survey participants' discrepancies, and determine the weighting of global and local surveys for their aggregation which, in turn, feeds into MCDA's \(\mathcal{CC}\) values. In addition, the results of the statistical analyses may also influence the weighting of the \(\mathcal{CC}\) criterion itself in the final MCDA, as discrepancies that emerge across multiple survey rounds further sensitize decision makers to the importance of this criterion. However, this is generally very complex and time-consuming, and obviously requires the necessary data to be available, which is frequently simply not the case. Nevertheless, ultimately, it is always up to the decision makers as to the way in which to consider such additional information when making their decision(s). In particular, this work provides decision makers with a methodology to systematically incorporate citizens' opinions, as well as discrepancies in their opinions, into their decisions--a process of multiple global and local surveys and statistical analyses of the discrepancies that arise, the results of which are incorporated into the aggregation of these global and local surveys and, finally, into the criterion of citizen acceptance in the MCDA.  
We would like to emphasize that the focus of this paper is on how to deal with the discrepancies mentioned, and not on a detailed description of the procedural flow including the specification of the parties involved. Experts are needed in order to define and evaluate all other criteria for SET integration, in addition to the \"citizen acceptance\" criterion. Experts, e.g., social scientists, are also needed to identify representative survey groups and relevant socioeconomic factors associated with urban living environments. In addition, the determination of appropriate weights in the MCDA should be done by a group of stakeholders or decision makers, e.g., consisting of representatives of local governments, urban and regional planners, and utility companies. All of these processual aspects are the subject of current and future work.