Let's take a look at the 3 results in turn
Boolean OR with 5 criteria:
This results in the greatest number of areas to choose from. This is generally a poorer method of MCE because there is no rank or weighting assigned to the criteria, and also no flexibility in borderline areas.
Outdoor weighted MCE:
Most of the suitable areas are clustered around the bike routes, since that was the highest weighted factor. Along bus and Skytrain routes were also good locations for this person.
Indoor weighted MCE:
This result has by far the least amount of suitable space. Most of the suitable areas are clustered around the shopping areas. In my FUZZY rescaling, the shopping coverage was scaled so that the most suitable areas were around 500m, a short walking distance, from a shopping area.
Problems:
The bounds for the criteria were probably a little off, as they were my own arbitrary choosing. For the shopping area, bus and skytrain routes, I came up with the numbers I did by considering walking distance to them, without regard to driving distance/time. I also limited some of the distances to artificially reduce the suitable areas for the sake of analysis. I didn't think it would be very good to have 75% of the city be a suitable area to live in. The distance to firehall limit of 1500m is certainly one that could be increased if this were a real evaluation.
I also only included the Fire department as a safety factor, and left out Police and Ambulance/hospital services. This is because I was unable to find good information on ambulance dispatch locaitons. The BC Ambulance Service website states that metropolitan users are within 8 minutes of an ambulance for urgent calls, and Police services are continually patrolling, so the response time/distance will even out over the long run. For these reasons, I decided to leave out those services, although it would be interesting to examine which area of the city have the best coverage/density for emergency services.
Boolean OR with 5 criteria:
This results in the greatest number of areas to choose from. This is generally a poorer method of MCE because there is no rank or weighting assigned to the criteria, and also no flexibility in borderline areas.
Outdoor weighted MCE:
Most of the suitable areas are clustered around the bike routes, since that was the highest weighted factor. Along bus and Skytrain routes were also good locations for this person.
Indoor weighted MCE:
This result has by far the least amount of suitable space. Most of the suitable areas are clustered around the shopping areas. In my FUZZY rescaling, the shopping coverage was scaled so that the most suitable areas were around 500m, a short walking distance, from a shopping area.
Problems:
The bounds for the criteria were probably a little off, as they were my own arbitrary choosing. For the shopping area, bus and skytrain routes, I came up with the numbers I did by considering walking distance to them, without regard to driving distance/time. I also limited some of the distances to artificially reduce the suitable areas for the sake of analysis. I didn't think it would be very good to have 75% of the city be a suitable area to live in. The distance to firehall limit of 1500m is certainly one that could be increased if this were a real evaluation.
I also only included the Fire department as a safety factor, and left out Police and Ambulance/hospital services. This is because I was unable to find good information on ambulance dispatch locaitons. The BC Ambulance Service website states that metropolitan users are within 8 minutes of an ambulance for urgent calls, and Police services are continually patrolling, so the response time/distance will even out over the long run. For these reasons, I decided to leave out those services, although it would be interesting to examine which area of the city have the best coverage/density for emergency services.
[Previous Page
] [Back to Index
]