**3. Methodology**

The proposed prioritization methodology was developed to offer a flexible approach, able to adapt to different urban contexts. The balance between expertise, resources requirements, accuracy, and replicability of results was an important consideration during the design process. The capacity of the methodology to allow for different levels of detail was also considered, due to the diverse data availability, which normally limits the assessment potential. Meeting these requirements was made possible by developing a method that followed the principles of MCA, in the sense that it (i) gives

relevance to stakeholder decisions; (ii) uses normalized quantitative and qualitative indicators through a scoring system; (iii) is able to rank options with different goals [9]; and (iv) offers a multi-phase analysis approach. The phases are composed by combinations of assessment methods, ordered from coarser to more detailed assessments. The first stage includes a CEA and co-benefits scoring assessment, whereas the following phase is based on more detailed assessments—risks reduction assessment and CBA. In addition, the methodology proposes several variables to rank results that help decision-makers to downselect the most suitable measures for their specific policy goals. An introductory diagram of the methodology is available in Figure 2, which will be further explained in this section. In addition, the key terminology employed in the present methodology and the stages proposed to apply it is presented.

**Figure 2.** Outline of the methodology stages and outputs.
