In spatial planning, the paradigm has shifted from positivist to deliberative approaches. Still, cost–benefit analysis remains the dominant evaluation method. Multi-criteria analysis is arguably more appropriate, as it allows for stakeholder participation. While there are dozens of ever more sophisticated multi-criteria analysis methods, their practicality as real-world learning tools has received little attention. The goal of this article is to assess the suitability of different multi-criteria analysis methods for deliberative planning. It presents a critical review of the logical-mathematical cores of the principal methods but also of the different participatory frameworks within which they can be applied. While mathematically sophisticated methods are valuable in well-defined problems with precise data available, we conclude that in the participatory and politically sensitive stages of the planning process, user-friendly and transparent methods are more appropriate and recommend the development of a method that supports the incremental improvement of design options rather than ranking alternatives.

在空间规划中，范式已从实证主义方法转变为审议方法。尽管如此，成本效益分析仍然是主要的评估方法。多标准分析可以说更合适，因为它允许利益相关者参与。尽管有数十种更复杂的多标准分析方法，但它们作为现实世界学习工具的实用性却很少受到关注。本文的目的是评估不同的多标准分析方法对审慎规划的适用性。它对主要方法的逻辑数学核心以及可以应用它们的不同参与框架进行了批判性审查。虽然数学上复杂的方法在具有精确数据的明确定义的问题中很有价值，