A Multi-Criteria Decision Making Approach For Location Planning

Mathematical and Computer Modelling 53 (2011) 98109
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Mathematical and Computer Modelling
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mcm
A multi-criteria decision making approach for location planning for
urban distribution centers under uncertainty
Anjali Awasthi
a,
, S.S. Chauhan
b
, S.K. Goyal
b
a
CIISE, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada
b
Decision Sciences, JMSB, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 9 December 2009
Received in revised form 25 July 2010
Accepted 26 July 2010
Keywords:
Location planning
Urban distribution center
Fuzzy TOPSIS
Multi-criteria decision making
a b s t r a c t
Location planning for urban distribution centers is vital in saving distribution costs and
minimizing traffic congestion arising from goods movement in urban areas. In this paper,
we present a multi-criteria decision making approach for location planning for urban
distribution centers under uncertainty. The proposed approach involves identification of
potential locations, selection of evaluation criteria, use of fuzzy theory to quantify criteria
values under uncertainty and application of fuzzy TOPSIS to evaluate and select the best
location for implementing an urban distribution center. Sensitivity analysis is performed
to determine the influence of criteria weights on location planning decisions for urban
distribution centers.
The strength of the proposed work is the ability to deal with uncertainty arising due
to a lack of real data in location planning for new urban distribution centers. The proposed
approach can be practically applied by logistics operators in deciding on the location of new
distribution centers considering the sustainable freight regulations proposed by municipal
administrations. A numerical application is provided to illustrate the approach.
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Location planning for urban distribution centers is vital in minimizing traffic congestion arising from goods movement
in urban areas. In recent years, transport activity has grown tremendously and this has undoubtedly affected the travel
and living conditions in urban areas. Considering this growth in the number of urban freight movements and their
negative impacts on city residents and the environment, municipal administrations are implementing sustainable freight
regulations like restricted delivery timing, dedicated delivery zones, congestion charging etc. With the implementation
of these regulations, the logistics operators are facing new challenges in location planning for distribution centers. For
example, if distribution centers are located close to customer locations, then it will increase traffic congestion in the urban
areas. If they are located far from customer locations, then the distribution costs for the operators will be very high. Under
these circumstances, it is clear that the location planning for distribution centers in urban areas is a complex decision that
involves consideration of multiple criteria like maximum customer coverage, minimum distribution costs, least impacts on
city residents and the environment, and conformance to freight regulations of the city.
In this paper, we are focusing on a multi-criteria decision making approach for location planning for urban distribution
centers under uncertainty. We will use fuzzy theory to model decision making parameters. Fuzzy theory was introduced
by Zadeh [1] to deal with uncertainty and vagueness in decision making. It is used to model systems that are difficult to
define precisely [2,3]. In such systems, parameters are defined using linguistic terms instead of exact numerical values [4].
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 514 848 2424x5622; fax: +1 514 848 3171.
E-mail addresses: awasthi@ciise.concordia.ca (A. Awasthi), sschauha@alcor.concordia.ca (S.S. Chauhan), sgoyal@jmsb.concordia.ca (S.K. Goyal).
0895-7177/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.mcm.2010.07.023
A. Awasthi et al. / Mathematical and Computer Modelling 53 (2011) 98109 99
For example, the impact of motor traffic on city residents can be expressed as high, very high, lowetc. using linguistic terms.
Then, conversion scales are applied to transform the linguistic scales into fuzzy numbers.
The problem of location planning for urban distribution centers can be classified as a special case of the more general
facility location problems. The facility location problemusually involves a set of locations (alternatives) which are evaluated
against a set of weighted criteria independent fromeach other. The alternative that performs best with respect to all criteria
is chosen for implementation. The distinct feature in location planning for urban distribution centers is the consideration of
interests of other stakeholders like city residents, municipal administrators etc. The goal is not only to minimize distribution
costs but also to conform to sustainable freight regulations of the city and create least negative effects on city residents
and their environment. Several approaches have been reported in the literature for solving the facility location problems
[58]. Agrawal [9] present a hybrid Taguchi-immune approach to optimize an integrated supply chain design problem with
multiple shipping. Sun et al. [10] present a bilevel programming model for the location of logistics distribution centers.
Multi-criteria facility location models have been investigated by researchers in [1114].
The most commonly used approaches can be classified as continuous location models, network location models and
integer programming models. In continuous location models, every point on the plane is a candidate for facility location
and a suitable distance metric is used for selecting the locations. In network location models, distances are computed as
shortest paths in a graph. Nodes represent demand points and potential facility sites correspond to a subset of the nodes
and to points on arcs. The integer programming models start with a given set of potential facility sites and use integer
programming to identify best locations for facilities. The objectives may be either of the minsumtype or of the minmax type.
Minsum models are designed to minimize average distances while minmax models have to minimize maximum distances.
A detailed overview of facility location models for distribution network design can be found in [8].
It is worth pointing out that most of the above papers study the location problem under a certain environment, that
is, the parameters in the problem are fixed numbers and known in advance. In reality, often the parameters cannot be
obtained with certainty. To deal with such situations, fuzzy theory is used [15,16]. Application of fuzzy theory for location
planning for facilities has been investigated by researchers in [1722]. Liang and Wang [20] developed an algorithm for
facility site selection based on fuzzy theory and hierarchical structure analysis. Chen [21] developed a fuzzy multi-attribute
decision making approach for the distribution center location selection problem. Chu [23] developed a fuzzy TOPSIS model
to solve the facility location selection problem under group decision making. Kahraman et al. [19] used four fuzzy multi-
attribute groupdecisionmaking approaches inevaluating facility locations. Chouet al. [22] presenteda fuzzy simple additive
weighting system under group decision making for facility location selection with objective and subjective attributes. Lee
and Lin [24] presented a fuzzy quantified SWOT procedure for environmental evaluation of an international distribution
center.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we present the preliminaries of fuzzy set theory. Section 3
presents the proposed framework for multi-criteria location planning for urban distribution centers under a fuzzy
environment. In Section 4, we present a numerical application to illustrate the proposed approach. Finally, the conclusions
and future work are presented in Section 5.
2. Fuzzy set theory
Some related definitions of fuzzy set theory adapted from [1,3,25,26] are presented as follows.
Definition 1. A fuzzy set a in a universe of discourse X is characterized by a membership function
a
(x) that maps each
element x in X to a real number in the interval [0, 1]. The function value
a
(x) is termed the grade of membership of x in a
[27]. The nearer the value of
a
(x) to unity, the higher the grade of membership of x in a.
Definition 2. A triangular fuzzy number (Fig. 1) is represented as a triplet a = (a
1
, a
2
, a
3
). The membership function
a
(x)
of triangular fuzzy number a is given by
a
(x) =
_
_
0, x a
1
,
x a
1
a
2
a
1
, a
1
x a
2
,
a
3
x
a
3
a
2
, a
2
x a
3
,
0, x > a
3
(1)
where a
1
, a
2
, a
3
are real numbers and a
1
< a
2
< a
3
. The value of x at a
2
gives the maximal grade of
a
(x), i.e.,
a
(x) = 1;
it is the most probable value of the evaluation data. The value of x at a
1
gives the minimal grade of
a
(x), i.e.,
a
(x) = 0; it
is the least probable value of the evaluation data. Constants a
1
and a
3
are the lower and upper bounds of the available area
for the evaluation data. These constants reflect the fuzziness of the evaluation data [20]. The narrower the interval [a
1
, a
3
],
the lower the fuzziness of the evaluation data.
For a detailed study of fuzzy set theory, please refer to [1,3,25,26].
100 A. Awasthi et al. / Mathematical and Computer Modelling 53 (2011) 98109
Fig. 1. Triangular fuzzy number a.
Fig. 2. Two triangular fuzzy numbers.
Table 1
Linguistic terms for alternative ratings.
Linguistic term Membership function
Very poor (VP) (1, 1, 3)
Poor (P) (1, 3, 5)
Fair (F) (3, 5, 7)
Good (G) (5, 7, 9)
Very good (VG) (7, 9, 9)
Table 2
Linguistic terms for criteria ratings.
Linguistic term Membership function
Very low (1, 1, 3)
Low (1, 3, 5)
Medium (3, 5, 7)
High (5, 7, 9)
Very high (7, 9, 9)
2.1. The distance between fuzzy triangular numbers
Let a = (a
1
, a
2
, a
3
) and

b = (b
1
, b
2
, b
3
) be two triangular fuzzy numbers (Fig. 2).
The distance between them is given using the vertex method by
d( a,

b) =
_
1
3
[(a
1
b
1
)
2
+ (a
2
b
2
)
2
+ (a
3
b
3
)
2
]. (2)
2.2. Linguistic variables
In fuzzy set theory, conversion scales are applied to transform the linguistic terms into fuzzy numbers. In this paper, we
will apply a scale of 19 for rating the criteria and the alternatives. Table 1 presents the linguistic variables and fuzzy ratings
for the alternatives and Table 2 presents the linguistic variables and fuzzy ratings for the criteria.
3. The proposed framework for location planning for urban distribution centers
The proposed framework for location planning for urban distribution centers comprises four steps. These steps are
presented in detail as follows:
Table 3
Criteria for location selection.
Criteria Definition Criteria type
Accessibility (C1) Access by public and private transport modes to the location Benefit (the more the better)
Security (C2) Security of the location from accidents, theft and vandalism Benefit (the more the better)
Connectivity to multimodal
transport (C3)
Connectivity of the location with other modes of transport,
e.g. highways, railways, seaport, airport etc.
Benefit (the more the better)
Costs (C4) Costs in acquiring land, vehicle resources, drivers, and taxes
etc. for the location
Cost (the less the better)
Environmental impact (C5) Impact of location on the environment, for example, air
pollution, noise
Cost (the less the better)
Proximity to customers (C6) Distance of location to customer locations Benefit (the more the better)
Proximity to suppliers (C7) Distance of location to supplier locations Benefit (the more the better)
Resource availability (C8) Availability of raw material and labor resources in the
location
Conformance to sustainable
freight regulations (C9)
Ability to conform to sustainable freight regulations imposed
by municipal administrations for e.g. restricted delivery
hours, special delivery zones
Possibility of expansion (C10) Ability to increase size to accommodate growing demands Benefit (the more the better)
Quality of service (C11) Ability to assure timely and reliable service to clients Benefit (the more the better)
3.1. Selection of location criteria
Step 1 involves the selection of location criteria for evaluating potential locations for urban distribution centers.
These criteria are obtained from literature review, and discussion with transportation experts and members of the city
transportation group. 11 criteria are finally chosen to determine the best location for implementing urban distribution
centers. These criteria are shown in Table 3.
It can be seen in Table 3 that criterion C3 and criterion C4 belong to the cost category, that is, the lower the value, the
more preferable the alternative for the best location. The remaining criteria are benefit type criteria, that means the higher
the value, the more preferable the alternative for the best location.
3.2. Selection of potential locations
Step 2 involves selection of potential locations for implementing urban distribution centers. The decision makers use
their knowledge, prior experience with the transportation conditions of the city and the presence of sustainable freight
regulations in the city to identify candidate locations for implementing urban distribution centers. For example, if certain
areas are restricted for delivery by municipal administration, then these areas are barred frombeing considered as potential
locations for implementing urban distribution centers. Ideally, the potential locations are those that cater to the interest of
all city stakeholders, that is city residents, logistics operators, municipal administrations etc.
3.3. Locations evaluation using fuzzy TOPSIS
The third step involves evaluation of potential locations against the selected criteria (Table 3) using the technique called
fuzzy TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Situation). The TOPSIS approach chooses the alternative
that is closest to the positive ideal solutionandfarthest fromthe negative ideal solution. Apositive ideal solutionis composed
of the best performance values for each attribute whereas the negative ideal solution consists of the worst performance
values. Fuzzy TOPSIS has been applied to facility location problems by researchers in [23,2831]. The various steps of fuzzy
TOPSIS are presented as follows:
Step 1. Assignment of ratings to the criteria and the alternatives.
Let us assume there are J possible candidates called A = {A
1
, A
2
, . . . , A
j
} which are to evaluated against m criteria,
C = {C
1
, C
2
, . . . , C
m
}. The criteria weights are denoted by w
i
(i = 1, 2, . . . , m). The performance ratings of each decision
maker D
k
(k = 1, 2, . . . , K) for each alternative A
j
(j = 1, 2, . . . , n) with respect to criteria C
i
(i = 1, 2, . . . , m) are denoted
by

R
k
= x
ijk
(i = 1, 2, . . . , m; j = 1, 2, . . . , n; k = 1, 2, . . . , K) with membership function
R
k
(x).
Step 2. Compute aggregate fuzzy ratings for the criteria and the alternatives.
If the fuzzy ratings of all decision makers are described as triangular fuzzy numbers

R
k
= (a
k
, b
k
, c
k
), k = 1, 2, . . . , K,
then the aggregated fuzzy rating is given by

R = (a, b, c), k = 1, 2, . . . , K, where
a = min
k
{a
k
}, b =
1
K
K
k=1
b
k
, c = max
k
{c
k
}. (3)
If the fuzzy rating and importance weight of the kth decision maker are x
ijk
= (a
ijk
, b
ijk
, c
ijk
) and w
ijk
= (w
jk1
, w
jk2
, w
jk3
),
i = 1, 2, . . . , m, j = 1, 2, . . . , n, respectively, then the aggregated fuzzy ratings ( x
ij
) of alternatives with respect to each
criterion are given by x
ij
= (a
ij
, b
ij
, c
ij
) where
a
ij
= min
k
{a
ijk
}, b
ij
=
1
K
K
k=1
b
ijk
, c
ij
= max
k
{c
ijk
}. (4)
The aggregated fuzzy weights ( w
ij
) of each criterion are calculated as w
j
= (w
j1
, w
j2
, w
j3
) where
w
j1
= min
k
{w
jk1
}, w
j2
=
1
K
K
k=1
w
jk2
, w
j3
= max
k
{c
jk3
}. (5)
Step 3. Compute the fuzzy decision matrix.
The fuzzy decision matrix for the alternatives (
D) and the criteria (

W) is constructed as follows:
D =
_
_
_
C
1
C
2
C
n
A
1
x
11
x
12
. . . x
1n
A
2
x
21
x
22
. . . x
2n
A
3
. . . . . . . . . . . .
A
4
x
m1
x
m2
. . . x
mn
_
_
, i = 1, 2, . . . , m; j = 1, 2, . . . , n (6)
W = ( w
1
, w
2
, . . . , w
n
). (7)
Step 4. Normalize the fuzzy decision matrix.
The raw data are normalized using a linear scale transformation to bring the various criteria scales onto a comparable
scale. The normalized fuzzy decision matrix

R is given by
R = [ r
ij
]
mxn
, i = 1, 2, . . . , m; j = 1, 2, . . . , n (8)
where
r
ij
=
_
a
ij
c
j
,
b
ij
c
j
,
c
ij
c
j
_
and c
j
= max
i
c
ij
(benefit criteria) (9)
r
ij
=
_
a
j
c
ij
,
a
j
b
ij
,
a
j
a
ij
_
and a
j
= min
i
a
ij
(cost criteria). (10)
Step 5. Compute the weighted normalized matrix.
The weighted normalized matrix

V for criteria is computed by multiplying the weights ( w
j
) of evaluation criteria with
the normalized fuzzy decision matrix r
ij
:
V = [ v
ij
]
mxn
, i = 1, 2, . . . , m; j = 1, 2, . . . , n where v
ij
= r
ij
(.) w
j
. (11)
Step 6. Compute the fuzzy ideal solution (FPIS) and the fuzzy negative ideal solution (FNIS).
The FPIS and FNIS of the alternatives are computed as follows:
A
= ( v
1
, v
2
, . . . , v
n
) where v
j
= max
i
{v
ij3
}, i = 1, 2 . . . , m; j = 1, 2, . . . , n (12)
A
= ( v
1
, v
2
, . . . , v
n
) where v
j
= min
i
{v
ij1
}, i = 1, 2 . . . , m; j = 1, 2, . . . , n. (13)
Step 7. Compute the distance of each alternative from FPIS and FNIS.
The distance (d
i
, d
i
) of each weighted alternative i = 1, 2, . . . , m from the FPIS and the FNIS is computed as follows:
d
i
=
n
j=1
d
v
( v
ij
, v
j
), i = 1, 2, . . . , m (14)
d
i
=
n
j=1
d
v
( v
ij
, v
j
), i = 1, 2, . . . , m (15)
where d
v
( a,

b) is the distance measurement between two fuzzy numbers a and

b.
Step 8. Compute the closeness coefficient (CC
i
) of each alternative.
The closeness coefficient CC
i
represents the distances to the fuzzy positive ideal solution (A
) and the fuzzy negative ideal

solution (A
) simultaneously. The closeness coefficient of each alternative is calculated as

CC
i
=
d
i
d
i
+ d
i
, i = 1, 2, . . . , m. (16)
Step 9. Rank the alternatives.
A2
A3
A1
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
Distribution Center location
Customer locations
Restricted delivery zones
Fig. 3. Potential locations for the urban distribution center.
Rank the alternatives according to the closeness coefficient (CC
i
) in decreasing order and select the alternative with the
highest closeness coefficient for final implementation. The best alternative is closest to the FPIS and farthest from the FNIS.
3.4. Sensitivity analysis
Sensitivity analysis addresses the question How sensitive is the overall decision to small changes in the individual
weights assigned during the pairwise comparison process? This question can be answered by slightly varying the values of
the weights and observing the effects on the decision. This is useful in situations where uncertainties exist in the definition
of the importance for different factors. In our case, we will conduct sensitivity analysis in order to see the importance of
criteria weights in deciding the best location for implementing the urban distribution center.
4. Numerical illustration
Let us assume that a logistics company is interested in implementing a new urban distribution center. A committee of
three decision makers D1, D2 and D3 is formed to select the best selection. The alternatives available for location selection
are A1, A2 and A3 (Fig. 3).
It can be seen that location A1 is situated outside the city close to a highway while locations A2 and A3 are located inside
the city. Location A2 is situated on the outskirts inside the city close to highways and to the customer locations whereas
location A3 is situated in the city center far from highways.
The criteria used for evaluation of locations for urban distribution centers are same as those presented in Table 3, that is:
Accessibility (C1), Security (C2), Connectivity to multimodal transport (C3), Costs (C4), Environmental impact (C5), Proximity
to customers (C6), Proximity to suppliers (C7), Resource availability (C8), Conformance to sustainable freight regulations
(C9), Possibility of expansion (C10), and Quality of service (C11). Among these, Criteria C3 and C4 are the cost category
criteria (the less the better) while the remaining ones are the benefit category (the more the better) criteria.
The committee provided linguistic assessments for the eleven criteria using rating scales given in Table 1 and to the three
alternatives (locations) for each of the 11 location criteria using rating scales of Table 2. Tables 4 and 5 present the linguistic
assessments for the criteria and the alternatives.
Then, the aggregated fuzzy weights ( w
ij
) for each criterion are calculated using Eq. (5). For example, for criterion C1
Accessibility, the aggregated fuzzy weight is given by w
j
= (w
j1
, w
j2
, w
j3
) where
w
j1
= min
k
{7, 7, 7}, w
j2
=
1
3
3
k=1
(9 + 9 + 9), w
j3
= max
k
{9, 9, 9} = w
j
= (7, 9, 9).
Likewise, we compute the aggregate weights for the remaining 10 criteria. The aggregate weights of the 11 criteria are
presented in Table 6.
Then, the aggregate fuzzy weights of the alternatives are computed using Eq. (4). For example, the aggregate rating for
alternative A1 for criterion C1 given by the three decision makers is computed as follows:
a
ij
= min
k
{7, 5, 7}, b
ij
=
1
3
3
k=1
(9 + 7 + 9), c
ij
= max
k
{9, 9, 9} = (5, 8.33, 9).
Table 4
Linguistic assessments for the 11 criteria.
Criteria Decision makers
D1 D2 D3
Accessibility (C1) VH VH VH
Security (C2) VH H VH
Connectivity to multimodal transport (C3) VH H VH
Costs (C4) H VH VH
Environmental impact (C5) M H M
Proximity to customers (C6) VH H VH
Proximity to suppliers (C7) H VH H
Resource availability (C8) M H H
Conformance to sustainable freight regulations (C9) H H VH
Possibility of expansion (C10) VH H VH
Quality of service (C11) VH VH VH
Table 5
Linguistic assessments for the three alternatives.
Criteria Alternatives Decision makers
D1 D2 D3
C1
A1 VG G VG
A2 G VG VG
A3 VG VG VG
C2
A1 G VG G
A2 M G M
A3 P P M
C3
A1 M G M
A2 M M M
A3 M G G
C4
A1 G G M
A2 M G M
A3 M G G
C5
A1 G M G
A2 G M M
A3 G P G
C6
A1 G VG VG
A2 VG VG G
A3 VG VG G
C7
A1 M VG M
A2 G G M
A3 G G G
C8
A1 M M G
A2 G M M
A3 M M M
C9
A1 M M M
A2 M P P
A3 P VP VP
C10
A1 G G VG
A2 VG G VG
A3 G G G
C11
A1 VG G VG
A2 VG G G
A3 G VG VG
Likewise, the aggregate ratings for the three alternatives (A1, A2, A3) with respect to the 11 criteria are computed. The
aggregate fuzzy decision matrix for the alternatives is presented in Table 7.
In the next step, we perform normalization of the fuzzy decision matrix of alternatives using Eqs. (8)(10). For example,
the normalized rating for alternative A1 for criterion C1 (Accessibility) is given by
c
j
= max
i
{9, 9, 9} = 9
r
ij
=
_
5
9
,
8.33
9
,
9
9
_
= (0.56, 0.926, 1).
Table 6
Aggregate fuzzy weights for criteria.
Criteria Decision makers Aggregated fuzzy weights
D1 D2 D3
C1 (7, 9, 9) (7, 9, 9) (7, 9, 9) (7, 9, 9)
C2 (7, 9, 9) (5, 7, 9) (7, 9, 9) (5, 8.33, 9)
C3 (7, 9, 9) (5, 7, 9) (7, 9, 9) (5, 8.33, 9)
C4 (5, 7, 9) (7, 9, 9) (7, 9, 9) (5, 8.33, 9)
C5 (3, 5, 7) (5, 7, 9) (3, 5, 7) (3, 5.66, 9)
C6 (7, 9, 9) (5, 7, 9) (7, 9, 9) (5, 8.33, 9)
C7 (5, 7, 9) (7, 9, 9) (5, 7, 9) (5, 7.66, 9)
C8 (3, 5, 7) (5, 7, 9) (5, 7, 9) (3, 6.33, 9)
C9 (5, 7, 9) (5, 7, 9) (7, 9, 9) (5, 7.66, 9)
C10 (7, 9, 9) (5, 7, 9) (7, 9, 9) (7, 8.33, 9)
C11 (7, 9, 9) (7, 9, 9) (7, 9, 9) (7, 9, 9)
Table 7
Aggregate fuzzy weights for alternatives.
Criteria Alternatives Decision makers Aggregate ratings
D1 D2 D3
C1
A1 (7, 9, 9) (5, 7, 9) (7, 9, 9) (5, 8.33, 9)
A2 (5, 7, 9) (7, 9, 9) (7, 9, 9) (5, 8.33, 9)
A3 (7, 9, 9) (7, 9, 9) (7, 9, 9) (7, 9, 9)
C2
A1 (5, 7, 9) (7, 9, 9) (5, 7, 9) (5, 7.66, 9)
A2 (3, 5, 7) (5, 7, 9) (3, 5, 7) (3, 5.66, 9)
A3 (1, 3, 5) (1, 3, 5) (3, 5, 7) (1, 3.66, 7)
C3
A1 (3, 5, 7) (5, 7, 9) (3, 5, 7) (3, 5.66, 9)
A2 (3, 5, 7) (3, 5, 7) (3, 5, 7) (3, 5, 7)
A3 (3, 5, 7) (5, 7, 9) (5, 7, 9) (3, 6.33, 9)
C4
A1 (5, 7, 9) (5, 7, 9) (3, 5, 7) (3, 6.33, 9)
A2 (3, 5, 7) (5, 7, 9) (3, 5, 7) (3, 5.66, 9)
A3 (3, 5, 7) (5, 7, 9) (5, 7, 9) (3, 6.33, 9)
C5
A1 (5, 7, 9) (3, 5, 7) (5, 7, 9) (3, 6.33, 9)
A2 (5, 7, 9) (3, 5, 7) (3, 5, 7) (3, 5.66, 9)
A3 (5, 7, 9) (1, 3, 5) (5, 7, 9) (1, 5.66, 9)
C6
A1 (5, 7, 9) (7, 9, 9) (7, 9, 9) (5, 8.33, 9)
A2 (7, 9, 9) (7, 9, 9) (5, 7, 9) (5, 8.33, 9)
A3 (7, 9, 9) (7, 9, 9) (5, 7, 9) (5, 8.33, 9)
C7
A1 (3, 5, 7) (7, 9, 9) (3, 5, 7) (3, 6.33, 9)
A2 (5, 7, 9) (5, 7, 9) (3, 5, 7) (3, 6.33, 9)
A3 (5, 7, 9) (5, 7, 9) (5, 7, 9) (5, 7, 9)
C8
A1 (3, 5, 7) (3, 5, 7) (5, 7, 9) (3, 5.66, 9)
A2 (5, 7, 9) (3, 5, 7) (3, 5, 7) (3, 5.66, 9)
A3 (3, 5, 7) (3, 5, 7) (3, 5, 7) (3, 5, 7)
C9
A1 (3, 5, 7) (3, 5, 7) (3, 5, 7) (3, 5, 7)
A2 (3, 5, 7) (1, 3, 5) (1, 3, 5) (1, 3.66, 7)
A3 (1, 3, 5) (1, 1, 3) (1, 1, 3) (1, 1.66, 5)
C10
A1 (5, 7, 9) (5, 7, 9) (7, 9, 9) (5, 7.66, 9)
A2 (7, 9, 9) (5, 7, 9) (7, 9, 9) (5, 8.33, 9)
A3 (5, 7, 9) (5, 7, 9) (5, 7, 9) (5, 7, 9)
C11
A1 (7, 9, 9) (5, 7, 9) (7, 9, 9) (5, 8.33, 9)
A2 (7, 9, 9) (5, 7, 9) (5, 7, 9) (5, 7.66, 9)
A3 (5, 7, 9) (7, 9, 9) (7, 9, 9) (5, 8.33, 9)
The normalized value of alternative A1 for criterion C4 (Costs) is given by
a
j
= min
i
(3, 3, 3) = 3
r
ij
=
_
3
9
,
3
6.33
,
3
3
_
= (0.33, 0.473, 1).
Likewise, we compute the normalized values of the alternatives for the remaining criteria. The normalized fuzzy decision
matrix for the three alternatives is presented in Table 8.
Then, the fuzzy weighteddecisionmatrix for the three alternatives is constructedusing Eq. (11). The r
ij
values fromTable 8
and w
j
values from Table 6 are used to compute the fuzzy weighted decision matrix for the alternatives. For example, for
Table 8
Normalized fuzzy decision matrix for alternatives.
Criteria a
j
c
j
Normalized ratings
A1 A2 A3
C1 5 9 (0.56, 0.926, 1) (0.56, 0.926, 1) (0.78, 1, 1)
C2 1 9 (0.56, 0.852, 1) (0.33, 0.629, 1) (0.11, 0.407, 0.78)
C3 3 9 (0.33, 0.629, 1) (0.33, 0.56, 0.78) (0.33, 0.703, 1)
C4 3 9 (0.33, 0.473, 1) (0.33, 0.53, 1) (0.33, 0.473, 1)
C5 1 9 (0.11, 0.157, 0.333) (0.11, 0.177, 0.33) (0.11, 0.177, 1)
C6 5 9 (0.56, 0.926, 1) (0.56, 0.926, 1) (0.56, 0.96, 1)
C7 3 9 (0.33, 0.703, 1) (0.33, 0.703, 1) (0.56, 0.78, 1)
C8 3 9 (0.33, 0.629, 1) (0.33, 0.629, 1) (0.33, 0.56, 0.78)
C9 1 7 (0.428, 0.714, 1) (0.14, 0.528, 1) (0.14, 0.24,0.71)
C10 5 9 (0.56, 0.85, 1) (0.56, 0.926, 1) (0.56, 0.78, 1)
C11 5 9 (0.56, 0.93, 1) (0.56, 0.85, 1) (0.56, 0.926, 1)
Table 9
Weighted normalized alternatives, FPIS and FNIS.
Criteria Alternatives FPIS (A
) FPNS (A
)
A1 A2 A3
C1 (3.89, 8.33, 9) (3.89, 8.33, 9) (5.44, 9, 9) (9, 9, 9) (3.89, 3.89, 3.89)
C2 (2.78, 7.09, 9) (1.67, 5.24, 9) (0.56, 3.38, 7) (9, 9, 9) (0.56, 0.56, 0.56)
C3 (1.67, 5.238, 9) (1.67, 4.63, 7) (1.67, 5.86, 9) (9, 9, 9) (1.67, 1.67, 1.67)
C4 (1.67, 3.947, 9) (1.67, 4.41, 9) (1.67, 3.95, 9) (9, 9, 9) (1.67, 1.67, 1.67)
C5 (0.33, 0.894, 3) (0.33, 1, 3) (0.33, 1, 9) (9, 9, 9) (0.33, 0.33, 0.33)
C6 (2.78, 7.709, 9) (2.77, 7.7, 9) (2.78, 7.71, 9) (9, 9, 9) (2.78, 2.78, 2.78)
C7 (1.67, 5.38, 9) (1.67, 5.38, 9) (2.78, 5.96, 9) (9, 9, 9) (1.67, 1.67, 1.67)
C8 (1, 3.98, 9) (1, 3.987, 9) (1, 3.52, 7) (9, 9, 9) (1, 1, 1)
C9 (2.14, 5.47, 9) (0.714, 4, 9) (0.7, 1.8, 6.4) (9, 9, 9) (0.71, 0.714, 0.714)
C10 (2.778, 7.09, 9) (2.778, 7.7, 9) (2.78, 6.48, 9) (9, 9, 9) (2.78, 2.78, 2.78)
C11 (3.89, 8.33, 9) (3.89, 7.6, 9) (3.89, 8.33, 9) (9, 9, 9) (3.89, 3.89, 3.89)
Table 10
Distances d
v
(A
i
, A
) and d
v
(A
i
., A
) for alternatives.
Criteria d
v
(A
1
, A
) d
v
(A
2
, A
) d
v
(A
3
, A
) d
v
(A
1
, A
) d
v
(A
2
, A
) d
v
(A
3
, A
)
C1 3.908 3.908 4.266 2.974 2.974 2.051
C2 6.296 5.611 4.063 3.754 4.753 5.961
C3 4.709 3.520 4.875 4.75 5.0596 4.602
C4 4.431 4.518 4.431 5.138 4.991 5.138
C5 1.572 1.586 5.015 7.673 7.636 6.806
C6 4.584 4.584 4.584 3.666 3.666 3.666
C7 4.747 4.747 4.946 4.715 4.715 3.995
C8 4.927 4.927 3.755 5.447 5.447 5.713
C9 5.576 5.146 3.359 4.448 5.579 6.496
C10 4.371 4.584 4.178 3.754 3.666 3.873
C11 3.908 3.667 3.908 2.974 3.048 2.974
alternative A1, the fuzzy weight for criterion C1 (Accessibility) is given by
v
ij
= (0.56, 0.926, 1)(.)(7, 9, 9) = (3.89, 8.33, 9).
Likewise, we compute the fuzzy weights of the three alternatives for the remaining criteria (Table 9). Then, we compute the
fuzzy positive ideal solution (A
) and the fuzzy negative ideal solutions (A
) using Eqs. (12)(13) for the three alternatives.

For example, for criterionC1 (Accessibility), A
= (9, 9, 9) andA
= (3.89, 3.89, 3.89). Similar computations are performed

for the remaining criteria. The results are presented in the last two columns of Table 9.
Then, we compute the distance d
v
(.) for each alternative from the fuzzy positive ideal matrix (A
) and fuzzy negative

ideal matrix (A
) using Eqs. (2), (12) and (13). For example, for alternative A1 and criterion C1, the distances d
v
(A
1
, A
) and
d
v
(A
1
, A
) are computed as follows:

d
v
(A
1
, A
) =
_
1
3
[(3.89 9)
2
+ (8.33 9)
2
+ (9 9)
2
] = 2.974
d
v
(A
1
, A
) =
_
1
3
[(3.89 3.89)
2
+ (8.33 3.89)
2
+ (9 3.89)
2
] = 3.907.
Likewise, we compute the distances for the remaining criteria for the three alternatives. The results are shown in Table 10.
Table 11
Closeness coefficients (CC
i
) of the three alternatives.
A1 A2 A3 Ranking order
d
i
49.033 46.803 47.385
A1 > A3 > A2 d
+
i
49.302 51.539 51.281
CC
i
0.498 0.475 0.4802
Then, we compute the distances d
i
and d
i
using Eqs. (14)(15). For example, for alternative A1 and criterion C1, the
distances d
i
and d
i
are given by
d
i
=
_
1
3
[(3.89 9)
2
+ (8.33 9)
2
+ (9 9)
2
] +
_
1
3
[(2.78 9)
2
+ (7.09 9)
2
+ (9 9)
2
] +
+
_
1
3
[(3.89 9)
2
+ (8.33 9)
2
+ (9 9)
2
] = 49.3
d
i
=
_
1
3
[(3.89 3.89)
2
+ (8.33 3.89)
2
+ (9 3.89)
2
] +
_
1
3
[(2.78 0.56)
2
+ (7.09 0.56)
2
+ (9 0.56)
2
]
+ +
_
1
3
[(3.89 3.89)
2
+ (8.33 3.89)
2
+ (9 3.89)
2
] = 49.03.
Using the distances d
i
and d
i
, we compute the closeness coefficient for the three alternatives using Eq. (16). For example,
for alternative A1, the closeness coefficient is given by
CC
i
= d
i
/(d
i
+ d
+
i
) = 49.03/(49.3 + 49.03) = 0.499.
Likewise, CC
i
is computed for the other two alternatives. The final results are shown in Table 11.
By comparing the CC
i
values of the three alternatives (Table 11), we find that A1 > A3 > A2. Therefore, location A1 is
selected as the best location for implementing the new urban distribution center for the logistics company.
4.1. Sensitivity analysis
To investigate the impact of criteria weights on the location selection of an urban distribution center, we conducted a
sensitivity analysis. 16 experiments were conducted. The details of the 16 experiments are presented in Table 12.
It can be seen in Table 12 that in the first five experiments, the weights of all criteria are set equal to (1, 1, 3), (1, 3, 5),
(3, 5, 7), (5, 7, 9) and (7, 9, 9). In experiments 615, the weight of one criterion is set as the highest and the remaining are set
to the lowest value. For example, in experiment 6, the criterion C1 has the highest weight =(7, 9, 9) whereas the remaining
criteria have weight = (1, 1, 3). In experiment 17, the weights of all the cost category criteria are set as the highest, that is,
criteria C3 and C4 at the highest weight =(7, 9, 9), and the weights of benefit category criteria (C1C2, C5C11) are set as the
lowest weight = (1, 1, 3). In experiment 18, the weight of the cost category criteria (C3, C4) is set as the lowest weight = (1,
1, 3) and the weights of the benefit category criteria (C1C2, C5C11) are set as the highest weight = (7, 9, 9).
The results of the sensitivity analysis are presented in Fig. 4. It can be seen that for all 18 experiments, location A1
has emerged as the best location in 14 experiments. In experiments 6, 10, 12 and 17, the location A3 has emerged as the
winner. Therefore, we can say that the location decision is relatively insensitive to benefit criteria weights; however when
the weights of cost criteria (C3, C4) are set as the highest, then the best solution is changed from A1 to A3.
5. Conclusion
In this paper, we present a multi-criteria decision making framework for location planning for urban distribution
centers under a fuzzy environment. The proposed approach comprises four steps. In step 1, we identify the criteria for
evaluating potential locations for distribution centers. These criteria are: Accessibility, Security, Connectivity to multimodal
transport, Costs, Environmental impact, Proximity to customers, Proximity to suppliers, Resource availability, Conformance
to sustainable freight regulations, Possibility of expansion, and Quality of service. In step 2, the potential locations for
implementing urban distribution centers are identified. In step 3, the decision makers provide ratings for the criteria and
the potential locations. Fuzzy TOPSIS is used to determine aggregate scores for all potential locations and the one with the
highest score is finally chosenfor implementation. Sensitivity analysis is performedto assess the influence of criteria weights
on the decision making process.
The strength of our work is the ability to deal with multiple criteria and model uncertainty in location planning for urban
distribution centers through the use of linguistic parameters and fuzzy theory. The proposed approach can be practically
applied by logistics operators in implementing new distribution centers, considering the sustainable freight regulations
proposed by municipal administrations.
Table 12
Experiments for sensitivity analysis.
Experiment number CC
i
Description
A1 A2 A3
1 0.416 0.405 0.410 All criteria weights = (1, 1, 3)
6 0.440 0.429 0.447 Weight of criteria 1 = (7, 9, 9)
Weight of remaining criteria = (1, 1, 3)
17 0.393 0.387 0.421 Weight of criteria 3 & 4 = (7, 9, 9)
18 0.540 0.504 0.491 Weight of criteria 3 & 4 = (1, 1, 3)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Experiment 1
Experiment 2
Experiment 3
Experiment 4
Experiment 5
Experiment 6
Experiment 7
Experiment 8
Experiment 9
Experiment 10
Experiment 11
Experiment 12
Experiment 13
Experiment 14
Experiment 15
Experiment 16
Experiment 17
Experiment 18
Sensitivity Analysis
A1
A2
A3
Fig. 4. Results of sensitivity analysis.
References
[1] L.A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets, Information and Control 8 (1965) 338353.
[2] R.E. Bellman, L.A. Zadeh, Decision making in a fuzzy environment, Management Science 17 (1970) 141164.
[3] H.J. Zimmermann, Fuzzy Set Theory and its Applications, fourth ed., Kluwer, Academic Publishers, Boston, 2001.
[4] L.A. Zadeh, The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning: I, II, Information Sciences 8 (1975) 199249, 301357.
[5] C.H. Aikens, Facility location models for distribution planning, European Journal of Operational Research 22 (1985) 263279.
[6] M.S. Daskin, Network and Discrete Location: Models, Algorithms, and Applications, in: Wiley-Interscience Series in Discrete Mathematics and
Optimization, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, New York, Brisbane, Toronto, Singapore, 1995.
[7] H.W. Hamacher, S. Nickel, Classification of location models, Location Science 6 (1998) 229242.
[8] A. Klose, A. Drexl, Facility location models for distribution system design, European Journal of Operational Research 162 (2005) 429.
[9] S. Agrawal, N. Raghavendra, M.K. Tiwari, S.K. Goyal, A hybrid Taguchi-immune approach to optimize an integrated supply chain design problem with
multiple shipping, European Journal of Operation Research 203 (1) (2010) 95106.
[10] Huijun Sun, Ziyou Gao, Jianjun Wu, A bi-level programming model and solution algorithm for the location of logistics distribution centers, Applied
Mathematical Modelling 32 (4) (2008) 610616.
[11] S.M. Lee, G.I. Green, C. Kim, A multiple criteria model for the locationallocation problem, Computers and Operations Research 8 (1981) 18.
[12] J. Puerto, F.R. Fernandez, Multicriteria mini-sum facility location problems, Journal of the Multicriteria Decision Analysis 8 (1999) 268280.
[13] G.T. Ross, R.M. Soland, A multicriteria approach to location of public facilities, European Journal of Operational Research 4 (1980) 307321.
[14] E. Erkut, A. Karagiannidis, G. Perkoulidis, S.A. Tjandra, A multicriteria facility location model for municipal solid waste management in North Greece,
European Journal of Operational Research 187 (3) (2008) 14021421.
[15] C. Carlsson, R. Fuller, Fuzzy multiple criteria decision making: recent developments, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 78 (1996) 139153.
[16] K. Anagnostopoulos, H. Doukas, J. Psarras, Alinguistic multicriteria analysis systemcombining fuzzy sets theory, ideal and anti-ideal points for location
site selection, Expert Systems with Applications 35 (4) (2008) 20412048.
[17] Hiroaki Ishii, Yung Lung Lee, Kuang Yih Yeh, Fuzzy facility location problemwith preference of candidate sites, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 158 (17) (2007)
19221930.
[18] Lixing Yang, Xiaoyu Ji, Ziyou Gao, Keping Li, Logistics distribution centers location problem and algorithm under fuzzy environment, Journal of
Computational and Applied Mathematics 208 (2) (2007) 303315.
[19] C. Kahraman, D. Ruan, I. Dogan, Fuzzy group decision-making for facility location selection, Information Sciences 157 (2003) 135153.
[20] G.S. Liang, M.J.J. Wang, A fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making method for facility site selection, International Journal of Production Research 29 (11)
(1991) 23132330.
[21] C.T. Chen, A fuzzy approach to select the location of the distribution center, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 118 (2001) 6573.
[22] S.Y. Chou, Y.H. Chang, C.Y. Shen, A fuzzy simple additive weighting system under group decision making for facility location selection with
objective/subjective attributes, European Journal of Operational Research 189 (1) (2008) 132145.
[23] T.C. Chu, Facility location selection using fuzzy TOPSIS under group decisions, International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based
Systems 10 (6) (2002) 687701.
[24] Kuo-Liang Lee, Shu-Chen Lin, A fuzzy quantified SWOT procedure for environmental evaluation of an international distribution center, Information
Sciences 178 (2) (2008) 531549.
[25] J.J. Buckley, Ranking alternatives using fuzzy numbers, Fuzzy Sets Systems 15 (1) (1985) 2131.
[26] D. Dubois, H. Prade, The use of fuzzy numbers in decision analysis, in: M.M. Gupta, E. Sanchez (Eds.), Fuzzy Information and Decision Processes,
North-Holland, 1982, pp. 309321.
[27] A. Kaufmann, M.M. Gupta, Introduction to Fuzzy Arithmetic: Theory and Application, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1991.
[28] G.R. Jahanshahloo, L.F. Hosseinzadeh, M. Izadikhah, Extension of the TOPSIS method for decision-making problems with fuzzy data, Applied
Mathematics and Computation 181 (2006) 15441551.
[29] S. Saghafian, S.R. Hejazi, Multi-criteria groupdecisionmaking using a modifiedfuzzy TOPSIS procedure, in: Proceedings of the International Conference
on Computational Intelligence for Modeling, Control and Automation, and International Conference on Intelligent Agents, Web Technologies and
Internet Commerce, IEEE, 2005.
[30] Y.J. Wang, H.S. Lee, Generalizing TOPSIS for fuzzy multicriteria group decision making, Computers and Mathematics with Applications 53 (2007)
17621772.
[31] D. Yong, Plant location selection based on fuzzy TOPSIS, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 28 (2006) 839844.

A Multi-Criteria Decision Making Approach For Location Planning

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

A Multi-Criteria Decision Making Approach For Location Planning

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Mathematical and Computer Modelling 53 (2011) 98109

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

D) and the criteria (

) and the fuzzy negative ideal

) simultaneously. The closeness coefficient of each alternative is calculated as

) and the fuzzy negative ideal solutions (A

) using Eqs. (12)(13) for the three alternatives.

= (3.89, 3.89, 3.89). Similar computations are performed

) and fuzzy negative

) are computed as follows:

Você também pode gostar