Selecting a sustainable facility location is a crucial strategy for manufacturing companies to achieve long-term success in today’s competitive environment. Various quantitative and qualitative criteria with different importance in a multiple level structure must be considered and aggregated to assist the company in decision-making. How to determine these criteria weights and select the sustainable manufacturing facility locations have become research questions. To resolve this problem, this paper proposes a total distance ranking approach to fuzzy analytic hierarchical process (AHP)-based multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) method. Currently, the membership functions of fuzzy weighted ratings in the MCDM with a multilevel structure cannot be developed. A ranking method is needed to defuzzify those fuzzy numbers used for fuzzy AHP and qualitative criteria in the MCDM for better executing decision-making procedure. The total distance ranking method related to the centroid on x-axis, centroid on y-axis and the distances of centroids point to the two tangent lines of a fuzzy number are considered in the proposed ranking approach. Formulas of the proposed approach will be presented, and some properties will be investigated to derive formulas for trapezoidal and triangular fuzzy numbers. A comparison with relevant ranking methods will be made to show the advantages of the proposed ranking approach. The proposed ranking approach is then applied to defuzzify the fuzzy numbers used in fuzzy AHP and linguistic values under qualitative criteria to obtain the criteria weights under multi-level structure and crisp values under qualitative criteria, respectively. The final scores of alternatives can be obtained by aggregating crisp criteria values and their corresponding weights by simple additive weighting method to obtain the ranking result. A numerical example will be conducted to show the effectiveness of the proposed model. Finally, a comparison with Best-Worst method (BWM) will be presented to show the persuasiveness of the proposed method.
ChenL., OlhagerJ. and TangO., Manufacturing facility location and sustainability: A literature review and research agenda, International Journal of Production Economics149 (2014), 154–163.
2.
AthawaleV.M., ChatterjeeP. and ChakrabortyS., Decision making for facility location selection using PROMETHEE II method, International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering11(1/2) (2012), 16–30.
3.
AnvariS. and TurkayM., The facility location problem from the perspective of triple bottom line accounting of sustainability, International Journal of Production Research55(21) (2017), 6266–6287.
4.
BoutkhoumO., HanineM., AgoutiT. and TikniouineA., An improved hybrid multi-criteria/multidimensional model for strategic industrial location selection: Casablanca industrial zones as a case study, SpringerPlus4 (2015), 628.
5.
HeY., WangX., LinY., ZhouF. and ZhouL., Sustainable decision making for joint distribution center location choice, Transportation Research Part D55 (2017), 202–216.
6.
TajbakhshA. and ShamsiA., A facility location problem for sustainability-conscious power generation decision makers, Journal of Environmental Management230 (2019), 319–334.
7.
TerouhidS.A., RiesR. and FardM.M., Towards sustainable facility location –A literature review, Journal of Sustainable Development5(7) (2012), 18–34.
8.
SaatyT.L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (McGraw-Hill Book Co.: New York), (1980).
9.
SubramanianN. and RamanathanR., A review of applications of Analytic Hierarchy Process in operations management, International Journal of Production Economics138(2) (2012), 215–241.
10.
EmrouznejadA. and MarraM., The state of the art development of AHP –: a literature review with a social network analysis, International Journal of Production Research55(22) (2017), 6653–6675.
11.
LiuY., EckertC.M. and EarlC., A review of fuzzy AHP methods for decision-making with subjective judgements, Expert Systems with Applications161 (2020), 113738.
12.
ZadehL.A., Fuzzy sets, Information and Control8(3) (1965), 338–353.
13.
MardaniA., JusohA. and ZavadskasE.K., Fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making techniques and applications–Two decades review from 1994 to 2014, Expert systems with Applications42(8) (2015), 4126–4148.
14.
YaoJ.S. and WuK., Ranking fuzzy numbers based on decomposition principle and signed distance, Fuzzy Sets and Systems116(2) (2000), 275–288.
15.
WangY.M., YangJ.B., XuD.L. and ChinK.S., On the centroids of fuzzy numbers, Fuzzy Sets and Systems157(7) (2006), 919–926.
16.
DengY., ZhenfuZ. and QiL., Ranking fuzzy numbers with an area method using radius of gyration, Computers & Mathematics with Applications51(6-7) (2006), 1127–1136.
17.
AsadyB. and ZendehnamA., Ranking fuzzy numbers by distance minimization, Applied Mathematical Modelling31(11) (2007), 2589–2598.
18.
WeberA. UJber den Standort der lndustrien (1909), translated as AlfredWeber’s theory of the location of industries, University of Chicago, 1929, (1929).
19.
CurrentJ., MinH. and SchillingD., Multiobjective analysis of facility location decisions, European Journal of Operational Research49 (1990), 295–307.
20.
LiX., ZhaoZ., ZhuX. and WyattT., Covering models and optimization techniques for emergency response facility location and planning: a review, Mathematical Methods of Operations Research74(3) (2011), 281–310.
21.
ArabaniA.B. and FarahaniR.Z., Facility location dynamics: An overview of classifications and applications, Computers & Industrial Engineering62(1) (2012), 408–420.
22.
GülpınarN., PachamanovaD. and Canakoğlu,E., Robust strategies for facility location under uncertainty, European Journal of Operational Research225(1) (2013), 21–35.
23.
TrivediA. and SinghA., Facility location in humanitarian relief: A review, International Journal of Emergency Management14(3) (2018), 213–232.
24.
SchöbelA. Locating Dimensional Facilities in a Continuous Space, In Location science (pp. 143-184). Springer, Cham, (2019).
25.
EaganP.D. and JoeresE., Development of a facility-based environmental performance indicator related to sustainable development, Journal of Cleaner Production5(4) (1997), 269–278.
26.
GhasempourR., NazariM.A., EbrahimiM., AhmadiM.H. and HadiyantoH., Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Approach for Selecting Solar Plants Site and Technology: A Review, International Journal of Renewable Energy Development8(1) (2019).
27.
WangC., HuZ., XieM. and BianY., Sustainable facility location-allocation problem under uncertainty, Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience31(9) (2019), e4521.
28.
KhanjarpanahH. and JabbarzadehA., Sustainable wind plant location optimization using fuzzy cross-efficiency data envelopment analysis, Energy170 (2019), 1004–1018.
29.
FarahbakhshA. and ForghaniM.A., Sustainable location and route planning with GIS for waste sorting centers, case study: Kerman, Iran, Waste Management & Research37(3) (2019), 287–300.
30.
HrabecD., SomplékR., NevrlýV., ViktorinA., PluhéekM. and PopelaP., Sustainable waste-to-energy facility location: Influence of demand on energy sales, Energy207 (2020), 118257.
31.
BudakA., KayaI., KarasanA. and ErdoğanM., Real-time location systems selection by using a fuzzy MCDM approach: An application in humanitarian relief logistics, Applied Soft Computing92 (2020), 106322.
32.
TadićS., KrstićM., RosoV. and BrnjacN., Dry port terminal location selection by applying the hybrid grey MCDM model, Sustainability12(17) (2020), 6983.
33.
UlutasA., BaloF., SuaL., DemirE., TopalA. and JakovljevićV., A new integrated grey MCDM model: Case of warehouse location selection, Facta Universitatis Series: Mechanical Engineering19(3) (2021), 515–535.
34.
United Nations publication, Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies, Third Edition, (2007).
35.
Emeçş. and AkkayaG., Stochastic AHP and fuzzy VIKOR approach for warehouse location selection problem, Journal of Enterprise Information Management31(6) (2018), 950–962.
36.
ChuT.C. and VarmaR., Evaluating suppliers via a multiple levels multiple criteria decision making method under fuzzy environment, Computers and Industrial Engineering62 (2012), 653–660.
37.
TanJ., LiuY., SenapatiT., GargH., RongY. An extended MABAC method based on prospect theory with unknown weight information under Fermatean fuzzy environment for risk investment assessment in B&R, Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing (2022), 1–30.
38.
HussainA., WangH., GargH., UllahK. An Approach to Multi-attribute Decision Making Based on Intuitionistic Fuzzy Rough Aczel-Alsina Aggregation Operators, Journal of King Saud University-Science (2023), 102760.
39.
LiaoN., CaiQ., GargH., WeiG. and XuX., Novel gained and lost dominance score method based on cumulative prospect theory for group decision-making problems in probabilistic hesitant fuzzy environment, International Journal of Fuzzy Systems25(4) (2023), 1414–1428.
40.
ÖnütS., EfendigilT. and KaraS.S., A combined fuzzy MCDM approach for selecting shopping center site: An example from Istanbul, Turkey, Expert Systems with Applications37(3) (2010), 1973–1980.
41.
KahramanC., ÖztaysiB. and çevik OnarS., A comprehensive literature review of 50 years of fuzzy set theory, (sup1), International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems9 (2016), 3–24.
42.
GuptaP., MehlawatM.K. and GroverN., Intuitionistic fuzzy multi-attribute group decision-making with an application to plant location selection based on a new extended VIKOR method, Information Sciences370 (2016), 184–203.
43.
SaraviN.A., YazdanparastR., MomeniO., HeydarianD. and JolaiF., Location optimization of agricultural residues-based biomass plant using Z-number DEA, Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering12(1) (2018), 39–65.
44.
JiP., ZhangH.Y. and WangJ.Q., A projection-based outranking method with multi-hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets for hotel location selection, Cognitive Computation10(5) (2018), 737–751.
45.
NghiemT.B.H. and ChuT.C., Evaluating sustainable conceptual designs using an AHP-based ELECTRE I method, International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making20(4) (2021), 1121–1152.
46.
RussoR.F.S.M. and CamanhoR., Criteria in AHP: a systematic review of literature, Procedia Computer Science55 (2015), 1123–1132.
47.
ChanF.T.S., KumarN., TiwariM.K., LauH.C.W. and ChoyK.L., Global supplier selection: a fuzzy-AHP approach, (14), International Journal of Production Research46 (2008), 3825–3857.
48.
DuX. and WangZ., Optimizing monitoring locations using a combination of GIS and fuzzy multi criteria decision analysis, a case study from the Tomur World Natural Heritage site, Journal of Nature Conservation43 (2018), 67–74.
49.
CalabreseA., CostaR., LevialdiN. and MenichiniT., Integrating sustainability into strategic decision-making: A fuzzy AHP method for the selection of relevant sustainability issues, Technological Forecasting and Social Change139 (2019), 155–168.
50.
ChouY.C., YenH.Y., DangV.T. and SunC.C., Assessing the human resource in science and technology for Asian countries: Application of fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS, Symmetry11(2) (2019), 251.
51.
WangY., XuL. and SolangiY.A., Strategic renewable energy resources selection for Pakistan: Based on SWOT-Fuzzy AHP approach, Sustainable Cities and Society52 (2020), 101861.
52.
GulerD. and YomraliogluT., Suitable location selection for the electric vehicle fast charging station with AHP and fuzzy AHP methods using GIS, Annals of GIS26(2) (2020), 169–189.
53.
AlostaA., ElmansuriO. and BadiI., Resolving a location selection problem by means of an integrated AHP-RAFSI approach, Reports in Mechanical Engineering2(1) (2021), 135–142.
54.
AyyildizE., ErdoganM. and Taskin GumusA., A Pythagorean fuzzy number-based integration of AHP and WASPAS methods for refugee camp location selection problem: a real case study for Istanbul, Turkey, Neural Computing and Applications33(22) (2021), 15751–15768.
55.
GargH., MajumderP. and NathM., A hybrid trapezoidal fuzzy FUCOM-AHP approach and their application to identification of monkeypox risk factors, Computational and Applied Mathematics41(8) (2022), 379.
56.
KhanA.A., ShameemM., KumarR.R., HussainS. and YanX., Fuzzy AHP based prioritization and taxonomy of software process improvement success factors in global software development, Applied Soft Computing83 (2019), 105648.
57.
BoralS., HowardI., ChaturvediS.K., McKeeK. and NaikanV.N.A., An integrated approach for fuzzy failure modes and effects analysis using fuzzy AHP and fuzzy MAIRCA, Engineering Failure Analysis108 (2020), 104195.
58.
ChenS.M., A new method for tool steel materials selection under fuzzy environment, Fuzzy Sets and Systems92 (1997), 265–274.
59.
WangX. and KerreE.E., Reasonable properties for the ordering of fuzzy quantities (II), Fuzzy Sets and Systems118(3) (2001), 387–405.
60.
DengH., Comparing and ranking fuzzy numbers using ideal solutions, Applied Mathematical Modelling38(5-6) (2014), 1638–1646.
61.
ChengC.H., A new approach for ranking fuzzy numbers by distance method, Fuzzy Sets and Systems95(3) (1998), 307–317.
62.
ChenS.J. and ChenS.M., Fuzzy risk analysis based on the ranking of generalized trapezoidal fuzzy numbers, Applied Intelligence26(1) (2007), 1–11.
63.
WangZ.X., LiuY.J., FanZ.P. and FengB., Ranking L–R fuzzy number based on deviation degree, Information Sciences179(13) (2009), 2070–2077.
64.
AsadyB., The revised method of ranking LR fuzzy number based on deviation degree, Expert Systems with Applications37(7) (2010), 5056–5060.
65.
NejadA.M. and MashinchiM., Ranking fuzzy numbers based on the areas on the left and the right sides of fuzzy number, Computers & Mathematics with Applications61(2) (2011), 431–442.
66.
BivensI.C., What a tangent line is when it isn’t a limit, The College Mathematics Journal17(2) (1986), 133–143.
67.
KaufmannA., GuptaM.M. Introduction to fuzzy arithmetic: theory and application, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, (1991).
68.
DuboisD. and PradeH., Operations on fuzzy numbers, International Journal of Systems Science9(6) (1978), 613–626.
69.
VanP.J., Laarhoven and W. Pedrycz, A fuzzy extension of Saaty’s priority theory, Fuzzy sets and Systems11(1-3) (1983), 229–241.
70.
NghiemT.B.H. Decision making in sustainable operations management under AHP, BWM and ELECTRE under fuzzy environment, Dissertation of Ph.D., The Ph.D. Program in Business and Management, Southern Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taiwan (2022).
71.
ThurstonH.A., On the Definition of a Tangent-Line, The American Mathematical Monthly71(10) (1964), 1099–1103.
72.
GoetschelR.Jr. and VoxmanW., Elementary fuzzy calculus, Fuzzy Sets and Systems18(1) (1986), 31–43.
73.
TsienH.S. Collected Works of HS Tsien (1938–1956). Academic Press, (2012).
74.
HorwitzA., Reconstructing a function from its set of tangent lines, The American Mathematical Monthly96(9) (1989), 807–813.
75.
Al-ShatnawiA.M. and OmarK., Skew detection and correction technique for arabic document images based on centre of gravity, Journal of Computer Science5(5) (2009), 363.
76.
MøllerC. On the Definition of the Centre of Gravity of an Arbitrary Closed System in the Theory of Relativity, Communication of the Dublin Institute-Ser (A), (1949).
77.
Howard Anton Elementary Linear Algebra (7th ed.), John Wiley & Sons, (1994).
78.
MakkiA.A. and AbdulaalR.M., A Hybrid MCDM Approach Based on Fuzzy MEREC-G and Fuzzy RATMI, Mathematics11(17) (2023), 3773.
79.
MiX., TangM., LiaoH., ShenW. and LevB., The state-of-the-art survey on integrations and applications of the best worst method in decision making: Why, what, what for and what’s next? Omega87 (2019), 205–225.
RezaeiJ., Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model, Omega64 (2016), 126–130.
82.
AhmadiH.B., Kusi-SarpongS. and RezaeiJ., Assessing the social sustainability of supply chains using Best Worst Method, Resources, Conservation and Recycling126 (2017), 99–106.
83.
LiangF., BrunelliM. and RezaeiJ., Consistency issues in the best worst method: Measurements and thresholds, Omega96 (2020), 102175.
84.
KheybariS., KazemiM. and RezaeiJ., Bioethanol facility location selection using best-worst method, Applied Energy242 (2019), 612–623.
85.
RezaeiJ., A concentration ratio for nonlinear best worst method, International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making19(03) (2020), 891–907.
