In the past two years, 2020-2022, the developing construction industry has been a huge issue according to the negative effect of Covid-19 with the increasing pandemic situation in cities and areas. In Covid-19 pandemic situation, the cement manufacturing industry has been crucial and needed more scrutiny. As cement is the second significant component after water in concrete and construction industry. Meanwhile, locating a cement plant in a special area of the city is challenging and affecting more by local communities and other involved environmental factors. The location selection decisions need to grow by environmental, economic, technical and social attributes. This study aims to present the site suitability decisions through a case study of locating a new manufacturing plant for cement production in Tehran surrounding, Iran. In this process, some required technical and tactical criteria are deserved for evaluating and suitability of the plant through decision-makers for cement manufacturing. All the feasible industrial alternative locations were evaluated under various criteria and regarding the Covid-19 pandemic’s negative impact to identify the most appropriate location for the cement industry. The authors proposed two Multi-Criteria Decision Attributes (MCDA) methods of MacBeth and COmplex PRoportional ASsessment (COPRAS) to evaluate and select the most suitable location for site suitability of the cement plant in this problem. Though the MacBeth method does not need to calculate weights of the Geographical Information System (GIS) criteria, the COPRAS method determined and used BWM (Best-Worst Method) as the weighing method. In sum, the comparison of the two methods was obtained according to the given results and ranks of volunteer cement suppliers for site suitability of the cement plant.
HaninkD.M.J.I.E.O.G.P., The earth, environment, technology: people, t. E., environment & technology, Industrial Location Theory (2016), 1–11.
2.
KamalahmadiM., ShekarianM. and MellatM., Parast, The impact of flexibility and redundancy on improving supply chain resilience to disruptions, International Journal of Production Research60(6) (2022), 1992–2020.
3.
Gholami-ZanjaniS.M., JabalameliM.S., KlibiW. and PishvaeeM.S., A robust location-inventory model for food supply chains operating under disruptions with ripple effects, International Journal of Production Research59(1) (2021), 301–324.
4.
DolguiA. and IvanovD., Ripple effect and supply chain disruption management: new trends and research directions, International Journal of Production Research59(1) (2021), 102–109.
5.
KilpatrickJ., BarterL. COVID-19: managing supply chain risk and disruption, Deloitte: Toronto, ON, Canada (2020).
6.
LeferinkB., BerhD. Sourcing decision making during a global crisis: the effect on the buyer-supplier relationship (2020).
7.
WangJ., XiX.C., QinL., ZhangY.O. and ZhaoW.S., Non-productive time optimization for 5-axis EDM drilling using HVNTS algorithm, International Journal of Production Research59(16) (2021), 5068–5082.
8.
LiS., HeY. and MinnerS., Dynamic compensation and contingent sourcing strategies for supply disruption, International Journal of Production Research59(5) (2021), 1511–1533.
9.
KumarS., SuhaibM., AsjadM., SalahB. Industry 4.0 and Its Suitability in Post COVID-19, Journal of Industrial Integration and Management (2022).
10.
YaoH., ZangC., ZuoX., XianY., LuY., HuangY., LiX. Tradeoff analysis of the pork supply and food security under the influence of African swine fever and the COVID-19 outbreak in (2022).
11.
China. Geography and Sustainability3(1), 32–43.
12.
IsrangkuraA., Marine resource recovery in Southern Thailand during COVID-19 and policy recommendations, Marine Policy137 (2022), 104972.
13.
WangB., FuJ., LuA. and YangJ., Suitability assessment of CD24 targeted-therapy in the cancer patients with COVID-19: Preliminary results from pan-cancer, Journal of Infection85(3) (2022), 334–363.
14.
Bin-NashwanS.A., Toward diffusion of e-Zakat initiatives amid the COVID-19 crisis and beyond, Foresight24(2) (2022), 141–158.
15.
JohnsenT.M., NorbergB.L., KristiansenE., ZanaboniP., AustadB., KroghF.H. and GetzL., Suitability of video consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown: cross-sectional survey among Norwegian general practitioners, Journal of Medical Internet Research23(2) (2021), e26433.
16.
WesthausS., WeberF.A., SchiwyS., LinnemannV., BrinkmannM., WideraM. and CiesekS., Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in raw and treated wastewater in Germany–suitability for COVID-19 surveillance and potential transmission risks, Science of The Total Environment751 (2021), 141750.
17.
LalP., KumarA., KumarS., KumariS., SaikiaP., DayanandanA. and KhanM.L., The dark cloud with a silver lining: Assessing the impact of the SARS COVID-19 pandemic on the global environment, Science of the Total Environment732 (2020), 139297.
18.
LinC.T. and TsaiM.C., Location choice for direct foreign investment in new hospitals in China by using ANP and TOPSIS, Quality and Quantity44(2) (2010), 375–390.
19.
MohammadiA., Determining appropriate zones for knowledge intensive firms site selection using Gis: case study of Tehran metropolitan area, International Journal of Applied Geospatial Research (IJAGR)10(1) (2019), 1–30.
20.
BanaC.A., ThusD., M A C B E T H - An Interactive Path Towards the Construction of Cardinal Value Functions1(4) (1994), 489–500.
21.
MahdirajiH.A., ArzaghiS., StauskisG. and ZavadskasE.K., A hybrid fuzzy BWM-COPRAS method for analyzing key factors of sustainable architecture, Sustainability (Switzerland)10(5) (2018), 1–26.
22.
AzimiS. and AzhdaryM., Moghaddam and S.A. Hashemi Monfared, Spatial assessment of the potential of groundwater quality using fuzzy AHP in GIS, Arabian Journal of Geosciences11(7) (2018).
23.
BielinskasV., BurinskienėM. and PodviezkoA., Choice of abandoned territories conversion scenario according to MCDA methods, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management24(1) (2018), 79–92.
24.
ÇetinkayaC., KabakM., ErbaşM. and ÖzceylanE., Evaluation of ecotourism sites: a GIS-based multicriteria decisionanalysis, Kybernetes47(8) (2018), 1664–1686.
25.
TosunÖ., Using MACBETH method for technology selection inproduction environment, American Journal of Data Mining andKnowledge Discovery2(1) (2017), 37–41.
26.
HatefiS.M., Strategic planning of urban transportation system based on sustainable development dimensions using an integrated SWOT and fuzzy COPRAS approach, Global Journal of Environmental Science and Management4(1) (2018), 99–112.
27.
KaracaC. and UlutaşA., s, G. Yamaner and A. Topal, The selection ofthe best olympic place for Turkey using an integrated mcdm model, Decision Science Letters8(1) (2019), 1–16.
28.
ShalamzariM.J., GholamiA., SigaroudiS.K., ShabaniA.A. and ArzaniH., Site selection for rainwater harvesting for wildlife using Multicriteria Evaluation (MCE) technique and GIS in the Kavir National Park, Iran, Journal of Rangeland Science8(1) (2018), 77–92.
29.
KabakM., Keskinİ. Hazardous Materials Warehouse Selection Based on GIS and MCDM, Arabian Journal for
Science and Engineering (2018), 1–10.
30.
AlqaderiM.B., EmarW. and SaraerehO.A., Concentrated solar power site suitability using GIS-MCDM technique taken UAE as a case study, International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications9(4) (2018).
31.
RodriguesC., RodriguesA.C., VilarinhoC., AlvesM., AlonsoJ.M. Spatial Multicriteria GIS-Based Analy-sis to Anaerobic Biogas Plant Location for Dairy Waste andWastewater Treatment and Energy Recovery (Barcelos, NW Portugal). In International Conference on Innovation, Engineering and Entrepreneurship (2018) (pp. 626–632). Springer, Cham.
32.
SaatsazM., MonsefI., RahmaniM. and GhodsA., Site suitability evaluation of an old operating landfill using AHP and GIS techniques and integrated hydrogeological and geophysical surveys, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment190(3) (2018).
33.
SinghL.K., JhaM.K. and ChowdaryV.M., Assessing the accuracy of GIS-based Multicriteria Decision Analysis approaches for mapping groundwater potential, Ecological Indicators91 (2018), 24–37.
34.
MahdyM. and BahajA.S., Multi criteria decision analysis for offshore wind energy potential in Egypt, Renewable Energy118 (2018), 278–289.
35.
ShokatiB., FeizizadehB. Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis of agro-ecological modeling for saffron plant culti- vation using GIS spatial decision-making methods, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management (2018), 1–17.
RezaeiJ., Best-worst multicriteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model, Omega (United Kingdom)64 (2016), 126–130.
38.
JiF., WuJ., ChiclanaF., WangS., FujitaH., Herrera-ViedmaE. The overlapping community driven feed-back mechanism to support consensus in social network group decision making, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Sys- tems (2023).
39.
LiW. Risk assessment of power systems: models, methods, and applications. John Wiley & Sons, 2014.
40.
SalimiN. and RezaeiJ., Evaluating firms’ R&D performance using best worst method, Evaluation and Program Planning66 (2018), 147–155.
41.
TianZ.P., WangJ.Q., ZhangH.Y. An inte-grated approach for failure mode and effects analysis based on fuzzy best-worst, relative Entropy, and VIKOR methods, Applied Soft Computing, 2018.
42.
RenJ., LiangH. and ChanF.T., Urban sewage sludge, sustainability, and transition for EcoCity: Multicriteria sustainability assessment of technologies based on best-worst method, Technological Forecasting and Social Change116 (2017), 29–39.
43.
AhmadW.N.K.W., RezaeiJ., SadaghianiS. and TavasszyL.A., Evaluation of the external forces affecting the sustainability of oil and gas supply chain using Best Worst Method, Journal of Cleaner Production153 (2017), 242–252.
44.
RezaeiJ., KothadiyaO., TavasszyL. and KroesenM., Quality assessment of airline baggage handling systems using SERVQUAL and BWM, Tourism Management66 (2018), 85–93.
45.
RezaeiJ., HemmesA. and TavasszyL., Multicriteria decision-making for complex bundling configurations in surface transportation of airfreight, Journal of Air Transport Management61 (2017), 95–105.
ChouY.C., YenH.Y., SunC.C. Sun, Evaluation of women in science and technology. In 2nd Int. conf. on Educ. Manag. Tech., Singapore (2011), pp. 139–43.
48.
BeheshtiM., MahdirajiH.A. and ZavadskasE.K., Strategy portfoliooptimisation: a copras G-modm hybrid approach, Transformationin Business & Economics15 (2016).
49.
AmoozadH., Mahdiraji, S. Arzaghi, G. Stauskis and E.K. Zavadskas, A hybrid fuzzy BWM-COPRAS method for analyzing key factors of sustainable architecture, Sustainability10(5) (2018), 1626.
50.
YazdaniM., JahanA. and ZavadskasE., Analysis in materialselection: influence of normalization tools on COPRAS-G, Economic Computation & Economic Cybernetics Studies &Research51(1) (2017).
51.
ValipourA., YahayaN., Md NoorN., AntuchevičienėJ. and TamošaitienėqJ., Hybrid SWARA-COPRAS method for risk assessment in deep foundation excavation project: An Iranian case study, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management23(4) (2017), 524–532.
52.
ZolfaniS.H., PourhosseinM., YazdaniM., ZavadskasE.K. Evaluating construction projects of hotels based on environmental sustainability with MCDM framework, Alexandria Engineering Journal, 2017.
53.
ChuJ. and SuY., The Application of TOPSIS Method in Selecting Fixed Seismic Shelter for Evacuation in Cities, Systems Engineering Procedia3 (2012), 391–397.
54.
FerreiraF.A.F. and SantosS.P., Two decades on the MacBeth approach: a bibliometric analysis, Annals of Operations Research296((1–2)) (2021), 901–925.
55.
FrankM.Z., YangK. Predicting Firm Profits: From Fama-MacBeth to Gradient Boosting, SSRN Electronic
Journal (2021).
56.
BotelhoJ.C., da SilvaP.G.M. and BelloL.A.L., Management of project portfolio in professional association: an approach using the MacBeth method/gerenciamento de portfolio de projetos em associacao sem fins lucrativos: uma abordagem utilizando o metodo MacBeth, Revista Exacta19(3) (2021), 587–610.
57.
da SilvaR.B., de MeloL.D.S.B., RodriguesE.C.C., ShimoishiJ.M., da Silva CostaP.H. Application of M-MacBeth software to evaluate the usability of the subway trains, Case Studies on Transport Policy (2022).
58.
MolemanM., MacBethF., WieringaS., ForlandF., ShawB. and Zuiderent-JerakT., From “getting things right” to “getting things right now”: Developing COVID-19 guidance under time pressure and knowledge uncertainty, Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice28(1) (2022), 49–56.
59.
Barbosa de SantisR., GolliatL. and Pestana de AguiarE., Multicriteria supplier selection using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process, Braz. J. Oper. Prod. Manag14 (2017), 428–437.
