Computers & Industrial Engineering 62 (2012) 408–420

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Computers & Industrial Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/caie

Survey

Facility location dynamics: An overview of classifications and applications

Alireza Boloori Arabani a, Reza Zanjirani Farahani b,⇑
a
Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 48202, USA
b
Department of Informatics and Operations Management, Kingston Business School, Kingston University, Kingston Hill, Kingston Upon Thames, Surrey KT2 7LB, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In order to modify the current facility or develop a new facility, the dynamics of facility location problems
Received 18 January 2011 (FLPs) ought to be taken into account so as to efficiently deal with changing parameters such as market
Received in revised form 6 July 2011 demand, internal and external factors, and populations. Since FLPs have a strategic or long-term essence,
Accepted 30 September 2011
the inherited uncertainty of future parameters must be incorporated in relevant models, so these models
Available online 8 October 2011
can be considered applicable and ready to implement. Furthermore, due to largely capital outlaid, loca-
tion or relocation of facilities is basically considered as a long-term planning. Hence, regarding the way in
Keywords:
which relevant criteria will change over time, decision makers not only are concerned about the opera-
Static facility location
Dynamic facility location
bility and profitability of facilities for an extended period, but also seek to robust locations fitting well
Location–relocation with variable demands. Concerning this fact, a trade-off should be set between benefits brought by facil-
Multi-period ity location changes and costs incurred by possible modifications. This review reports on literature point-
Time-dependent ing out some aspects and characteristics of the dynamics of FLPs. In fact, this paper aims not only to
Stochastic review most variants of these problems, but also to provide a broad overview of their mathematical for-
mulations as well as case studies that have been studied by the literature. Finally, based on classified
research works and available gaps in the literature, some possible research trends will be pointed out.
Crown Copyright Ó 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
A common application of FLPs includes a distributer choosing
where to site a distribution center in a supply chain, a manufac-
turer selecting a right location for placing its warehouse, or even
urban planners setting where to position a recreational facility;
however, newer applications of FLPs contain location of bank ac-
counts, database location in computer networks, vendor selection,
etc. In each of these cases and also many other instances of FLPs,
there will be no difficulty in dealing with system’s requirements
as long as factors and parameters are fixed and consistent with
the planning time horizon. Such condition usually happens in sta-
tic facility location problems (STFLPs). However, with the develop-
ment of FLPs, STFLPs might not fulfill the requirements of a system
because not only main parameters are prone to change during the
corresponding time horizon, but also is a considerable amount of
investment and capital required for developing or obtaining a
new facility. Since facility location decisions are particularly costly
and time-sensitive, they are expected to perform in the most ben-
eficial way in a long-term period. Therefore, in order to effectively
handle probable fluctuations in future as well as changing param-
eters, a dynamic model seems be indispensable.
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 (0)20 8417 5098; fax: +44 (0)20 8417 7026.
E-mail addresses: R.ZanjiraniFarahani@kingston.ac.uk, Zanjiranireza@gmail.com
(R.Z. Farahani).
From a general viewpoint, FLPs are defined in terms of two ele-
ments: space and time. By space, a planning area where facilities
are located is referred, and by time, the time of location (establish-
ing a new facility or modifying the existing facility) is indicated.
According to their essence, both of space and time can be analyzed
by discrete and continuous aspects. For example, if a discrete space
is considered, the location of a facility can just be sited in specific
points while in a continuous space, the facility is allowed to be si-
ted anywhere in the planning area. Furthermore, discrete time
means that the establishment of a new facility or the modification
of the existing facility is permitted in predetermined points of
time, whereas such restriction does not exist for continuous time.
Such classification forms the main part of this review paper in that
continuous-space, discrete-space, and network-space location
problems are addressed under the category of STFLPs. On the other
hand, time spans constitute the main parts of the dynamics of FLPs
which forms the most important part of this paper (as a comple-
mentary research addressing other aspects of facility location
dynamics, one can refer to Farahani, Abedian, & Sharahi, 2009).
Even though this paper addresses STFLPs, it puts the emphasis
on dynamic facility location problems (DFLPs) and their variants.
For example, one of these areas is stochastic facility location prob-
lems (SFLPs) dealing with the intrinsic uncertainty of models’
parameters. In fact, such problems try to identify appropriate loca-
tions in which any configuration of random parameters in a model
can be implemented. As other relevant areas, multi-period and

0360-8352/$ - see front matter Crown Copyright Ó 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cie.2011.09.018
 A. Boloori Arabani, R.Z. Farahani / Computers & Industrial Engineering 62 (2012) 408–420 409

single-period facility location problems (MPFLPs and SPFLPs) can
be considered as discrete time span and continuous time span,
respectively. In fact, in MPFLPs, a decision maker deals with chang-
ing parameters in each of several discrete-time planning horizons
while in single-period models there is just one such period. Fur-
thermore, another relevant area is the time-dependent facility
location problem (TDFLP) (sometimes called demand-dependent
problem), for which companies face with inconsistent demands
fluctuating all over a year. Regarding these models, one of the pri-
mary instances are companies selling seasonal products. As an-
other area, the relocation of facilities in a specific period, after
they have been located, can be taken into account; meanwhile, this
is called the facility location/relocation problem (FLRP). As a matter
of fact, it is quite common for a firm to consider relocating its facil-
ities over the time horizon without any potential disruption of
activities in the firm.
This review paper is categorized as follows. First, STFLPs are ad-
dressed in Section 2 consisted of three parts: continuous facility
location problems (CFLPs), discrete facility location problems (DIF-
LPs), and network facility location problems (NFLPs). Then, Sec-
tion 3 throws light on DFLPs. Regarding this section, the
following parts of dynamic models will be discussed: (1) dynamic
deterministic facility location problems (DDFLPs), (2) FLRPs, (3)
MPFLPs, (4) TDFLPs, (5) SFLPs which are relatively similar to prob-
abilistic facility location problems (PRFLPs), and (6) fuzzy facility
location problems (FFLPs). In Section 4, available literature will
be discussed and classified based on their performance measures
(the type of objective functions in corresponding problems). Sec-
tion 5 addresses the implementation of dynamic models in terms
of case studies and various applications. Moreover, Section 6 re-
veals some possible trends for future research, and finally, Section 7
presents the conclusion of the whole review paper.
2.1.1. Single facility location problem
In the SIFLP, a new facility should be located in a way such that
its distances with other facilities are minimized as much as possi-
ble; meanwhile, this distance can be defined in many terms such as
Euclidean distance and Manhattan distance. As one of the primary
models in SIFLPs, the generalized Weber problem can be pointed
out by which the site of a new facility is selected from a set of
existing facilities (Wesolowsky, 1973):
X
Minimize Z ¼ wi dðX; Pi Þ ð1Þ
i2F
According to this model, the total incurred costs are minimized,
for which F is the set of existing facilities; wi denotes a weight
transforming distances into costs for the existing facility i; X and
Pi respectively denote the positions of a new facility, identified
by the problem, and the existing facility i; hence, d(X, Pi) represents
the distance between these two positions.
Even though the Weber problem is the primary type of CFLPs,
for more advanced modifications of continuous problems (the
location of single line and multiple lines in the plane, half-line
facilities, hyperplanes and spheres, and polygonal curves), one
can refer to Diaz-Banez, Mesa, and Schobel (2004).
2.1.2. Multi-facility location problem
The MUFLP is quite similar to the SIFLP; however, instead of a
new facility, several new facilities must recognize their optimal
locations. Concerning the interaction of SIFLPs and MUFLPs, it
should be noted that each SIFLP can be transformed to its multi-
facility equivalent. For example, the foregoing Weber problem can
be considered with several facilities (Akyuz, Oncan, & Altnel, 2009):
XX
Minimize Z ¼ wij dðX j ; Pi Þ ð2Þ
i2F j2D

2. Static facility location problems
As mentioned before, the space issue is as much important as
the time issue in the analysis of FLPs. Due to this fact, the space is-
sue is essentially taken into account in STFLPs while the time issue
is generally discussed in DFLPs; therefore, it has been preferred to
discuss static problems in this section and address dynamic prob-
lems in the subsequent section.
Now, STFLPs are thrown light on in terms of CFLPs, DIFLPs, and
NFLPs. However, before going through details, it should be noted
that if the space issue is considered for a FLP, two things should
be identified: (1) customers with predetermined locations and
(2) facilities with locations to be specified based on concerned
objective function(s) (ReVelle, Eiselt, & Daskin, 2008). Therefore,
the shape or topography of potential facilities will be the primary
factor affecting models in continuous (plane) and discrete prob-
lems (Klose & Drexl, 2005).
As can be easily observed, Eq. (1) has been extended to Eq. (2),
in which D is the set of new facilities; wij denotes the weight be-
tween the existing facility i and new facility j; Xj and Pi respectively
denote the positions of new facility j, identified by the problem,
and the existing facility i; thus, d(Xj, Pi) represents the distance be-
tween these two positions. This model considers no weight be-
tween new facilities; however, another type of the MUFLP takes
these weights into account (Daneshzand & Shoeleh, 2009):
X XX
Minimize Z ¼ v ik dðX i ; X k Þ þ wij dðX j ; Pi Þ ð3Þ
i;k2D i2F j2D
i<k
where vik denotes the weight between new facility i and new
facility k.
For more details about SIFLPs and MUFLPs as well as other vari-
ants of these problems, one can refer to Sule (2001), Klamroth
(2002), Nickel and Puetro (2005), Daneshzand and Shoeleh
(2009), and Moradi and Bidkhori (2009).

2.1. Continuous facility location problems

2.1.3. Facility location–allocation problem
The FLAP not only looks for the optimal locations of facilities,
In CFLPs, facilities are generally supposed to be located any-
but also tries to optimally assign these facilities to customers in or-
where in a planning area. As a matter of fact, the performance of
der to fulfill their demands. The corresponding model of this prob-
such models is affected by two primary factors: (1) the continuous
lem is as follows (ReVelle & Swain, 1970):
solution space in which facilities are allowed to be sited on every XX
point in the plane and (2) distance between facilities and custom- Minimize Z ¼ Cði; jÞyij ð4Þ
ers is measured by means of corresponding distance criteria (Bal- i2D j2F

lou, 1968). As applications of continuous models, the location of Subject to :

video cameras or pollution censors to monitor certain environ- X
xj ¼ p ð5Þ
ments can be mentioned (ReVelle et al., 2008). j2F
From a general point of view, CFLPs can be divided into three X
yij ¼ 1 8i 2 D ð6Þ
categories: single-facility location problems (SIFLPs), multiple-
j2F
facility location problems (MUFLPs), and facility location–alloca-
tion problems (FLAPs) which will be explained as follows. xj P yij 8i 2 D; j 2 F ð7Þ
410 A. Boloori Arabani, R.Z. Farahani / Computers & Industrial Engineering 62 (2012) 408–420


1 if candidate node j includes a facility; 8j 2 F whether facility i is assigned to customer j or not (Eq. 13). Further-
xj ¼ ð8Þ
0 otherwise more, Eqs. (11) and (12) are the main constraints of assignment
problems identifying that each facility can serve just one customer,
8 and every customer can be served by just one facility.
< 1 if candidate node j
>
While this problem was formulated as an integer QAP, there are
yij ¼ gives service to demand node i; 8i 2 D; 8j 2 F
>
: other types of QAPs addressed by the literature such as Trace for-
0 otherwise mulation and other linearized versions of this problem. (For more
ð9Þ details, see Cela, 1998; Commander, 2003; Bayat & Sedghi, 2009.)
This problem minimizes the total costs incurred by the alloca-
tion of clients to facilities. Here, F is the set of candidate locations 2.2.2. Plant location problem
where facilities may be sited, and D is the set of demand nodes; Without loss of generality, a plant is referred to a set of facilities,
C(i, j) denotes the cost of assigning customer i to facility j; further- each of which can be a production, manufacturing, warehouse, or
more, Eq. (5) reveals that p facilities are exactly opened. Moreover, distribution facility. Therefore, PLPs have been applied for a wide
Eq. (6) certifies that each demand node is assigned, and constraint range of areas. Regarding this fact, the following instances can be
(7) indicates that open facilities are only allowed to be assigned to mentioned: plant location with procurement planning by Lim
demand nodes. Finally, constraints (8) and (9) set binary conditions and Kim (2001), a multi-commodity PLP with technology selection
for the variables of this model. by Dasci and Verter (2001), uncapacitated PLP by Fernandez and
In addition to the preceding model, there are other types of Puerto (2003), capacitated PLP with distribution by Berman and
location–allocation problems such as capacitated problems, in Drezner (2006), and PLP with service areas by Drezner, Drezner,
which the allocation of facilities to customers may be constrained and Salhi (2006).
due to the capacity limitation of facility, cost, time, etc. Further- However, the main framework of PLP, sometimes considered as
more, multi-commodity location–allocation problem can be taken the uncapacitated facility location problem, has the following for-
into account, in which several product items are handled instead of mulation (ReVelle et al., 2008):
a single product. X XX
Minimize Z ¼ C j xj þ a wj dði; jÞ yij ð14Þ
For further discussions regarding FLAPs, one can refer to Cooper j2F j2F i2D
(1963), Sule (2001), Nickel and Puetro (2005), Azarmand and
Neishabouri Jami (2009), and Akyuz et al. (2009). Similar to the foregoing model, this model minimizes the total
incurred costs. Moreover, candidate facility j incurs cost Cj per time
2.2. Discrete facility location problems unit; wj denotes a weight transforming distances into costs for the
existing facility j; d(i, j) is the distance from demand node i to can-
In DIFLPs there are two discrete sets of demands as well as can- didate facility j; in addition, a converts the demand-weighted total
didate locations. The reason for which demand or candidate loca- distance to cost units; furthermore, the constraints of this model
tions are considered as discrete parameters is that demands are are similar to constraints (6)–(9).
usually expected to be occurred at specific geographical points.
Quadratic assignment problem (QAP) and plant location problem 2.3. Network facility location problems
(PLP) are the most important elements of DIFLPs which will be ex-
plained as follows. If a location problem is configured in terms of a network, con-
sisted of nodes and links, demands typically arise on nodes; how-
ever, demands can also occur on links and nodes simultaneously.
2.2.1. Quadratic assignment problem
From a general point of view, the QAP is one of the branches of Based on this definition, NFLPs can be classified as five main cate-
gories: median problems, center problems, covering problems, hub
assignment problem, in which a set of people must be assigned to a
location problems (HULPs), and hierarchical location problems
set of jobs. However, in the area of FLPs, this problem is interpreted
(HILPs); meanwhile, it should be noted that the first problem
as the assignment of some facilities to some customers/clients. Fol-
(median) particularly optimizes weighted distance between de-
lowing this concept, Koopmans and Beckmann (1957) proposed
mand points of candidate locations. In fact, this model is capable
the integer QAP for the first time:
for dealing with cost minimization or profit maximization objec-
X
D X
D X
D X
D tives. However, such optimization approach is not of interest in
Minimize Z ¼ Cði; jÞ dðk; lÞ xik xjl ð10Þ center and covering problems, in which completely different crite-
i¼1 j¼1 k¼1 l¼1
ria are being applied. In addition to these three problems, HULPs
Subject to : and HILPs may be of interest in the analysis of NFLPs.
Xm
xij ¼ 1 j ¼ 1; . . . ; D ð11Þ
2.3.1. Median problem
i¼1
Xm As the most important part of median models, the p-median ex-
xij ¼ 1 i ¼ 1; . . . ; D ð12Þ tends the 1-median problem to find the most appropriate sites for
j¼1 p facilities and to identify facilities serving each demand node such
that the sum of weighted distances from each demand node to its
8
nearest facility is minimized. The formulation of p-median prob-
< 1 if facility i is assigned
>
xij ¼ to customer j; i; j ¼ 1; . . . ; D ð13Þ lem can be mentioned as follows (ReVelle et al., 2008):
>
: XX
0 otherwise Minimize Z ¼ wi dði; jÞ yij ð15Þ
i2D j2F
This model minimizes the total cost incurred by the assignment
of facilities to customers. Here, there are D facilities and D customers This model optimizes the weighted total distance, for which the
(their number should be equal); C(i, j) denotes that cost of assigning constraints of this model are similar to constraints (5)–(9). Further-
facility i to customer j; d(k, l) identifies the distance between facility more, wj and d(i, j) are alike those explained for the PLP in
k and customer l; xij represents an integer variable revealing Section 2.2.2.
 A. Boloori Arabani, R.Z. Farahani / Computers & Industrial Engineering 62 (2012) 408–420 411

X
Similar to PLPs, the median problem can be defined in terms of dði; jÞ yij  Z 6 0 8i 2 D ð23Þ
capacitated and uncapacitated problems. Regarding this point and j2F
other details of median problems, one can refer to Nickel and Pue-
This condition represents the maximum distance measured by
tro (2005) and Jamshidi (2009).
assignment variables.
Concerning more details about center problems and relevant
2.3.2. Covering problem explanations, one can refer to Daskin (1995), Nickel and Puetro
From a general point of view, in the covering problem, each cus- (2005), and Biazaran and SeyediNezhad (2009).
tomer can be served by each facility provided that the customer
and the facility are located in a specific distance called the coverage 2.3.4. Hub location problem
distance. Regarding this condition, the total covering problem was As one of the primary types of this problem, the p-hub problem
initially proposed by Toregas, Swain, ReVelle, and Bergman (1971): was initially proposed by O’Kelly (1987):
X !
Minimize Z ¼ xj ð16Þ XX X
j2F Minimize Z ¼ Cði; kÞ yik f ði; jÞ
i2D k2D j2F
Subject to : !
X XX X
xj P 1 8 i 2 D ð17Þ þ Cðk; iÞ yik f ði; jÞ
j2F C
k2D i2D j2F
XXXX
Regarding the objective function (Eq. 16) and in order to fulfill þB f ði; jÞ Cðk; lÞ yik yjl ð24Þ
customers’ orders, the number of required facilities is expected i2D j2F k2D l2D

to be minimized. By constraint (17), the number of candidate facil-

The objective function of this problem minimizes the total cost.
ity locations covering a demand node (from set Fc) cannot be lower
Furthermore, C(i, j) denotes the movement cost between nodes i
than 1; meanwhile, xj is set according to constraint (8).
and j; f(i, j) denotes the flow between nodes i and j; B is a discount
In an attempt to revise this condition, Church and ReVelle
factor. In addition, other constraints of this model are taken into
(1974) proposed the maximum covering problem as follows:
account as constraints (5)–(9).
X
Maximize Z ¼ wi zi ð18Þ For other varieties of HULPs as well as their vast applications,
i2D one can refer to Daskin (1995) and Hekmatfar and Pishvaee (2009).
Subject to :
X 2.3.5. Hierarchical location problem
zi  xj 6 0 8 i 2 D ð19Þ
Consider a distribution system in which there are several hier-
j2F C
archical facilities. In such a system, facilities on a higher level are
 able to select their locations independently from facilities in a low-
1 if demand node i is covered; 8i 2 D
zi ¼ ð20Þ er layer. However, an important criterion must be met in the fore-
0 otherwise going distribution network: ‘‘higher level nodes have a sufficiently
The number of covered demands should be maximized by the high capacity, and handling costs as well as transshipment costs,
model (Eq. 18). Furthermore, constraint (19) clarifies that if there associated with these nodes, are proportional to the amount of
is no facility at one of the candidate locations serving the node, de- items reloaded and shipped, respectively. Then, the transshipment
mand node i cannot be covered. Moreover, other constraints of this cost from the source to the destination is measured with regard to
model are set according to constraints (5) and (8). the cost of allotted demand. Otherwise, transshipments covering
Concerning more details about covering problems and their several stages of the distribution system have to be considered
variants (set covering, partial covering, etc.), one can refer to Fran- explicitly’’ (Klose & Drexl, 2005). According to Sahin and Sural
cis, McGinnis, and White (1992), Nickel and Puetro (2005), Fallah, (2007), one of the primitive types of HILPs is the problem with a
NaimiSadigh, and Aslanzadeh (2009). single-flow two-level system:
XX XX
Minimize Z ¼ f 1 ðj; kÞ Cðj; kÞ þ f 2 ði; jÞ Cði; jÞ ð25Þ
2.3.3. Center problem j k i j
In comparison with the covering problem, the center problem Subject to :
searches for the sites of locations to fulfill all demands; meanwhile, X
facilities should have the minimum distance with corresponding f1 ðj; kÞ ¼ dk 8k 2 D ð26Þ
j2F 1
demand points (Daskin, 1995). As one of the most significant types X X
of center problems, the vertex p-center problem is now pointed f2 ði; jÞ ¼ f1 ðj; kÞ 8j 2 F 1 ð27Þ
out, in which locations are only allowed to be considered at the i2F 2 k2D
X
nodes of a network (ReVelle et al., 2008): f1 ðj; kÞ 6 M j yj 8j 2 F 1 ð28Þ
k2D
Minimize Z ð21Þ X
f2 ði; jÞ 6 M i xi 8i 2 F 2 ð29Þ
Subject : j2F 1
X X
Z dði; jÞ yij P 0 8j 2 F ð22Þ yj ¼ p1 ð30Þ
j2F j2F 1
X
In this model, the maximal facility customer distance is mini- xi ¼ p2 ð31Þ
mized via the objective function as well as constraint (22). In addi- i2F 2

tion, other constraints of this model are considered as constraints 

1 if level 2 facility is located at node i; 8i 2 F 2
(5)–(9); furthermore, d(i, j) is alike that explained for the PLP in xi ¼ ð32Þ
Section 2.2.2. Regarding this model, it should be added that Hakimi 0 otherwise
(1964) presented a modified version of this model, called p-center 
1 if level 1 facility is located at node j; 8j 2 F 1
model, in which constraint (22) is replaced by the following yj ¼ ð33Þ
0 otherwise
constraint:
412 A. Boloori Arabani, R.Z. Farahani / Computers & Industrial Engineering 62 (2012) 408–420
Regarding this problem, two levels are considered for facilities
(level 1 and level 2) since the problem is hierarchical. f1(j, k) and
f2(i, j) respectively stand for the flow from facility node j and de-
mand node k (in level 1) and the flow from facility node i (at level
2) and facility node j (at level 1); in addition, the unit flow between
different levels of facilities incurs cost C(j, k) while C(i, j) is consid-
ered for flows between facilities at level 1 and demand nodes; fur-
thermore, F1 and F2 denote the set of candidate locations where
facilities may be sited for level 1 and level 2, respectively; p1 and
p2 are the number of facilities that are expected to be located/
opened at levels 1 and 2; Mj and Mi are the capacities of facilities
at levels 1 and 2, and dk is the demand placed by demand node k.
Concerning the model, the total demand weighted distance is
minimized (Eq. 25). Eq. (26) certifies that the demand of a demand
node is fulfilled. By constraint (27), the total demand of a level 1
facility is equal to the demand transferred from that facility to a
facility at other level. Furthermore, constraints (28) and (29) dem-
onstrate the capacity of facilities at two levels, and constraints (30)
and (31) are alike Eq. (5).
As other instances of HILPs and their applications, one can refer
to Moore and ReVelle (1982), Sahin and Sural (2007), and Bastani
and Kazemzadeh (2009).
Finally, an important point should be taken into account. Even
though a wide range of STFLPs were described in this section, they
are not limited to the abovementioned models, and others like
‘‘obnoxious facility location’’ and ‘‘competitive facility location’’
can be added which are more sophisticated. Since this paper fo-
cuses on dynamics of FLP rather than describing the models of this
area, it has been preferred not to mention the other models; mean-
while, interested reader can refer to Daskin (1995), Drezner (1995),
Drezner and Hamacher (2002), Farahani and Hekmatfar (2009),
Francis et al. (1992), Handler and Mirchandani (1979), Love, Mor-
ris, and Wesolowsky (1988), Mirchandani and Francis (1990), and
Nickel and Puetro (2005) to see many other models.
3. Dynamic facility location problems
In the previous section, STFLPs were thoroughly addressed;
however, the main focus of this review paper is on DFLPs. There-
fore, in the case of the interaction of STFLPs and DFLPs, an impor-
tant point should not be overlooked. All types of STFLPs can be
transformed to an equivalent problem to be discussed for DFLPs.
For example, the SIFLP can be transformed to the DDFLP to be ex-
plained later. Furthermore, it should be noted that all other types
of STFLPs (e.g. FLAP, QAP, PLP, etc.) can be remodeled as their dy-
namic counterparts.
In DFLPs, there are two main criteria affecting the decision to
identify the right location for a facility: (1) cost for which a
trade-off must be set between expenditures incurred by develop-
ing a new facility or revising the current facility and profits sup-
posed to be acquired as a result of such development. For such
facilities, several instances can be pointed out such as warehouses,
distribution centers, hospitals, recreation centers, schools, and de-
pots planned for being operable for decades and (2) time for which
the opening and closing of facilities are considered over the plan-
ning horizon. Furthermore, from another point of view, dynamic
models can be divided into two sub-categories: (1) explicitly dy-
namic models in which facilities are opened/closed at pre-specified
times and locations and (2) facilities are supposed to be opened
and remained open throughout the planning horizon at the begin-
ning of the horizon (implicitly dynamic models).
Although dynamic models might cover a wide variety of condi-
tions, looking at different areas of FLPs, one might arrive at differ-
ent notions of what dynamic means. For example, as described
before, dynamic models might have interaction with multi-period
models or time-dependent models. Therefore, this section throws
light on main elements of facility location dynamics consisted of
DDFLPs, FLRPs, MPFLPs, TDFLPs, SFLPs, PFLPs, and FFLPs.
3.1. Dynamic deterministic facility location problem
As indicated in Section 2, the generalized Weber problem is one
of the primary static models, in which a facility’s location should be
chosen from a set of m candidate points (costs measured based on
Eq. (1)). However, there might be some circumstances in which
effective parameters (e.g. population, market trends, distribution
costs, demand patterns, environmental factors, etc.) are being chan-
ged or modified over time. In fact, in the majority of real-world prob-
lems, these changes are usually occurred, for which an action must
be taken to revise, relocate, and adapt facilities. Therefore, rather
than static models, the emergence of dynamic models has been nec-
essary for such problems. In fact, the mentioned static model can be
modified to a dynamic deterministic model in which p time periods
are considered instead of a single period while in each of these peri-
ods, an optimal location is identified (Wesolowsky, 1973):
mp
X
p X X
p
Minimize Z ¼ fli ðxl ; yl Þ þ c l zl ð34Þ
l¼1 i¼1 l¼2
Subject to :

0 if dl1;l ¼ 0;
zl ¼ ðfor l ¼ 1; . . . ; pÞ ð35Þ
1 else if dl1;l > 0
Regarding Eq. (34), there are ml candidate destinations in period
l; fli(xl, yl) is the shipping cost between a facility located at fli(xl, yl)
and destination i; cl stands for the moving cost in period l; and dl1,l
is the distance by which the facility is transited in period l. Corre-
spondingly, Eq. (35) is affected by this distance.
3.2. Facility location–relocation problem
According to what explained about changing parameters and
uncertain decision variables in a FLP, it is common for a firm to
consider relocating its facilities (modifying the current facility)
over the planning time horizon because the main parameters of
models may change as a consequence of many factors such as
the interaction of customers and suppliers, distribution networks,
business climate, and government legislation.
From a general point of view, the relocation of a facility is primar-
ily concerned with the time of relocation, the number of relocation,
and the cost of relocation. In the case of relocation time, facilities’
relocation can be made at discrete or continuous time. For the for-
mer (discrete time), the relocation of one facility or several facilities
is allowed in definite, predetermined, and discrete points of time;
however, for the latter (continuous time), predetermined time
points for relocation do not exist, and these relocations are permis-
sible in any time during the planning horizon. Moreover, in the case
of relocation number, there can be a single relocation called server,
or multiple relocations (Farahani, Drezner, & Asgari, 2009). Finally,
for relocation cost, it is obvious that this cost depends particularly
on the current and future locations of that facility.
Additionally, Min and Melachrinoudis (1999) presumed that the
relocation decision of a facility is affected by many factors from
which the most significant ones are as follows: (1) cost of land
acquisition, zoning permits, building construction, moving equip-
ment and personnel, etc., (2) accessibility and quick delivery to
customers, (3) reachability to suppliers, (4) easy access to trans-
portation networks, (5) tax incentives, (6) quality of labor, and
(7) labor-management relations. Based on these factors, a
decision-maker might come up with the following concerns in
the relocation problem: in order to minimize cost, when and where
 A. Boloori Arabani, R.Z. Farahani / Computers & Industrial Engineering 62 (2012) 408–420
to relocate? How to gradually phase-out the existing facility with-
out violating firm’s activities? In a two-echelon entity, how to ful-
fill the company’s targets for short time periods? What is the time
schedule for relocating capacity? And, how cost minimization can
be compensated by reducing transit times and how to take advan-
tage of local incentives?
Finally, as one of the most important derivations of FLRPs, it
should be noted that Emergency Medical Services (EMSs) applies
this concept to ensure satisfactory response time to incidents. As
research papers in this area, Alanis, Ingolfsson, and Kolfal (2010)
can be pointed out analyzing an EMS system by a two-dimensional
Markov chain model. In addition, Harewood (2002) worked on a
case study of an ambulance deployment problem with multiple
objective functions (cost minimization and customer’s coverage
maximization), and Maxwell, Restrepo, Henderson, and Topaloglu
(2010) proposed a decision making problem of ambulance rede-
ployment solved by a dynamic programming method.
3.3. Multi-period (discrete time) vs. single-period (continuous time)
facility location problems
As already emphasized, decision makers should think about ro-
bust FLPs to be operable for a considerable time horizon which can
be defined in terms of multi-period time horizons. As a matter of
fact, by considering such a planning horizon, three achievements
can be obtained: (1) the appropriate timing of location decision,
(2) clarifying the best location(s), and (3) allowing a firm to better
anticipate any favorable/unfavorable fluctuations in market de-
mand in the corresponding time horizon, whereas single-period
models (continuous time horizon) do not show such characteristics
(Miller, Friesz, Tobin, & Kwon, 2007). Another advantage of multi-
period models over single-period models are its correspondence
with dynamic models because in each subordinate planning hori-
zon, a decision maker can deal with changing parameters more
effectively in comparison with single-period models in which the
decision maker is hardly able to cope with the uncertain essence
of changing parameters (Hale & Moberg, 2003; Klose & Drexl,
2005; Melo, Nickel, & Saldanha-da-Gama, 2009; ReVelle & Eiselt,
2005; Sahin & Sural, 2007; Snyder, 2006).
Based on Hormozi and Khumawala (1996), the opening/closing
of facilities can incur no cost (theoretically) or bring cost in addi-
tion to fixed cost; meanwhile, the second status is more applicable.
Regarding these two conditions, Albareda-Sambola, Fernández,
Hinojosa, and Puerto (2009) addressed another interpretation to
decide upon opening/closing of new/existing facilities. Therefore,
based on the multi-period nature of a model, some new decision
variables are added to the related problem such as transportation
plan and time-staged establishment of facilities.
Since multi-period models and location/relocation models, de-
scribed in the previous section, have many common elements,
many references considered them as a single model. For example,
Wesolowsky and Truscott (1975) proposed a model in which both
of the mentioned models were incorporated:
X
K X
n X
m X
K X
m
 
Minimize Z ¼ Aijk xijk þ c0ik y0ik þ c00ik y00ik
k¼1 j¼1 i¼1 k¼2 i¼1
Subject to :
Xm
xijk ¼ 1 8j; k
i¼1
Xn
xijk 6 nxiik 8i; k
j¼1
X
m
xiik ¼ G 8k
i¼1
413
X
m
y0ik 6 mk ; for k ¼ 2; . . . ; K ð40Þ
i¼1
xiik  xii;k1 þ y0ik  y00ik ¼ 0; for k ¼ 2; . . . ; K ð41Þ
8
< 1 if location node j gives service to demand
>
xijk ¼ node i in time span k; 8i; j; k ð42Þ
>
:
0 otherwise
8
< 1 if a facility is closed at node i
>
y0ik ¼ in time span k; 8i; k ð43Þ
>
:
0 otherwise
8
< 1 if a facility is erected at node i
>
y00ik ¼ in time span k; 8i; k ð44Þ
>
:
0 otherwise
In this model, there are m demand nodes (i = 1, . . . , m), n candi-
date locations (j = 1, . . . , n), and K periods (k = 1, . . . , K). In addition,
the assignment of a facility at node j to demand at node i in period
k incurs cost whose present value is Aijk; the removal and establish-
ment of a facility from/at node i in period k incurs cost whose pres-
ent value are c0ik and c00ik , respectively. Furthermore, the facility
location can be changed at most mk times.
Regarding the description of the model, Eq. (36) sets the objec-
tive function minimizing costs; meanwhile, it consists of three
types of cost: (1) cost of assigning all facilities to their correspond-
ing demand nodes, (2) the removal cost of facilities from their cur-
rent nodes, and (3) the establishment cost of new facilities to their
respective demand nodes. In addition, Eq. (37) clarifies that each
facility at node j cannot serve more than one demand node. Con-
straint (38) identifies that each facility at node j is allotted to de-
mand point i providing that point i is self-assigned. By Eq. (39), G
self-assignments are made from a set of m demand nodes. More-
over, the number of sites quitted is constrained by inequality 40.
Furthermore, Eq. (41) measures the cost of relocation based on
the second part of Eq. (36) (all these formulations are considered
in each period).
3.4. Time-dependent facility location problems
In comparison with classical STFLPs, DFLPs have many benefits
from which the existence of changing demands over time can be
mentioned. In fact, based on the type of a company’s activities, de-
mands may vary throughout the whole planning horizon. Regard-
ing this condition, there are some commodities with daily or
seasonal demand, for which the existence of dynamic models is
quite necessary. As an instance, for an area with a dynamically
increasing population, dynamic problems ought to be considered
for different sections of that area such as hospitals and fire stations.
As another example, in a tourist area where demand patterns have
distinguishing fluctuations, if there are many different facilities
such as stores and fire stations, two or more locations are supposed
ð36Þ to be operable at any specific time (according to the availability of
locations and the corresponding demand).
As one of the landmark research subjected to the case of time-
dependent models, Drezner and Wesolowsky (1991) can be re-
ð37Þ ferred who proposed a modified version of the Weber problem in
which not only demand points have a predictable manner (config-
ured by demand weights), but also is the location of a facility likely
ð38Þ to change one or more times during the planning horizon. Mean-
while, in comparison with primary approaches, the main contribu-
tion of their work is that their model conforms better to real
ð39Þ
applications such as seasonal demand. Generally, they put their
emphasis on identifying two things: the time of changing a
414 A. Boloori Arabani, R.Z. Farahani / Computers & Industrial Engineering 62 (2012) 408–420

facility’s location and the new place for locating the facility in each X
K

time interval. qk zk P a ð52Þ

k¼1
According to what Drezner and Wesolowsky (1991) and Farah-
ani, Drezner et al. (2009) discussed, the TDFLP can be represented Z  Rk þ mk ð1  zk Þ P 0; 8k ð53Þ
as follows:
( ) 
Z T Xm 1 if candidate node j includes a facility; 8j
xj ¼ ð54Þ
Minimize Z ¼ Fðx; yÞ ¼ wi ðtÞ dðX j ; Pi Þ dt 0 otherwise
0 i¼1
X
m Z T 8
¼ dðX j ; Pi Þ wi ðtÞ dt ð45Þ < 1 if facility node j gives service to demand node i
>
i¼1 0
yijk ¼ ðby scenario kÞ; 8i; j; k
>
:
In which F(x, y) is the cost in the finite period [0, T]; Moreover, 0 otherwise
the distance and weight parameters are alike those applied for ð55Þ
the Weber problem. Furthermore, to find the solution of this objec-
tive function, it is required to incorporate constant weights (wi) 8
into the model which is obtained as follows: < 1 if the maximum regret is minimized
>
Z T zk ¼ under a set including scenario k; 8k ð56Þ
>
:
Wi ¼ wi ðtÞ dt; i ¼ 1; . . . ; m ð46Þ 0 otherwise
0

As a result of this approach, the resulting model will be the We-
ber problem.
3.5. Stochastic, probabilistic, and fuzzy facility location problems
As indicated before, dynamic models mainly address the timing
of locating facilities in the planning time horizon; however, deter-
mining robust facility locations which conform to any customiza-
tion of models’ parameters is one of the critical objectives of
decision makers because in many facilities functioning over years
or decades, the main parameters such as cost, demand, and deliv-
ery time are likely to be uncertain during the planning horizon.
Therefore, models considering uncertainty would be of interest in
such conditions. According to what Owen and Daskin (1998) pro-
posed, this uncertainty might be come up by two reasons as either
future conditions incur planning uncertainty or absence of knowl-
edge for input parameters incurs the related uncertainty. To cope
with these reasons, two approaches are exploited as follows: (1)
Probabilistic(stochastic) approach in which variables and parame-
ters are taking probability distributions. Rosenhead, Elton, and
Gupta (1972) compared this condition to a risk situation in which
the values of uncertain parameters, having probability distribu-
tions, are primarily known by decision makers. (2) Scenario plan-
ning(robust) approach in which a set of possible future values are
taken into account for each parameter/ variable. Meanwhile, Ros-
enhead et al. (1972) categorized this condition as an uncertainty
situation in which parameters are uncertain, and information
about probabilities is even unavailable. Based on these two inter-
pretations, it can be stated that FLPs dealing with uncertainties
are classified as stochastic and robust FLPs (Snyder, 2006).
As one of the most fundamental types of stochastic models, one
can refer to the following stochastic problem applying a scenario
planning approach (Chen, Daskin, Shen, & Uryasev, 2006; Owen
& Daskin, 1998):
Minimize Z
Subject to :
Xn
xj ¼ F
j¼1
X
n
yijk ¼ 1; 8i; k
j¼1
xj P yijk ; 8i; j; k
!
X
m X
n Hierarchy Process (AHP), Fuzzy TOPSIS (the technique for order
Rk  bk
hik dijk yijk  V ¼ 0; 8k
i¼1 j¼1
In this model, there are m demand nodes (i = 1, . . . , m), n candi-
date locations (j = 1, . . . , n), and K possible scenarios (index
k = 1, . . . , K means that the corresponding parameter has been con-
sidered under scenario k). Moreover, hik is the demand of node i;
dijk is the distance from node i to candidate site j; there are F avail-
able facilities; V b k is the minimum weighted distance acquired by
scenario k (the best p-median value); qk is the probability of the
scenario k; Rk is the regret obtained by scenario k, for which there
is a large constant mk such that mk P Rk.
Concerning the foregoing description, the a-reliable Minimax
regret is minimized by Eq. (47). By Eq. (48), F facilities are exactly
supposed to be located. By Eq. (49), any demand node cannot be
linked to more than one facility (under each scenario). Constraint
(50) determines that if a facility is not located at node j, it cannot
satisfy the demand of node i under scenario k. Furthermore, the re-
gret attributed to scenario k is defined by Eq. (51). Inequality (52)
determines that the least possible probability of selecting scenarios
must be a. Moreover, the maximum regrets are identified by
inequality (53).
Furthermore, as other model dedicated to the case of SFLPs, the
work of Rosenthal, White, and Young (1978) can be mentioned in
which the location and relocation of facilities were considered
through stochastic processes:
" #
Xa
Minimize Z ¼ E fFðX t1 ; X t Þ þ GðX t ; At ÞgBt1 ð57Þ
t¼1
This objective tries to obtain the minimum expected present va-
lue of costs. Moreover, the location of a server and the location of a
customer (at time t) are identified by Xt and At, respectively.
N = {1, . . . , n} is the set of possible locations; Fand G are n  n matri-
ces respectively denoting the server relocation cost and the service
cost. (B stands for discount.) Moreover, demand nodes have a tran-
sition matrix denoted by P. Furthermore, this probabilistic process
evolves as follows: (1) (Xt, At1) is observed, and then,Xt is chosen;
ð47Þ (2) the relocations cost is measured in terms of f(Xt, At1); (3) the
chance probability At is observed; and (4) the service cost g(Xt, At)
is incurred.
ð48Þ Finally, the application of fuzzy approaches in FLPs has been
primarily divided into two categories: (1) the selection of facility
location (a decision making problem) and (2) the location–alloca-
ð49Þ tion problem (an optimization problem). For the first category,
the following strategies are generally applied (for more mathemat-
ð50Þ ical details, see Kahraman, Cebi, & Tuysuz, 2010): Fuzzy Analytic
ð51Þ preference by similarity to ideal solution) method, and Fuzzy infor-
mation axiom.
 A. Boloori Arabani, R.Z. Farahani / Computers & Industrial Engineering 62 (2012) 408–420 415

Furthermore, in the case of application of fuzzy logic in loca- insight of the types of methodologies that have been applied for
tion–allocation problems, one can refer to the following case solving these models. In the case of performance measures, the
(Wen & Iwamura, 2008a): majority of papers exploit a cost minimization objective consisting
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi of operational costs, transportation costs, material handling costs,
X
n X
m
Cðx; yÞ ¼ min zij ðxi  aj Þ2 þ ðyi  bj Þ2 ð58Þ etc. On the other hand, profit maximization is another objective
z2Z
i¼1 j¼1 that has received less attention in the literature. Furthermore,
the last category belongs to several (and possibly incompatible)
Subject to :
objectives that are considered as either multi-criteria or multi-
Xn
zij ¼ nj ; 8j ð59Þ objective optimization problems. Table 2 classifies the literature
i¼1 by their applied objective function/performance measure.
Xm Furthermore, in the case of solution methodologies, two general
zij 6 ui ; 8i ð60Þ classes are offered: general applied approaches and specially con-
j¼1 figured approaches, within each of which two further parts are
zij P 0; 8i; j ð61Þ considered. For example, a mathematical programming approach
solving a problem to optimality or near optimality is categorized
In this model, there are n facilities and m customers; further- as ‘‘general method, exact approach’’. Otherwise, if any solution ap-
more, (xi, yi) denotes the location of facility i(1 6 i 6 n); (aj, bj) proach does not find a feasible solution within 5% of the optimal
stands for the location of customer j(1 6 j 6 m); facility i, whose solution, that will be considered as ‘‘general method, heuristic ap-
capacity is ui, supplies zij units for customer j; and nj is the random proach’’. This procedure is the same for the second general class for
fuzzy demand of customer j. Concerning this model, the objective which two categories are also considered: ‘‘specific algorithm, ex-
function (Eq. 58) minimizes transportation costs. Eq. (59) identifies act approach’’ and ‘‘specific algorithm, heuristic approach’’. Table 3
that the whole amount supplied by all facilities to a specific cus- categorizes the literature according to their applied methodologies.
tomer must satisfy his/her demand. Moreover, constraint (60) re-
veals that the whole amount supplied by a facility cannot be
greater than its capacity.
5. Applications and case studies
Now, after addressing the foregoing types of DFLPs, Table 1
summarizes a group of papers and publications applied for each
In this section, some applications of DFLPs are addressed
of these problems. Regarding this classification, it should be noted
through Table 4. According to this table, two measures are consid-
that the corresponding papers have been sorted based on the year
ered to classify these applications: the type of context and the type
of their publication.
of industry. In the case of context, two sub-classes are further stud-
ied: (1) case studies referring to real-world applications of dynamic
4. The classification of optimization methods and models in industries and (2) industrial context standing for a study
methodologies being theoretically applied for a specific industry. In the case of the
type of industry, it should be observed that an industry for which
The purpose of this section is not only to give an overview of the the corresponding application comes from is studied.
types of applied objective functions measuring the performance of Even though the categorization of various applications is pre-
dynamic models and other relevant areas, but also to give an sented in this section, some potential areas of dynamic models

Table 1
A classification of literature in DFLPs.

Type of static problems Article

DDFLP Erlenkotter (1981) Puerto and Rodriguez-Chia (2006) Abravaya and Berend (2009)
Shulman (1991) Miller et al. (2007) Gebennini et al. (2009)
Daskin et al. (1992) Behmardi and Lee (2008) Bozkaya et al. (2010)
Saldanha-da-Gama and Captivo (1998) Thanh et al. (2008)
FLRP Frantzeskakis and Watson-Gandy (1989) Brotcorne et al. (2003) Dias et al. (2008)
Emamizadeh and Farahani (1997) Wang et al. (2003) Hinojosa et al. (2008)
Min and Melachrinoudis (1999) Melo et al. (2006) Farahani, Drezner et al. (2009)
Melachrinoudis and Min (2000) Dias et al. (2006) Koontz et al. (2009)
Gendreau et al. (2001) Dias et al. (2007a, 2007b) Naraharisetti and Karimi (2010)
MPFLP Sherali (1990) Canel et al. (2001) Acar et al. (2009)
Melachrinoudis et al. (1995) Gue (2003) Albareda-Sambola et al. (2009)
Chardaire et al. (1996) Romeijn and Morales (2004) Mahar et al. (2009)
Antunes and Peeters (2000) Gen and Syarif (2005) Alanis et al. (2010)
Hinojosa et al. (2000) Manzini and Gebennini (2008)
Antunes and Peeters (2001) Rajagopalan et al. (2008)
TDFLP Batta (1989) Drezner and Wesolowsky (1996) Averbakh et al. (2007)
Drezner and Wesolowsky (1991) Averbakh et al. (1998)
SFLP/PRFLP Chan et al. (2001) Romauch and Hartl (2005) Lee and Jeong (2009)
Killmer et al. (2001) Gabor and Van Ommeren (2006) Lin (2009)
Alonso-Ayuso et al. (2003) Snyder et al. (2007) Yao et al. (2010)
Averbakh (2003) Baron et al. (2008) Albareda-Sambola et al. (2011)
Aghezzaf (2005) Schütz et al. (2008) Wang et al. (2011)
FFLP Yang et al. (2007) Bashiri and Hosseininezhad (2009) Lau et al. (2010)
Chou et al. (2008) Esnaf and Küçükdeniz (2009) Moheb-Alizadeh et al. (2011)
Liu (2008) Liu and Tian (2009) Mokhtarian (2011)
Wen and Iwamura (2008b) Vahidnia et al. (2009) Wen and Kang (2011)
416 A. Boloori Arabani, R.Z. Farahani / Computers & Industrial Engineering 62 (2012) 408–420

Table 2
A classification of literature by their performance measures.

Type of objective function Article

Minimization (cost, time, distance, risk) Erlenkotter (1981) Aghezzaf (2005) Abravaya and Berend (2009)
Batta (1989) Gen and Syarif (2005) Acar et al. (2009)
Frantzeskakis and Watson-Gandy (1989) Romauch and Hartl (2005) Albareda-Sambola et al. (2009)
Drezner and Wesolowsky (1991) Dias et al. (2006) Esnaf and Küçükdeniz (2009)
Shulman (1991) Gabor and Van Ommeren (2006) Farahani, Drezner et al. (2009)
Chardaire et al. (1996) Melo et al. (2006) Gebennini et al. (2009)
Drezner and Wesolowsky (1996) Lee and Jeong (2009)
Emamizadeh and Farahani (1997) Averbakh et al. (2007) Lin (2009)
Averbakh et al. (1998) Dias et al. (2007a, 2007b) Liu and Tian (2009)
Saldanha-da-Gama and Captivo (1998) Snyder et al. (2007) Mahar et al. (2009)
Antunes and Peeters (2000) Baron et al. (2008) Alanis et al. (2010)
Hinojosa et al. (2000) Chou et al. (2008) Lau et al. (2010)
Canel et al. (2001) Hinojosa et al. (2008) Yao et al. (2010)
Chan et al. (2001) Manzini and Gebennini (2008) Albareda-Sambola et al. (2011)
Killmer et al. (2001) Schütz et al. (2008) Wen and Kang (2011)
Gue (2003) Thanh et al. (2008)
Romeijn and Morales (2004) Wen and Iwamura (2008b)
Maximization (profit, availability of services) Gendreau et al. (2001) Miller et al. (2007) Naraharisetti and Karimi (2010)
Alonso-Ayuso et al. (2003) Behmardi and Lee (2008)
Brotcorne et al. (2003) Bozkaya et al. (2010)
Multi-criteria/multi-objective Sherali (1990) Yang et al. (2007) Moheb-Alizadeh et al. (2011)
Melachrinoudis et al. (1995) Dias et al. (2008) Mokhtarian (2011)
Min and Melachrinoudis (1999) Bashiri and Hosseininezhad (2009) Wang et al. (2011)
Melachrinoudis and Min (2000) Vahidnia et al. (2009)

have not received much attention. Based on what Melo, Nickel, and
Saldanha-da-Gama (2006) proposed, there could be some reasons
for the lack of more applications: (1) decision makers are not pos-
sibly permitted to reveal the available data of a company; (2) deci-
sion support systems have difficulty in dealing with quantitative
models for which there is no specific method for implementing
these models in strategic planning; (3) based on the type of com-
pany, collecting data is relatively hard, or even no data is available;
and (4) preparation and aggregation of obtained data are difficult
and time-consuming based on the type of an industry.

Table 3
A classification of literature by their methodologies.

Type of methodology Article

General method/solver
Exact
Batta (1989) Alonso-Ayuso et al. (2003) Thanh et al. (2008)
Sherali (1990) Brotcorne et al. (2003) Acar et al. (2009)
Shulman (1991) Gue (2003) Bashiri and Hosseininezhad (2009)
Melachrinoudis et al. (1995) Aghezzaf (2005) Farahani, Drezner et al. (2009)
Emamizadeh and Farahani (1997) Melo et al. (2006) Gebennini et al. (2009)
Averbakh et al. (1998) Miller et al. (2007) Lee and Jeong (2009)
Antunes and Peeters (2000) Baron et al. (2008) Mahar et al. (2009)
Hinojosa et al. (2000) Hinojosa et al. (2008) Naraharisetti and Karimi (2010)
Melachrinoudis and Min (2000) Manzini and Gebennini (2008) Moheb-Alizadeh et al. (2011)
Killmer et al. (2001) Schütz et al. (2008)
Heuristic
Frantzeskakis and Watson-Gandy (1989) Albareda-Sambola et al. (2009) Albareda-Sambola et al. (2011)
Min and Melachrinoudis (1999) Vahidnia et al. (2009) Mokhtarian (2011)
Behmardi and Lee (2008) Alanis et al. (2010)

Specific algorithm
Exact
Drezner and Wesolowsky (1991) Gendreau et al. (2001) Abravaya and Berend (2009)
Chardaire et al. (1996) Gen and Syarif (2005) Esnaf and Küçükdeniz (2009)
Drezner and Wesolowsky (1996) Averbakh et al. (2007) Lau et al. (2010)
Saldanha-da-Gama and Captivo (1998) Snyder et al. (2007) Wen and Kang (2011)
Canel et al. (2001) Yang et al. (2007)
Chan et al. (2001) Wen and Iwamura (2008b)
Heuristic
Erlenkotter (1981) Gabor and Van Ommeren (2006) Lin (2009)
Antunes and Peeters (2001) Liu and Tian (2009)
Romeijn and Morales (2004) Dias et al. (2007a, 2007b) Bozkaya et al. (2010)
Romauch and Hartl (2005) Chou et al. (2008) Wang et al. (2011)
Dias et al. (2006) Dias et al. (2008) Yao et al. (2010)
 A. Boloori Arabani, R.Z. Farahani / Computers & Industrial Engineering 62 (2012) 408–420 417

Table 4  In order to effectively handle fluctuating demands received

Applications of DFLPs. from miscellaneous customers, industries and companies are
Article Type of context Area rapidly moving towards handling of several facilities instead
Case Industrial of a single facility. Even if some papers have dedicated their
study context subject to dynamic multi-facility location problems (Bashiri &
Killmer et al. (2001)
p
Albany, New York
Hosseininezhad, 2009; Chan, Carter, & Burnes, 2001; Current,
transportation Ratick, & ReVelle, 1997; Ghiani, Guerriero, & Musmanno,
p
Yao et al. (2010) Chemistry 2002; Pirkul & Jayaraman, 1998), more efforts should be made
industries to incorporate multiple facilities in such problems.
p
Antunes and Peeters (2000, Portuguese schools
 Since over the recent decade, many destructive happenings
2001)
p have been occurred in the world, disaster management is
Gendreau et al. (2001), Emergency medical
Harewood (2002), Brotcorne services another area that in the case of applications and case studies
et al. (2003), Alanis et al. could be addressed well by the literature. In fact, this category
(2010)
p can be divided into two sections: natural disaster (e.g. earth-
Manzini and Gebennini (2008) Electronic industries
Mamada et al. (2005)
p
Evacuation
quake, hurricane, Tsunami, etc.) or man-made disaster (e.g.
Management war, terrorist attack, etc.), for which one the most applicable
p
Yang et al. (2007)
p
Fire station systems problems is the FLRP. Regarding this problem, a state-of-the-
Vahidnia et al. (2009) Healthcare art approach can be to implement the effect of disaster on the
(Hospital) systems
p related problem. In this case, Snyder, Scaparra, Daskin, and
Gebennini et al. (2009) Italian electronics
industries Church (2006) presented an application of STFLPs in disaster
p
Melachrinoudis et al. (1995) Landfill industries and supply chain disruption; therefore, it can be generalized
p
Gue (2003) Military to dynamic circumstances.
p
Min and Melachrinoudis (1999), North-American
Melachrinoudis and Min manufacturing/
(2000) distribution system
Finally, in the case of performance measures (applied method-
p ologies) and proposed solution approaches, three points should
Schütz et al. (2008) Norwegian meat
p
industries be thrown light on:
Mokhtarian (2011) Oil industries
p
Koontz et al. (2009) Public library
 Concerning performance measures, it seems be necessary to
policies
p apply new objective functions rather than ordinary measures
Chardaire et al. (1996), Taheri Telecommunication
and Zomaya (2007) such as cost/distance minimization and profit maximization.
p
Esnaf and Küçükdeniz (2009) Turkeys road In fact, the vast majority of research works have put their
industries emphasis on these two measures; meanwhile, other perfor-
p
Bozkaya et al. (2010) Turkeys
transportation
mance measures have not been considerably applied. As a mat-
ter of fact, practical models, dealing with real-world problems,
have captured more attention in recent years because their
application can bring more benefits for companies. Hence, the
6. Future trends and prospects existence of more multi-criteria and multi-objective problems,
with more conflicting objectives, might be required. For exam-
In order to conduct further studies in the case of dynamics of ple, as a novel implementation of non-traditional objective
FLPs and based on available gaps in the literature, this section functions, Chen (2007) developed a multi-objective optimiza-
delivers some research trends. One of the areas requiring more tion problem for a dynamic model in which two objective func-
attention is how to combine continuous models with dynamic tions were taken into account: the minimization of the
problems. At the first glance, it might be perceived that the essence distance-based objective and the maximization of the adja-
of dynamic problems is based on discrete models while the inter- cency-based objective which are quite unique and has been
action of continuous models with dynamic problems can facilitate rarely addressed in the literature. From another point of view,
favorable results as discussed by Fleischer and Tardos (1998), Klose as the main parameters of dynamic problems change over the
and Drexl (2005), and Suzuki and Drezner (2009). planning time horizon, they are supposed to fulfill robustness
Furthermore, dynamic location problems can be studied in and reliability criteria; therefore, one of the primary perfor-
supply chain management (SCM) (Melo et al., 2009) from four mance measures can be a risk percentage incurred on the con-
aspects: cerned facility by the related model. For more novel objective
functions in a multi-objective facility location optimization
 Since SCM generally deals with collaborating domestic and problem, one can refer to Farahani, SteadieSeifi, and Asgari
international companies, the location problem in SCM has been (2010).
considered as one of the most influential issues. As a conse-  Traditionally, economic aspects of DFLPs are just considered by
quence, the dynamic types of FLPs (e.g. FLRP, SFLP, MPFLP, the literature (as described above). However, sustainability is
etc.) can follow this trend as well; meanwhile, it should be another emerging concept comprising social and environmental
noted that the relocation decision (as one type of these dynam- criteria other than economic ones. Therefore, sustainable facil-
ics) of a facility should be in accordance with the relocation ity location and consequently, sustainable dynamic facility loca-
decision of other related, yet differently owned facilities. tion can be taken into account for having sustainable locations.
 As one of the main elements of SCM, supply chain networks can Regarding this fact, a trade-off must be set between handling
be mentioned. Since these networks are highly applicable in changing parameters of the problem and maintaining the sus-
real-world problems, the implementation of these dynamics tainability of the location decision.
needs to be further studied by NFLPs. In fact, NFLPs not only  In the case of proposed solution approaches, it should be noted
can be integrated with SFLPs, but also might be analyzed from that those approaches finding exact solutions, either general
time/demand point of view, for which TDFLPs can be inserted solvers or specific algorithms, have not been considerably mod-
in network models. ified with the passage of time. Since the inherent complexity of
418 A. Boloori Arabani, R.Z. Farahani / Computers & Industrial Engineering 62 (2012) 408–420
FLPs (specifically dynamic problems) has been troublesome,
existing methods are no longer effective in dealing with these
problems (particularly large-scale problems). Hence, methods
bringing heuristic or metaheuristics solutions have been initi-
ated and established. For this category of methodologies, one
can refer to approaches proposed by the literature such as
genetic algorithm (GA), simulated annealing (SA), ant colony
optimization (ACO), and particle swarm optimization (PSO).
However, they may not be sufficient in dealing with dynamic
problems, and hence, more state-of-the-art hybrid techniques
can be applied in upcoming research works.
7. Conclusions
In this review paper, it has been attempted to prepare a passage
of literature of DFLPs and other pertinent concepts particularly the
most recent literature on these cases. For this purpose, all reviewed
papers have been classified according to their field of study. In
addition, objective functions (interpreted as performance mea-
sures) and optimization models and techniques have been ana-
lyzed and categorized based on their exact or heuristic essence.
Furthermore, some applications have been discussed based on cor-
responding case studies and industrial contexts. Moreover, accord-
ing to what have been gathered in this review paper and also
available gaps in the literature, some possible trends for future
works have been presented, for which practitioners and researches
can come up with novel and contributing achievements.
Finally, based on the whole contents of this review paper, a pri-
mary conclusion can be made. Dynamic models have a leading role
in strategic planning and decision making for FLPs, and they are
gradually becoming more important due to their vast applicability.
Hence, in order to fulfill many necessities of real-world problems
concurrently, these models are supposed to be provided with more
comprehensive and flexible approaches. In other words, in compar-
ison with what have been addressed in this review paper, there are
still possible opportunities by which new models (as well as solu-
tion techniques) can be advanced and developed.
Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful for the three anonymous referees for
their constructive comments which improved the paper at all.
References
Abravaya, S., & Berend, D. (2009). Multi-dimensional dynamic facility location and
fast computation at query points. Information Processing Letters, 109(8),
386–390.
Acar, Y., Kadipasaoglu, S. N., & Day, J. M. (2009). Incorporating uncertainty in
optimal decision making: Integrating mixed integer programming and
simulation to solve combinatorial problems. Computers and Industrial
Engineering, 56(1), 106–112.
Aghezzaf, E. (2005). Capacity planning and warehouse location in supply chains
with uncertain demands. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 56,
453–462.
Akyuz, M. H., Oncan, T., & Altnel, I. K. (2009). The multi-commodity capacitated
multi-facility Weber problem: Heuristics and confidence intervals. In
Proceedings of the international multiconference of engineers and computer
scientists (Vol. 2).
Alanis, R., Ingolfsson, A., & Kolfal, B. (2010). A Markov chain model for an EMS system
with repositioning. <http://apps.business.ualberta.ca/aingolfsson/documents/
PDF/Repositioning.pdf>.
Albareda-Sambola, M., Fernández, E., Hinojosa, Y., & Puerto, J. (2009). The multi-
period incremental service facility location problem. Computers and Operations
Research, 36(5), 1356–1375.
Albareda-Sambola, M., Fernández, E., & Saldanha-da-Gama, F. (2011). The facility
location problem with Bernoulli demands. Omega, 39(3), 335–345.
Alonso-Ayuso, A., Escudero, L. F., Garin, A., Ortuno, M. T., & Perez, G. (2003). An
approach for strategic supply chain planning under uncertainty based on
stochastic 0-1 programming. Journal of Global Optimization, 26(1), 97–124.
Antunes, A., & Peeters, D. (2000). A dynamic optimization model for school network
planning. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 34(2), 101–120.
Antunes, A., & Peeters, D. (2001). On solving complex multi-period location models
using simulated annealing. European Journal of Operational Research, 130(1),
190–201.
Averbakh, I. (2003). Complexity of robust single facility location problems on
networks with uncertain edge lengths. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 127(3),
505–522.
Averbakh, I., Berman, O., Drezner, Z., & Wesolowsky, G. O. (1998). The plant location
problem with demand-dependent setup costs and centralized allocation.
European Journal of Operational Research, 111(3), 543–554.
Averbakh, I., Berman, O., Drezner, Z., & Wesolowsky, G. O. (2007). The uncapacitated
facility location problem with demand-dependent setup and service costs and
customer-choice allocation. European Journal of Operational Research, 179(3),
956–967.
Azarmand, Z., & Neishabouri Jami, E. (2009). Location allocation problem. In R. Z.
Farahani & M. Hekmatfar (Eds.), Facility location: Concepts, models, algorithms
and case studies. Contributions to management science. Heidelberg: Physica-
Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-7908-2151-2 11.
Ballou, R. H. (1968). Dynamic warehouse location analysis. Journal of Marketing
Research, 5(3), 271–276.
Baron, O., Berman, O., & Krass, D. (2008). Facility location with stochastic demand
and constraints on waiting time. Manufacturing and Service Operations
Management, 10(3), 484–505.
Bashiri, M., & Hosseininezhad, S. J. (2009). A fuzzy group decision support system
for multi-facility location problems. International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, 42(5-6), 533–543.
Bastani, S., & Kazemzadeh, N. (2009). Hierarchical location problem. In R. Z.
Farahani & M. Hekmatfar (Eds.), Facility location: Concepts, models, algorithms
and case studies. Contributions to management science. Heidelberg: Physica-
Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-7908-2151-2 11.
Batta, A. (1989). A queuing location model with expected service time-dependent
queuing disciplines. European Journal of Operational Research, 39(2), 192–205.
Bayat, M., & Sedghi, M. (2009). Quadratic assignment problem. In R. Z. Farahani & M.
Hekmatfar (Eds.), Facility location: Concepts, models, algorithms and case studies.
Contributions to management science. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag. doi:10.1007/
978-3-7908-2151-2 11.
Behmardi, B., & Lee, S. (2008). Dynamic multi-commodity capacitated facility
location problem in supply chain. In J. Fowler, & S. Mason, (Eds.) Proceedings of
the 2008 industrial engineering research conference (pp. 1914–1919).
Berman, O., & Drezner, Z. (2006). Location of congested capacitated facilities with
distance-sensitive demand. IIE Transactions, 38, 213–221.
Biazaran, M., & SeyediNezhad, B. (2009). Center problem. In R. Z. Farahani & M.
Hekmatfar (Eds.), Facility location: Concepts, models, algorithms and case studies.
Contributions to management science. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag. doi:10.1007/
978-3-7908-2151-2 11.
Bozkaya, B., Yanik, S., & Balcisoy, S. (2010). A GIS-based optimization framework for
competitive multi-facility location-routing problem. Networks and Spatial
Economics, 10(3), 297–320.
Brotcorne, L., Laporte, G., & Semet, F. (2003). Ambulance location and relocation
models. European Journal of Operational Research, 147(3), 451–463.
Canel, C., Khumawala, B. M., Law, J., & Loh, A. (2001). An algorithm for the
capacitated, multi-commodity multi-period facility location problem.
Computers and Operations Research, 28(5), 411–427.
Cela, E. (1998). The quadratic assignment problem: Theory and algorithms. Dordrecht,
the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Chan, Y., Carter, W. B., & Burnes, M. D. (2001). A multiple-depot, multiple-vehicle,
location-routing problem with stochastically processed demands. Computers
and Operations Research, 28(8), 803–826.
Chardaire, P., Sutter, A., & Costa, M. C. (1996). Solving the dynamic facility location
problem. Networks, 28(2), 117–124.
Chen, G. Y. H. (2007). Multi-objective evaluation of dynamic facility layout using ant
colony optimization. Ph.D. dissertation. USA: The University of Texas at
Arlington.
Chen, G., Daskin, M. S., Shen, Z. J., & Uryasev, S. (2006). The a-reliable mean-excess
regret model for stochastic facility location. University of Florida, Department of
Industrial and Systems Engineering. doi:10.1002/nav.20180.
Chou, S. Y., Chang, Y. H., & Shen, C. Y. (2008). 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), 132–145.
Church, R., & ReVelle, C. (1974). The maximal covering location problem. Papers of
the Regional Science Association, 32, 101–118.
Commander, C. W. (2003). A survey of the quadratic assignment problem, with
applications. Ph.D. dissertation. The University of Florida.
Cooper, L. (1963). Location–allocation problems. Operations Research, 11(3),
331–343.
Current, J., Ratick, S., & ReVelle, C. (1997). Dynamic facility location when the total
number of facilities is uncertain: A decision analysis approach. European Journal
of Operational Research, 110(3), 597–609.
Daneshzand, F., & Shoeleh, R. (2009). Multifacility location problem. In R. Z.
Farahani & M. Hekmatfar (Eds.), Facility location: Concepts, models, algorithms
and case studies. Contributions to management science. Heidelberg: Physica-
Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-7908-2151-2 11.
Dasci, A., & Verter, V. (2001). The plant location and technology acquisition
problem. IIE Transactions, 33(11), 963–974.
Daskin, M. S. (1995). Network and discrete location: Models, algorithms, and
applications. New York, NY: Wiley.
 A. Boloori Arabani, R.Z. Farahani / Computers & Industrial Engineering 62 (2012) 408–420
Daskin, M. S., Hopp, W. J., & Medina, B. (1992). Forecast horizon and dynamic facility
location planning. Annals of Operations Research, 40(1), 125–151.
Dias, J., Captivo, M. E., & Climaco, J. (2006). Capacitated dynamic location problems
with opening, closure and reopening of facilities. IMA Journal of Management
Mathematics, 17(4), 317–348.
Dias, J., Captivo, M. E., & Clı́maco, J. (2007a). Dynamic multi-level capacitated and
uncapacitated location problems: An approach using primal–dual heuristics.
Operational Research, 7(3), 345–379.
Dias, J., Captivo, M. E., & Clı́maco, J. (2007b). Efficient primal–dual heuristic for a
dynamic location problem. Computers and Operations Research, 34(6),
1800–1823.
Dias, J., Captivo, M. E., & Clı́maco, J. (2008). A memetic algorithm for multi-objective
dynamic location problems. Journal of Global Optimization, 42(2), 221–253.
Diaz-Banez, J. M., Mesa, J. A., & Schobel, A. (2004). Continuous location of
dimensional structures. European Journal of Operational Research, 152(1), 22–44.
Drezner, Z. (1995). Facility location: A survey of application and methods. Berlin:
Springer-Verlag.
Drezner, T., Drezner, Z., & Salhi, S. (2006). A multi-objective heuristic approach for
the casualty collection points location problem. Journal of the Operational
Research Society, 57, 727–734.
Drezner, Z., & Hamacher, H. (2002). Facility location: Applications and theory. Berlin:
Springer-Verlag.
Drezner, Z., & Wesolowsky, G. O. (1991). Facility location when demand is time
dependent. Naval Research Logistics, 38(5), 763–777.
Drezner, Z., & Wesolowsky, G. O. (1996). Location–allocation on a line with
demand-dependent costs. European Journal of Operational Research, 90(3),
444–450.
Emamizadeh, B., & Farahani, R. Z. (1997). Facility location and relocation in global
manufacturing strategy. In FAIM conference, Middlesbrough, England.
Erlenkotter, D. (1981). A comparative study of approaches to dynamic location
problems. European Journal of Operational Research, 6(2), 133–143.
Esnaf, Sß., & Küçükdeniz, T. (2009). A fuzzy clustering-based hybrid method for a
multi-facility location problem. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 20(2),
259–265.
Fallah, H., NaimiSadigh, A., & Aslanzadeh, M. (2009). Covering problem. In R. Z.
Farahani & M. Hekmatfar (Eds.), Facility location: Concepts, models, algorithms
and case studies. Contributions to management science. Heidelberg: Physica-
Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-7908-2151-2 11.
Farahani, R. Z., Abedian, M., & Sharahi, S. (2009). Dynamic facility location problem.
In R. Z. Farahani & M. Hekmatfar (Eds.), Facility location: Concepts, models,
algorithms and case studies. Contributions to management science. Springer-
Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-7908-2151-2-15.
Farahani, R. Z., Drezner, Z., & Asgari, N. (2009). Single facility location and relocation
problem with time-dependent weights and discrete planning horizon. Annals of
Operations Research, 167(1), 353–368.
Farahani, R. Z., & Hekmatfar, M. (2009). Facility location: Concepts, models, algorithms
and case studies. Contributions to management science. Heidelberg: Physica-
Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-7908-2151-2 11.
Farahani, R. Z., SteadieSeifi, M., & Asgari, N. (2010). Multiple criteria facility location
problems: A survey. Applied Mathematical Modeling, 34, 1689–1709.
Fernandez, E., & Puerto, J. (2003). Multi-objective solution of the uncapacitated
plant location problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 145(3),
509–529.
Fleischer, L., & Tardos, É. (1998). Efficient continuous-time dynamic network flow
algorithms. Operations Research Letters, 23(3-5), 71–80.
Francis, R. L., McGinnis, L. F., & White, J. A. (1992). Facility layout and location: An
analytical approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Frantzeskakis, M., & Watson-Gandy, C. D. T. (1989). The use of state space relaxation
for the dynamic facility location problem. Annals of Operations Research, 18(1),
187–211.
Gabor, A. F., & Van Ommeren, J. C. W. (2006). An approximation algorithm for a
facility location problem with stochastic demands and inventories. Operations
Research Letters, 34(3), 257–263.
Gebennini, E., Gamberini, R., & Manzini, R. (2009). An integrated production–
distribution model for the dynamic location and allocation problem with safety
stock optimization. International Journal of Production Economics, 122(1),
286–304.
Gendreau, M., Laporte, G., & Semet, F. (2001). A dynamic model and parallel tabu
search heuristic for real time ambulance relocation. Parallel Computing, 27(12),
1641–1653.
Gen, M., & Syarif, A. (2005). Hybrid genetic algorithm for multi-time period
production/distribution planning. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 48(4),
799–809.
Ghiani, G., Guerriero, F., & Musmanno, R. (2002). The capacitated plant location
problem with multiple facilities in the same site. Computer and Operations
Research, 29(13), 1903–1912.
Gue, K. R. (2003). A dynamic distribution model for combat logistics. Computers and
Operations Research, 30(3), 367–381.
Hakimi, S. L. (1964). Optimum locations of switching centers and the absolute
centers and medians of a graph. Operations Research, 12(3), 450–459.
Hale, T. S., & Moberg, C. R. (2003). Location science research: A review. Annals of
Operations Research, 123(1-4), 21–35.
Handler, G. Y., & Mirchandani, P. B. (1979). Location on networks: Theory and
algorithms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Harewood, S. I. (2002). Emergency ambulance deployment in Barbados: A multi-
objective approach. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 53(2), 185–192.
419
Hekmatfar, M., & Pishvaee, M. (2009). Hub location problem. In R. Z. Farahani & M.
Hekmatfar (Eds.), Facility location: Concepts, models, algorithms and case studies.
Contributions to management science. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag. doi:10.1007/
978-3-7908-2151-2 11.
Hinojosa, Y., Kalcsics, J., Nickel, S., Puerto, J., & Velten, S. (2008). Dynamic supply
chain design with inventory. Computers and Operations Research, 35(2),
373–391.
Hinojosa, Y., Puerto, J., & Fernandez, F. R. (2000). A multi-period two-echelon multi-
commodity capacitated plant location problem. European Journal of Operational
Research, 123(2), 271–291.
Hormozi, A. M., & Khumawala, B. M. (1996). An improved algorithm for solving a
multi-period facility location problem. IIE Transactions, 28(2), 105–114.
Jamshidi, M. (2009). Median location problem. In R. Z. Farahani & M. Hekmatfar
(Eds.), Facility location: Concepts, models, algorithms and case studies.
Contributions to management science. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag. doi:10.1007/
978-3-7908-2151-2 11.
Kahraman, C., Cebi, S., & Tuysuz, F. (2010). Fuzzy location selection techniques:
Studies in fuzziness and soft computing. Production Engineering and
Management under Fuzziness, 252, 329–358.
Killmer, K. A., Anandalingam, G., & Malcolm, S. A. (2001). Siting noxious
facilities under uncertainty. European Journal of Operational Research, 133(3),
596–607.
Klamroth, K. (2002). Single-facility location problems with barriers. New York:
Springer-Verlag, Inc.
Klose, A., & Drexl, A. (2005). Facility location models for distribution system design.
European Journal of Operational Research, 162(1), 4–29.
Koontz, C. M., Jue, D. K., & Bishop, B. W. (2009). Public library facility closure: an
investigation of reasons for closure and effects on geographic market areas.
Library and Information Science Research, 31(2), 84–91.
Koopmans, T. C., & Beckmann, M. J. (1957). Assignment problems and the location of
economic activities. Econometrica, 25(1), 53–76.
Lau, H. C. W., Jiang, Z. Z., Ip, W. H., & Wang, D. (2010). A credibility-based fuzzy
location model with Hurwicz criteria for the design of distribution systems in
B2C e-commerce. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 59(4), 873–886.
Lee, D. J., & Jeong, I. J. (2009). Regression approximation for a partially centralized
inventory system considering transportation costs. Computers and Industrial
Engineering, 56(4), 1169–1176.
Lim, S. K., & Kim, Y. D. (2001). Plant location and procurement planning in
knockdown production systems. Journal of the Operational Research Society,
52(3), 271–282.
Lin, C. K. Y. (2009). Stochastic single-source capacitated facility location model with
service level requirements. International Journal of Production Economics, 117(2),
439–451.
Liu, Y. K. (2008). The convergent results about approximating fuzzy random
minimum risk problems. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 205(2),
608–621.
Liu, Y. K., & Tian, M. (2009). Convergence of optimal solutions about approximation
scheme for fuzzy programming with minimum-risk criteria. Computers and
Mathematics with Applications, 57(6), 867–884.
Love, R., Morris, J., & Wesolowsky, G. (1988). Facility location: Models and methods.
Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Mahar, S., Bretthauer, K. M., & Venkataramanan, M. A. (2009). An algorithm for
solving the multi-period online fulfillment assignment problem. Mathematical
and Computer Modeling, 50(9-10), 1294–1304.
Mamada, S., Uno, T., Makino, K., & Fujishige, S. (2005). A tree partitioning problem
arising from an evacuation problem in tree dynamic networks. Journal of the
Operations Research Society of Japan, 48(3), 196–206.
Manzini, R., & Gebennini, E. (2008). Optimization models for the dynamic facility
location and allocation problem. International Journal of Production Research,
46(8), 2061–2086.
Maxwell, M. S., Restrepo, M., Henderson, S. G., & Topaloglu, H. (2010). Approximate
dynamic programming for ambulance redeployment. INFORMS Journal on
Computing, 22(2), 266–281.
Melachrinoudis, E., & Min, H. (2000). The dynamic relocation and phase-out of a
hybrid, two-echelon plant/warehousing facility: A multiple objective approach.
European Journal of Operational Research, 123(1), 1–15.
Melachrinoudis, E., Min, H., & Wu, X. (1995). A multi-objective model for the
dynamic location of landfills. Location Science, 3(3), 143–166.
Melo, M. T., Nickel, S., & Saldanha-da-Gama, F. (2006). Dynamic multi-commodity
capacitated facility location: Mathematical modeling framework for strategic
supply chain planning. Computers and Operations Research, 33(1), 181–208.
Melo, M. T., Nickel, S., & Saldanha-da-Gama, F. (2009). Facility location and supply
chain management – A review. European Journal of Operational Research, 196(2),
401–412.
Miller, T. C., Friesz, T. L., Tobin, R. L., & Kwon, C. (2007). Reaction function based
dynamic location modelling in Stackelberg–Nash–Cournot competition.
Networks and Spatial Economics, 7(1), 77–97.
Min, H., & Melachrinoudis, E. (1999). The relocation of a hybrid manufacturing/
distribution facility from supply chain perspectives: A case study. Omega, 27(1),
75–85.
Mirchandani, P. B., & Francis, R. L. (1990). Discrete location theory. New York: Wiley
Interscience.
Moheb-Alizadeh, H., Rasouli, S. M., & Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R. (2011). The use of
multi-criteria data envelopment analysis (MCDEA) for location–allocation
problems in a fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(5),
5687–5695.
420 A. Boloori Arabani, R.Z. Farahani / Computers & Industrial Engineering 62 (2012) 408–420
Mokhtarian, M. N. (2011). A new fuzzy weighted average (FWA) method based on
left and right scores: An application for determining a suitable location for a gas
oil station. Computers and Mathematics with Applications, 61(10), 3136–3145.
Moore, J. C., & ReVelle, C. (1982). The hierarchical service location problem.
Management Science, 28(7), 775–780.
Moradi, M., & Bidkhori, M. (2009). Single facility location problem. In R. Z. Farahani
& M. Hekmatfar (Eds.), Facility location: Concepts, models, algorithms and case
studies. Contributions to management science. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.
doi:10.1007/978-3-7908-2151-2 11.
Naraharisetti, P. K., & Karimi, I. A. (2010). Supply chain redesign and new process
introduction in multipurpose plants. Chemical Engineering Science, 65(8),
2596–2607.
Nickel, S., & Puetro, J. (2005). Location theory: A unified approach. Berlin Heidelberg:
Springer-Verlag.
O’Kelly, M. E. (1987). A quadratic integer program for the location of interacting hub
facilities. European Journal of Operational Research, 32(3), 393–404.
Owen, S. H., & Daskin, M. S. (1998). Strategic facility location: A review. European
Journal of Operational Research, 111(3), 423–447.
Pirkul, H., & Jayaraman, V. (1998). A multi-commodity, multi-plant, capacitated
facility location problem: Formulation and efficient heuristic solution.
Computers and Operations Research, 25(10), 869–878.
Puerto, J., & Rodriguez-Chia, A. M. (2006). New models for locating a moving service
facility. Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, 63(1), 31–51.
Rajagopalan, H. K., Saydam, C., & Xiao, J. (2008). A multi-period set covering location
model for dynamic redeployment of ambulances. Computers and Operations
Research, 35(3), 814–826.
ReVelle, C. S., & Eiselt, H. A. (2005). Location analysis: A synthesis and survey.
European Journal of Operational Research, 165(1), 1–19.
ReVelle, C. S., Eiselt, H. A., & Daskin, M. S. (2008). A bibliography for some
fundamental problem categories in discrete location science. European Journal
of Operational Research, 184(3), 817–848.
ReVelle, C. S., & Swain, R. W. (1970). Central facilities location. Geographical Analysis,
2(1), 30–42.
Romauch, M., & Hartl, R. F. (2005). Dynamic facility location with stochastic
demands. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3777, 180–189.
Romeijn, H. E., & Morales, D. R. (2004). Asymptotic analysis of a greedy heuristic for
the multi-period single-sourcing problem: The acyclic case. Journal of Heuristics,
10(1), 5–35.
Rosenhead, J., Elton, M., & Gupta, S. K. (1972). Robustness and optimality as criteria
for strategic decisions. Operational Research Quarterly, 23(4), 413–431.
Rosenthal, R. E., White, J. A., & Young, D. (1978). Stochastic dynamic location
analysis. Management Science, 24(6), 645–653.
Sahin, G., & Sural, H. (2007). A review of hierarchical facility location models.
Computers and Operations Research, 34(8), 2310–2331.
Saldanha-da-Gama, F., & Captivo, M. E. (1998). A heuristic approach for the discrete
dynamic location problem. Location Science, 6(1-4), 211–223.
Schütz, P., Stougie, L., & Tomasgard, A. (2008). Stochastic facility location with
general long-run costs and convex short-run costs. Computers and Operations
Research, 35(9), 2988–3000.
Sherali, H. D. (1990). Capacitated, balanced, sequential location–allocation
problems on chains and trees. Mathematical Programming, 49(1-3), 381–396.
Shulman, A. (1991). An algorithm for solving dynamic capacitated plant location
problems with discrete expansion sizes. Operations Research, 39(3), 423–436.
Snyder, L. V. (2006). Facility location under uncertainty: A review. IIE Transactions,
38(7), 547–564.
Snyder, L. V., Daskin, M. S., & P Teo, C. (2007). The stochastic location model with
risk pooling. European Journal of Operational Research, 179(3), 1221–1238.
Snyder, L. V., Scaparra, P. M., Daskin, M. S., & Church, R. L. (2006). Planning for
disruptions in supply chain networks. Tutorials in Operations Research, INFORMS,
234–257. doi:10.1287/educ.1063.0025.
Sule, D. R. (2001). Logistics of facility location and allocation. New York, NY: Marcel
Dekker Inc.
Suzuki, A., & Drezner, Z. (2009). The minimum equitable radius location problem
with continuous demand. European Journal of Operational Research, 195(1),
17–30.
Taheri, J., & Zomaya, A. Y. (2007). Clustering techniques for dynamic location
management in mobile computing. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing,
67(4), 430–447.
Thanh, P. N., Bostel, N., & Peton, O. (2008). A dynamic model for facility location in
the design of complex supply chains. International Journal of Production
Economics, 113(2), 678–693.
Toregas, C., Swain, R., ReVelle, C., & Bergman, L. (1971). The location of emergency
service facilities. Operations Research, 19(6), 1363–1373.
Vahidnia, M. H., Alesheikh, A. A., & Alimohammadi, A. (2009). Hospital site selection
using fuzzy AHP and its derivatives. Journal of Environmental Management,
90(10), 3048–3056.
Wang, Q., Batta, R., Bhadury, J., & Rump, C. M. (2003). Budget constrained location
problem with opening and closing of facilities. Computers and Operations
Research, 30(13), 2047–2069.
Wang, K. J., Makond, B., & Liu, S. Y. (2011). Location and allocation decisions in a
two-echelon supply chain with stochastic demand – A genetic-algorithm based
solution. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(5), 6125–6131.
Wen, M., & Iwamura, K. (2008a). Facility location–allocation problem in random
fuzzy environment: Using (a, b)-cost minimization model under the Hurewicz
criterion. Computers and Mathematics with Applications, 55(4), 704–713.
Wen, M., & Iwamura, K. (2008b). Fuzzy facility location–allocation problem under
the Hurwicz criterion. European Journal of Operational Research, 184(2),
627–635.
Wen, M., & Kang, R. (2011). Some optimal models for facility location–allocation
problem with random fuzzy demands. Applied Soft Computing, 11(1),
1202–1207.
Wesolowsky, G. O. (1973). Dynamic facility location. Management Science, 19(11),
1241–1248.
Wesolowsky, G. O., & Truscott, W. G. (1975). The multi-period location–allocation
problem with relocation of facilities. Management Science, 22(1), 57–65.
Yang, L., Jones, B. F., & Yang, S. H. (2007). A fuzzy multi-objective programming for
optimization of fire station locations through genetic algorithms. European
Journal of Operational Research, 181(2), 903–915.
Yao, Z., Lee, L. H., Jaruphongsa, W., Tan, V., & Hui, C. F. (2010). Multi-source facility
location–allocation and inventory problem. European Journal of Operational
Research, 207(2), 750–762.