The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics 38 (2021) 40–49

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics

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

Original Article

A hybrid model for distribution center location selection☆

Thi Nhu-Mai Nong
⁎
]]
]]]]]]
]]

University of Finance – Marketing, 778 Nguyen Kiem, Ward 4, Phu Nhuan Dist., Hochiminh city, Vietnam

a r t i cl e i nfo a bstr ac t

Article history: This research aims to propose an integrated MCDM model to support the distribution center location se­
Received 22 August 2021 lection. The integrated approach of ANP and TOPSIS was employed to address the distribution center se­
Received in revised form 26 October 2021 lection problem. The ANP method was used to define the weights of the selection criteria, whereas the
Accepted 27 October 2021
TOPSIS was applied to rank alternatives. The proposed model was then applied into Dong Nai province in
Vietnam to select the best alternatives to be the distribution center. The results showed that Long Khanh is
JEL Classification Code:
the most appropriate location for the distribution center as it is ranked first in the order of preference for
C44
L66 selection. The proposed model provides the decision makers with more powerful methods than conven­
M11 tional ones. Therefore, the model can be applied to distribution center location selection in all industries. In
terms of theoretical contribution, the proposed criteria can contribute to literature review in the selection of
location as well as the concept of distribution center. In addition, the research also provides insight for firms
and public authorities in making decision on distribution center location based on limited resources as well
as avoiding the misuse of funds.
© 2021 The Authors. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of The Korean Association of
Shipping and Logistics, Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
CC_BY_NC_ND_4.0

1. Introduction
Intense competition in today’s market has urged businesses to
focus and invest more in logistics networks. Thus, how to minimize
logistics costs and improve the efficiency of logistics activities has
become a major concern of researchers and practitioners (Eckhardt
& Rantala, 2012). In the logistics network, distribution center is a
significant node which connects all logistics activities (Chung, Chan,
& Chan, 2013). Therefore, to manage well the logistics operations as
well as to construct the logistics network, it is of extreme sig­
nificance to address the logistics distribution center.
There are lots of determinants of a successful logistics distribu­
tion center. Out of them, the logistics distribution location plays an
extremely significant role as it affects the logistics distribution
system optimization and then affects the enterprises’ overall man­
agement cost. Therefore, choosing a suitable distribution center lo­
cation is important in reducing the costs and improving the benefits
of the logistics system (Wei, Ye, Longwei, & Yuan, 2015).
☆
Production and hosting by "The Korean Association of Shipping and
Logistics, Inc.”.
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ntnmai@ufm.edu.vn.
A variety of methods and models have been proposed recently for
the selection of distribution center location such as mathematical
model, multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) approaches, fuzzy
logic, heuristic-meta-heuristic methods, and qualitative methods
(Okatan, Peker, & Birdogan, 2019). However, the selection problems
usually involve numerous qualitative and quantitative criteria. Thus,
a practicable approach to such problems is the application of MCDM
techniques to build MCDM models. There are a wide range of MCDM
methods to assist the decision-makers to select the most suitable
distribution center such as Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP),
Analytical Network Process (ANP), Order Preference Similarity to the
Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), Multicriteria Optimization and Compromise
Solution (VIKOR), Weighted Aggregates Sum Product Assessment
(WASPAS) method, a fuzzy multi-attribute and multi-actor decision-
making (FMAADM), etc. However, there is a lack of research on
proposing a comprehensive distribution center location selection
model for the logistics industry. For that reason, in this research, an
attempt to propose an integrated MCDM model based on ANP and
TOPSIS has been made to support the selection of distribution center
location. The author proposed ANP and TOPSIS method to calculate
the weights of selection criteria and select the most appropriate
distribution center location, respectively. The proposed model was
then applied into an empirical case of choosing a location to set up

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2021.10.003
2092-5212/© 2021 The Authors. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of The Korean Association of Shipping and Logistics, Inc. This is an open access article under the
CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
CC_BY_NC_ND_4.0
T.N.-M. Nong
an agricultural product distribution center to demonstrate its
feasibility and effectiveness.
The empirical case was made for Dong Nai province - a me­
tropolis with many agricultural products on the list of 15 national
key products of Vietnam. At present, Dong Nai is striving to become
a national center of agricultural product processing. Therefore, the
setting up a distribution center for agricultural products has been
one of the most significant decision issues for Dong Nai in order to
improve its operation efficiency and competitive advantage. For
those reasons, it can be said that examining the distribution center
location problem for Dong Nai province is practically and theoreti­
cally critical.
Excluding Section 1, the research paper is presented as follows.
Section 2 reviews some related works. Research design and meth­
odology are proposed in Section 3. In Section 4, an empirical case
applies the proposed model into the distribution center location
selection of a province. Conclusion is finally presented in Section 5.
2. Literature review
2.1. Distribution center location problems and MCDM methods
Many methods and models have been developed for the selection
of distribution center location to keep pace with the fierce devel­
opment of the global trade in general and the logistics industry in
particular. Hu, Wu, and Cai (2009) and Awasthi, Chauhan, and Goyal
(2011) proposed to use fuzzy TOPSIS to choose a right site for dis­
tribution center. TOPSIS was then utilized by many other researchers
as well (Erkayman, Gundogar, Akkaya, & Ipek, 2011; Li, Liu, & Chen,
2011; Quynh et al., 2020; Tuan & Hien, 2017; Sahin, Yip, Tseng,
Kabak, & Soylu, 2020). In 2021, Ak & Derya combined TOPSIS with
AHP in the selection of humanitarian supply chain warehouse. AHP
was used to define weights of the selection criteria and TOPSIS was
applied to rank the alternatives. TOPSIS aside, AHP has been one of
the most applicable methods amongst MCDM methods because of
its easy-to-use feature and correctness (Mulliner, Malys, & Maliene,
2016). Single AHP method is utilized by many researchers such as
Eryuruk, Kalaoglu, and Baskak (2011), Hartati and Islamiati (2019),
and Suman, MD Sarfaraj, Chyon, and Fahim (2021), and Yazır and
Şahin (2020). In addition, there have been lots of experts introducing
hybrid approaches in which AHP was used. For example, Kuo (2011)
introduced a new hybrid method of fuzzy DEMATEL and fuzzy
MCDM in solving the problem of international distribution center
location selection. The fuzzy DEMATEL was utilized to arrange an
appropriate structure between criteria whilst fuzzy MCDM (AHP)
was applied to derive weights of criteria. Then, the aggregation fuzzy
assessments of alternatives were ranked to choose the best location.
Durak, YildizZ, Akar, and Yemeniící (2017) and Yerlikaya, Tabak, and
Yıldız (2019) integrated AHP with VIKOR to determine critic weights
and rank the alternatives, respectively. Mihajlović, Rajković, Petrović,
and Ćirić (2019) proposed to use AHP with WASPAS to select the
distribution center site for the agricultural industry. Kieu, Nguyen,
Nguyen, and Ho (2021) combined fuzzy AHP with Combined Com­
promise Solution (CoCoSo) to support the distribution center loca­
tion selection problem of perishable agricultural products in Mekong
Delta region of Vietnam. Also in 2021, Şahin, Yazir, Soylu, and Yip
proposed an improved AHP based game-theoretic approach to
choose the competitive shipyard (Sahin et al., 2021).
In addition to the above approaches, ANP has also attracted lots
of researchers and practitioners as it can solve the problem of in­
terdependence among criteria. Tuzkaya, Yilmazer, and Tuzkaya
(2015) integrated DEMATEL and ANP to define the relationships of
criteria and rank the alternatives in the selection of logistics center
location. Chang, Liao, Tseng, and Liao (2015) proposed to use fuzzy
Delphi method, ANP, and TOPSIS for Taiwanese service apartment
41
The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics 38 (2021) 40–49
location selection. The fuzzy Delphi method was utilized to con­
struct the hierarchy whilst ANP was applied to derive the criteria
weights and TOPSIS was used to rank the alternatives, respectively.
According to these authors, this integrated method could help them
make optimal decisions on the location selection. Similarly, Karaşan
and Kahraman (2019) proposed to apply an integrated decision
model of DEMATEL, ANP, and TOPSIS for the location selection of
freight villages. The authors used DEMATEL to define the most ef­
fective criteria and interrelationship among criteria, ANP to weight
the defined criteria, and TOPSIS to find the best location alternative.
ANP and TOPSIS were also considered to use in choosing the best
location of logistics center in Ankara by Ozceylan, Erbaş, Tolon,
Kabak, and Durgut (2016). However, the authors had a novel com­
bination of Geographic Information Systems with ANP and TOPSIS in
the location selection compared to previous researchers. Also in
2016, Peker, Baki, Tanyas, and Ar (2016) proposed an approach called
ANP-BOCR (Benefits, Opportunities, Costs and Risk) to choose the
best location for a logistics center in Trabzon. Okatan et al. (2019)
proposed to combine DEMETAL, ANP and VIKOR in solving the dis­
tribution center location selection problem in agriculture. The au­
thors used DEMATEL to indicate the relationships among criteria,
ANP to derive the criteria weights and finally VIKOR to rank the
alternatives.
MCDM techniques are not limited to the addressed methods but
diverse in many other approaches. Elevli (2014) utilized the pre­
ference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluation
(PROMETHEE) and fuzzy sets to assess and rank among the potential
alternatives. Similarity, Rao, Goh, Zhao, and Zheng (2015) proposed
to use a linguistic 2-tuple model under fuzzy method to solve nu­
merous problems of logistics center location selection in urban
areas. Agrebi, Abed, and Omri (2017) suggested to use ELECTRE I
(ÉLimination et Choix Traduisant la Realité) in choosing an appro­
priate distribution center location. Pham, Ma, and Yeo (2017) in­
troduced a fuzzy Delphi TOPSIS model to choose a logistics center
from three alternatives in Vietnam. Ulutaş, Karakuş, and Topal
(2020) applied fuzzy SWARA and CoCoSo for the selection of a lo­
gistics center of Sivas province in Turkey. In 2021, Agrebi and Abed
proposed to use a fuzzy multi-attribute and multi-actor decision-
making (FMAADM) to solve the location selection problems. Yazır,
Şahin, and Yip (2021) extended the Evaluation of Mixed Data
(EVAMIX) approach to select new gas carriers. Accordingly, the au­
thors investigated the problem in fuzzy environment. Then a group
of decision-makers took part in the decision-making process. Finally,
all experts were assigned a coefficient in correspondence with their
number of years of professional experience. In the authors’ language,
this approach can be applied to the selection problem in all research
fields, including the location selection problem.
To conclude, there have been numerous literatures on the pro­
position and application of MCDM techniques to the distribution
center location selection. Among these methods, AHP and ANP are
the most popular ones for decision makers. The AHP technique
solves the decision-making problems in hierarchy with different
criteria whilst the ANP allows for interrelationships among
distinctive criteria and sub-criteria.
In this research, the author proposes a hybrid approach of ANP-
TOPSIS to select the best location for distribution center, accordingly
ANP is used to define the location selection criteria weights and
TOPSIS is employed to rank the alternatives, although there have
been some studies mentioning this combination. This approach is
introduced because of the following reasons:
In terms of ANP, it seems to be the most suitable method as
trade-offs among benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks are existed
in decision making. It is the ANP technique that can solve the pro­
blem of interdependence among clusters of criteria. Additionally,
ANP is the best choice because of its compliance with the human
T.N.-M. Nong
way of thinking (Saaty, 2005). In Zak’s (2005) language, the decision-
making approach should be simple, easy to use and match the
thinking of human.
For TOPSIS, it solves multiple criteria decision-making problems
originating from its effectiveness in defining priorities among al­
ternatives, simplicity, ease of use and composition of both internal
and external, emotional, and unemotional criteria (Nong &
Ha, 2021).
2.2. Distribution center location criteria
Defining distribution center location selection criteria is one of
the critical steps in the decision-making process. The decision ma­
kers need to consider the conflicting interests of different stake­
holders (Kim, Chung, Jun, & Kim, 2013). Elevli (2014) investigated
five criteria for choosing a logistics center in Samsun, Turkey in­
cluding site suitability, background activities/facilities, access to
transportation connection, property conditions and location, and
interconnected business activities. In Elevli’s language, site suit­
ability means that the shape and size of the logistics center should
be suitable for its capacities and functions. In addition, topography,
expandability of the area and the existence of buffer zones belong to
the site suitability as well. Access to transportation connection refers
to the proximity to main road, railway, seaport, and airport. In terms
of property conditions, the decision makers will consider the price
and the title to the property, the land uses and the attitude of
neighboring site. In regard to the location and interconnected busi­
ness activities, the location centrality, proximity to major retailers
and logistics providers, workforce availability, and local trucking
availability will be considered. Basing on the literature review and
discussion with top managers of three companies, Tuan and Hien
(2017) proposed six distribution center location criteria including
expansion possibility, closeness to demand market, human re­
sources, availability of acquirement material, investment cost, and
transportation availability. Another research in 2017 by Durak, Yil­
dizZ, Akar, and Yemeniící referred geographical characteristics, cost,
sales, forwarding, infrastructure, and cooperation as criteria for
warehouse siteselection. Also in 2017, Agrebi et al. investigated six
criteria named security, connectivity to multimodal transport, costs,
proximity to customers, proximity to suppliers, and conformance to
sustainable freight regulations to define a distribution center loca­
tion. These criteria were then replicated and improved by Agrebi and
Abed in 2021. The updated criteria involved accessibility, security,
connectivity to multimodal transport, costs, environmental impact,
proximity to customers, proximity to suppliers, resource availability,
conformance to sustainable freight regulations, possibility of ex­
pansion, and quality of service. In 2020, Ulutaş, Karakuş, & Topal
presented a wide range of criteria for the selection of distribution
center location by considering distance to forest area, distance to
surface water, distance to settlement area, distance to disaster
center, distance to population density, proximity to railway, proxi­
mity to highway, proximity to airport, proximity to industrial area,
cost of land, and slope of land. Quynh et al. (2020) applied fuzzy
Delphi method after conducting literature review to define de­
terminants of logistics center location in Vietnam. The determinants
comprise of transportation availability, closeness to demand market,
human resources, availability of acquirement material, investment
cost, and expansion possibility. Suman et al. (2021) suggested to use
seven criteria for facility location selection for the furniture industry
of Bangladesh named availability of raw materials, transportation,
skilled labour, proximity to customers, energy availability, economic
zone facility, and environment impact.
Numerous studies have addressed a variety of criteria for the
selection of distribution center location. However, to be more ef­
fective in selecting the right site, specific industries need to be
42
The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics 38 (2021) 40–49
considered. In agriculture industry, Mihajlović et al. (2019) proposed
to use seven criteria to select a fruit distribution center location
including land price, infrastructure access, a number of the regis­
tered agricultural holdings, a number of the citizens, delivery time,
presence of competitors, and orchards and soil under the berry
fruits. Land price, delivery time, and presence of competitors are the
minimization criteria determined on the basis of grades whilst in­
frastructure assess, a number of the registered agricultural holdings,
a number of the citizens, and orchards and soil under the berry fruits
are the maximization criteria defined on the basis of grades, the total
number of the agricultural holdings, the total number of the citizens,
and the total amount of soil under fruits, respectively. In another
research, Okatan et al. (2019) suggested to consider cost (installation
cost, transportation costs, operation costs), location (distance to
transport points, distance to markets, distance to border gates,
hinterland), service (Storage convenience, Operation service level,
transfer convenience), policy (Government policy, geopolitical po­
sition of the country, infrastructure statement, economic policy), and
social (Community perspective, environmental impact, traffic im­
pact, impact on regional development) to select a suitable dis­
tribution center. In 2020, Kieu et al. proposed to use four criteria
named costs, available infrastructure, service level, and sustain­
ability factors to select the distribution center location for agri­
cultural products in Mekong Delta area of Vietnam. For costs, land
cost and logistics cost need to be considered. In terms of available
infrastructure, proximity to airport, proximity to highway, and
proximity to railway are the most concerned sub-criteria. In regard
to service level, decision makers put their focus on transportation
time, distance to market, and distance to manufacturers. The last
criterion - sustainability factors – comprises of three sub-criteria
including distance to forest area, distance to surface water, and
ethical factors.
To conclude, in the literature, a wide range of criteria can be
considered to evaluate and select distribution center location,
especially in the agriculture industry mentioned infrastructure, lo­
cation, cost, service and human resources. Based on the number of
occurrences in the literature review, common sub-criteria for the
above criteria are found as follows. To mention location, distance to
suppliers, distance to market, distance to airport, distance to
highway, distance to port, and distance to railway need to be con­
sidered. For costs, land cost, installation cost, logistics cost, and labor
cost will be focused. Regarding service, storage convenience and
forwarding service are much focused. These are the most common
criteria and sub-criteria used by decision makers in the location
selection process.
3. Research design and methodology
3.1. Research design
Decision making processes involve a course of steps, including
pinpointing the problems, building up the preferences, assessing the
alternatives, and selecting the best alternatives (Tzeng & Huang,
2011). As stated earlier, the overall goal of this research is to develop
a distribution center location selection model. Therefore, the re­
search model comprises different steps as follows (See Fig. 1):
Step 1: Analyze the current situation of the distribution center
location problem to set up the selection goal.
Step 2: Define the location selection criteria.
The distribution center location criteria are determined based on
the literature and expert interviews.
Step 3: Apply the ANP method to calculate the weights of the
criteria.
Step 4: Employ the TOPSIS method to rank the alternatives. The
ranking is based on the relative proximity to the ideal solution.
T.N.-M. Nong
Fig. 1. Research model.
3.2. Research methodology
3.2.1. Analytical Network Process (ANP)
This technique, introduced by Saaty in 1996, depicts the internal
and external dependence. When the sub-criteria within a criterion
have mutual effects, there exists the internal dependence. When a
criterion with sub-criteria affects another criterion, the external
dependence happens. ANP can solve the interdependence among
criteria by computing the composite weight through supermatrix.
The ANP is conducted through the following steps (Saaty, 2005):
Fig. 2. General form of supermatrix.
43
The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics 38 (2021) 40–49
Step 1: Decision makers make all pairwise comparisons on cri­
teria to form supermatrix (Fig. 2) by using a scale from 1 to 9 for
representing equal importance to extreme importance.
Where, Cm illustrates the mth criterion, emn illustrates the nth
sub-criterion in the mth criterion, and Wij is the key eigenvector of
the influence of the sub-criteria compared in the jth criterion to the
ith criterion. Additionally, if the jth criterion has no influence on the
ith criterion, then Wij = 0.
Step 2: Calculate the influence (i.e., calculate the main eigen­
vector) of the criteria in each matrix.
Step 3: Create the supermatrix by basing on the mentioned ei­
genvectors and structure.
Step 4: Derive the weighted supermatrix by transforming all
column sums to unity.
Step 5: Get the global priority vectors by raising the weighted
supermatrix to limiting powers.
All these computational issues can be processed by Super
Decision Software designed by Saaty in 2004, in which the process
can be summarized into steps:
(1) form the pairwise comparison matrices to compare among cri­
teria.
(2) calculate the priorities of criteria and examine the inconsistency
ratio.
3.2.2. Order Preference Similarity to the Ideal Solution (TOPSIS)
The TOPSIS technique specifies the best alternative by applying
the solution with the proximity to the ideal solution and the longest
distance from the negative ideal solution (Tzeng & Huang, 2011). The
TOPSIS process is illustrated as follows:
Step 1: Construct the normalized decision matrix.
This step changes numerous attribute dimensions into non-di­
mensional ones, which allows comparisons across criteria.
Normalize scores or data as follows:
x ij
rij = for i = 1, …, m; j = 1, …, n
m
i x ij2 (1)
Step 2: Set up the weighted normalized decision matrix.
• Firstly, the weight values for each criterion are defined.
n
wj = 1
j= 1 (2)
• Then, multiply each column of the normalized decision matrix by
its corresponding weight value. The new matrix is as follows:
vij = wjrij (3)
Step 3: Identify the positive ideal (A+) and negative ideal (A-)
solutions.
● Positive ideal solution
A+ = { v1+, …, vn+} (maximum values) (4)
● Negative ideal solution.
A- = { v1-, …, v-n} (minimum values) (5)
Step 4: Calculate the separation of each alternative from the po­
sitive and negative ideal alternative.
T.N.-M. Nong The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics 38 (2021) 40–49

• The separation of each alternative from the positive ideal alter­ Step 5: Calculate the relative proximity to the ideal solution Ci+.
native is calculated as follows:
Ci+ = S-i/(Si+ + S-i), 0 < Ci+ < 1 (8)
n +
Select the Alternative with Ci closest to 1.
Si+ = (v+j viJ )2 i = 1, …, m
j =1 (6)
4. Empirical case for distribution center location selection

• Similarly, the separation of each alternative from the negative

In this section, an empirical case for the selection of distribution
ideal alternative is computed as follows:
center location for agricultural products in Dong Nai province of
Vietnam is used to demonstrate that the proposed integrated
n method is appropriate, particularly in case the selection criteria si­
Si = (v j viJ )2 i = 1, …, m multaneously exist as dependent and independent. This section
j=1 (7) comprises four subsections corresponding to detailed steps of the
research model: (1) defining the goal, (2) identifying the selection

Fig. 3. Dong Nai province.

44
T.N.-M. Nong The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics 38 (2021) 40–49

criteria, (3) defining the criteria weights by applying the ANP
method, (4) ranking the alternatives by using the TOPSIS method.
4.1. Defining the goal
The goal of this empirical case is to choose a suitable location of
agricultural product distribution center in Dong Nai province (Fig. 3).
Four alternatives are defined based on expert group’s opinion in­
cluding Vinh Cuu, Long Khanh, Thong Nhat, and Xuan Loc. Vinh Cuu
is an agricultural district in northwest of Dong Nai province, growing
mainly pomelo, orange, mandarin, mango … with a total area of over
4.5 thousand hectares. Long Khanh is another agricultural city of
Dong Nai province located in the southern key economic region,
adjacent to the strategic economic region of the Southeast, the
highlands, and the central region, with many national traffic routes
passing through, having a very important position in the fields of
economic development. political-economic-social and security-de­
fense aspects for the province and the whole region. Long Khanh is
the focal point for exchanging goods with other provinces, creating
favorable conditions for the development of trade and services.
Additionally, Long Khanh has a fertile land area favorable for the
development of fruit trees, trees of high economic value, capable of
export, which are coffee, rambutan, durian. The next agricultural
district is Thong Nhat – a midland district located in the center of
Dong Nai province where the Ho Chi Minh City - Long Thanh - Dau
Giay highway passes and the Da Lat - Da Lat Expressway project is
under construction. The district’s climate and soil are favorable for
the development of fruit trees such as durian, rambutan, mangos­
teen, etc. The last alternative is Xuan Loc district – a mountainous
midland district located in the southeast of Dong Nai province, in­
cluding 55,552 ha of agricultural land. The advantage of natural
characteristics is an important factor in the development orientation
of food crops of the district such as rubber, coffee, pepper; fruit trees,
cashew, rambutan, durian, maize, sugar cane, cotton, legumes, and
wet rice. This is also the locality where the Phan Thiet - Dau Giay
Expressway project is being built.
4.2. Identifying the selection criteria
The distribution center location selection criteria were defined
basing on the results from the literature review and interviews with
four experts, including scientists, local representative leaders, and

Table 1
Distribution center location selection criteria.

Criteria Sub-criteria Refs. Description

Location (C1) Distance to suppliers (C11)
Distance to market (C12)
Distance to airport (C13)
Distance to highway (C14)
Distance to port (C15)
Distance to railway (C16)
Agrebi et al. (2017), Agrebi and Abed (2021),
Hartati and Islamiati (2019), Tuzkaya
et al. (2015)
Tuan and Hien (2017), Agrebi et al. (2017),
Okatan et al. (2019), Quynh et al. (2020),
Agrebi and Abed (2021), Suman et al. (2021)
Durak et al. (2017), Mihajlović et al. (2019),
Hartati and Islamiati (2019), Suman et al.
(2021), Kieu et al. (2021)
Durak et al. (2017), Mihajlović et al. (2019),
Suman et al. (2021), Hartati and Islamiati
(2019), Kieu et al. (2021)
Durak et al. (2017), Mihajlović et al. (2019),
Hartati and Islamiati (2019), Suman et al.
(2021), Kieu et al. (2021)
Durak et al. (2017), Mihajlović et al. (2019),
Hartati and Islamiati (2019), Suman et al.
(2021), Kieu et al. (2021)
It is the proximity between the distribution center and
suppliers. Distribution center should be close to suppliers to
shorten the transportation time and to guarantee the supply.
It is the proximity between the distribution center and
markets. Distribution center should be close to markets
because of the transportation point of view.
It is the proximity between the distribution center and
airports. Transportation by air is suitable for valuable goods
and urgent deliveries. Thus, distribution center should be close
to airports.
It is the proximity between the distribution center and
highways. Highways allows companies to transport their goods
to many places easily and fast. Therefore, distribution center
should be close to highways.
It is the proximity between the distribution center and ports.
Distribution center should be close to ports as transportation
by sea or inland waterways may solve the problem of bulk
cargo, especially cheap freight.
It is the proximity between the distribution center and
railways. Distribution center should be close to railways as
they are the safe and cheap transportation mode.

Cost (C2) Land cost (C21)
Installation cost (C22)
Logistics cost (C23)
Labor cost (C24)
Service (C3) Storage convenience (C31)
Forwarding services (C32)
Mihajlović et al. (2019), Ulutaş et al. (2020),
Ak and Derya (2021)
Durak et al. (2017), Agrebi et al. (2017),
Yerlikaya et al. (2019), Okatan et al. (2019),
Quynh et al. (2020), Ak and Derya (2021)
Okatan et al. (2019), Ak and Derya (2021),
Kieu et al. (2021)
Ulutaş et al. (2020), Ak and Derya (2021)
Okatan et al. (2019), Agrebi and Abed (2021)
Durak et al. (2017)
It is the cost of the land at which the distribution center will be
set up. Land cost affects the total investment costs, so it is the
minimization criterion.
It is the cost to install facilities in the distribution center.
Installation cost affects the total investment costs, so it is the
minimization criterion.
It is the cost undertaken to make available the goods to the
customers. This cost affects the business performance results,
so it is the minimization criterion.
It is the wage to pay labourers working in the distribution
center. Labor cost affects the business performance results, so
it is the minimization criterion.
It is the availability of storage service in the area which should
be close to the distribution center.
It is the availability of forwarding services which should be
close to the distribution center.

Infrastructure (C4)
Human resources
availability (C5)
Size of the evaluated Durak et al. (2017) The required area must meet the conditions of a distribution
area (C41) center. Additionally, there must be enough surrounding space
available for future development.
Diversity of Durak et al. (2017) Transportation is the one of the most important factor
transportation affecting the success of a distribution center, so the
services (C42) distribution center must access a variety means of transport to
facilitate transit easily and fast.
Human resources Tuan and Hien (2017), Quynh et al. (2020) It is the availability of human resources to work for the
availability (C51) distribution center.

45
T.N.-M. Nong The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics 38 (2021) 40–49

Fig. 4. The hierarchical structure of the research model.

Fig. 5. Internal and external interdependence of criteria.

managers, who have knowledge about the distribution center loca­

tion selection and are key members of this distribution center lo­
Table 2
cation selection project. The participants who are well-informed
The weights of distribution center location selection criteria.
about the location selection would make the obtained data valuable
and reliable (Dorussen, Lenz, & Blavoukos, 2005). The interviews Criterion Criterion name Normalized by Limiting Ranking
cluster
were conducted via phone because of the serious Covid-19 pan­
demic situation. After taking the literature review result found in C22 Installation cost 0.08126 0.01197 15
C24 Labor cost 0.27479 0.04049 10
Section 2.2 and the project’s actual situation into careful con­
C21 Land cost 0.48046 0.07079 4
sideration, all participants finalized the list of the distribution center C23 Logistics cost 0.16349 0.02409 14
location selection criteria and sub-criteria as below (see Table 1). C51 Human resources 1 0.11865 3
availability
C42 Diversity of 0.75631 0.20094 1
transportation
4.3. Defining the criteria weights by applying the ANP method
services
C41 Size of the 0.24369 0.06475 7
Figs. 4 and 5 illustrate the hierarchical structure of the research evaluated area
model and the interdependence of criteria. Basing on the above C13 Distance to airport 0.10082 0.02647 13
C14 Distance to highway 0.1704 0.04474 9
model, a meeting between the author and the four mentioned ex­
C12 Distance to market 0.24653 0.06473 8
perts took place via telephone. These experts were asked to de­ C15 Distance to port 0.10799 0.02835 12
termine the internal and external interdependence among criteria C16 Distance to railway 0.11063 0.02905 11
and sub-criteria as well as make a couple of paired comparisons C11 Distance to suppliers 0.26363 0.06922 5
between criteria. Simultaneously, the author employed Super­ C32 Forwarding services 0.68002 0.13993 2
C31 Storage convenience 0.31998 0.06585 6
decision software to calculate the inconsistency ratio to make sure

46
T.N.-M. Nong The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics 38 (2021) 40–49

Table 3
The decision matrix for the distribution center location selection.

C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 C21 C22 C23 C24 C31 C32 C41 C42 C51

Vinh Cuu 7 7 8 7 10 7 9 10 7 9 7 8 10 7 8
Long Khanh 8 9 8 9 10 9 7 7 8 7 9 8 8 10 10
Thong Nhat 8 10 9 10 8 8 6 7 9 8 9 9 8 8 9
Xuan Loc 7 8 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 8 8 8

Table 4
The normalized decision matrix for the distribution center location selection.

C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 C21 C22 C23 C24 C31 C32 C41 C42 C51

Vinh Cuu 0.466 0.408 0.498 0.408 0.552 0.436 0.593 0.618 0.436 0.560 0.422 0.498 0.585 0.421 0.455
Long Khanh 0.532 0.525 0.498 0.525 0.552 0.560 0.396 0.432 0.498 0.436 0.543 0.498 0.468 0.601 0.569
Thong Nhat 0.532 0.583 0.560 0.583 0.442 0.498 0.462 0.432 0.560 0.498 0.543 0.560 0.468 0.481 0.512
Xuan Loc 0.466 0.467 0.436 0.467 0.442 0.498 0.528 0.494 0.498 0.498 0.482 0.436 0.468 0.481 0.455

Table 5
The weighted standard decision matrix.

C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 C21 C22 C23 C24 C31 C32 C41 C42 C51

Vinh Cuu 0.032 0.026 0.013 0.018 0.016 0.013 0.042 0.007 0.010 0.023 0.028 0.070 0.038 0.085 0.054
Long Khanh 0.037 0.034 0.013 0.023 0.016 0.016 0.028 0.005 0.012 0.018 0.036 0.070 0.030 0.121 0.067
Thong Nhat 0.037 0.038 0.015 0.026 0.013 0.014 0.033 0.005 0.013 0.020 0.036 0.078 0.030 0.097 0.061
Xuan Loc 0.032 0.030 0.012 0.021 0.013 0.014 0.027 0.006 0.012 0.020 0.032 0.061 0.030 0.097 0.054

Table 6
The relative closeness to the ideal solution Ci* and ranking.
S+i S-i Ci +
Vinh Cuu 0.0704 0.0193 0.2151
Long Khanh 0.0196 0.0697 0.7801
Thong Nhat 0.0282 0.0625 0.6889
Xuan Loc 0.0456 0.0325 0.4161
the consistent value for the entries. The threshold for the incon­
sistency ratio is 0.1 (Demirtas & Üstün, 2008).
The weights of these criteria are defined as in Table 2. It is noted
that diversity of transportation services is the most important cri­
terion and storage convenience is the least one.
4.4. Ranking the alternatives by using the TOPSIS method
The results of this step are presented in Tables 3–6; accordingly
Table 3 shows the preferred ratings of each alternative, Table 4 il­
lustrates the normalization of the preferred ratings of each alter­
native, the weighted normalized ratings are then shown in Table 5,
and finally Table 6 depicts the results of calculating the separation
from the positive ideal point (S+i) and the negative ideal point (S-i) to
each alternative and the relative proximity to the ideal solution (Ci+).
Based on the evaluation of experts, the results indicated that
among the alternatives, Long Khanh city was the best place for
distribution center in Dong Nai province, followed by Thong Nhat
district, Xuan Loc district, and Vinh Cuu district in that order. Long
Khanh city was superior to other districts in distance to market,
distance to port, distance to railway, storage convenience, diversity
of transportation services, and human resource availability. The
detrimental factors of Long Khanh city were a little bit higher price
land cost, installation cost, and labor cost than those of other alter­
natives. However, these three types of costs belong to the least
crucial factors evaluated by the experts. Long Khanh is, therefore, the
most suitable choice for locating the distribution center. The experts’
evaluation was in good accordance with the actual situation of Long
Khanh, which it has been upgraded from district to city since 2019.
Long Khanh now becomes a more spacious and modern urban area,
whose traffic system from the inner city to the wards and communes
is completed.
Ranking The second alternative, Thong Nhat district, was assessed as
4
having the best evaluation in terms of distance to market, distance to
1 airport, distance to highway, logistics cost, storage convenience,
2 forwarding services, and human resources. Thong Nhat has the ad­
3 vantage of having a wholesale market named Dau Giay and Long
Thanh – Dau Giay highway which are extremely advantageous for
distribution. However, these factors only play a moderate role in the
distribution location selection.
The third alternative, Xuan Loc district, was evaluated moder­
ately in all factors. Therefore, it ranked third in the list of alter­
natives.
The lowest priority was for Vinh Cuu district. Although Vinh Cuu
has the advantages of distance to port, size of the evaluated area, and
lower costs including land cost, installation cost, and labor cost, it
lacks the most highly preferred factors in the benchmark criteria
such as diversity of transportation services, human resource avail­
ability, and forwarding services. Additionally, except closeness to
port, Vinh Cuu also has disadvantages in its location such as long
distance to suppliers, market, highway, and railway. The lack of
connectivity of Vinh Cuu with transportation modes causes diffi­
culties in transportation and so did not meet the aim of distribution
centers in particular and of logistics networks in general (Chung &
Choi, 2016; Oh, 2014). That also explains for its higher logistics cost
than that of other alternatives.
5. Conclusion
The selection of an optimal location has long been a concern of
both private and public sectors because an optimal distribution
center may help reduce overall management costs, optimize the
logistics system, and then contribute to the economic development
(Notteboom & Rodrigue, 2009). Accordingly, this research in­
troduced a benchmarking framework for the selection of distribu­
tion center location in Dong Nai province of Vietnam. An integrated
ANP – TOPSIS model was applied to weigh the criteria and rank al­
ternatives. It can be seen from the results that diversity of trans­
portation services, human resource availability, forwarding services,

47
T.N.-M. Nong
distance to suppliers and distance to markets are considered as the
five most significant factors in the selection of distribution center
location. Additionally, in this research, among the four alternatives
for location selection, Long Khanh city was ranked first, followed by
Thong Nhat, Xuan Loc, and Vinh Cuu.
The contribution of this research lies in the proposition of a hy­
brid ANP and TOPSIS approach to deal with the dependence and
independence of multiple criteria and choose the optimal location.
Moreover, the proposed criteria can contribute to the literature in
the selection of location as well as the concept of distribution center.
Theoretical contribution aside, the research also provides insight for
firms and public authorities in making decision on distribution
center location. For public authorities and policy makers, the re­
search findings including the explored selection criteria (see
Table 2), the dependence and independence of these criteria (see
Fig. 5) and the defined distribution center (see Table 6) may help
them make proper principal plans on the management of land re­
source, social and economic policy development, and strategic in­
frastructure development. Accordingly, they may avoid the misuse of
public funds in implementing those plans. For instance, in terms of
the interrelations among criteria, a good location of a distribution
center needs to be accompanied by good infrastructure, available
human resources, available services and vice versa. Therefore, when
policy makers or authorities develop land plans, at the same time
they also consider synchronized economic and social policies in the
region. For firms, the research results help them make optimal de­
cision on the selection of distribution center location based on
limited resources. For labourers, this research provides them with
valuable information about career opportunities in the upcoming
distribution center so that they may equip appropriate skills and
knowledge if they wish to work in this center.
The proposed model may be applied to the selection distribution
center location in all industries. However, the findings only pertain
to the conditions of Vietnam - a developing country. Therefore, fu­
ture research may be extended to developed countries having better
infrastructure conditions and service capabilities. Besides, another
future step to this research could be the application of other MCDM
techniques in solving the location selection problem.
Acknowledgements
The author expresses her appreciation to the colleagues who
reviewed this paper and offered useful recommendations for im­
proving it. The author greatly appreciates the time and useful sug­
gestions from guest editors and reviewers.
The author here by confirms that the manuscript has no any
actual or potential conflict of interest with any parties, including any
financial, personal or other relationships with other people or or­
ganizations within three years of beginning the submitted work that
could inappropriately influence or be perceived to influence.
The author confirms that the paper has not been published pre­
viously, it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, and the
manuscript is not being simultaneously submitted elsewhere.
References
Agrebi, M., & Abed, M. (2021). Decision-making from multiple uncertain experts: Case
of distribution. Soft Computing, 25(6), 4525–4544. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00500-020-05461-y
Agrebi, M., Abed, M., & Omri, M. N. (2017). ELECTRE I based relevance decision-makers
feedback to the location selection of distribution centers. Journal of Advanced
Transportation, 2017, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/7131094
Ak, M. F., & Derya, A. C. A. R. (2021). Selection of humanitarian supply chain warehouse
location: A case study based on the MCDM methodology. Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji
Dergisi, 22, 400–409. https://doi.org/10.31590/ejosat.849896
Awasthi, A., Chauhan, S. S., & Goyal, S. K. (2011). A multi-criteria decision making
approach for location planning for urban distribution centers under uncertainty.
Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 53(1–2), 98–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
mcm.2010.07.023
48
The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics 38 (2021) 40–49
Chang, K. L., Liao, S. K., Tseng, T. W., & Liao, C. Y. (2015). An ANP based TOPSIS approach
for Taiwanese service apartment location selection. Asia Pacific Management
Review, 20(2), 49–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2014.12.007
Chung, J. B., & Choi, B. C. (2016). Optimization of transportation problem in dynamic
logistics network. The Journal of Distribution Science, 14(2), 41–45. https://doi.org/
10.15722/jds.14.2.201602.41
Chung, S. H., Chan, H. K., & Chan, F. T. S. (2013). A modified genetic algorithm for
maximizing handling reliability and recyclability of distribution centers. Expert
Systems with Applications, 40(18), 7588–7595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2013.
07.056
Demirtas, E. A., & Üstün, Ö. (2008). An integrated multi-objective decision-making
process for supplier selection and order allocation. Omega, 36(1), 76–90.
Dorussen, H., Lenz, H., & Blavoukos, S. (2005). Assessing the reliability and validity of
expert interviews. European Union Politics, 6(3), 315–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1465116505054835
Durak, İ., YildizZ, M. S., Akar, Y. O., & Yemeniící, A. D. (2017). Warehouse site selection
in retail sector: Application AHP and VIKOR methods. International Journal of
Business and Management Invention, 6(12), 65–74.
Eckhardt, J., & Rantala, J. (2012). The role of intelligent logistics centres in a multi­
modal and cost-effective transport system. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences,
48(2), 612–621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.1039
Elevli, B. (2014). Logistics freight center locations decision by using Fuzzy-
PROMETHEE. Transport, 29(4), 412–418. https://doi.org/10.3846/16484142.2014.
983966
Erkayman, B., Gundogar, E., Akkaya, G., & Ipek, M. (2011). A fuzzy TOPSIS approach for
logistics center location selection. Journal of Business Case Studies, 7(3), 49–54.
https://doi.org/10.19030/jbcs.v7i3.4263
Eryuruk, S. H., Kalaoglu, F., & Baskak, M. (2011). Logistics as a competitive strategy
analysis of the clothing industry in terms of logistics. Fibres & Textiles In Eastern
Europe, 19(1), 12–17.
Hartati, V., & Islamiati, F. A. (2019). Analysis of location selection of fish collection
center using AHPmethod in National Fish Logistic System. Civil Engineering and
Architecture, 7(3A), 41–49. https://doi.org/10.13189/cea.2019.071307
Hu, Y., Wu, S., & Cai, L. (2009). Fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making TOPSIS for dis­
tribution center location selection. In 2009 international conference on networks
security, wireless communications and trusted computing (pp. 707–710). IEEE.
Karaşan, A., & Kahraman, C. (2019). A novel intuitionistic fuzzy
DEMATEL–ANP–TOPSIS integrated methodology for freight village location se­
lection. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 36(2), 1335–1352. https://doi.org/10.
3233/JIFS-17169
Kieu, P. T., Nguyen, V. T., Nguyen, V. T., & Ho, T. P. (2021). A spherical fuzzy analytic
hierarchy process (SF-AHP) and combined compromise solution (CoCoSo) algo­
rithm in distribution center location selection: A case study in agricultural supply
chain. Axioms, 10(2), 53. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms10020053
Kim, Y., Chung, E. S., Jun, S. M., & Kim, S. U. (2013). Prioritizing the best sites for treated
wastewater instream use in an urban watershed using fuzzy TOPSIS. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, 73, 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2012.12.009
Kuo, M. S. (2011). Optimal location selection for an international distribution center by
using a new hybrid method. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(6), 7208–7221.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.12.002
Li, Y., Liu, X., & Chen, Y. (2011). Selection of logistics center location using Axiomatic
Fuzzy Set and TOPSIS methodology in logistics management. Expert Systems with
Applications, 38(6), 7901–7908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.12.161
Mihajlović, J., Rajković, P., Petrović, G., & Ćirić, D. (2019). The selection of the logistics
distribution center location based on MCDM methodology in southern and
eastern region in Serbia. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and
Applications, 2(2), 72–85. https://doi.org/10.31181/oresta190247m
Mulliner, E., Malys, N., & Maliene, V. (2016). Comparative analysis of MCDM methods
for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability. Omega, 59, 146–156.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2015.05.013
Nong, T. N. M., & Ha, D. S. (2021). Application of MCDM methods to qualified per­
sonnel selection in distribution science: Case of logistics companies. Journal of
Distribution Science, 19(8), 25–35. https://doi.org/10.15722/jds.19.8.202108.25
Notteboom, T., & Rodrigue, J. P. (2009). Inland terminals within North American and
European supply chains. Transport and Communication Bulletin for Asia and the
Pacific, 78, 1–39.
Oh, M. K. (2014). A study of China’s condition as the logistics hub of northeast Asia and
a development strategy. The Journal of Distribution Science, 12(2), 95–103. https://
doi.org/10.13106/jds.2014.vol12.no2.95
Okatan, B. S., Peker, I., & Birdogan, B. (2019). An integrated DEMATEL - ANP - VIKOR
approach for food distribution center site selection: A case study of Georgia.
Journal of Management Marketing and Logistics, 6(1), 10–20. https://doi.org/10.
17261/Pressacademia.2019.1030
Ozceylan, E., Erbaş, M., Tolon, M., Kabak, M., & Durgut, T. (2016). Evaluation of freight
villages: A GIS-Based multi-criteria decision analysis. Computers in Industry, 76,
38–52.
Peker, I., Baki, B., Tanyas, M., & Ar, I. M. (2016). Logistics center site selection by ANP/
BOCR analysis: A case study of Turkey. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 30(4),
2383–2396.
Pham, T. Y., Ma, H. M., & Yeo, G. T. (2017). Application of fuzzy Delphi TOPSIS to locate
logistics centers in Vietnam: The logisticians’ perspective. The Asian Journal of
Shipping and Logistics, 33(4), 211–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2017.12.004
Quynh, M. P., Thu, T. L., Huong, Q. D., Van, A. P. T., Van, H. N., & Van, D. N. (2020).
Distribution center location selection using a novel multi criteria decision-making
approach under interval neutrosophic complex sets. Decision Science Letters, 9,
501–510. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.dsl.2020.2.001
T.N.-M. Nong
Rao, C., Goh, M., Zhao, Y., & Zheng, J. (2015). Location selection of city logistics centers
under sustainability. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment,
36, 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.02.008
Saaty, T. (2005). Theory and applications of the analytic network process. Decision
making with benefits, opportunities, costs and risks. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS
Publications.
Sahin, B., Yazir, D., Soylu, A., & Yip, T. L. (2021). Improved fuzzy AHP based game-
theoretic model for shipyard selection. Ocean Engineering, 109060, 233. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2021.109060
Sahin, B., Yip, T. L., Tseng, P. H., Kabak, M., & Soylu, A. (2020). An application of a fuzzy
TOPSIS multi-criteria decision analysis algorithm for dry bulk carrier selection.
Information, 11(5), 251. https://doi.org/10.3390/info11050251
Suman, M. N. H., MD Sarfaraj, N., Chyon, F. A., & Fahim, M. R. I. (2021). Facility location
selection for the furniture industry of Bangladesh: Comparative AHP and FAHP
analysis. International Journal of Engineering Business Management, 13. https://doi.
org/10.1177/18479790211030851
Tuan, N. A., & Hien, H. T. (2017). Distribution center location selection using an ex­
tension of fuzzy TOPSIS approach. International Journal of Supply Chain
Management, 6(4), 83–89.
Tuzkaya, U. R., Yilmazer, K. B., & Tuzkaya, G. (2015). An integrated methodology for the
emergency logistics centers location selection problem and its application for the
49
The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics 38 (2021) 40–49
Turkey case. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 12(1),
121–144. https://doi.org/10.1515/jhsem-2013-0107
Tzeng, G. H., & Huang, J. J. (2011). Multiple attribute decision making. NewYork: Taylor &
Francis Group.
Ulutaş, A., Karakuş, C. B., & Topal, A. (2020). Location selection for logistics center with
fuzzy SWARA and CoCoSo methods. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 38(4),
4693–4709. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-191400
Wei, H., Ye, H., Longwei, T., & Yuan, L. (2015). A novel profit-allocation strategy for SDN
enterprises. Enterprise Information Systems, 11, 4–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17517575.2015.1053417
Yazır, D., & Şahin, B. (2020). A comparative analysis for selecting possible logistics base
locations in Turkey. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Mühendislik Fakültesi Fenico ve
Mühendislik Dergisi, 22(66), 929–940. https://doi.org/10.21205/deufmd.
2020226626
Yazır, D., Şahin, B., & Yip, T. L. (2021). Selection of new design gas carriers by using
fuzzy EVAMIX method. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 37(1), 91–104.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2020.10.001
Yerlikaya, M. A., Tabak, Ç., & Yıldız, K. (2019). Logistic location selection with Critic-
Ahp and Vikor integrated approach. Data Science and Applications, 2(1), 21–25.
Zak, J. (2005). The comparison of multiobjective ranking methods applied to solve the mass
(pp. 13–16). Retrieved from 〈www.iasi.rm.cnr.it/ewgt/16conference/ID154.pdf〉.