A Fuzzy Preference Structure for the Selection of

Municipal Waste Facility Location

Ibrahim Sabry Dinu Thomas Thekkuden Abdel-Hamid I. Mourad
Department of mechanical Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
engineering, faculty of Engineering - Department Department
Benha University, College of Engineering, UAE University College of Engineering, UAE University
Benha 13518, Egypt. Al Ain, United Arab Emirates Al Ain, United Arab Emirates
Corresponding author:
ahmourad@uaeu.ac.ae
Ahmed M. El-Kassas
Department of Production Engineering
and Mechanical Design, Faculty of
Engineering, Tanta University,
Tanta 31512, Egypt

Abstract—The selection of a facility location among alternative
locations is a multi-criteria decision-making problem that includes
both subjective and objective criteria. The conventional approaches
to facility location problems tend to be less effective in dealing with
the imprecise or vagueness nature of the linguistic assessment.
Thus, this situation can be regarded as a fuzzy multiple-criteria
decision making problem considering the fuzziness and uncertainty
of subjective perception. This paper proposes an alternative
approach, the additive fuzzy integral, to cope with the evaluation of
fuzzy MCDM problems. To illustrate the proposed procedure, the
site selection of municipal waste is investigated. In this paper, the
classification of subjective and objective criteria is constructed.
Factor analysis is employed to extract four independent common
factors, subjective and objective, with seven sub-criteria for
evaluating the four location alternatives. In this paper triangular
fuzzy number is employed to represent the decision-makers
subjective preferences on the considered criteria and alternatives.
The evaluation frame is constructed by using the Analytic Hierarchy
Process which fuzzified to derive the relative weights with respect
to each type of criteria. The fuzzy synthetic evaluation is aggregated
with fuzzy performance values and the best location is chosen.
Keywords—Municipal waste; Facility location; Fuzzy sets;
Group decision; Analytic Hierarchy Process.
I. INTRODUCTION
The selection of a facility location from a set of alternatives is
a multicriteria decision-making problem that includes both
quantitative and qualitative criteria. Due to the imprecision of
assessing the linguistic variables, the traditional methods for
solving facility location problems are less effective. In
general, many of the multi criteria decision making
approaches are stochastic and qualitative in nature [1]–[4].
The macro analysis involves the evaluation of communities,
alternatives and sub-regions whereas the microanalysis
involves the evaluation of specific sites in a particular
community. Linear programming, factor rating systems,
analytic delphi model and center of gravity are some of the
techniques that support macroanalysis [5], [6]. Without taking
into consideration the global linkages between the choice
elements, the conventional approaches can only provide a set
of systematic procedures for problem-solving. Moreover, the
outcome also depends on the decision by the analyst. Machine
learning algorithms are suitable for solving multi criteria
decision making approaches [7]–[10], however fuzzy
approach is used for this research. Identification of facility
location in a region has key importance in the decision-
making process. Cagri et al. [11] proposed a fuzzy MCDM
approach with fuzzy real option value theory for selecting
supermarket location problems using assessment criteria of
the retail location. Ta-chungchu [12] investigated the facility
location using a fuzzy TOPSIS model incorporating both
subjective and objective criteria. Rahman et al. [13] used
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to identify the right
location for the plastic manufacturing industries in
Bangladesh, India. Chatterjee and Mukherjee [14] considered
three major factors and eleven subfactors for evaluating the
location of a hospital using the Analytical Hierarchy Process
in India and came up with the most significant factors such as
land cost, transport facility and population density. Similarly,
Mandal and Mondal [15] investigated five alternative projects
with ten criteria using the AHP method to identify and
evaluate the best project selection. Aydin and Kahraman [16]
applied a modified fuzzy AHP method for measuring the
performance excellence of companies applied for the
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. Similarly, chou et
al. [17] and Aras et al. [18] selected the best location for tourist
hotel destinations and wind observation stations using
MCDM respectively. AHP is highly recommended over
TOPSIS for identifying the facility location, even though
TOPSIS is useful for evaluating alternatives’ specialties.
Kengpol et al. [19] used fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS for the
selection of solar power plant locations free from flood.
Kaboli et al. [20] proposed a holistic approach of MCDM for
finding suitable locations preferable to investors and
managers. Chan et al. [21] proved that the fuzzy integrated
hierarchical MCDM is more precise than the analytical
hierarchy process for the identification of facility location.
This study proposed a systematic approach to facility location
selection by using the concepts of group decision-making,
fuzzy set theory and hierarchical structure analysis controlled
by objective and subjective criteria.
II. METHODOLOGY
A fuzzy system is devised using fuzzy set theory and
hierarchical structure for improving the accuracy of location
selection and justification. The entire process for the
identification of the best facility location is as follows.
a) Form a decision-making committee with members from
different divisions of owner, [E1, E2…., Ek]. Determine the
 numerous m alternatives (A1, A2…, Am) for each of the K scale. The transformation of linguistic scales to fuzzy
criteria (C1, C2…., Cn). numbers as defined in Table I, is constructed in these matrices
b) Choose an appropriate linguistic scale and allocate the corresponding to each owner as shown in Table II.
weights in triangle fuzzy numbers or indirectly through TABLE 1. MEMBERSHIP FUNCTION OF LINGUISTIC SCALE
pairwise comparisons. Fuzzy Linguistic scales Scale of
c) Sort the criteria into hierarchical order and categorize them number Fuzzy
using subjective and objective criteria. number
d) Subjective criteria and objective criteria are characterized ~ Equally important (Eq) (1,1,3)
1
by linguistic assessments and quantitative values. ~ Weakly important (Wk) (1,3,5)
e) Transform the linguistic variables into triangle fuzzy 3
~ Essentially important (Es) (3,5,7)
numbers using a defined rating scale. 5
~ Very strongly important (Vs) (5,7,9)
f) Create a fuzzy reciprocal matrix using criterion and sub- 7
~ Absolutely important (Ab) (7,9,9)
criteria. 9
~ −1 Less Absolutely important (LAb) (1/9,1/9, 1/7)
g) Aggregate the hierarchy over all criteria and sub-criteria. 9
h) Represent the final preference order of locations using Best ~ −1 Less Very strongly important (LVs) (1/9,1/7,1/5)
7
Non-fuzzy Performance (BNP) value. ~ −1
5 Less Essentially important (LEs) (1/7,1/5,1/3)
~ −1 Less Weakly important (LWk) (1/5,1/3,1)
III. HIERARCHICAL EVALUATION CRITERION 3
~ −1 Less Equally important (LEq) (1/3,1,1)
STRUCTURE 1

In this study, the hierarchical structure is adopted to deal with

the selection assessment of municipal waste location as per
Fig. 1. The main features of the criteria for evaluation and
selection of location alternatives were deployed from other
studies [20].

Fig. 2. Membership functions of linguistic variables

Step 2: Use a geometric technique to define the fuzzy

geometric mean. The computation of the elements of
synthetic pairwise comparison matrix using Buckley's
geometric mean approach [18] is based on the equation 1.
a~ij =( a~ij1  a~ij2  a~ij3  a~ij4  a~ij5 ) 1 / 5 =[ ( L1ij , M ij1 , U ij1 ) 
( L2ij , M ij2 , U ij2 )  ( L3ij , M ij3 , U ij3 )  ( L4ij , M ij4 , U ij4 )  ( L5ij , M ij5 , U ij5 ) ]
Fig. 1. The hierarchical structure of location selection 1 / 5 =[( L1 2 3 4 5
ij  Lij  Lij  Lij  Lij ) 1 / 5 ,( M ij1  M ij2  M ij3  M ij4 
IV. THE WEIGHTS CALCULATION OF THE M ij5 ) 1 / 5 , U ij1  U ij2  U ij3  U ij4  U ij5 )] 1 / 5 (1)
EVALUATION CRITERIA
The matrix elements using equation 1 are constructed and
The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is ideal for evaluators shown in Table III. In general, a judgment matrix with
to assess which criterion is better rather than to rank the pairwise comparisons is constructed using the geometric
criterions based on a scale and to determine the weights. In mean as shown in equation 2.
this analysis, Buckley's method (Fuzzy AHP) was employed Step 3: The elements in each row are multiplied with each
to generate fuzzy numbers for the pairwise comparisons and other and then the root is taken, where n is the number of
to determine the fuzzy weights. The procedure for elements, that is; 𝑟̃1=(𝑎̃11 ⊗ 𝑎̃12 ⊗ 𝑎̃13 ⊗ 𝑎̃14 )1/4 (See Table IV).
determining the evaluation criteria weights by Fuzzy AHP Step 4: Next dividing them with their sum normalizes the
can be summarized as follows: numbers and then applied for the weight of each criterion
Step 1: Construct pairwise comparison matrices among all (dimension), which can be estimated as follows: 𝑤 ̃𝑗 = 𝑟̃𝑗 ⊗
the criteria in the dimensions of the hierarchy system. (𝑟̃1 ⊕ 𝑟̃2 ⊕ 𝑟̃3 ⊕. . . . . . . .⊕ 𝑟̃𝑛 )−1 . The components of weights of
1 𝑎̃12 . . . . . . 𝑎̃1𝑛 1 𝑎̃12 . . . . . . 𝑎̃1𝑛
𝑎̃21 1 . . . . . . . 𝑎̃2𝑛 1/𝑎̃12 1 . . . . . . . 𝑎̃2𝑛 each criterion are 𝑤 ̃ 𝑖 = (𝐿𝑤𝑖 , 𝑀𝑤𝑖 , 𝑈𝑤𝑖 ) as described in Table IV.
𝐴̃ = . ... ... ... ... = . ... ... ... ... (1) Step 5: The best non-fuzzy performance value (BNP) is
. ... ... ... ... . ... ... ... ... calculated as in equation 3.
[𝑎̃𝑛1 𝑎̃𝑛2 . . . . . . . 1 ] [1/𝑎̃1𝑛 1/𝑎̃2𝑛 ... .... 1 ] 𝐵𝑁𝑃𝑤𝑗 = [[(𝑈𝑤𝑗 − 𝐿𝑤𝑗𝑖 ) + (𝑀𝑤𝑗 − 𝐿𝑤𝑗 )]/3] + 𝐿𝑤𝑗 , as an example,
To construct the fuzzy pairwise comparison matrix, the 𝐵𝑁𝑃𝑤1=[(𝑈𝑤1 − 𝐿𝑤1 ) + (𝑀𝑤1 − 𝐿𝑤1 )]/3 + 𝐿𝑤1 =[(0.618 − 0.162) +
(0.304 − 0.162)]/3 + 0.162=0.361. (3)
fuzzification must be constructed as follows:
1. Assign the linguistic variables that describe the degree of Similarly, the weights for the remaining criteria by this group
appropriateness of the decision criteria as shown in Table I. are constructed in Table IV.
2. Each element of the linguistic variables should be assigned V. EVALUATION OF SUB-CRITERIA
the Membership function. The triangular fuzzy numbers are
used as membership functions in the proposed technique. The same five steps in the evaluation of criteria are applied
Fig. 2 indicates the membership functions that correspond to to deal with the three groups of sub-criterion measurements
the triangular fuzzy numbers. under three objective criteria to extract the fuzzy weights.
The pairwise comparison operation inside the group decision
making can be linguistically constructed by a fuzzy linguistic
 TABLE II. GROUP FUZZY PAIRWISE COMPARISON OF OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE
CRITERIA
OWNER 1
C1 C2 C3 C4
L M U L M U L M U L M U
C1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 7.0 9.0 9.0 0.3 1.0 1.0
C2 0.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 5.0 7.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
C3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
C4 1.0 1.0 3.0 7.0 9.0 9.0 7.0 9.0 9.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
OWNER 2
C1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 7.0 9.0 0.2 0.3 1.0
C2 0.2 0.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 7.0 9.0 9.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
C3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.2
C4 1.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 7.0 5.0 7.0 9.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
OWNER 3
C1 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 5.0 7.0 3.0 5.0 7.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
C2 0.1 0.2 0.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 7.0 9.0 0.2 0.3 1.0
C3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.2
C4 3.0 5.0 7.0 1.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 7.0 9.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
OWNER 4
C1 1.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 7.0 9.0 7.0 9.0 9.0 0.2 0.3 1.0
C2 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 7.0 9.0 9.0 0.1 0.1 0.2
C3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
C4 1.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 7.0 9.0 7.0 9.0 9.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
OWNER 5
C1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 5.0 7.0 9.0 9.0 1.0 1.0 3.0
C2 0.2 0.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 7.0 9.0 0.1 0.1 0.2
C3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
C4 0.3 1.0 1.0 5.0 7.0 9.0 7.0 9.0 9.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

TABLE III. SYNTHETIC PAIRWISE COMPARISON MATRIX OF CRITERIA

C1 C2 C3 C4
Lij Mij Uij Lij Mij Uij Lij Mij Uij Lij Mij Uij
C1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.719 3.160 5.431 5.524 7.610 8.559 0.286 0.467 1.000
C2 0.184 0.316 0.582 1.000 1.000 1.000 5.165 7.237 8.559 0.131 0.172 0.286
C3 0.117 0.131 0.181 0.117 0.138 0.194 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.111 0.123 0.163
C4 1.000 2.141 3.500 3.500 5.809 7.610 6.119 8.139 9.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
TABLE IV. FUZZY CRITERIA WEIGHTS
Normalization Criteria weights
BNPwi
Lri Mri UrI Lwi Mwi UwI
C1 1.283 1.831 2.611 0.162 0.304 0.618 0.361
C2 0.595 0.792 1.092 0.075 0.132 0.258 0.155
C3 0.197 0.217 0.275 0.025 0.036 0.065 0.042
C4 2.151 3.172 3.935 0.272 0.528 0.931 0.577

 a~11 a~12 . . a~1n   ( L11 , M11 , U11 ) ( L12 , M12 , U12 ) . . ( L1n , M1n , U1n ) 
~   
a21 a~22 . . a~2n  ( L21 , M 21 , U 21 ) ( L22 , M 22 , U 22 ) . . ( L2n , M 2n , U 2n )
~ 
D= . . . . . = . . . . .  (2)
   
 . . . . .   . . . . . 
 a~ a~n 2 . . a~nn   ( Ln1, M n1, U n1 ) ( Ln 2 , M n 2 , U n 2 ) . . ( Lmn , M mn , U nn 
 n1 (2)
Table V shows the constructed fuzzy Pairwise comparisons weights of sub-criteria wsj= ( Lwsj, Mwsj, Uwsj) are estimated in
of sub-criteria based on five owners. Therefore, Table VI.
normalization of fuzzy vector and also Fuzzy synthetic
TABLE V. FUZZY PAIRWISE COMPARISONS OF SUB-CRITERIA WITH FIVE OWNERS
Owner 1
Environmental Spatial Economy
C11 C12 C21 C22 C31 C32
Lij Mij Uij Lij Mij Uij Lij Mij Uij Lij Mij Uij Lij Mij Uij Lij Mij Uij
C11 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 C21 1.00 1.00 1.00 7.00 9.00 9.00 C31 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00
C12 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 C22 0.11 0.11 0.14 1.00 1.00 1.00 C32 0.14 0.20 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00
Owner 2
C11 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.20 0.33 1.00 C21 1.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 7.00 9.00 C31 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 5.00
C12 1.00 3.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 C22 0.11 0.14 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 C32 0.20 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Owner 3
C11 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.14 0.20 0.33 C21 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 5.00 C31 1.00 1.00 1.00 7.00 9.0 9.0
C12 3.00 5.00 7.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 C22 0.20 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 C32 0.11 0.11 0.14 1.00 1.00 1.00
Owner 4
C11 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.111 0.143 0.200 C21 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 C31 1.00 1.00 1.00 7.00 9.00 9.00
 C12 5.00 7.00 9.00 1.000 1.000 1.00 C22 0.14 0.20 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 C32 0.11 0.11 0.14 1.00 1.00 1.00
Owner 5
C11 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.111 0.111 0.143 C21 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 C31 1.00 1.00 1.00 7.00 9.00 9.00
C12 7.00 9.00 1.00 1.000 1.000 1.00 C22 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 C32 0.11 0.11 1.00 1.000 1.00 1.00

TABLE VI. FUZZY SUB-CRITERIA WEIGHTS

Normalization Criteria weights
BNP
Lri Mri Uri Lwsi Mwsi Uwsi
C11 0.405 0.504 0.628 0.155 0.203 0.314 0.224
C12 1.593 1.984 1.984 0.610 0.797 0.993 0.800
C21 1.593 1.984 2.472 0.514 0.797 1.237 0.850
C22 0.405 0.504 0.628 0.131 0.203 0.314 0.216
C31 2.001 2.534 2.759 0.595 0.865 1.167 0.876
C32 0.363 0.395 0.607 0.108 0.135 0.257 0.166

towards alternative with respect to sub-criterion. Table IV

VI. THE ALTERNATIVES MEASUREMENT illustrates the evaluation of four alternative fuzzy
The steps in the alternatives measurements under its sub- performance values from the five evaluators with respect to
criteria as constructed by the members of the committee seven sub-criterions. The definition of linguistic variables
(Evaluators) are constructed as follows. varies according to the evaluations by evaluators. Therefore,
1. Assign the linguistic variables that describe the degree of the current study uses an average value for integrating the
appropriateness of the decision criteria according to Table V. fuzzy judgment values of m evaluators given by 𝐸̃𝑖𝑗 = (1/𝑚),
2. The membership functions as triangular fuzzy numbers for where ⊗ and ⊕ denotes fuzzy multiplication and fuzzy
each element of the linguistic variables are given. addition respectively, 𝐸̃𝑖𝑗 is the average fuzzy number of the
3. The evaluators subjectively give their linguistic variable judgment of the decision-makers, that can also be displayed
range, which might reflect the membership functions of each by a triangular fuzzy number, 𝐸̃𝑖𝑗 = (𝐿𝐸𝑖𝑗 , 𝑀𝐸𝑖𝑗 , 𝑈𝐸𝑖𝑗 ). The
evaluator's expression values. Each linguistic variable can be end-point values 𝐿𝐸𝑖𝑗 , 𝑀𝐸𝑖𝑗 and 𝑈𝐸𝑖𝑗 can be calculated from
indicated by a TFN on a scale of 0 to 100 (Figs. 3-7).
equation 3.
𝐿𝐸𝑖𝑗 = (∑𝑘=𝑚 𝐾
𝑘=1 𝐿𝐸𝑖𝑗 )/𝑚 𝑀𝐸𝑖𝑗 = (∑𝑘=𝑚 𝐾
𝑘=1 𝑀𝐸𝑖𝑗 )/m𝑈𝐸𝑖𝑗 =
(∑𝑘=𝑚 𝐾
𝑘=1 𝑈𝐸𝑖𝑗 )/𝑚 (3)
as example:
𝟏
̃ 𝟑𝟏=(𝑬
𝑬 𝑬𝟐 𝑬𝟑 𝑬𝟒 𝑬𝟓 )=
Fig. 3. Membership function of linguistic variables for the evaluator, E1
𝑭 𝑷 𝑷 𝑷 𝑷
𝑬𝟏 𝑬𝟐 𝑬𝟑 𝑬𝟒 𝑬𝟓
( )
(𝟑𝟓, 𝟒𝟓, 𝟕𝟎) (𝟏𝟎, 𝟑𝟎, 𝟓𝟎) (𝟏𝟓, 𝟐𝟕, 𝟒𝟑) (𝟒𝟎, 𝟓𝟎, 𝟔𝟎) (𝟏𝟓, 𝟑𝟎, 𝟒𝟓)
̃ 𝟑𝟏 = ((∑𝒌=𝟓
𝑬 𝑲 𝒌=𝟓 𝑲 𝒌=𝟓 𝑲
𝒌=𝟏 𝑳𝑬𝟑𝟏 )/𝟓, (∑𝒌=𝟏 𝑴𝑬𝟑𝟏 )/𝟓, (∑𝒌=𝟏 𝑼𝑬𝟑𝟏 )/𝟓)= (23.0, 36.4,

53.6) = (𝐿𝐸31 , 𝑀𝐸31 , 𝑈𝐸31 )

Fig. 4. Membership function of linguistic variables for the evaluator, E2
Fig. 5. Membership function of linguistic variables for the evaluator, E3
Fig. 6. Membership function of linguistic variables for the evaluator, E4
where 𝐸̃31 is the evaluation value of alternative number three
with respect to sub-criteria number one. Therefore, the fuzzy
performance matrix 𝐸̃𝑖𝑗 of each of the alternatives can also
be obtained from the fuzzy performance value of each
alternative under n criteria, that is, 𝐸̃= 𝐸̃𝑖𝑗 = (𝐿𝐸𝑖𝑗 , 𝑀𝐸𝑖𝑗 , 𝑈𝐸𝑖𝑗 ) as
shown in Table IX.
VII. FUZZY SYNTHETIC DECISION
The weights of each location evaluation criterion 𝐹𝑤 ̃𝑗 and
fuzzy performance values are integrated for the calculation of
fuzzy numbers. According to the weight of criteria 𝑤 ̃𝑗 =
(𝐿𝑤𝑗 , 𝑀𝑤𝑗 , 𝑈𝑤𝑗 ) and weight of sub-criteria 𝑤 ̃ 𝑠𝑗 =
(𝐿𝑤𝑠𝑗 , 𝑀𝑤𝑠𝑗 , 𝑈𝑤𝑠𝑗 ), the overall weight of criteria would be
𝐹𝑤̃𝑗 =(𝐿𝑤𝑗 , 𝑀𝑤𝑗 , 𝑈𝑤𝑗 ) x(𝐿𝑤𝑠𝑗 , 𝑀𝑤𝑠𝑗 , 𝑈𝑤𝑠𝑗 ) = (𝐿𝐹𝑤𝑗 , 𝑀𝐹𝑤𝑗 , 𝑈𝐹𝑤𝑗 ) [17].
The estimated overall criteria weight vectors are provided in
Table VIII.

Fig. 7. Membership function of linguistic variables for the evaluator, E5

4. Evaluation criteria are evaluated by 𝐸̃𝑖𝑗𝑘 = (𝐿𝐸𝑖𝑗𝐾 , 𝑀𝐸𝑖𝑗𝐾 , 𝑈𝐸𝑖𝑗𝐾 ),

where 𝐸𝑖𝑗𝑘 indicates the fuzzy performance value of evaluator
 TABLE VII. FUZZY PERFORMANCE VALUE OF EVALUATOR K TOWARDS ALTERNATIVE I UNDER
CRITERION j
POLLUTION
A1 A2 A3 A4
Lkij Mkij Ukij Lkij Mkij Ukij Lkij Mkij Ukij Lkij Mkij Ukij
E1ij 85.00 100.00 100.00 35.00 45.00 70.00 35.00 45.00 70.00 35.00 45.00 70.00
E2ij 80.00 100.00 100.00 30.00 50.00 70.00 10.00 30.00 50.00 30.00 50.00 70.00
E3ij 88.00 100.00 100.00 38.00 48.00 65.00 15.00 27.00 43.00 60.00 78.00 90.00
E4ij 90.00 100.00 100.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 60.00 70.00 80.00
E5ij 90.00 100.00 100.00 15.00 30.00 45.00 15.00 30.00 45.00 45.00 60.00 75.00
NUISANCE
E1ij 85.00 100.00 100.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 35.00 45.00 70.00 85.00 100.00 100.00
E2ij 80.00 100.00 100.00 65.00 75.00 85.00 65.00 75.00 85.00 80.00 100.00 100.00
E3ij 88.00 100.00 100.00 60.00 78.00 90.00 60.00 78.00 90.00 88.00 100.00 100.00
E4ij 90.00 100.00 100.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 80.00 85.00 90.00
E5ij 75.00 80.00 90.00 45.00 60.00 75.00 45.00 60.00 75.00 75.00 80.00 90.00
GROWTH
E1ij 70.000 80.000 90.000 70.000 80.000 90.000 0.000 0.000 20.000 0.000 0.000 20.000
E2ij 65.000 75.000 85.000 65.000 75.000 85.000 0.000 0.000 25.000 0.000 0.000 25.000
E3ij 80.000 85.000 90.000 80.000 85.000 90.000 0.000 0.000 19.000 0.000 0.000 19.000
E4ij 90.000 100.000 100.000 80.000 85.000 90.000 0.000 0.000 40.000 0.000 0.000 40.000
E5ij 90.000 100.000 100.000 75.000 80.000 90.000 15.000 30.000 45.000 0.000 0.000 15.000
NEIGHBORHOOD
E1ij 35.00 45.00 70.00 85.00 100.00 100.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 85.00 100.00 100.00
E2ij 65.00 75.00 85.00 65.00 75.00 85.00 80.00 100.00 100.00 30.00 50.00 70.00
E3ij 88.00 100.00 100.00 38.00 48.00 65.00 38.00 48.00 65.00 15.00 27.00 43.00
E4ij 40.00 50.00 60.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 80.00 85.00 90.00 60.00 70.00 80.00
E5ij 45.00 60.00 75.00 15.00 30.00 45.0 45.00 60.00 75.00 75.00 80.00 90.00
TRANSPORTATION
E1ij 35.00 45.00 70.00 85.00 100.0 100.0 85.00 100.00 100.00 70.00 80.00 90.00
E2ij 30.00 50.00 70.00 80.00 100.0 100.0 80.00 100.00 100.00 65.00 75.00 85.00
E3ij 60.00 78.00 90.00 88.00 100.0 100.0 60.00 78.00 90.00 60.00 78.00 90.00
E4ij 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.0 100.0 80.00 85.00 90.00 80.00 85.00 90.00
E5ij 45.00 60.00 75.00 90.00 100.0 100.0 90.00 100.00 100.00 75.00 80.00 90.00
INVESTMENT
E1ij 70.00 80.00 90.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 35.00 45.00 70.00 85.00 100.00 100.00
E2ij 65.00 75.00 85.00 30.00 50.00 70.00 65.00 75.00 85.00 80.00 100.00 100.00
E3ij 60.00 78.00 90.00 15.00 27.00 43.00 15.00 27.00 43.00 65.00 75.00 85.00
E4ij 90.00 100.00 100.00 80.00 85.00 90.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 80.00 85.00 90.00
E5ij 90.00 100.00 100.00 45.00 60.00 75.00 75.00 80.00 90.00 75.00 80.00 90.00
NIMBY
E1ij 85.00 100.00 100.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 0.00 0.00 20.00
E2ij 65.00 75.00 85.00 30.00 50.00 70.00 30.00 50.00 70.00 10.00 30.00 50.00
E3ij 38.00 48.00 65.00 60.00 78.00 90.00 60.00 78.00 90.00 38.00 48.00 65.00
E4ij 80.00 85.00 90.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 40.00 50.00 60.00
E5ij 90.00 100.00 100.00 75.00 80.00 90.00 75.00 80.00 90.00 45.00 60.00 75.00

TABLE VIII. LOCAL AND OVERALL WEIGHTS OF CRITERION

Criteria and sub- Local weights Overall weights
criterion Lwj Mwj Uwj Lwsj Mwsj Uwsj LFwj MFwj UFwj
Environmental 0.162 0.304 0.618
Pollution 0.155 0.203 0.314 0.03 0.06 0.19
Nuisance 0.61 0.80 0.99 0.10 0.24 0.61
Spatial 0.075 0.132 0.258
Growth 0.514 0.797 1.237 0.04 0.11 0.32
Neighborhood 0.131 0.203 0.314 0.01 0.03 0.08
Economy 0.025 0.036 0.065
Transportation 0.595 0.865 1.167 0.01 0.03 0.08
Investment 0.108 0.135 0.257 0.003 0.005 0.02
NIMBY 0.272 0.528 0.931 0.27 0.53 0.93

TABLE IX. AVERAGE FUZZY PERFORMANCE VALUES OF ALTERNATIVES FOR EACH ALTERNATIVE
WITH OVERALL WEIGHTS
Criterion Overall weights A1 A2 A3 A4
Pollution 0.03 0.06 0.19 86.6 100 100 35.6 48.6 66.0 23.0 36.4 53.6 46.0 60.6 77.0
Nuisance 0.10 0.24 0.61 83.6 96.0 98.0 60.0 72.6 84.0 53.0 65.6 80.0 81.6 93.0 96.0
Growth 0.04 0.11 0.32 79.0 88.0 93.0 74.0 81.0 89.0 3.0 6.0 29.8 0.0 0.0 23.8
Neighborhood 0.01 0.03 0.08 54.6 66.0 78.0 52.6 64.6 75.0 52.6 64.6 74.0 53.0 65.4 76.6
Transportation 0.01 0.03 0.08 46.0 60.6 77.0 86.6 100 100 79.0 92.6 96.0 70.0 79.6 89.0
Investment 0.003 0.005 0.02 75.0 86.6 93.0 48.0 60.4 73.6 50.0 59.4 73.6 77.0 88.0 93.0
NIMBY 0.27 0.53 0.93 71.6 81.6 88.0 59.0 71.6 84.0 59.0 71.6 84.0 26.6 37.6 54.0
 (𝐿𝐸11 , 𝑀𝐸11 , 𝑈𝐸11 ) (𝐿𝐸12 , 𝑀𝐸12 , 𝑈𝐸12 )
(𝐿𝐸21 , 𝑀𝐸21 , 𝑈𝐸21 ) (𝐿𝐸22 , 𝑀𝐸22 , 𝑈𝐸22 )
𝑅̃ = . .
. .
[ (𝐿𝐸𝑚1 , 𝑀𝐸𝑚1 , 𝑈𝐸𝑚1 ) (𝐿𝐸𝑚2 , 𝑀𝐸𝑚2 , 𝑈𝐸𝑚2 )
. . (𝐿𝐸1𝑛 , 𝑀𝐸1𝑛 , 𝑈𝐸1𝑛 ) (𝐿𝐹𝑤1 , 𝑀𝐹𝑤1 , 𝑈𝐹𝑤1 )
. . (𝐿𝐸2𝑛 , 𝑀𝐸2𝑛 , 𝑈𝐸2𝑛 ) (𝐿𝐹𝑤2 , 𝑀𝐹𝑤2 , 𝑈𝐹𝑤2 )
. . . ∗ . (3)
. . . .
. . (𝐿𝐸𝑚𝑛 , 𝑀𝐸𝑚𝑛 , 𝑈𝐸𝑛𝑛 ] [ (𝐿𝐹𝑤𝑛 , 𝑀𝐹𝑤𝑛 , 𝑈𝐹𝑤𝑛 )]

From the overall criteria weight vector 𝐹𝑤 ̃𝑗 and the of injection molding parameters for HDPE/TiO2 nanocomposites
fabrication with multiple performance characteristics using the
̃
alternatives fuzzy performance matrix 𝐸𝑖𝑗 , the final fuzzy Taguchi method and grey relational analysis,” Materials (Basel).,
synthetic decision matrix can be concluded in Table IX. vol. 9, no. 8, p. 710, 2016.
Therefore, the fuzzy appropriate index of locations are [3] I. Sabry, A.-H. I. Mourad, and D. T. Thekkuden, “Optimization of
metal inert gas-welded aluminium 6061 pipe parameters using
derived from the fuzzy synthetic decision matrix 𝑅̃ , that is, analysis of variance and grey relational analysis,” SN Appl. Sci.,
𝑅̃𝑖 = 𝐸̃ ∘ 𝐹𝑤̃ as constructed in equation (4), where ∘ vol. 2, no. 2, p. 175, 2020.
indicates the arithmetic operation. From Table IX, the [4] R. Arunachalam et al., “Optimization of stir–squeeze casting
parameters for production of metal matrix composites using a
calculation of fuzzy multiplication is complex, therefore it is hybrid analytical hierarchy process–Taguchi-Grey approach,”
denoted by the approximate multiplied result of the fuzzy Eng. Optim., vol. 52, no. 7, pp. 1166–1183, 2020.
multiplication and the approximate fuzzy number 𝑅̃𝑖 , where [5] A. Klose, “An LP-based heuristic for two-stage capacitated facility
𝑅̃𝑖 = (𝐿𝑅𝑖 , 𝑀𝑅𝑖 , 𝑈𝑅𝑖 ) a fuzzy synthetic decision of each location problems,” J. Oper. Res. Soc., vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 157–166,
1999.
alternative can be represented as shown in Table X, where [6] C. Canel, B. M. Khumawala, J. Law, and A. Loh, “An algorithm
𝐿𝑅𝑖 , 𝑀𝑅𝑖 and 𝑈𝑅𝑖 are the lower, middle and upper synthetic for the capacitated, multi-commodity multi-period facility location
performance values of the alternative as constructed in problem,” Comput. Oper. Res., vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 411–427, 2001.
equation 5. [7] A. H. Idrisi and A. H. I. Mourad, “Wear performance analysis of
Aluminum matrix composites using Artificial neural network,” in
𝐿𝑅𝑖 = ∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝐿𝐸𝑖𝑗 × 𝐿𝐹𝑤𝑗 ; 𝑀𝑅𝑖 = ∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑀𝐸𝑖𝑗 × 𝑀𝐹𝑤𝑗 ; 2019 Advances in Science and Engineering Technology
𝑛
𝑈𝑅𝑖 = ∑𝑖=1 𝑈𝐸𝑖𝑗 × 𝑈𝐹𝑤𝑗 International Conferences (ASET), 2019, pp. 1–5.
[8] B. F. Yousef, A.-H. I. Mourad, and A. Hilal-Alnaqbi, “Prediction
of the mechanical properties of PE/PP blends using artificial neural
VIII. RANKING THE FUZZY NUMBER networks,” Procedia Eng., vol. 10, pp. 2713–2718, 2011.
[9] B. F. Yousef, A.-H. I. Mourad, and A. Hilal-Alnaqbi, “Modeling
The BNP value of the fuzzy number 𝑅̃𝑖 can be calculated of the mechanical behavior of polyethylene/polypropylene blends
using artificial neural networks,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., vol.
according to the following equation: 𝐵𝑁𝑃𝑤𝑖 = [[(𝑈𝑅𝑖 − 64, no. 5–8, pp. 601–611, 2013.
𝐿𝑅𝑖 ) + (𝑀𝑅𝑖 − 𝐿𝑅𝑖 )]/3] + 𝐿𝑅𝑖 i as constructed in Table [10] D. T. Thekkuden and A.-H. I. Mourad, “Investigation of feed-
X. forward back propagation ANN using voltage signals for the early
prediction of the welding defect,” SN Appl. Sci., vol. 1, no. 12, p.
Table X.
10 FUZZY
Fuzzy appropriate indexINDEX
of locations 1615, 2019.
TABLE APPROPRIATE OF LOCATIONS
[11] A. Cagri Tolga, F. Tuysuz, and C. Kahraman, “A fuzzy multi-
LRi MRi URi BNP Rank
criteria decision analysis approach for retail location selection,”
A1 34.377 85.855 204.970 108.40 1 Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak., vol. 12, no. 04, pp. 729–755,
A2 27.653 72.059 185.951 95.220 2 2013.
[12] T.-C. Chu, “Facility location selection using fuzzy TOPSIS under
A3 23.796 61.488 161.772 82.350 3 group decisions,” Int. J. uncertainty, fuzziness knowledge-based
A4 18.222 50.819 146.292 71.780 4 Syst., vol. 10, no. 06, pp. 687–701, 2002.
[13] M. S. Rahman, M. I. Ali, U. Hossain, and T. K. Mondal, “Facility
location selection for plastic manufacturing industry in
Bangladesh by using AHP method,” Int. J. Res. Ind. Eng., vol. 7,
IX. CONCLUSION no. 3, pp. 307–319, 2018.
[14] D. Chatterjee and B. Mukherjee, “Potential hospital location
Fuzzy group decision making approach was found to selection using AHP: a study in rural India,” Int. J. Comput. Appl.,
be an excellent tool to evaluate the qualitative and vol. 71, no. 17, 2013.
quantitative assessments for the selection of municipal waste [15] S. Mandal and S. S. Mondal, “Analytic hierarchy process (AHP)
approach for selection of open cast coal mine project,” Int. J. Ind.
facility location. A fuzzy group is constructed from five
Eng., vol. 7, no. 2, 2016.
owners based on their experiences. The owners’ decision [16] S. Aydin and C. Kahraman, “A New Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy
depended on the proposed hierarchical analysis of the Process and Its Application to Vendor Selection Problem.,” J.
municipal waste location problem that included subjective Mult. Log. Soft Comput., vol. 20, 2013.
[17] T.-Y. Chou, C.-L. Hsu, and M.-C. Chen, “A fuzzy multi-criteria
and objective criteria. The concepts of fuzzy numbers and
decision model for international tourist hotels location selection,”
linguistic variables are used to evaluate four alternatives Int. J. Hosp. Manag., vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 293–301, 2008.
considering seven sub-criteria hierarchical from objective [18] H. Aras, Ş. Erdoğmuş, and E. Koç, “Multi-criteria selection for a
and subjective criteria. In the proposed technique, the owners wind observation station location using analytic hierarchy
process,” Renew. Energy, vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 1383–1392, 2004.
chose their scales in comparison to alternatives without any
[19] A. Kengpol, P. Rontlaong, and M. Tuominen, “A decision support
limitations. As a result, the suggested decision algorithm was system for selection of solar power plant locations by applying
implemented. Ranks were allotted based on the calculated fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS: An Empirical Study,” 2013.
best non-performance fuzzy number. The best location was [20] M. Tabari, A. Kaboli, M.-B. Aryanezhad, K. Shahanaghi, and A.
Siadat, “A new method for location selection: a hybrid analysis,”
evaluated using the proposed Fuzzy AHP algorithm.
Appl. Math. Comput., vol. 206, no. 2, pp. 598–606, 2008.
[21] F. T. S. Chan, N. Kumar, and K. L. Choy, “Decision-making
REFERENCES approach for the distribution centre location problem in a supply
chain network using the fuzzy-based hierarchical concept,” Proc.
[1] I. Sabry, A. H. Idrisi, and A.-H. I. Mourad, “Friction Stir Welding Inst. Mech. Eng. Part B J. Eng. Manuf., vol. 221, no. 4, pp. 725–
Process Parameters Optimization Through Hybrid Multi-Criteria 739, 2007.
Decision-Making Approach,” Int. Rev. Model. Simulations
(IREMOS); Vol 14, No 1, Feb. 2021.
[2] H. Pervez, M. S. Mozumder, and A.-H. I. Mourad, “Optimization