Research in Transportation Business & Management 33 (2019) 100434

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Research in Transportation Business & Management

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

Location selection of multimodal freight terminal under STEEP T

sustainability
Aalok Kumar , Ramesh Anbanandam
⁎

Department of Management Studies, IIT, Roorkee 247667, India

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Multimodal freight terminal (MFT) build a link to connect multiple modes of transport and provide a smooth
Multimodal freight terminal flow of freight in the supply chain network. The sustainability measure of MFT can be viewed as a lever to uplift
Sustainability measure freight transportation sustainability. The MFT sustainability assessment involves several subjective criteria, in-
Intuitionistic fuzzy set complete criteria information, and vagueness in the group decision-making process. To keep above nature of the
AHP
decision-making problem, this paper use intuitionistic fuzzy (IF) based MCDM framework for sustainability
TOPSIS
Freight transport
assessment. The IF method is suitable for incorporating experts importance degree in decision-making problem.
The proposed sustainability framework includes social, technical, economic, environmental, and political
(STEEP) sustainability dimension for assessment of MFT location. The framework considers twenty-five sub-
criteria, including four new criteria for location assessment. The importance of STEEP criterion is computed by
employing IF-analytic hierarchy process (IF-AHP). The proposed framework is validated with a case of Eastern
dedicated freight corridor (EDFC) of India. The sustainability assessment of four alternative locations is mea-
sured by employing an IF based TOPSIS method. The computation result of the considered case shows that
technical sustainability is the most important criteria for location selection, followed by economic criteria. The
experts' varying importance based sensitivity analysis is the novelty of this paper. The sensitivity analysis depicts
the robustness of the proposed framework. The managerial and theoretical implications of the study are pre-
sented. The resulting analysis helps transport policymakers in investment assessment for freight terminal.

1. Introduction supply chain connectivity, economic development, and growth of the

The freight transportation operations have a significant influence on
the economic, environmental, and social wellbeing of the nation. The
development of multimodal freight terminal (MFT) provides con-
nectivity to the multiple modes of transport and value addition to the
freight transport activities (Rodrigue & Notteboom, 2010). The MFT has
various logistical capabilities to facilitate modal switching, reduce
traffic congestion and connectivity to the global freight market (Long &
Grasman, 2012a). The location planning and assessment for MFT is a
vital component for improving the sustainability performance of the
freight distribution system. In the last two decade, due to increasing
national and global freight demand, nations are facing challenges to
traffic congestion, social and environmental externalities (Abbasi &
Nilsson, 2016). The reduction in freight transport externalities can be
achieved through promoting sustainable freight transportation prac-
tices at a national or global level (Evangelista, Colicchia, & Creazza,
2017).
The multimodal freight transport infrastructure improves the global
region (Ghaderi et al., 2015), while the amount of freight demand needs
investment in transport infrastructure to improve the economic growth
and supply chain connectivity (Ghaderi et al., 2015). The MFTs are
generally open facilities where freight shippers and logistics service
providers have a choice to use multiple modes of transport or use
single-mode from terminal to freight source or vice-versa (Teye, Bell, &
Bliemer, 2017). The work of Woodburn (2008) defines the two main-
stream of the intermodal freight terminal research. The first group of
studies develop the quantitative decision theories for the intermodal
terminals and optimise the number of terminal location across the
transport network. In this stream, various optimisation and simulation
methods are used to optimise terminal operation (Steadieseifi, Dellaert,
Nuijten, Van Woensel, & Raoufi, 2014). Other domain of studies focuses
on governance and planning for developing multimodal services and
improves the share of rail transport in freight distribution. The second
stream is deal with the various planning instruments for the develop-
ment of freight terminals and their impact on supply chain business
performance. This area is essential for transport policymakers and

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: aalokitbhu@gmail.com (A. Kumar), ram77fdm@iitr.ac.in (R. Anbanandam).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2020.100434
Received 31 July 2019; Received in revised form 26 December 2019; Accepted 21 January 2020
Available online 05 February 2020
2210-5395/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Kumar and R. Anbanandam
logistics managers to decide terminal development policies (Bergqvist,
2008). In developing nations, road mode is dominated over other
modes, while rail and waterways remain underutilised (Bhattacharya,
Kumar, Tiwari, & Talluri, 2014). Schuckmann, Gnatzy, Darkow, and
von der Gracht (2012) put light on the importance of sustainability
requirement for developing transport facility infrastructure for the year
2030 and concluded that transport infrastructure sustainability assess-
ment requires consideration of economic, environmental, and social
sustainability. The efficient terminal location significantly improves the
efficiency of the freight logistics system (He, Wang, Lin, Zhou, & Zhou,
2017a). The researchers have used freight terminals synonymous such
as freight village, logistics hub, multimodal logistics park, international
distribution centre (IDC), and logistics node (Tang, Tang, & Wang,
2013). The developing nation's intermodal freight transportation
system faces multiple challenges Despite focused work on intermodal or
multimodal transport, infrastructure planning of multimodal transport
is an under research topic in developing nations. This paper considers
the term of multimodal freight terminal (MFT) and intermodal freight
terminal interchangeably.
1.1. Research motivation, gap, and objectives
The authors are motivated by work of Woodburn (2008) and
Steadieseifi et al. (2014) on multimodal facility selection problem,
which mainly focused on the different sustainability policies on trans-
port infrastructure development and investment decisions on terminal
location. The developing nations like India having potential to develop
sustainable freight transport practices by promoting multimodal freight
transportation systems (Shankar, Pathak, & Choudhary, 2019). Kumar
& Anbanandam (2020) reported the inhibitors of intermodal railroad
system in multiple stakeholders context. The sustainability assessment
of MFT location among candidate locations is an MCDM problem be-
cause it includes various qualitative and quantitative evaluation cri-
teria. Some of the studies such as Sirikijpanichkul and Ferreira (2005),
Arnold, Peeters, & Thomas (2004), and Elevli (2014) consider economic
criteria for locating freight terminal. Awasthi, Chauhan, and Goyal
(2011a) include economic and environmental sustainability criteria in
locating freight centre. Acknowledging the role of multimodal freight
terminal in Indian freight transport industry, the Government of India
approved plan for developing Eastern & Western dedicated freight
corridor (EDFC and WDFC) in 11th five-year plan (2007–2012)
(Capital, 2016) and proposes thirty-five multimodal park across the
country by the end of 2020 (McKinsey and Company, 2016). According
to the NDTPC report (NTDPC, 2014), the development of MFT provides
competitive cost services to the freight shippers and improves the
connectivity to the global freight market. Also, the development of
dedicated freight corridor (DFC) improve the freight transport modal
imbalance and sustainability of freight transport system (NITI Aayog
and Rocky Mountain Institute, 2018). Past studies clearly show that the
MFT location sustainability is evaluated in disaggregate way, and
overlooked the technical and political sustainability dimensions. The
most of the past researchers used continuous location models, integer
programming, algorithms for location selection, but that models fail to
incorporate the subjectivity of the selection criteria (Steadieseifi et al.,
2014). Most of the previous work based on traditional or fuzzy decision-
making framework and fail to incorporate the importance degree of the
experts'. To bridge the above scientific and policy gap, this paper pre-
sents a comprehensive research framework to evaluate and select the
most sustainable multimodal freight terminal (MFT) location under
social, technical, economic, environmental, and political (STEEP) di-
mensions. However, implementation of government sustainable freight
mobility plan has faltered because of a lack of evaluation framework for
MFT location (Goyal & Singh, 2018). Hence, the sustainability assess-
ment of MFT location along the DFC in India is theoretically and
managerially significant. This paper will answer the following research
questions;
2
Research in Transportation Business & Management 33 (2019) 100434
• What are the critical STEEP attributes for the assessment of MFT
location?
• How to prioritise STEEP attributes in a group decision-making en-
vironment?
• How to assess the suitability of proposed MFT locations based on
STEEP sustainability dimensions in the multi-criteria decision-
making environment?
The above research questions are answered through the following
research objectives;
• To identify social, technical, economic, environmental, and political
(STEEP) sustainability sub-criteria for assessment of MFT location.
• To incorporate the expert's importance in-group decision-making
process and compute the priority weight of STEEP dimension and its
sub-criteria by using intuitionistic fuzzy analytic hierarchy process
(IF-AHP).
• To assess the performance of candidate MFT location concerning
STEEP sub-criteria by incorporating intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS.
• To check the proposed framework robustness by performing sensi-
tivity analysis.
The present paper proposes an intuitionistic fuzzy (IF) integrated
AHP and TOPSIS method for MFT location assessment. The proposed
method has superiority with crisp and fuzzy methods in terms of better
inclusion of incompleteness of information and hesitancy degree of
expert's perceptions (Abdullah & Najib, 2014). Another advantage of
the proposed method is to include group consensus with a satisfactory
degree of agreement. To achieve objective 1, the authors reviewed the
freight terminal location literature and conducted semi-structured in-
terviews with the freight industry experts. Based on expert consensus
twenty-five sustainability criterion under STEEP dimension are fina-
lised for assessment, and the hierarchical framework of the research
problem is presented in Fig. 2. The second objective is accomplished by
an intuitionistic fuzzy set method for calculating the importance degree
of the experts' and weight of the STEEP criterion by using IF-AHP
method. The third objective is achieved by assessing the performance of
each candidate location by using IF-TOPSIS method and rank the can-
didate locations based on their closeness coefficient. The last objective
shed light on model robustness through sensitivity analysis.
The remainder of the paper arranged in the following way. In
Section 2, presents terminal location selection literature and applica-
tion of MCDM methods. Section 3 presents the proposed methodology.
The validation of the proposed research framework is presented in
Section 4. The result discussion and sensitivity analysis are given in
Section 5. Subsequently, the managerial and theoretical implication is
presented in Section 6. Finally, conclusion and future research direction
are presented in Section 7.
2. Literature review
This section presents the literature review of the sustainability
measure of terminal location and rationale for adopting IF-AHP-TOPSIS
method.
2.1. Evaluation criteria for MFT location
It is essential to devise appropriate evaluation criteria for MFT lo-
cation selection. The evaluation criteria involve a certain level of un-
certainty and ambiguity in the group decision-making process, which
raise the requirement of MCDM based framework under group decision-
making (GDM) approach. This section put light on the STEEP sustain-
ability criterion for assessment of MFT location. Selection of freight
logistics terminal treated as multi-dimensional facility location pro-
blem. The important dimensions may include user transport accessi-
bility (Dablanc, 2007; Kayikci, 2010; Lindawati, van Schagen, Goh, &
A. Kumar and R. Anbanandam
de Souza, 2014; Vural & Tuna, 2016), quality of transportation infra-
structure (Long & Grasman, 2012a; Vlachopoulou, Silleos, & Manthou,
2001) and multi-modal transport availability at terminal (Awasthi
et al., 2011a; Kayikci, 2010). Apart from these spatial factors, non-
spatial factors such as demographics, availability of the land, skilled
labour availability (Nguyen & Notteboom, 2017; Tsamboulas & Kapros,
2003), proximity to freight market (Nguyen & Notteboom, 2016; van
den Heuvel, de Langen, van Donselaar, & Fransoo, 2014), availability of
freight volume (Bottani & Rizzi, 2007) is necessary during location
selection for building freight terminal. Pham, Ma, and Yeo (2017) used
fuzzy Delphi TOPSIS for locating the logistics centre in Vietnam under
consideration of fourteen criteria for three potential freight centre lo-
cations. Their findings mention that amount of freight demand, proxi-
mity to the freight market, proximity to the production area, the lo-
cation of freight shippers, and transport costs are concluded as the most
critical criteria. Önüt and Soner (2008) used a fuzzy integrated model
(AHP and TOPSIS) for selecting a candidate location for solid waste
transhipment site in Istanbul, Turkey. They consider the five criteria
and proximity to the industrial waste area in the most important cri-
teria. Demirel, Demirel, and Kahraman (2010a) used the Choquet in-
tegral and TOPSIS method to capture the vagueness of experts during
the terminal location decision for a Turkish logistics firm. They con-
sidered transportation cost, labour characteristics, and transportation &
telecommunication infrastructure, proximity to the market/customer,
and government policies & law as selection criteria. Kayikci (2010)
developed a neural network-based model for location selection of a
logistics centre with multiple stakeholder involvement and re-
commended a conceptual framework for finding the best location for
constructing intermodal freight centre in Turkey. Whereas, Dey,
Bairagi, Sarkar, & Sanyal (2017) develop a framework with multiple
MCDM methods for finding the terminal location for the company
warehouse with an illustrative case example. Kuo, 2011a used an
MCDM hybrid method for selection of a global distribution centre in the
Asia Pacific region. He recommended transhipment time at the term-
inal, warehouse facility; city connectivity and import/export volume
are the most important criteria for distribution centre location. Önden,
Acar, and Eldemir (2016) used a two-step hybrid fuzzy AHP and GIS-
based model to determine the suitability of the logistics centre in
Turkey. They consider seven different criteria for finding the best lo-
cation of logistics centre among nineteen different locations in Turkey.
(Roso et al., 2015a) developed an AHP based model for locating inland
intermodal terminal in Croatia. They consider the transport flexibility,
safety & security of terminal, reliability, travel time and terminal ac-
cessibility as selection criteria. Rao, Goh, Zhao, and Zheng (2015) used
linguistics 2-tuple method in GDM approach for a section of the city
centre. Regmi and Hanaoka (2013) model is based on AHP and goal
programming for locating the logistic centre in Laos. Awasthi, Chauhan,
and Goyal (2011b) develop a location selection of city centre under
uncertainty. They integrate fuzzy set theory into TOPSIS to rank the
potential logistics centre locations. The above literature review reveals
that some sustainability criteria have been given less attention by
academicians and practitioners so far. Although many researchers try to
answer the location selection problem in the deterministic environ-
ment, due to the involvement of the uncertainty issues in decision
making, group decision making in multi-criteria decision methods are
more intuitive (Rao et al., 2015). The following STEEP criteria re-
levance are presented below;
2.1.1. Social criteria
A number of job opportunity (SC1): A proposed terminal location
would create the number of new job opportunities. Kumar and
Anbanandam (2019) revealed that new job opportunity has a positive
impact on the improvement of sustainability practices in the freight
transportation industry. KPMG (2018) report shows that the develop-
ment of multimodal freight transportation system will bring good job
opportunity of local communities.
3
Research in Transportation Business & Management 33 (2019) 100434
Availability of public facilities at the terminal (SC2): The location of
multimodal freight terminal requires connectivity to public facilities
such as road, power, hospital, and communication facility. Tu and Ter
Chang (2016) discuss the importance of available facilities for airport
expansion plan in Taiwan. The importance of public freeing space at the
freight centre is discussed by Awasthi & Chauhan (2012).
Freight terminal connectivity to the city (SC3): The freight terminal
connectivity to the city will help to commute workforce from the city to
terminal location. The connectivity of the terminal to the city centre is
an important criterion for the location distribution centre (Rao et al.,
2015). Awasthi et al. (2011a) discuss the inclusion of connectivity to
the city centre for locating urban freight terminal.
Effect on farmers agriculture land (SC4): The DFC experts propose this
criterion. The EDFC passes through the fertile agricultural region of the
country, and a terminal location will affect the framers agricultural
land. The industry experts propose this criterion. They concluded that a
new terminal location should have the least adverse effect on the
farmer's agricultural land.
Improvement of local living standard (SC5): The selected terminal has
an impact on nearby residents living standard because they provide
various direct and indirect job to the community (He et al., 2017a).
Kayikci (2010) study shows that a suitable terminal location will help to
generate the new job opportunity, consequently uplift the local living
standard.
2.1.2. Technical criteria
Proximity to the industrial and freight zone (TC1): This criterion refers
to the market reach of a region. The freight terminal location near to
the freight market reduces the short handling cost of transport (Janic,
2007). Pham et al. (2017) considered the proximity of freight terminal
to the freight market as a potential criterion for a location logistics
centre in Vietnam. They consider thirteen criteria for location assess-
ment. Fatih Yildirim and Önder (2014) conducted a study for locating
the logistics centre in Vietnam under consideration of fourteen different
criteria for three potential freight centre locations. Their findings
mention that amount of freight demand, proximity to the freight
market, proximity to the production area, the location of freight ship-
pers, and transport costs are concluded as the most critical criteria.
Availability of adequate land (TC2): This criterion is a consideration is
required to fulfil the expansion plan of the terminal and avoid ‘ware-
house explosion’ (Rao et al., 2015). Logistical infrastructure develop-
ment will likely need more land for developing freight handling facility,
customer services, and loading tracks (Tang et al., 2013).
Availability of the skilled and unskilled workforce (TC3): The amount
of skilled and unskilled workforce is required for smooth terminal op-
eration. Freight terminal operations need skilled and unskilled labour
for the various terminal operations (Long & Grasman, 2012b).
Availability of electricity & water supply (TC4): The industry expert
recommended that the availability of water and electricity is required
for terminal operations. A terminal location should have a sufficient
source of water and electricity supply.
The freight handling capacity of the terminal (TC5): freight handling is
an important function of terminal operation. The adequate capacity of
the terminal will fulfil the freight shippers demand (Regmi & Hanaoka,
2013). Long and Grasman (2012a) shows that freight handling capacity
is an important criterion for location selection.
Accessibility of multimodal transport (TC6): A good connectivity to
transport mode is attracted by the freight shippers (Rao et al., 2015).
Multimodal freight terminal location should provide access to the road,
rail, waterway, and airways to connect the global freight market
(Kayikci, 2010). Elevli (2014) claimed that good connectivity to rail,
waterway and air is preferred for locating a freight centre.
The possibility of freight terminal expansion (TC7): The MFT location
should have to meet the requirement of the increased freight demand.
The expansion plan of the freight terminal involves the construction of
new container yard, warehouses, parking yard, banks, restaurants and
A. Kumar and R. Anbanandam
Table 1
MFT location assessment criteria and sub-criteria.
STEEP criteria Sub-criteria
Social (SC) Number of job opportunity (SC1)
Availability of the public facility at the terminal (SC2)
Freight terminal connectivity to the city (SC3)
Effect on farmers agriculture land (SC4)
Improvement of local living standard (SC5)
Technical (TC) Proximity to the industrial and freight zone (TC1)
Availability of the adequate land (TC2)
Availability of the skilled and unskilled workforce (TC3)
Availability of electricity & water supply (TC4)
The freight handling capacity of the terminal (TC5)
Accessibility of multimodal transport (TC6)
The possibility of freight terminal expansion (TC7)
Economic (EC) Land acquisition cost (EC1)
Government taxes (EC2)
Transportation cost (EC3)
Infrastructure building cost (EC4)
Investment pay-back period (EC5)
Economic development (EC6)
Environmental (EnC) Freight operations impact on congestion (EnC1)
Compliance of environmental emission laws and regulations
(EnC2)
Noise pollution due to terminal operation (EnC3)
Impact on natural landscape (EnC4)
Political (PC) Development of special economic zones by central/state
government (PC1)
The political stability of government (PC2)
Security of terminal/ workforce (PC3)
B = Benefit type; C = Cost type.
fuel stations (Awasthi et al., 2011a).
2.1.3. Economic criteria
Land acquisition cost (EC1): A freight terminal construction requires
a large amount of land to run freight operations smoothly. The land
purchasing cost is a significant component of total project cost, and its
careful consideration is required (Fatih Yildirim & Önder, 2014). Also,
the land price is one of the prime factors for terminal investment (Rao
et al., 2015). Therefore, the cost of competitive land is required for
terminal development (Long & Grasman, 2012b). Regmi and Hanaoka
(2013) considered that land acquisition cost is an important criterion
for locating freight centre in Laos.
Government taxes (EC2): To attract the investors and promote the
regional development, local and national government may propose tax
benefit for the investors (He, Wang, Lin, Zhou, & Zhou, 2017b). The
preferential tax policies would lower the construction and operation
cost of the terminal. The government tax support for developing mul-
timodal transport is essential (Zak & Węgliński, 2014).
Transportation cost (EC3) (per ton-km): The location of the terminal
should be near to the freight source. Therefore it reduces the cost of
short hauling and provides cost-competitive per ton kilometre trans-
portation cost (Regmi & Hanaoka, 2013). The findings of Awasthi et al.
(2011a) recommended that the location of city logistics centre should
reduce the transport cost.
Infrastructure building cost (EC4): The development of terminal re-
quire multiple transport mode infrastructure as well as terminal
equipment's (Zak & Węgliński, 2014). The infrastructure development
cost is an essential component of freight terminal site selection (Regmi
& Hanaoka, 2013).
Investment payback period (EC5): Investor is looking for the payback
their investment amount. The industry expert recommended that the
inclusion of the investment payback period is less would attract global
or local investors in terminal development.
Research in Transportation Business & Management 33 (2019) 100434
Nature Sources
B (Kumar & Anbanandam, 2019)
B (Awasthi & Chauhan, 2012; Rao et al., 2015; Tu & Ter Chang, 2016)
B (Awasthi & Chauhan, 2012; Rao et al., 2015)
C Authors contribution
B (He et al., 2017b; Kayikci, 2010; Rao et al., 2015)
B (Awasthi et al., 2011a; Pham et al., 2017)
B (He et al., 2017b; Rao et al., 2015)
B (Kayikci, 2010; Rao et al., 2015; Roso, 2008)
B Authors contribution
B (Kayikci, 2010; (Long and Grasman, 2012a); Zak & Węgliński, 2014;
Sirikijpanichkul & Ferreira, 2005)
B (Fatih Yildirim & Önder, 2014; He et al., 2017a; Kayikci, 2010; Regmi &
Hanaoka, 2013)
B (Fatih Yildirim & Önder, 2014; He et al., 2017b; Rao et al., 2015)
C (He et al., 2017b; Özceylan, Erbaş, Tolon, Kabak, & Durʇut, 2016; Regmi &
Hanaoka, 2013)
C (He et al., 2017b; Zak & Węgliński, 2014)
C (Arnold et al., 2004;(Demirel et al., 2010a) ; Elevli, 2014)
C (Kapros, Panou, & Tsamboulas, 2005; Kayikci, 2010; Regmi & Hanaoka, 2013;
Zak & Węgliński, 2014)
C Authors contribution
C (Awasthi & Chauhan, 2012; Kayikci, 2010)
C (Awasthi & Chauhan, 2012; Rao et al., 2015; Regmi & Hanaoka, 2013)
C (Awasthi et al., 2011b; He et al., 2017b)
C (Awasthi et al., 2011b; He et al., 2017b)
C Authors contribution
B (Long & Grasman, 2012a)
B (Kayikci, 2010)
B (Rao et al., 2015; (Tu and Ter Chang, 2016))
Economic Development (EC6): The economic development is related
to the per capita income of the proposed region (Zak & Węgliński,
2014). It measures the economic potential of the region and contribu-
tion to the development of freight terminal in that region.
2.1.4. Environmental criteria
Freight operations impact on congestion (EnC1): The influence of
multimodal freight terminal on traffic condition should be taken into
account. A multimodal freight terminal location suffered from various
vehicle movement and affected the local traffic condition (Rao et al.,
2015). He et al. (2017b) considered that the joint distribution centre
location could have an impact on traffic congestion.
Compliance of environmental emission laws and regulations (EnC2):
Due to the vehicle travel and machinery operation at the freight
terminal amount of air pollution increases (He et al., 2017b). Awasthi
et al. (2011a) considered the impact of air pollution due to the delivery
activities.
Noise pollution due to terminal operation (EnC3): Noise generated by
the movement of the vehicles have negative on the residents (Awasthi
et al., 2011b). A proposed location infrastructure could use low noise
equipment to mitigate the noise impact of the freight movement.
Impact of the natural landscape (EnC4): When selecting the terminal
location, decision-makers should include the status of a natural en-
vironment. The natural environment is related to the region tempera-
ture variation, amount of rainfall, and wind, which reduces the risk of
terminal construction. The natural conditions also belong to the con-
servation of the local flora, fauna, forest conservation.
2.1.5. Political criteria
Development of special economic zones (SEZ) by central/state govern-
ment (PT1): The development of special economic zone development
will attract the freight transport service providers to use the multimodal
services. Regmi and Hanaoka (2013) considered the role of government
4
A. Kumar and R. Anbanandam Research in Transportation Business & Management 33 (2019) 100434

support for developing special economic zones in proximity to the
freight terminal. The development of SEZ improves investment attrac-
tiveness (Zak & Węgliński, 2014). Industrial regulations laws im-
plemented by the state or nation's government is a necessary criterion
for political sustainability (Demirel, Demirel, & Kahraman, 2010b).
The political stability of the government (PT2): A stable government
system will make coherent policies for the development of a multi-
modal system in a nation. Kayikci (2010) discussed that political sta-
bility plays an essential role in stability in policymaking.
Security of terminal/workforce (PT3): Security provision is related to
the freight terminal location should be free theft and vandalism (Rao
et al., 2015). The government and political support are required for the
security of the terminal (Tu & Ter Chang, 2016). Some times the
terminal location is affected by environmental crime and offences (Zak
& Węgliński, 2014). To best the knowledge of the authors and discus-
sion with the industry experts, the above criterion is included for sus-
tainability assessment of MFT location. Table 1 delineates the STEEP
sub-criterion with their managerial nature (cost or benefit).
degree of decision-makers (Abdullah & Najib, 2016), and that creates
space for the integration of IFS (Atanassov, 1989). The integration of IF to
MCDM method can provide comprehensive assessments of criteria and
alternative by using a hesitancy function (Abdullah & Najib, 2014).
Abdullah and Najib (2016) developed an interval value IF integration with
AHP and (Büyüközkan & Güleryüz, 2016) proposes an IF-AHP based
model for a selecting product development partner.
TOPSIS method was developed in the year 1981 (Hwang & Yoon,
1981). The TOPSIS method measures the preference of a candidate
location with respect to the positive ideal solution (PIS) point and ne-
gative ideal solution (NIS) point. The closest to PIS and farthest from
NIS claims the next alternative position (Hwang & Yoon, 1981). The
extension of the TOPSIS method in IF environment is presented in the
study of Büyüközkan & Güleryüz (2016) and Xu & Zhang (2013).
Table 3 shows the application of IFS with AHP and TOPSIS in the di-
verse field of alternative selection problem.
3. Solution methodology

2.2. MCDM application in terminal location sustainability assessment This section presents a basic definition and notation of IFS along
with the arithmetic operations on triangular IFS. Later, an integrating of
Many operations research and heuristics-based models have been IFS into AHP and TOPSIS will be given in Section 3.1. The flowchart of
presented in past studies for solving location problems (Steadieseifi used methodology has been presented in Fig. 1. In a finite set of T, TIFS
et al., 2014). However, these models are unable to include the sub- M can be stated as:
jectivity of the decision-making criteria. Also, the solution obtained M = { t , µM (t ), vM (t ) t T} (1)
from classical heuristics-based modes is either too complex or too
general to include the real situation of the location problem (Farahani, In Eq. (1) μM(t), vM(t) : T → [0, 1] are the T membership function,
SteadieSeifi, & Asgari, 2010). In most of the real cases, the terminal and the non-membership function of T is represented as,
location selection problem involves multiple stakeholders that having 0 µM (t ) + vM (t ) 1,
different goals and priorities (Yildiz & Tüysüz, 2018). The important
terminal location dimension and MCDM method/s considered by past
{ t , µM (t ), 1 µM (t ) | t T} (2)
researchers are given in Table 2. The need for intuitionistic fuzzy (IF) In IFS, degree of hesitation is represented by π(t) and belongs to M.
set integration with MCDM methods for group decision-making (GDM)
are discussed in Section 2.3. M =1 µM (t ) vM (t ) (3)
And for every t ∈ T:
2.3. Need for integrating IFS with AHP and TOPSIS for GDM 0 (t ) 1
M

Mardani, Jusoh, and Zavadskas (2015) show that AHP is the most
commonly used method in management science for obtaining the im-
portance weight of factors or criteria. Saaty develops AHP method in the
year 1980 (Saaty, 1980). The simple computation with consistency mea-
surement in AHP has been proven as the main advantage of using AHP in
the MCDM methods (Mardani et al., 2015). Although AHP has widely
criticised by the researchers because it is not working in an ambiguous and
uncertain environment (Gumus, 2009). Due to this limitation, integration
of fuzzy set theory to AHP is needed because the fuzzy set improves the
decision-making under vague and uncertain environment (Ren & Lützen,
2015). Although the integration of fuzzy set fails to include the hesitancy
The lower value of πM(t) highlights the certainty of the knowledge.
As the value πM(t)is greater, then the certainty about x becomes lesser
certain and vice-versa. Suppose A and B two TIFS that is a member of T,
the following athematic operations as follows (Abdullah & Najib, 2014):
A + B = { [t , µA (t ) + µB (t ) µA (t ) µB (t ), vA (t ) vB (t )] | t T }
A B = { [t , µA (t ) µB (t ), vA (t ) + vB (t ) vA (t ) vB (t )] | t T } (4)
Let I represents a triangular intuitionistic fuzzy number, and then
the triangular membership and triangular non-membership function I is
given as follows.
The triangular membership function:

Table 2
Application of MCDM methods in terminal location problem along with sustainability criteria.
# Author (s) S T E En P No. of criteria Used method (s)

1 Kayikci (2010) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 28 Fuzzy AHP and ANN

2 Demirel et al. (2010a, 2010b) ✓ ✓ ✓ 16 Choquet integral
3 Li, Liu, and Chen (2011) ✓ ✓ 13 Axiomatic fuzzy set and TOPSIS
4 Kuo (2011) ✓ ✓ 10 Fuzzy DEMATEL and ANP
5 Awasthi et al. (2011a, 2011b) ✓ ✓ ✓ 13 Fuzzy TOPSIS
6 Regmi and Hanaoka (2013) ✓ ✓ 13 AHP and GP
7 Elevli (2014) ✓ ✓ 5 PROMETHEE
8 Roso et al. (2015a, 2015b) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 15 AHP
9 Rao et al. (2015) ✓ ✓ ✓ 13 Fuzzy TOPSIS with 2 tuple
10 Nguyen and Notteboom (2016) ✓ ✓ ✓ 18 Delphi TOPSIS
11 Önden et al. (2016) ✓ ✓ 7 Fuzzy AHP
12 He et al. (2017a, 2017b) ✓ ✓ ✓ 13 Fuzzy TOPSIS
Present study ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 25 IF-AHP and IF-TOPSIS

S = Social sustainability; T = Technical sustainability; E = Economic sustainability; En = Environmental sustainability; P=Political sustainability.

5
A. Kumar and R. Anbanandam Research in Transportation Business & Management 33 (2019) 100434

Table 3
Application of intuitionistic fuzzy set based AHP or TOPSIS method in alternative selection.
Year Author (s) Methodology Research area Type of study Year

2009 (Kavita Yadav & Kumar, 2009) Interval value-Intuitionistic TOPSIS Supplier evaluation Illustrative study 2009
2010 (Kaur, Verma, & Mahanti, 2010) IF-AHP Vendor selection Illustrative study 2010
2012 (Boran, Boran, & Menlik, 2012) Intuitionistic TOPSIS Selection of energy resources Case study 2012
2014 (Abdullah & Najib, 2014) IF-AHP Sustainable energy technology selection , 2014
2016 (Büyüközkan & Güleryüz, 2016) IF-AHP and IF-TOPSIS Product development partner selection , 2016
2016 (Tavana, Zareinejad, Di Caprio, & Kaviani, 2016) IF-AHP and SWOT Reverse logistics outsourcing partner , 2016
selection
2018 (Yazdi, 2018) IF-TOPSIS Risk assessment model , 2018
Present study Intuitionistic fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS MFT location selection ,

Fig. 1. Schematic flow chart of IF-AHP –TOPSIS methodology.

6
A. Kumar and R. Anbanandam Research in Transportation Business & Management 33 (2019) 100434

(t a) µ I Table 4
(a t b ) IFNs scale for importance rating of participated experts' (Abdullah & Najib,
b a
µI (t = b ) 2016).
µ I (t ) =
(c t)µI Linguistic variables Code IF function
(b < t c)
c b μ ν π
0 otherwise (5)
Less important LI 0.60 0.35 0.05
The non-membership function as: Important I 0.75 0.20 0.05
Most important MI 0.90 0.05 0.05
Highly important HI 0.95 0.00 0.05
(b t ) + v I (x a)
(a t < b)
b a
vI (t = b )
v I (t ) = µk +
µk
(t b ) + v I (c t) k K
µk + k
(b < t c) k = , where k =1
c b Z k=1
0 otherwise
K
µk
(6) Z= µk + k
k=1
µk + k (7)

Step 3: Obtaining experts' linguistic preference for factor and sub-

3.1. Computation step of IF-AHP and IF-TOPSIS factor.
The pairwise comparison of factor and sub-factor are made based on
The following steps are given for integrated methodology; the intuitionistic fuzzy scale given in Table 5. After that, an in-
Step 1: The decision problem identification is started with the de- tuitionistic preference relations matrix is developed. For making a
velopment of a hierarchical structure (Fig. 2 in considered case). A set group decision making the procedure, an aggregation of all the experts'
of alternatives U = {U1, U2, U3. . ……, Um} are evaluated for n selected responses are necessary. The aggregation of experts responses are per-
criteria {C1, C2, C3. . ……, Cn}. formed with intuitionistic fuzzy weighted averaging (IFWA) operator
Step 2: Compute the importance weight of experts'. (Xu, 2007). Let us assume that S is the group decision matrix:
Let, Ek = (μk, vk, πk) be an IFN used to rate the kth expert. The im-
portance degree of these experts' is computed by using the IFS lin- S11k S1n k
guistics given in Table 4. The importance degree of a kth expert can be S = (Sij k ) = ,k K
calculated as Eq. (7). Sm1k Smn k (8)

where Sij k = (µij k , vij k, ij

k
) the aggregation of the responses is done using
Eq. (9)

Goal Multimodal freight terminal (MFT)location selection under sustainability

Criteria Social (SC) Technical (TC) Economic (EC) Environmental (En) Political (PT)

Sub-criteria
Number of job Proximity to the Land acquisition Freight operations Development of
opportunity (SC1) industrial and freight cost (EC1) impact on congestion special economic
Availabililty of the zone (TC1) Government taxes (En1) zones by central
public facility at the Availability of the (EC2) Compliance of and state
terminal (SC2) adequate land (TC2) Transportation cost environmental government (PT1)
Freight terminal Availability of the skilled (EC3) emission laws and
connectivity to the city and unskilled workforce Political stability of
Infrastructure regulations (En2)
(SC3) (TC3) government (PT2)
building cost (EC4) noise pollution due to
Effect on farmers Availability of electricity Security of
Investment pay-back terminal operations
agriculture land (SC4) & water supply (TC4) (En3) terminal/
period (EC5)
Improvement of living Freight handling capacity Effect on natural workforce (PT3)
Economic
standard (SC5) of the terminal (TC5) development (EC6) landscape (EnN4)
Accessibility to
multimodal transport
(TC6)
The possibility of freight
terminal expansion (TC7)

Alternative
Location A1 Location A2 Location A3 Location A4

Fig. 2. hierarchical structure of STEEP sustainability measure of MFT.

7
A. Kumar and R. Anbanandam Research in Transportation Business & Management 33 (2019) 100434

Table 5
IFS values for AHP preferences and alternative performance (Abdullah & Najib, 2014).
Linguistic variables for AHP IF values Linguistic variables for TOPSIS IF values

μ ν π μ ν π

Equally important (EI) 0.02 0.18 0.8 Extremely low (El) 0.00 0.95 0.05
Intermediate value 1 (IV1) 0.06 0.23 0.7 Very low (VL) 0.05 0.90 0.05
Moderately more important (MI) 0.13 0.27 0.6 Low (L) 0.25 0.70 0.05
Intermediate value 2 (IV2) 0.22 0.28 0.5 Moderately low (ML) 0.40 0.55 0.05
Strongly more important (SI) 0.33 0.27 0.4 Fair (F) 0.50 0.45 0.05
Intermediate value 3 (IV3) 0.47 0.23 0.3 Moderately high (MH) 0.60 0.35 0.05
Very strong more important (VSI) 0.62 0.18 0.2 High (H) 0.75 0.20 0.05
Intermediate value 3 (IV4) 0.8 0.1 0.1 Very high (VH) 0.90 0.05 0.05
Extremely more important (EMI) 1 0 0 Extremely high (EH) 0.95 0.00 0.05

Sj = IFWA (Sij (1) , Sij (2) ,…Sij (k ) ) = 1 Sij

(1)
2 Sij
(2) .…… k Sij
(k ) r11 r12 r1m
r21 r22 r2m
R =
K K K K
= 1 (1 µij (k ) ) k , (µij (k ) ) k , (1 µij (k ) ) k (µij (k ) ) k
rn1 rn2 rnm (14)
k=1 k=1 k=1 k=1

S = [S1 , S2 , S3. ……Sj] where rij′ = (μij', νij', πij') = (μAi ∗ s(tj), νAi ∗ s(xj), πAi ∗ s(xj)) is a member
(9) of the combined weighted IF matrix.
Step 8: Computation of IFPIS and IFNIS.
Step 5: Verification of response consistency.
In this step to identify the nature of criteria like cost or benefit type.
The purpose of checking the consistency ratio (CR) of each matrix is
Let us assume P1 is the benefit type criteria, and P2 is the cost type of
to check the consistency of the experts' responses. CR value lower than
criteria (Table 1 shows the nature of STEEP sub-criteria). The IFPIS and
0.1 is acceptable, and if the CR is higher than 0.1, then the pairwise
IFNIS are computed as follows:
comparison revision is recommended (Saaty, 1980). The Eq. (10) is
used to compute the consistency ratio based on random index (RI) value
[ (max i µ Ei . w (x j ) | p P1), (mini µ Ei . w (xj ) | p P2) ],
is given in Table 6 (Saaty, 1980). E+ =
[ (mini v Ei. w (xj ) | p P1), (maxi v Ei. w (x j ) | p P1 )]
( max p)
(p 1)
CR = [ (mini µ Ei . w (xj ) | p P1), (max i µ Ei . w (x j ) | p P2 ) ],
RI (10)
E =
[ (max i v Ei . w (xj ) | p P1), (mini v Ei. w (xj ) | p P1)] (15)
Here (λmax − p) is the mean value of πij(x)and p represents the size
of the judgement matrix.
Step 6: Computation of criteria and sub-criteria importance weight. Step 9: Compute the alternative separation measures from IFPIS and
The computation of decision criteria weight is performed with Eq. IFNIS.
(11) The separation measure of each alternative can be measured
through the Euclidean distance method (Büyüközkan & Güleryüz,
1 2016). The computation of distance from IFPIS and IFNIS is calculated
wi = [µ ln µi + vi ln vi (1 i) ln(1 i) i ln 2]
p ln 2 i as follows:
n
1 wi
wi = n where wi = 1 1 n
p wi j =1 B+ = j =1
[µ Ei s (t j ) µ E+ s (t j )2 + v Ei s (t j ) v E+
j=1
2n
s (t j ) 2 + s (t j ) E+ s (t j ) 2]
(11) Ei

1 n
Step 7: Computation of intuitionistic fuzzy values for alternatives. B = j=1
[µ Ei s (t j ) µE s (t j )2 + v Ei s (t j ) vE
2n
Experts measure the performance of the selected criterion to each
alternative is performed by IFS scale presented in Table 4. After that, s (t j ) 2 + Ei s (t j ) E s (t j ) 2 ] (16)
alternatives aggregated decision matrix are constructed, then the ag-
gregated weighted decision matrix for alternatives has been formed as Here B+ and B− represent the distance from IFPIS and IFNIS re-
follows: spectively.
Step 10: Computation of closeness coefficient (CCi) of each alter-
S R = {t , µ Ai (t ) µT (t ), (t ) + (t ) (t ) (t ) | t T}
Ai T Ai T
native. Eq. (17) used for computing closeness coefficient.
(12)
Bi
Next, CCi =
Bi + Bi+ (17)
Ai t (t ) =1 Ai (t ) t (t ) µ Ai (t ) µt (t ) + Ai (t ) t (t ) (13)
Step 11: Rank the alternative based on CCi score. The highest score
Based on the above computation, an aggregate weighted IF decision is considered as the most attractive alternative.
matrix is obtained as Eq. (14);

Table 6
Random indices (Saaty, 1980).
p 1–2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
RI 0.00 0.58 0.9 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49 1.52 1.54 1.56 1.57 1.59

8
A. Kumar and R. Anbanandam Research in Transportation Business & Management 33 (2019) 100434

Fig. 3. Eastern dedicated freight corridor map (Source: http://dfccil.gov.in/dfccil_app/Eastern_Corridor accessed on 21st September 2018.

4. Validation of the research framework 4.2. Computational analysis of the case study

4.1. Research problem outline The following computational steps are followed for the sustain-
ability assessment of MFT locations.
The proposed methodology is implemented in the assessment of Step 1: Define sustainability measure and development of the
sustainable MFT location along Eastern dedicated freight corridor hierarchical structure of a problem.
(EDFC) of India. EDFC stretch a distance of 1856 km (KM) and passes Table 1 shows the selected criteria for evaluation for MFT location.
through six Indian states (DFCCIL, 2018). EDFC is having two types of The STEEP based sustainability criteria are identified from the litera-
transport infrastructure: one is electrified double track for a distance of ture review and validated with industry expert by using nominal group
1409 KM between Khurja (Uttar Pradesh) and Dhankuni (West Bengal) technique (NGT). In NGT, the importance of criteria is evaluated by the
and the second one is the single track of 477 KM between Khurja to experts' in an unbiased manner (Delbecq & Van de Ven, 1971). The NGT
Ludhiana (Punjab) (DFCCIL, 2018). The strategic location of multi- is a conventional group decision-making process which pushes every
modal freight terminal having a significant impact on EDFC and freight decision-maker to participate in the decision process, and no dominant
mobility sustainability (Goyal & Singh, 2018). The estimated total decision is allowed (Shyur & Shih, 2006). The used questionnaire for
traffic is projected to go up to 116 million tonnes in the year 2021–22 experts' response is given in Appendix A1.
(McKinsey and Company, 2016). EDFC will create direct and indirect Step 2: Compute the expert's importance weight.
job opportunities, reduction in traffic congestion, better wagon loading Each selected experts having a wide spectrum of skills, experience,
factor and improved freight train speed (Dedicated Freight Corridor and knowledge about the concerned case, so the computation of their
2017). The hierarchical model of location selection of MFT is given in importance is required. The three criteria were considered while as-
Fig. 2, and the actual EDFC route is presented in Fig. 3. The four al- signing a weight to the experts: (i) relevant experience in freight
ternative locations are chosen for terminal construction and named as transport planning, (ii) experts education level and (iii) experts' orga-
A1, A2, A3, and A4. The proposed approach ensures EDFC decision- nisational position. The importance degree of each expert is determined
makers to identify a solution for selecting the most sustainable location through IFS linguistic scale given in Table 4, and corresponding values
that provides a better trade-off among STEEP dimension of sustain- are presented in Table 8. The computational illustration of importance
ability. Table 1 presents twenty-five sub-criterion, including four new weight calculation of expert 1 (E1) is given below.
criteria for the assessment of the location.
The rationale of selecting only four experts is that, the proposed
method given a robust result with less number of experts. The past E1 =
{0.75 + 0.05 ( 0.75
0.75 + 0.2 )} = 0.2143
researchers consider three experts for analysing group decision making (0.75 + 0.05 0.75
0.75 + 0.2 ) + (0.9 + 0.05 0.9
0.9 + 0.05 )
under IFS environment (Abdullah & Najib, 2014; Aloini, Dulmin,
+ (0.9 + 0.05 ) + (0.95 + 0.05 )
0.9 0.95
Mininno, Pellegrini, & Farina, 2018; Boran et al., 2012; Büyüközkan & 0.9 + 0.05 0.95 + 0

Güleryüz, 2016; Yazdi, 2018). The designation and experience of par-

Step 3: Obtain experts IF decision matrix.
ticipated experts were given in Table 7. In the next subsection, MFT
In the above step, the pairwise comparison between each sustain-
location selection procedure will be given step by step.
ability criteria and sub-criteria are obtained. Due to the space con-
straint, only social dimension computation is presented here. The re-
maining STEEP dimensions linguistic rating and computation are given
in supplementary data file. Table 9 present the linguistic responses of

9
A. Kumar and R. Anbanandam Research in Transportation Business & Management 33 (2019) 100434

Table 7
Experts' experience and knowledge profile.
Expert no. Experience (years) Domain expertise Designation

E1 21 Freight terminal operations, terminal expansion planning, infrastructural Head, Infrastructure & Development unit, in a private freight
development terminal
E2 19 ICD terminal design, freight corridor design project Project manager
E3 15 Multimodal freight terminal operations, international business, contracts Senior operations manager
E4 18 ICD terminal operations, loading and unloading schedules Senior project manager

Table 8 Table 11
The importance of experts and their weight. Individual expert judgement matrix and group matrix along with CR check.
E1 E2 E3 E4 E1 E2 E3 E4

Linguistic terms I MI MI HI μ ν π μ ν π μ ν π μ ν π
Weight 0.2143 0.2571 0.2571 0.2714
SC1 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.377 0.125 0.498 0.419 0.112 0.469 0.759 0.068 0.173
SC2 0.211 0.256 0.533 0.093 0.261 0.646 0.247 0.195 0.558 0.164 0.241 0.595
SC3 0.225 0.201 0.574 0.200 0.163 0.637 0.176 0.270 0.553 0.142 0.259 0.599
Table 9
SC4 0.240 0.147 0.613 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.207 0.144 0.648 0.337 0.163 0.500
Linguistic responses of the social dimension of the STEEP framework. SC5 0.186 0.298 0.516 0.482 0.168 0.350 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.599 0.106 0.295
E1 E2 E3 CR 0.098 0.095 0.098 0.092

SC1 SC2 SC3 SC4 SC5 SC1 SC2 SC3 SC4 SC5 SC1 SC2 SC3 SC4 SC5
Aggregate matrix (group decision-making approach)
SC1 EI SI MI SI EMI EI MI SI VSI EI SI IV4 EI IV1
SC2 EI MI MI EI EI EI MI μ ν π
SC3 SI EI MI SI EI EI
SC4 EI EMI SI EI SI SI EI IV1 SC1 1.000 0 0.000
SC5 SI MI EI VSI VSI SI EI VSI EMI EI SC2 0.179 0.236 0.585
SC3 0.184 0.220 0.596
SC4 1.000 0.000 0.000
E4 SC5 1.000 0.000 0.000
CR 0.052
SC1 SC2 SC3 SC4 SC5

SC1 EI SI IV4 IV4 IV4 individual and aggregated IF values along with consistency ratio.
SC2 EI EI Step 5: Computation of consistency ratio (CR).
SC3 EI The CR of individual expert and group consensus are computed with
SC4 VSI SI EI EI
the help of Eq. (9), and given in Table 11. For illustration purpose
SC5 IV4 IV4 EI
aggregate matrix CR is computed as follows;

all expert and corresponding IFS conversion is given in Table 10. 0.2362
CRSC = = 0.052 < 0.1
Step 4: Computation of group decision-making matrix. 4 1.12
Expert's linguistics assessment of criteria and sub-criteria are ag- The obtained CR value is less than 0.1.
gregated into a group decision by using Eq. (8). Table 11 presents Step 6: Determine the entropy weight of STEEP elements.

Table 10
IF matrix of the social dimension.
SC1 SC2 SC3 SC4 SC5

μ ν π μ ν π μ ν π μ ν π μ ν π

E1 0.02 0.18 0.8 0.33 0.27 0.4 0.13 0.27 0.6 0.33 0.27 0.4 1 0 0
0.27 0.33 0.4 0.02 0.18 0.8 0.27 0.33 0.4 0.13 0.27 0.6 0.27 0.33 0.4
0.27 0.13 0.6 0.33 0.27 0.4 0.02 0.18 0.8 0.13 0.27 0.6 0.27 0.33 0.4
0.27 0.33 0.4 0.27 0.13 0.6 0.27 0.13 0.6 0.02 0.18 0.8 0.27 0.13 0.6
0 1 0 0.33 0.27 0.4 0.33 0.27 0.4 0.13 0.27 0.6 0.02 0.18 0.8
E2 0.02 0.18 0.8 0.27 0.13 0.6 0.13 0.27 0.6 0.33 0.27 0.4 0.62 0.18 0.2
0.13 0.27 0.6 0.02 0.18 0.8 0.02 0.18 0.8 0 1 0 0.18 0.62 0.2
0.27 0.13 0.6 0.02 0.18 0.8 0.02 0.18 0.8 0.27 0.33 0.4 0.18 0.62 0.2
0.27 0.33 0.4 1 0 0 0.33 0.27 0.4 0.02 0.18 0.8 0.27 0.33 0.4
0.18 0.62 0.2 0.62 0.18 0.2 0.62 0.18 0.2 0.33 0.27 0.4 0.02 0.18 0.4
E3 0.02 0.18 0.8 0.33 0.27 0.4 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.02 0.18 0.8 0.06 0.23 0.7
0.27 0.33 0.6 0.02 0.18 0.8 0.13 0.27 0.6 0.27 0.33 0.4 0.27 0.33 0.4
0.1 0.8 0.2 0.27 0.13 0.6 0.02 0.18 0.8 0.27 0.33 0.4 0 1 0
0.02 0.18 0.8 0.33 0.27 0.4 0.33 0.27 0.4 0.02 0.18 0.8 0.06 0.23 0.7
0.23 0.06 0.8 0.33 0.27 0.4 1 0 0 0.23 0.06 0.8 0.02 0.18 0.8
E4 0.02 0.18 0.8 0.33 0.27 0.4 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.1
0.27 0.33 0.4 0.02 0.18 0.8 0.02 0.18 0.8 0.18 0.62 0.2 0.1 0.8 0.1
0.1 0.8 0.1 0.02 0.18 0.8 0.02 0.18 0.8 0.27 0.33 0.4 0.1 0.8 0.1
0.1 0.8 0.1 0.62 0.18 0.2 0.33 0.27 0.4 0.02 0.18 0.8 0.02 0.18 0.8
0.1 0.8 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.02 0.18 0.8 0.02 0.18 0.8

10
A. Kumar and R. Anbanandam Research in Transportation Business & Management 33 (2019) 100434

Table 12 of Eq. (17) and given in Table 16. The ranking of alternative locations is
Final entropy weight of social criteria elements. prepared, based on the CCi score. A most preferred location should have
E1 E2 E3 E4 Final entropy wt. highest CCi score. In the investigated case study, the locations are
ranked as A3 > A4 > A2 > A1. Therefore, location A3 is chosen as
SC1 0.238 0.193 0.195 0.215 0.2092 the most sustainable alternative for constructing an MFT among all
SC2 0.190 0.191 0.189 0.192 0.1907
locations. The Closeness coefficient for location A1 is computed as fol-
SC3 0.190 0.188 0.190 0.193 0.1903
SC4 0.191 0.235 0.189 0.194 0.2027
lows:
SC5 0.191 0.193 0.236 0.205 0.2071
0.1334
CC A1 = = 0.4709
(0.1334 + 0.1498)
After aggregation of the expert's expressions, IF-AHP weight is Similarly, the remaining CC score is computed and given in
computed for all criteria and sub-criteria. For computing the entropy Table 16.
weight of each criterion and sub-criteria Eq. (11) is used. Table 12
shows the final entropy weight of social sub-criteria.
For expert 1 5. Result discussion and sensitivity analysis

1 This section highlights the important findings based on the com-

w2 = [0.211 ln 0.211 + 0.256 ln 0.256 (1
5 ln 2
ln(1 0.533 (0.533 ln 2))]
= 0.199
Similarly, w1, w3 , w4 , andw5 are 0, 0.2, 0.197, and 0.196 respec-
tively.
The expert E1 entropy weight is computed by using Eq. (11)
1 0
w1 = = 0.238
5 (0 + 0.199 + 0.200 + 0.197 + 0.196)
Similarly, w2, w3, w4, and w5 are calculated and found as 0.190,
0.190, 0.191, and 0.191. The final entropy weight and their local and
global rank are summarised in Table 13 and IF form weight of sub-
criteria is given in supplementary data file.
Step 7: Experts rate the performance of each alternative location
concerning STEEP sub-criterion and compute the aggregated matrix
using Eq. (12) and given in Table 14. The weighted aggregated matrix
of alternatives is given in Table 15.
Step 9: Calculate IFPIS and IF IFNIS values by using Eq. (15), and
computing separation measure of alternative location concerning IFPIS
and IFNIS using Eq. (16) moreover, given in Table 16.
Step 10: Ranking the candidate locations.
The closeness coefficient of each location is computed with the help
0.533)
putational result of the case study. The local and global weight of
STEEP dimensions and sub-criteria are given in Table 14. The result
reveals the following order as technical criteria (0.2151) > economic
criteria (0.2037) > social criteria (0.1977) > environmental criteria
(0.1918) > political criteria (0.1917). The values in parenthesis show
the entropy weight of STEEP dimensions. The above result concluded
that technical sustainability is the most important aspect of MFT loca-
tion assessment. An intermodal transport infrastructure like automated
crane, modern loading and unloading equipment has been a most im-
portant factor for smooth operations of intermodal freight terminal
(Long & Grasman, 2012b; Nguyen & Notteboom, 2016). The global
ranking of sustainability sub-criteria show that development of special
economic zones (SEZ) by government (PC1), political stability of gov-
ernment (PC2), security of terminal and workforce (PC3), Compliance of
environmental emission laws and regulations (EnC2), and impact on
natural landscape (EnC4) are top five criteria for location assessment.
The development of SEZs along the dedicated freight corridor would
attract the manufacturing organisation to open its manufacturing fa-
cility and use the terminal facility. The role of state government is vital
in the construction of a freight terminal because many times location
are not finalised due to the unstable state government. The similar thing
is to happen with one of the DFC passing states of India. The security of
terminal form vandalism and theft is also an important criterion during

Table 13
The entropy weight and ranking of STEEP elements.
STEEP criteria Weight Rank sub-criteria Weight Local rank Global weight Global rank

SC 0.1977 3 SC1 0.2092 1 0.0413 8

SC2 0.1907 4 0.0377 11
SC3 0.1903 5 0.0376 12
SC4 0.2027 3 0.0401 10
SC5 0.2071 2 0.0409 9
TC 0.2151 1 TC1 0.1411 3 0.0304 21
TC2 0.14 7 0.0301 25
TC3 0.1404 6 0.0302 23
TC4 0.1408 4 0.0303 22
TC5 0.1469 2 0.0316 20
TC6 0.1502 1 0.0323 19
TC7 0.1406 5 0.0302 23
EC 0.2037 2 EC1 0.1707 1 0.0348 13
EC2 0.1653 4 0.0337 16
EC3 0.1634 6 0.0333 18
EC4 0.1641 5 0.0334 17
EC5 0.168 3 0.0342 15
EC6 0.1686 2 0.0343 14
EnC 0.1918 4 EnC1 0.2179 4 0.0418 7
EnC2 0.2866 1 0.055 4
EnC3 0.2253 3 0.0432 6
EnC4 0.2702 2 0.0518 5
PC 0.1917 5 PC1 0.3598 1 0.069 1
PC2 0.335 2 0.0642 2
PC3 0.3052 3 0.0585 3

11
A. Kumar and R. Anbanandam Research in Transportation Business & Management 33 (2019) 100434

Table 14
Aggregated IF values of candidate location.
A1 A2 A3 A4

μ ν π μ ν π μ ν π μ ν π

SC1 0.643 0.304 0.054 0.582 0.365 0.053 0.750 0.200 0.050 0.750 0.200 0.050
SC2 0.582 0.365 0.053 0.750 0.200 0.050 0.466 0.478 0.056 0.582 0.365 0.053
SC3 0.710 0.238 0.052 0.500 0.450 0.050 0.750 0.200 0.050 0.846 0.096 0.058
SC4 0.324 0.625 0.051 0.150 0.799 0.050 0.643 0.304 0.054 0.395 0.554 0.051
SC5 0.639 0.307 0.054 0.639 0.307 0.054 0.838 0.104 0.058 0.873 0.071 0.055
TC1 0.802 0.140 0.057 0.767 0.169 0.064 0.802 0.140 0.057 0.802 0.140 0.057
TC2 0.802 0.140 0.057 0.639 0.307 0.054 0.846 0.096 0.058 0.653 0.293 0.053
TC3 0.750 0.200 0.050 0.802 0.140 0.057 0.805 0.137 0.058 0.701 0.246 0.052
TC4 0.701 0.246 0.052 0.750 0.200 0.050 0.838 0.104 0.058 0.582 0.365 0.053
TC5 0.500 0.450 0.050 0.838 0.104 0.058 0.873 0.071 0.055 0.802 0.140 0.057
TC6 0.250 0.700 0.050 0.750 0.200 0.050 0.900 0.050 0.050 0.840 0.102 0.058
TC7 0.701 0.246 0.052 0.569 0.378 0.053 0.650 0.297 0.054 0.698 0.249 0.053
EC1 0.846 0.096 0.058 0.750 0.200 0.050 0.710 0.238 0.052 0.838 0.104 0.058
EC2 0.384 0.565 0.051 0.500 0.450 0.050 0.653 0.293 0.053 0.639 0.307 0.054
EC3 0.653 0.293 0.053 0.750 0.200 0.050 0.500 0.450 0.050 0.639 0.307 0.054
EC4 0.586 0.361 0.053 0.653 0.293 0.053 0.698 0.249 0.053 0.701 0.246 0.052
EC5 0.533 0.412 0.055 0.639 0.307 0.054 0.698 0.249 0.053 0.639 0.307 0.054
EC6 0.445 0.504 0.051 0.701 0.246 0.052 0.639 0.307 0.054 0.701 0.246 0.052
EnC1 0.395 0.554 0.051 0.639 0.307 0.054 0.203 0.747 0.050 0.553 0.388 0.059
EnC2 0.324 0.625 0.051 0.701 0.246 0.052 0.267 0.682 0.051 0.250 0.700 0.050
EnC3 0.250 0.700 0.050 0.750 0.200 0.050 0.159 0.791 0.050 0.203 0.747 0.050
EnC4 0.380 0.568 0.051 0.153 0.797 0.050 0.328 0.611 0.060 0.482 0.461 0.057
PT1 0.846 0.096 0.058 0.802 0.140 0.057 0.805 0.137 0.058 0.710 0.238 0.052
PT2 0.802 0.140 0.057 0.872 0.073 0.055 0.900 0.050 0.050 0.750 0.200 0.050
PT3 0.569 0.378 0.053 0.750 0.200 0.050 0.750 0.200 0.050 0.569 0.378 0.053

location assessment for MFT construction. Kayikci (2010) framework Table 16

shows that the political stability of a state or nations significantly Separation measure and relative closeness.
contributed to the decision making the process of location selection. A1 A2 A3 A4
The individual STEEP dimension results are summarised as;
The ranking result of social dimensions depicts that the following B +
0.1498 0.1495 0.1006 0.1188
ranking; SC1 > SC5 > SC4 > SC2 > SC3. The above result shows B− 0.1334 0.1434 0.1938 0.1647
Ci 0.4709 0.4897 0.6582 0.5811
that a location should bring new job opportunities for local commu-
RANK 4 3 1 2
nities. Rao et al. (2015) also claimed that the city logistics centre is
having a positive impact on job opportunities for residents. The im-
provement of freight transportation social sustainability can be

Table 15
Weighted alternative decision matrix.
A1 A2 A3 A4

μ ν π μ ν π μ ν π μ ν π

SC1 0.307 0.390 0.303 0.278 0.444 0.278 0.358 0.299 0.343 0.358 0.299 0.343
SC2 0.050 0.575 0.375 0.064 0.465 0.471 0.040 0.650 0.310 0.050 0.575 0.375
SC3 0.062 0.479 0.458 0.044 0.624 0.332 0.066 0.453 0.481 0.074 0.382 0.543
SC4 0.155 0.671 0.174 0.072 0.824 0.104 0.307 0.390 0.303 0.189 0.609 0.202
SC5 0.305 0.393 0.302 0.305 0.393 0.302 0.400 0.215 0.385 0.417 0.186 0.397
TC1 0.265 0.236 0.499 0.254 0.262 0.485 0.265 0.236 0.499 0.265 0.236 0.499
TC2 0.200 0.240 0.560 0.159 0.387 0.453 0.211 0.201 0.588 0.163 0.375 0.462
TC3 0.175 0.265 0.560 0.187 0.210 0.603 0.187 0.207 0.605 0.163 0.308 0.529
TC4 0.175 0.306 0.519 0.187 0.263 0.550 0.209 0.175 0.617 0.145 0.415 0.440
TC5 0.293 0.485 0.222 0.491 0.161 0.348 0.512 0.131 0.357 0.470 0.195 0.335
TC6 0.174 0.713 0.113 0.522 0.235 0.243 0.626 0.092 0.282 0.584 0.142 0.274
TC7 0.171 0.304 0.525 0.139 0.426 0.436 0.158 0.350 0.491 0.170 0.307 0.523
EC1 0.435 0.174 0.391 0.386 0.269 0.345 0.365 0.304 0.331 0.431 0.181 0.388
EC2 0.119 0.615 0.266 0.155 0.514 0.331 0.202 0.375 0.422 0.198 0.388 0.414
EC3 0.153 0.413 0.434 0.176 0.336 0.488 0.117 0.543 0.339 0.150 0.424 0.425
EC4 0.146 0.442 0.413 0.162 0.382 0.455 0.174 0.344 0.482 0.174 0.342 0.484
EC5 0.196 0.456 0.349 0.235 0.359 0.406 0.256 0.306 0.438 0.235 0.359 0.406
EC6 0.195 0.550 0.255 0.308 0.316 0.377 0.281 0.371 0.349 0.308 0.316 0.377
EnC1 0.043 0.704 0.253 0.069 0.540 0.391 0.022 0.832 0.146 0.060 0.594 0.347
EnC2 0.096 0.687 0.217 0.207 0.372 0.422 0.079 0.735 0.187 0.074 0.750 0.176
EnC3 0.016 0.838 0.146 0.047 0.568 0.385 0.010 0.887 0.103 0.013 0.863 0.124
EnC4 0.112 0.640 0.248 0.045 0.830 0.125 0.097 0.676 0.227 0.142 0.551 0.307
PT1 0.195 0.366 0.439 0.185 0.397 0.418 0.185 0.395 0.419 0.163 0.466 0.371
PT2 0.185 0.397 0.418 0.201 0.350 0.449 0.207 0.334 0.459 0.173 0.439 0.388
PT3 0.131 0.564 0.305 0.173 0.439 0.388 0.173 0.439 0.388 0.131 0.564 0.305

12
A. Kumar and R. Anbanandam Research in Transportation Business & Management 33 (2019) 100434

improved by taking new job opportunity as a decision criterion (Kumar SR1

& Anbanandam, 2019). A new terminal location creates various direct SR15
0.70
SR2
and indirect opportunities for resident, which help to improve the living 0.60
standard of the selected region. The industry experts also concluded SR14 0.50 SR3
that terminal location should have minimal effect on farmers agri- 0.40
cultural business. 0.30
In the technical dimension of STEEP framework following ranking is SR13 SR4
0.20
obtained; TC6 > TC5 > TC1 > TC4 > TC7 > TC3 > TC2. The A1
above-ranking result shows that connectivity to the multimodal trans- 0.10
A2
port system is the most vital criteria for MFT location construction. The 0.00
A3
connectivity to the rail, waterway, and air mode improve the delivery SR12 SR5
reliability of the freight distribution and reduces the delivery time to A4
the global freight market. The connectivity to different modes attracts
freight shippers to use multimodal services (Regmi & Hanaoka, 2013). SR11 SR6
Awasthi et al. (2011b) show that connectivity to multiple modes of
freight transport at the freight terminal improves freight distribution
efficiency. The handling capacity of the freight terminal is the second
SR10 SR7
important criteria for MFT location selection. Sufficient capacity of SR9 SR8
freight terminal can accommodate the high demand of the freight. Most
Fig. 4. Sensitivity analysis of MFT location with varying importance weight of
of the past studies (Awasthi et al., 2011b; Kayikci, 2010;
experts'.
Sirikijpanichkul & Ferreira, 2005) shows that an intermodal freight
terminal has had sufficient freight handling capacity to handle and
provide a smooth transfer of freight. The proximity to the industrial and assign the different importance weight to the experts' and varying di-
fright zone is an important criterion for location selection because the mensions of the sustainability. The fifteen different importance weight
proximity of the terminal reduces the short hauling cost of transport combination of experts are selected, and the corresponding sensitivity
(Janic, 2007). analysis is presented in Fig. 4. Sensitivity analysis results show that the
The economic pillar of STEEP framework ranked in the following location A3 places first position in most of the run. The varying im-
manner; EC1 > EC6 > EC5 > EC2 > EC4 > EC3. The above- portance weight of the experts are given in Table 17.
ranking order shows that transportation cost per ton kilometre is an
essential criterion for location selection. A cost-competitive transport 6. Managerial and theoretical implications
rate would attract the freight shipper to use MFT facilities. The annual
operations and maintenance cost are the second most important criteria The experts were convinced with the findings of the research and
for terminal location. The investor is looking for a shorter payback key managerial and policy implications were presented as follows:
period. The selected location for constructing MFT should be econom-
ically sustainable and have to generate profit for terminal operators • This study proposes a STEEP based sustainability measurement
(Pham et al., 2017). Ou and Chou (2009) findings show that the en- framework for the assessment of MFT location that would help to
vironmental impact of freight transportation and transportation cost as transport planners in a better way to assess the sustainable transport
an important criterion for selecting a freight centre location. infrastructure investment.
The environmental sustainability sub-criterion are ranked in fol- • This study obtained the significant role of political stability for
lowing order; EnC1 > EnC2 > EnC3 > EnC4. The Freight operations constructing MFT. The policymakers and logistics planners can
impact on congestion is ranked as important criteria for improving the consider the status of political stability of the particular state along
environmental sustainability of MFT location. Awasthi and Chauhan the selected route.
(2012) recommended that the logistics centre location should have the • The policymakers should consider the availability of the multimodal
least effect on congestion. A favourable terminal location would reduce transport network availability for constructing MFT terminal. A well
congestion (He et al., 2017b). One of the exciting findings of this paper railroad connected terminal would attract the freight shippers.
is that the political sustainability criteria (PC) are almost equally im- • The proposed framework is best suited for group decision making
portant as environmental and social sustainability while making an and also to include the importance of decision makers. The proposed
MFT construction decision. method can be used for considering the influence of multiple actors
In political sustainability dimensions, PC1 > PC2 > PC3 ranking in MFT location selection.
of the criterion is obtained. Choudhary and Shankar (2012) concluded • The proposed model is flexible enough to add the new criteria or
that national and regional governments should support the big infra- delete certain criteria as per the other countries policy and regula-
structural project. The considered case involves some state govern- tions, hence can be implemented in other developing nations as well
ments, and due to lack of political stability, sometimes a favourable as developed nations.
location cannot be selected. In conclusion, support from the govern-
ment is necessary while making a terminal location selection decision. 6.1. Literature contribution of the present research
The four candidate locations sustainability is measured for STEEP
sub-criteria, and the computational result is based on their closeness The present study significantly contributed to the literature of sus-
coefficient value. The MFT location ranking as follows; tainable facility location selection problem. The following literature
A3 > A4 > A2 > A1. The proposed framework of robustness is contribution is given below:
presented in the next section.
• The present study is the first study to propose technical and political
5.1. Sensitivity analysis sustainability dimensions in sustainability trio for assessing and
selecting MFT location in developing nations.
The proposed method's superiority is checked through sensitivity • From a methodological point of view, the present study is the first
analysis. This paper used first-time sensitivity analysis with varying study, which integrates IFS into AHP / TOPSIS for selection of
experts' importance weight. In the sensitivity analysis part, authors freight terminal location.

13
A. Kumar and R. Anbanandam Research in Transportation Business & Management 33 (2019) 100434

Table 17
Sensitivity analysis with varying experts' importance degree.
Ei R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 R15

E1 I. I I EI VI EI VI I VI EI I I EI I I
E2 VI VI I VI VI I I I VI VI EI VI VI VI EI
E3 VI EI VI I EI VI EI EI VI EI I I I VI VI
E4 EI VI VI EI VI EI VI I I VI EI VI VI VI EI

SRi = sensitivity run; Ei = Expert i.

• The proposed method is a unique study, which makes a sensitivity
analysis with changing the importance degree of the experts in GDM
process.
7. Conclusion
The selection of a potential location for MFT is not a straightforward
and simple decision problem. The sustainability assessment of freight
terminal involves many subjective criteria. MCDM methods can handle the
subjectivity of the decision-making process. The evaluation process in-
volves different experts, and they have different perception in the deci-
sion-making problem. Individuals' preferences and assessments for quali-
tative factors are mostly expressed linguistically. Due to the above reason,
fuzzy set theory gaining importance in the decision-making process, but
the fuzzy set theory is not sufficient to deal with the ambiguity of the
decision-makers' opinions. In such situations, the intuitionistic fuzzy set is
proven as a useful tool to handle fuzziness in experts' decisions (Abdullah
& Najib, 2014). A hierarchical structure of the problem will help to sim-
plify the complex problem for further analysis. The past terminal location
studies fail to incorporate political and technical sustainability in a deci-
sion-making framework. To keep an eye on the above issue, this study
incorporates the STEEP dimension of sustainability while locating a
terminal. To the best knowledge of the authors' MFT location selection
problem is not much explored in the literature from STEEP sustainability
point of view. Also, such an integrated approach (IF-AHP-TOPSIS) group
decision making is used the first time for analysing the MFT location se-
lection. Therefore, this study presents a STEEP criteria based framework to
assess the best alternative location for MFT establishment.
The methodological novelty of the proposed method used in this
study in terms of integration of intuitionistic fuzzy set with AHP and
TOPSIS methods under group decision making. The most sustainable
location is selected for the case of EDFC to validate the implementation
of the proposed methodology. The complete integrated method is uti-
lised in two ways: (i) IF-AHP is used to compute the importance weight
of criteria and sub-criteria, and (ii) criteria weight are fed into the IF-
TOPSIS method to prioritise the alternative location based on their
closeness coefficient score.
The computational results show that technical sustainability is the
most important criteria for location assessment. The finding also con-
cluded that the role of political sustainability significantly influences the
location decision. The overall development of SEZs by central or state
government is profoundly influencing the location investment decision.
The original contribution of this study is to improve the multimodal
freight transport system in developing nations. The improved con-
nectivity of different mode would improve the sustainability perfor-
mance of the freight logistics industry. The sensitivity analysis proved
that the proposed methodology is robust and effective. The sensitivity
analysis shows that location A3 is best in most of the analysis run. Also,
this study uses the first time to do the sensitivity analysis with varying
experts' importance weight. There are some possible future research di-
rections for this study. It must be noted that the present study does not
incorporate the interdependency of the selected STEEP criterion; there-
fore, one of the future work can extend the present study in inter-
dependency environment. To carry out this research, one can use IF- ANP
and IF-TOPSIS or IF-VIKOR for prioritization of candidate location.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank industry expert members for their
valuable support in the questionnaire survey. This work is a part of
doctoral research and financially supported by the doctoral fellowship
(IITR/MHRD/DoMS/16918015) given by Ministry of Human Resource
Development (MHRD) India through Department of Management
Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee (India).

Appendix A. A sample of questionnaire form for recording expert's linguistics responses of STEEP criteria. A similar questionnaire was
used for sub-criterion pairwise comparison

Questions for experts to give their linguistic response for pairwise comparison
Q1. How social criterion is important when it compare with the technical criterion of multimodal freight terminal location?
Q2. How social criterion is important when it compare with the economic criterion of multimodal freight terminal location?
Q3. How social criterion is important when it compare with the environmental criterion of multimodal freight terminal location?
Q4. How social criterion is important when it compare with the political criterion of multimodal freight terminal location?
A similar comparison for other main criteria and sub-criterion will be performed.
Experts preference EI IV1 MI IV2 SI IV3 VSI IV4 EMI Experts preference
Social Technical
Social Economic
Social Environmental
Social Political
Technical Economic
Technical Environmental
Technical Political
Economic Environmental
Economic Political
Environmental Political

(Where, EI = equally important; IV1 = intermediate value 1; MI = moderately more important; IV2 = intermediate value 2; SI = strongly more important;
IV3 = intermediate value 3; VSI = very strong important; IV4 = intermediate value 4; EMI = extremely more important)

Please tick mark the appropriate box for pairwise comparison.

14
A. Kumar and R. Anbanandam
Appendix B. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2020.100434.
References
NTDPC (2014). India transport report - moving India to 2032. New Delhi: Routledge:
Planning Commission. Retrieved 10 03, 2018, from http://planningcommission.nic.
in/reports/genrep/NTDPC_Vol_01.pdf.
McKinsey & Company (2016). Building India-transforming the nation's logistics infrastructure.
India: McKinsey & Company. Retrieved 10 03, 2018, from https://www.mckinsey.
com/~/media/mckinsey/industries/travel%20transport%20and%20logistics/our
%20insights/transforming%20indias%20logistics%20infrastructure/building_india
%20transforming_the_nations_logistics_infrastructure.ashx.
Abbasi, M., & Nilsson, F. (2016). Developing environmentally sustainable logistics.
Exploring themes and challenges from a logistics service providers’ perspective.
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 46, 273–283. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.trd.2016.04.004.
Abdullah, L., & Najib, L. (2014). A new preference scale of intuitionistic fuzzy analytic
hierarchy process in multi-criteria decision making problems. Journal of Intelligent
Fuzzy Systems, 26, 1039–1049. https://doi.org/10.3233/IFS-130796.
Abdullah, L., & Najib, L. (2016). A new preference scale mcdm method based on interval-
valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets and the analytic hierarchy process. Soft Computing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-014-1519-y.
Aloini, D., Dulmin, R., Mininno, V., Pellegrini, L., & Farina, G. (2018). Technology as-
sessment with IF-TOPSIS: An application in the advanced underwater system sector.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.
07.010.
Arnold, P., Peeters, D., & Thomas, I. (2004). Modelling a rail/road intermodal transpor-
tation system. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 40,
255–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2003.08.005.
Atanassov, K. T. (1989). More on intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(89)90215-7.
Awasthi, A., & Chauhan, S. S. (2012). A hybrid approach integrating Affinity Diagram,
AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS for sustainable city logistics planning. Applied Mathematical
Modelling, 36, 573–584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2011.07.033.
Awasthi, A., Chauhan, S. S., & Goyal, S. K. (2011a). A multi-criteria decision making
approach for location planning for urban distribution centers under uncertainty.
Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 53, 98–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.
2010.07.023.
Awasthi, A., Chauhan, S. S., & Goyal, S. K. (2011b). A multi-criteria decision making
approach for location planning for urban distribution centers under uncertainty.
Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 53, 98–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.
2010.07.023.
Bergqvist, R. (2008). Evaluating road-rail intermodal transport services - a heuristic ap-
proach. International Journal of Logistics, 11, 179–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13675560701633273.
Bhattacharya, A., Kumar, S. A., Tiwari, M. K., & Talluri, S. (2014). An intermodal freight
transport system for optimal supply chain logistics. Transportation Research Part C:
Emerging Technologies, 38, 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2013.10.012.
Boran, F. E., Boran, K., & Menlik, T. (2012). The evaluation of renewable energy tech-
nologies for electricity generation in Turkey using intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS. Energy
Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning and Policy.. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15567240903047483.
Bottani, E., & Rizzi, A. (2007). An analytical methodology to estimate the potential vo-
lume attracted by a rail-road intermodal terminal. International Journal of Logistics
Research and Applications: A Leading Journal of Supply Chain Management, 10, 11–28.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13675560600819668.
Büyüközkan, G., & Güleryüz, S. (2016). A new integrated intuitionistic fuzzy group de-
cision making approach for product development partner selection. Computers and
Industrial Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2016.05.038.
Capital, A. (2016). Railway 360: Actually what will happen. New Delhi: Axiscap. Retrieved
July 25, 2019, from http://www.indianrailways.gov.in/Railways%20report%20-%
208%20Jan%202016.pdf.
Choudhary, D., & Shankar, R. (2012). An STEEP-fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for eva-
luation and selection of thermal power plant location: A case study from India.
Energy, 42, 510–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.03.010.
Dablanc, L. (2007). Goods transport in large European cities: Difficult to organize, diffi-
cult to modernize. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 41, 280–285.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2006.05.005.
Delbecq, A. L., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1971). A group process model for problem identi-
fication and program planning. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science.. https://doi.
org/10.1177/002188637100700404.
Demirel, T., Demirel, N.Ç., & Kahraman, C. (2010a). Multi-criteria warehouse location
selection using Choquet integral. Expert Systems with Applications, 37, 3943–3952.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.11.022.
Demirel, T., Demirel, N.Ç., & Kahraman, C. (2010b). Multi-criteria warehouse location
selection using Choquet integral. Expert Systems with Applications, 37, 3943–3952.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.11.022.
Dey, B., Bairagi, B., Sarkar, B., & Sanyal, S. K. (2017). Group heterogeneity in multi
member decision making model with an application to warehouse location selection
in a supply chain. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 105, 101–122. https://doi.
15
Research in Transportation Business & Management 33 (2019) 100434
org/10.1016/j.cie.2016.12.025.
DFCCIL (2018). Annual report 2017–18. Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation Of India
Ltd.
Elevli, B. (2014). Logistics freight center locations decision by using Fuzzy-PROMETHEE.
Transport, 29, 412–418. https://doi.org/10.3846/16484142.2014.983966.
Evangelista, P., Colicchia, C., & Creazza, A. (2017). Is environmental sustainability a
strategic priority for logistics service providers? Journal of Environmental Management,
198, 353–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.04.096.
Farahani, R. Z., SteadieSeifi, M., & Asgari, N. (2010). Multiple criteria facility location
problems: A survey. Applied Mathematical Modelling. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.
2009.10.005.
Fatih Yildirim, B., & Önder, E. (2014). Evaluating potential freight villages in Istanbul
using multi criteria decision making techniques. Journal of Logistics Management, 3,
1–10. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.logistics.20140301.01.
Ghaderi, H., Cahoon, S., & Nguyen, H. O. (2015). An investigation into the non-bulk rail
freight transport in Australia. Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics.. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ajsl.2015.03.003.
Goyal, R., & Singh, S. (2018). Indian logistics sector: On the path of transformation. New
Delhi: NITI Aayog. Retrieved June 22, 2018, from http://niti.gov.in/content/indian-
logistics-sector-path-transformation.
Gumus, A. T. (2009). Evaluation of hazardous waste transportation firms by using a two
step fuzzy-AHP and TOPSIS methodology. Expert Systems with Applications, 36,
4067–4074. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2008.03.013.
He, Y., Wang, X., Lin, Y., Zhou, F., & Zhou, L. (2017a). Sustainable decision making for
joint distribution center location choice. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and
Environment, 55, 202–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.07.001.
He, Y., Wang, X., Lin, Y., Zhou, F., & Zhou, L. (2017b). Sustainable decision making for
joint distribution center location choice. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and
Environment, 55, 202–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.07.001.
van den Heuvel, F. P., de Langen, P. W., van Donselaar, K. H., & Fransoo, J. C. (2014).
Proximity matters: Synergies through co-location of logistics establishments.
International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 17, 377–395. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13675567.2013.870141.
Hwang, C.-L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making. CRC Presshttps://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9.
Janic, M. (2007). Modelling the full costs of an intermodal and road freight transport
network. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 12, 33–44.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2006.10.004.
Kapros, S., Panou, K., & Tsamboulas, D. (2005). Multicriteria approach to the evaluation
of intermodal freight villages. Transportation Research Record, 1906, 56–63. https://
doi.org/10.3141/1906-07.
Kaur, P., Verma, R., & Mahanti, N. C. (2010). Selection of vendor using analytical hier-
archy process based on fuzzy preference programming. OPSEARCH.. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s12597-010-0002-5.
Kayikci, Y. (2010). A conceptual model for intermodal freight logistics centre location
decisions. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 6297–6311. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.sbspro.2010.04.039.
KPMG (2018). Human resource and skill requirements in the transportation, logistics, ware-
housing & packaging sector. New Delhi: KPMG. Retrieved 07 07, 2018, from https://
www.ugc.ac.in/skill/SectorReport/Transportation%20Logistics%20Warehousing
%20and%20Packaging.pdf.
Kavita Yadav, S. P., & Kumar, S. (2009). A multi-criteria interval-valued intuitionistic
fuzzy group decision making for supplier selection with TOPSIS method. Lecture notes
in computer science (including subseries lecture notes in artificial intelligence and lecture
notes in bioinformatics)https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-10646-0_37.
Kumar, A., & Anbanandam, R. (2019). Development of social sustainability index for
freight transportation system. Journal of Cleaner Production, 210, 77–92. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.353.
Kuo, M.-S. (2011). Optimal location selection for an international distribution center by
using a new hybrid method. Expert Systems with Applications, 38, 7208–7221. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.12.002.
Kumar, A., & Anbanandam, R. (2020). Evaluating the interrelationships among inhibitors
to intermodal railroad freight transport in emerging economies: A multi-stakeholder
perspective. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 132, 559–581.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.11.023 In this issue.
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, 7901–7908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.12.161.
Lindawati, van Schagen, J., Goh, M., & de Souza, R. (2014). Collaboration in urban lo-
gistics: Motivations and barriers. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 18, 278–290.
https://doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2014.917983.
Long, S., & Grasman, S. E. (2012a). A strategic decision model for evaluating inland
freight hub locations. Research in Transportation Business and Management, 5, 92–98.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2012.11.004.
Long, S., & Grasman, S. E. (2012b). A strategic decision model for evaluating inland
freight hub locations. Research in Transportation Business and Management, 5, 92–98.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2012.11.004.
Mardani, A., Jusoh, A., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2015). Fuzzy multiple criteria decision-
making techniques and applications - two decades review from 1994 to 2014. Expert
A. Kumar and R. Anbanandam
Systems with Applications, 42, 4126–4148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2015.01.
003.
Nguyen, L. C., & Notteboom, T. (2016). A multi-criteria approach to dry port location in
developing economies with application to Vietnam. Asian Journal of Shipping and
Logistics, 32, 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2016.03.003.
Nguyen, L. C., & Notteboom, T. (2017). Public-private partnership model selection for dry
port development: An application to Vietnam. World Review of Intermodal
Transportation Research, 6. https://doi.org/10.1504/WRITR.2017.086208.
NITI Aayog and Rocky Mountain Institute (2018). Goods on the move: Efficiency and sus-
tainability in. New Delhi: Niti Aayog. Retrieved 10 18, 2018, from http://niti.gov.in/
writereaddata/files/document_publication/Freight_report.pdf.
Önden, İ., Acar, A. Z., & Eldemir, F. (2016). Evaluation of the logistics center locations
using a multi-criteria spatial approach. Transport, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3846/
16484142.2016.1186113.
Önüt, S., & Soner, S. (2008). Transshipment site selection using the AHP and TOPSIS
approaches under fuzzy environment. Waste Management, 28, 1552–1559. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.05.019.
Ou, C. W., & Chou, S. Y. (2009). International distribution center selection from a foreign
market perspective using a weighted fuzzy factor rating system. Expert Systems with
Applications, 36, 1773–1782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2007.12.007.
Özceylan, E., Erbaş, M., Tolon, M., Kabak, M., & Durʇut, T. (2016). Evaluation of freight
villages: A GIS-based multi-criteria decision analysis. Computers in Industry, 76,
38–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2015.12.003.
Pham, T. Y., Ma, H. M., & Yeo, G. T. (2017). Application of fuzzy Delphi TOPSIS to Locate
Logistics Centers in Vietnam: The Logisticians’ perspective. Asian Journal of Shipping
and Logistics, 33, 211–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2017.12.004.
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.
Regmi, M. B., & Hanaoka, S. (2013). Location analysis of logistics centres in Laos.
International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 16, 227–242. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13675567.2013.812194.
Ren, J., & Lützen, M. (2015). Fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making method for technology
selection for emissions reduction from shipping under uncertainties. Transportation
Research Part D: Transport and Environment.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.07.
012.
Rodrigue, J. P., & Notteboom, T. (2010). Comparative north American and European
gateway logistics: The regionalism of freight distribution. Journal of Transport
Geography. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2010.03.006.
Roso, V. (2008). Factors influencing implementation of a dry port. International Journal of
Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 38, 782–798. https://doi.org/10.1108/
09600030810926493.
Roso, V., Brnjac, N., & Abramovic, B. (2015a). Inland. Transportation Journal, 54.
Roso, V., Brnjac, N., & Abramovic, B. (2015b). Inland intermodal terminals location
criteria evaluation: The case of Croatia. Transportation Journal, 54, 496–515. https://
doi.org/10.5325/transportationj.54.4.0496.
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. Education, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.
3414/ME10-01-0028.
Schuckmann, S. W., Gnatzy, T., Darkow, I. L., & von der Gracht, H. A. (2012). Analysis of
factors influencing the development of transport infrastructure until the year 2030 - a
Delphi based scenario study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. https://doi.
16
Research in Transportation Business & Management 33 (2019) 100434
org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.05.008.
Shankar, R., Pathak, D. K., & Choudhary, D. (2019). Decarbonizing freight transportation:
An integrated EFA-TISM approach to model enablers of dedicated freight corridors.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 143, 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techfore.2019.03.010.
Shyur, H. J., & Shih, H. S. (2006). A hybrid MCDM model for strategic vendor selection.
Mathematical and Computer Modelling. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2005.04.018.
Sirikijpanichkul, A., & Ferreira, L. (2005). Multi-objective evaluation of intermodal
freight terminal location decisions. Proceedings of the 27th Conference of Australian
Institute of Transport Research (CAITR) (pp. 7–9). .
Steadieseifi, M., Dellaert, N. P., Nuijten, W., Van Woensel, T., & Raoufi, R. (2014).
Multimodal freight transportation planning: A literature review. European Journal of
Operational Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2013.06.055.
Tang, J., Tang, L., & Wang, X. (2013). Solution method for the location planning problem
of logistics park with variable capacity. Computers and Operations Research. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2012.07.011.
Tavana, M., Zareinejad, M., Di Caprio, D., & Kaviani, M. A. (2016). An integrated in-
tuitionistic fuzzy AHP and SWOT method for outsourcing reverse logistics. Applied
Soft Computing Journal.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2015.12.005.
Teye, C., Bell, M. G. H., & Bliemer, M. C. J. (2017). Urban intermodal terminals: The
entropy maximising facility location problem. Transportation Research Part B:
Methodological.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2017.01.014.
Tsamboulas, D. A., & Kapros, S. (2003). Freight village evaluation under uncertainty with
public and private financing. Transport Policy, 10, 141–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0967-070X(03)00002-7.
Tu, C. S., & Ter Chang, C. (2016). Using binary fuzzy goal programming and linear
programming to resolve airport logistics center expansion plan problems. Applied Soft
Computing Journal, 44, 222–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2016.04.008.
Vlachopoulou, M., Silleos, G., & Manthou, V. (2001). Geographic information systems in
warehouse site selection decisions. International Journal of Production Economics, 71,
205–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(00)00119-5.
Vural, C. A., & Tuna, O. (2016). The prioritisation of service dimensions in logistics
centres: A fuzzy quality function deployment methodology. International Journal of
Logistics Research and Applications, 19, 159–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.
2015.1008438.
Woodburn, A. (2008). Intermodal rail freight in Britain: A terminal problem? Planning
Practice and Research, 23, 441–460.
Xu, Z. (2007). Intuitionistic preference relations and their application in group decision
making. Information Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2006.12.019.
Xu, Z., & Zhang, X. (2013). Hesitant fuzzy multi-attribute decision making based on
TOPSIS with incomplete weight information. Knowledge-Based Systems. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.knosys.2013.05.011.
Yazdi, M. (2018). Risk assessment based on novel intuitionistic fuzzy-hybrid-modified
TOPSIS approach. Safety Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.03.005.
Yildiz, N., & Tüysüz, F. (2018). A hybrid multi-criteria decision making approach for
strategic retail location investment: Application to Turkish food retailing. Socio-
Economic Planning Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2018.02.006.
Zak, J., & Węgliński, S. (2014). The selection of the logistics center location based on
MCDM/A methodology. Transportation Research Procedia., 555–564. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.trpro.2014.10.034.