Resources Policy 80 (2023) 103287

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resourpol

An improved MADM-based SWOT analysis for strategic planning in

dimension stones industry
Mohammad Hayati a, *, Satar Mahdevari b, Kianoush Barani a
a
Department of Mining Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Lorestan University, Khorramabad, Iran
b
Department of Mining Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: SWOT analysis, as a unique tool to facilitate a strategic planning process, was improved by employing MADM
Dimension stone techniques to analyze the status of the dimension stone industry in Lorestan province; a considerable zone of
Strategic planning dimension stone reserves in the west of Iran. In this respect, the results obtained from the traditional SWOT
SWOT analysis
analysis and the proposed MADM-based SWOT analysis were compared by identifying 50 effective factors,
FDAHP
Fuzzy TOPSIS
including strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, as well as 24 key strategies suggested by eleven
groups of experts. According to the results of the traditional approach, the strategic position of the Lorestan stone
industry was just placed in the WT area amongst the four available areas of the SWOT framework. In this
approach, it is impossible to consider the affecting evolutions criteria and also to prioritize the strategies based
on their importance. In contrast, in the proposed MADM-based SWOT analysis, a comprehensive collection of 14
criteria in evaluating strategies were considered, uncertainties were covered, and the developed strategies were
prioritized, using fuzzy Delphi AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS techniques. According to the results of the improved SWOT
analysis, three key strategies were suggested including the establishment of a stone research institute for con­
ducting the research plans to reduce the polishing wastes and related costs; recruiting specialized and educated
staff for scientific management; and branding and e-commerce strategies. The interesting points in the proposed
MADM-based SWOT analysis are overcoming the inherent uncertainty associated with qualitative data (fuzzy
calculation), paired comparisons of evaluation criteria (AHP analysis), modifying experts’ judgments (Delphi
analysis), and prioritizing and ranking the strategies (TOPSIS analysis). Also, the strategies presented in our
research are suitable for preventing environmental damages, improving economic growth, and paying attention
to social concerns.

1. Introduction commercially categorized into various groups; each one performs

The dimension stones industry appears to be a unique sector and a
key asset for most developing countries. The main issue regarding the
dimension stone industry is the necessity of strategic planning for sus­
tainable development and economic prosperity.
Dimension stone is a mining term that refers to any natural rock,
which is quarried in blocks of different dimensions. Dimension stones
may be processed and shaped by cutting or splitting into specific sizes of
slabs for usage in the building, construction, and decorative industries
(Merke, 2000; Ashmole and Motloung, 2008; ASTM C119-14, 2007).
Dimension stones are constituted from diverse kinds of minerals in
sedimentary, igneous, and metamorphic rocks, which possess special
qualitative features (Currier, 1960). Dimension stones may be
unique structural and aesthetic functions (Blachowski and Buczyńska,
2020).
I) Sedimentary rocks such as limestone, travertine, sandstone,
dolomite, slate, greywacke, quartzite, conglomerate, marl, and
chalcedonite
II) Igneous rocks such as granite, basalt, gabbro, diabase, syenite,
porphyry, and melaphyre
III) Metamorphic rocks such as marble, amphibolite, greenstones,
hornfels, migmatite, gneiss, serpentinite, and metamorphic slate
Mining operations in quarry mines should consider the market de­
mands to extract dimension stones in bulky blocks, free of joints,

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: hayati.m@lu.ac.ir (M. Hayati), satar.mahdevari@aut.ac.ir (S. Mahdevari).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.103287
Received 23 June 2022; Received in revised form 21 October 2022; Accepted 27 December 2022
Available online 4 January 2023
0301-4207/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Hayati et al. Resources Policy 80 (2023) 103287

Table 1 Table 1 (continued )

Literature survey of SWOT analysis based on MADM techniques. Authors Subject of Alternatives Criteria Analyzing
Authors Subject of Alternatives Criteria Analyzing research and method
SWOT Strategies SWOT
research and method Study location
SWOT Strategies SWOT factors (SO, ST, factors
Study location
factors (SO, ST, factors WO, WT)
WO, WT)
development of 7O
Barbosa Sugarcane 21 - 5 S SWOT ecotourism in 7T
et al. ethanol 4 W Delphi Serbia
(2022) companies in 5 O AHP Polat et al. Determination - 12 21 S SWOT
Brazil 7 T (2017) of strategies for 21 W AHP
Savari and Adaptation 32 - 8 S SWOT cadastral and 21 O
Shokati strategies 8 W FAHP land 21 T
Amghani development 8 O administration
(2022) among farmers 8 T system in
Voukkali Urban 20 - 5 S SWOT Turkey
and Zorpas metabolism 5 W AHP Szulecka and Forest 36 - 9S SWOT
(2022) assessment 5 O Monges plantations in 8W AHP
5 T Zalazar Paraguay 10 O
Aghasafari Development - 9 6 S SWOT (2017) 9T
et al. of organic 7 W Fuzzy-ANP Zhü et al. Rare earth 18 9 4S SWOT
(2020) farming in Iran 6 O (2016) industry in 5W ANP
7 T China 4O
Haque et al. Cross-border - 6 5 S SWOT 5T
(2020) electricity 4 W AHP Posch et al. Strategic 16 - 4S SWOT
trade in 5 O (2015) energy 4W AHP
Bangladesh 4 T management of 4O
Büyüközkan Health tourism - 8 6 S SWOT paper and pulp 4T
et al. strategy 6 W Fuzzy-AHP industry in
(2021) selection in 6 O MABAC Austrian
Turkey 6 T Tahernejad Determination 18 4 4S SWOT
Wang et al. Strategic - 3 6 S SWOT et al. of proper 5W AHP
(2020) renewable 6 W Fuzzy-AHP (2013) strategies for 4O
energy 9 O dimension 5T
resources 3 T stone mines in
selection in Iran
Pakistan Sevkli et al. Airline industry - 7 5S SWOT
Solangi et al. Sustainable - 13 3 S SWOT (2012) in Turkey 5W Fuzzy-ANP
(2019) energy 4 W AHP 6O
planning in 3 O Fuzzy- 5T
Pakistan 3 T TOPSIS Amin et al. Supplier - - 3S SWOT
Gottfried Development - 4 6 S SWOT (2011) selection and 1W Fuzzy logic
et al. of private 5 W AHP order 3O
(2018) investment 6 O allocation in 0T
strategies for 4 T India
the biogas
sector in China
Khan (2018) Evaluation of - 9 5 S SWOT uniform in color and texture, deprived of imperfections, and sustaining
the internal 5 W Fuzzy goal polish for a long duration. The suitability of dimension stones for
and external 5 O programing
different applications is determined by geological nature, chemical or
environment of 5 T
the CNG mineralogical composition, mechanical and physical properties, psy­
industry in Iran chological and aesthetic appeal, and techno-economic parameters
Liu et al. Determination - 7 3 S SWOT (Chatterjee, 2009).
(2018) of the strategy 5 W ANP Due to the abundant variety in the type and color of the extracted
for boosting the 3 O
building ESCO 5 T
stones, Iran is known as a paradise for dimension stone mines. Iran is
industry in ranked the fourth in dimension stones’ reserves, and also the first in
China terms of quality, color, and diversity (IranStoneExpo, 2018). Nonethe­
Cayir Prioritization 24 9 5 S SWOT less, according to the data presented by the Ministry of Industry, Mine,
Ervural of alternative 8 W ANP
and Trade, the number of dimension stone mines in Iran is 2072, of
et al. energy 6 O Fuzzy-
(2018) strategies in 5 T TOPSIS which 991 or 48% are inactive. Official statistics show that the country’s
Turkey nominal production capacity of dimension stones is over 30 million
Arsić et al. Identification 4 29 6 S SWOT tonnes per year, while the annual production is approximately 13.5
(2018) of the scenarios 9 W ANP million tonnes (about 45%). The nominal production capacity of stone
of the highest 7 O
priority for 7 T
processing plants is also reported to be 180 Mm2, while the annual
ecosystem production is about 80–85 Mm2 (TehranTimes, 2021).
management in In order to investigate the potential problems affecting the low re­
Serbia covery of the dimension stone industry in Iran, this research is con­
Etongo et al. Effectiveness of 16 - 4 S SWOT
ducted by implementing the strategic planning based on the SWOT
(2018) joint forest 4 W AHP
management in 4 O analysis, which stands for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and
Burkina Faso 4 T Threats. SWOT is an applicable technique for identifying and formu­
Arsić et al. Prioritization 4 29 6 S SWOT lating strategies to improve the status of an organization or industry.
(2017) strategies for 9 W ANP Strengths and weaknesses are internal factors (controllable and
sustainable Fuzzy-ANP
changeable), while opportunities and threats are external factors. Based

2
M. Hayati et al. Resources Policy 80 (2023) 103287

2. Literature survey

SWOT analysis is a well-known technique frequently used in stra­

tegic planning (Weihrich, 1982; Learned et al., 1965; Humphrey, 2005).
SWOT is a simple and applicable framework for leveraging the organi­
zation’s strengths, improving weaknesses, reducing threats, and taking
the possible advantages of opportunities (Gürel and Tat, 2017), which
was frequently implemented in various fields of engineering (Ren et al.,
2015; Niu et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2018; Li et al., 2020; Sanito et al., 2020;
Irfan et al., 2020; Bonfante et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2021).
SWOT is also a practical technique in mining engineering activities
that has recently been applied to various problems in the mining in­
dustry. In this respect, Nikolaou and Evangelinos (2010) developed a
SWOT analysis to inspect the weaknesses, strengths, threats, and op­
Fig. 1. Membership function of a schematic TFN in fuzzy Delphi. portunities faced by the mining industry when adopting environmental
management practices. Shahba et al. (2017) identified the best strategies
on the SWOT analysis, selected strategies should rely on the strengths for waste management in iron mines by SWOT analysis on a quantitative
and improve them, remove the weaknesses, exploit the opportunities basis. Zharan and Bongaerts (2017) presented a comparative cost
and reduce the impact of threats. analysis between renewable energy and fossil fuel technologies in the
In this research, the Multi-Attribute Decision-Making (MADM) mining industry using a SWOT analysis. Singh and Ghosh (2021)
techniques are applied to prioritize the strategies regarding the dimen­
sion stone mines and stone processing plants in Lorestan province, west
of Iran. For this purpose, Fuzzy-Delphi-Analytical Hierarchy Process
(FDAHP) is applied to calculate the relative importance or weights of the
evaluation criteria. In addition, the fuzzy Technique for Order Prefer­
ence by Similarity to Ideal Solution (fuzzy TOPSIS) is employed for
prioritizing the strategies due to its capability to use both negative and
positive criteria among the SWOT factors. The aim of using fuzzy set
theory is to convert the linguistic scales expressed by experts into fuzzy
numbers in order to consider the uncertainties associated with experts’
opinions.
Accordingly, the procedure of SWOT analysis is improved to identify
and develop appropriate strategies for enhancing the current situation of
the stone industry in Lorestan province. Thus, the internal and external
environments of the dimension stone industry in Lorestan are firstly
investigated, and then the existing strengths, weaknesses, opportunities,
and threats are identified to indicate the appropriate strategies. For this
purpose, a complete set of evaluation criteria is introduced in our
research for prioritizing the strategies instead of focusing only on the
importance coefficients of SWOT factors. Fig. 3. SWOT process (Ritson, 2019).

Fig. 2. Procedure of the improved MADM-based SWOT analysis versus traditional SWOT analysis.

3
M. Hayati et al. Resources Policy 80 (2023) 103287

Table 2
The SWOT matrix developed for the dimension stone industry in Lorestan province..

4
M. Hayati et al. Resources Policy 80 (2023) 103287

Table 3
Weighted score of each factor.
Factor Response Score

Golden opportunity Excellent response 4

Considerable opportunity Good reaction 3
Considerable threat Bad and negative reaction 2
Serious threat Terrible response 1

developed a model for mining geotourism by a SWOT analysis high­

lighting the possible opportunities in coal mines.
The literature survey demonstrates that there are little research
works concerning strategic planning in the dimension stones industry. In
one of the related works, Tahernejad et al. (2013) determined the best
strategies for dimension stone mines in Iran based on a SWOT-AHP
analysis, in which nine strategies were prioritized based on the eigh­
teen internal and external factors.
Despite many benefits in strategic planning, the traditional SWOT
analysis encounters some limitations and deficits in practice, such as the
inability to prioritize strategies, inability to provide solutions or offer
alternative decisions, lack of clarity or incapability to choose the best
idea among several suggestions, doing the subjective analysis, impos­
sibility to receive objective data, too many opinions to address, lack of
comparison with competitors, and producing a lot of information but not
all of them are useful (Gürel and Tat, 2017), (Hill and Westbrook, 1997),
(Wheelen et al., 2018).
Fig. 4. Internal-external matrix.
One way to cope with such limitations in the traditional SWOT
analysis is to implement the MADM techniques, in which it is possible to

5
M. Hayati et al. Resources Policy 80 (2023) 103287

Table 4 Table 4 (continued )

Details of the evaluation criteria. Type Criterion Name Symbol Effect Benchmarking
Type Criterion Name Symbol Effect Benchmarking
has a negative
Economic Investment C1 Negative Expresses the effect.
amount of initial Safety C11 Positive Indicates the degree
cost or capital that of safety
is necessary to conditions, which is
implement any achieved through
strategy. The less, implementing any
the better; thus it strategy.
has a negative Social Employment rate C12 Positive Expresses relative
effect. employment
Profitability C2 Positive Indicates the creation in the
amount of benefit implementation of
that is achieved in any strategy. Job
implementing any creation is for
strategy. reaction to the
Technical Simplicity and C3 Positive Expresses the market demands in
feasibility degree of simplicity recruiting the
and feasibility of capacity of created
each strategy. jobs or developing
Mechanization C4 Positive Expresses the existing
capability capability of business.
mechanization and Entrepreneurship C13 Positive Indicates the extent
the rate of using of entrepreneurship
modern creation in the
technologies implementation of
without human any strategy.
intervention in Entrepreneurship
implementing creates a new job,
strategies. and consequently
Possibility of C5 Positive Possibility of adds a pure value to
growth and development due to society by creating
development implementing a revenue.
strategy. The extent of C14 Negative Expresses the
Being time- C6 Negative Implementing a being affected by extent to which a
consuming strategy may be sanctions strategy is affected
time-consuming. by sanctions. The
The less, the better; less, the better; thus
thus it has a it has a negative
negative effect. effect.
Efficiency C7 Positive Efficiency is
measured based on
the amount of
resource used by Table 5
the mines or plants The range of scoring the evaluation criteria (Saaty, 1987).
in performing a
strategy. Intensity of Definition Explanation
Effectiveness C8 Positive Effectiveness is importance
measured 1 Equal importance Two factors contribute equally to the
according to the objective.
degree of alignment 3 Somewhat more Experience and judgment slightly favor
of the current important one over the other.
activities with 5 Much more Experience and judgment strongly favor
respect to the important one over the other.
targets. Increased 7 Very much more Experience and judgment very strongly
effectiveness means important favor one over the other. Its importance is
that the adopted demonstrated in practice.
strategies are more 9 Absolutely more The evidence favoring one over the other
than ever consistent important is of the highest possible validity.
with the goals of 2,4,6,8 Intermediate When compromise is needed
the stone industry. values
Uncertainty and C9 Negative Amount of
risk uncertainty and
risk arising from
determine multiple criteria with different weights in the evaluation
implementing each
strategy. The less, process, and to prioritize the proposed strategies (Gürel and Tat, 2017),
the better; (Hatami-Marbini et al., 2013), (Chang and Huang, 2006). In this regard,
therefore it has a some research works which were conducted for the combination of
negative effect.
SWOT analysis and MADM techniques are summarized in Table 1.
Environmental The rate of C10 Negative Indicates the degree
environmental of environmental
However, these researches have a critical deficiency as their evaluation
degradation degradation caused criteria are developed based on the SWOT factors, while in this research
by implementing a a complete set of evaluation criteria is introduced for prioritizing the
strategy. The less, strategies.
the better; thus it

6
M. Hayati et al. Resources Policy 80 (2023) 103287

Table 6
Evaluation matrix of the relative importance of criteria based on the opinions.
Groups C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14

G1 9 8 7 6 8 8 9 6 9 9 7 8 6 9
G2 9 8 4 6 5 5 5 4 9 6 7 5 3 8
G3 8 7 7 3 7 5 9 5 7 3 5 6 6 7
G4 9 7 6 6 9 7 5 6 8 5 6 7 5 8
G5 9 9 8 7 7 6 7 8 7 6 7 9 5 7
G6 7 7 6 7 7 9 5 4 6 5 6 8 4 9
G7 9 7 7 8 5 6 4 5 7 6 5 7 6 9
G8 9 9 8 6 7 7 7 7 8 6 8 9 7 8
G9 8 9 8 7 8 5 6 8 9 7 6 9 8 9
G10 9 9 8 7 7 7 8 8 9 8 8 7 6 9
G11 9 8 7 6 8 8 9 6 9 9 7 8 6 9

Table 7
Paired comparison matrix of criteria based on the first group’s opinions.
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14

C1 1.00 1.13 1.29 1.50 1.13 1.13 1.00 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.29 1.13 1.50 1.00
C2 0.89 1.00 1.14 1.33 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.33 0.89 0.89 1.14 1.00 1.33 0.89
C3 0.78 0.88 1.00 1.17 0.88 0.88 0.78 1.17 0.78 0.78 1.00 0.88 1.17 0.78
C4 0.67 0.75 0.86 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.67 1.00 0.67 0.67 0.86 0.75 1.00 0.67
C5 0.89 1.00 1.14 1.33 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.33 0.89 0.89 1.14 1.00 1.33 0.89
C6 0.89 1.00 1.14 1.33 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.33 0.89 0.89 1.14 1.00 1.33 0.89
C7 1.00 1.13 1.29 1.50 1.13 1.13 1.00 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.29 1.13 1.50 1.00
C8 0.67 0.75 0.86 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.67 1.00 0.67 0.67 0.86 0.75 1.00 0.67
C9 1.00 1.13 1.29 1.50 1.13 1.13 1.00 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.29 1.13 1.50 1.00
C10 1.00 1.13 1.29 1.50 1.13 1.13 1.00 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.29 1.13 1.50 1.00
C11 0.78 0.88 1.00 1.17 0.88 0.88 0.78 1.17 0.78 0.78 1.00 0.88 1.17 0.78
C12 0.89 1.00 1.14 1.33 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.33 0.89 0.89 1.14 1.00 1.33 0.89
C13 0.67 0.75 0.86 1.00 0.75 0.75 0.67 1.00 0.67 0.67 0.86 0.75 1.00 0.67
C14 1.00 1.13 1.29 1.50 1.13 1.13 1.00 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.29 1.13 1.50 1.00

3. Methods
MADM techniques are the central part of modern decision science, in
which a set of alternatives with several attributes may be evaluated
based on experts’ knowledge (Hwang and Yoon, 1981a). In fact, the
purpose of the MADM techniques is to rank the available alternatives
and find the most favorable one for supporting decision-making (Chen
and Hwang, 1992). In this respect, the AHP and TOPSIS techniques are
more commonly used MADM methods in practical applications (Tzeng
and Huang, 2011), in which the attribute values and attribute weights
are the essential decision-making information (Xu, 2015). However,
both values and weights are uncertain in real conditions due to the
complexity of the actual problems, the limited knowledge, and the
comprehension capability of humans (Kornbluth, 1992), (Lin et al.,
2008). Therefore, it is impossible for experts to express their assessments
explicitly (Lahdelma and Salminen, 2001). Hence, the fuzzy-MADM
techniques have been developed to deal with such situations, and
consequently obtain more accurate results (Xu, 2015).
3.1. Fuzzy sets and fuzzy numbers
Fuzzy set theory, which was first presented by Zadeh (1965), can
mathematically formulate vague/imprecise variables, concepts, or sys­
tems. This theory is a suitable tool for decision-making in uncertain
conditions to solve problems having no sharp boundaries or precise
values (Xu, 2015), (Chen, 2000).
Logically oriented methods are preferred to exclusively use of
probabilistic forecasts to express the human mental accounts. This
attitude towards human irrational behavior led to a new field of study in
decision-making, i.e., fuzzy decisions (Lai and Hwang, 1994).
In other words, the qualitative expressions in decision-making are
similar to linguistic variables in fuzzy logic, which can be simplified by
changing the linguistic scales by fuzzy numbers. Therefore, fuzzy sets
are a general form of crisp sets, in which a fuzzy number belongs to the
closed interval [0, 1], while the crisp sets only accord 0 or 1 (Mahdevari
et al., 2014).
Among several types of fuzzy numbers, the Triangular Fuzzy
Numbers (TFNs) are practically remarkable due to their intuitive and
computational simplicity (Mahdevari et al., 2014). A TFN is defined as a
triplet M̃ = (a, b, c), where a, b, and c are respectively the smallest
contingent value, the most promising value, and the maximum contin­
gent value. The highest degree of membership in a TFN is at the center
point, and then the value of membership function linearly decreases on
both sides to reach zero, such that its membership function, μ̃ (x), is
M
defined as (Li, 2007):
⎧
⎨ (x − a)/(b − a) if a ≤ x ≤ b
μM̃ (x) = (c − x)/(c − b) if b ≤ x ≤ c (1)
⎩
0 Otherwise
The linguistic variables expressed by the decision-makers are then
converted into TFNs as:
( )
̃ ijk = aijk , bijk , cijk i = 1, 2, 3, …, mj = 1, 2, 3, …, nk = 1, 2, 3, …, K
M (2)
where i, j, and k respectively represent alternatives, criteria, and the
number of decision-makers. Therefore, the aggregated TFNs of alterna­
tives relative to criteria (M
̃ ij ) are acquired as (Chen and Hwang, 1992):
( ) { } ∑K
{ }
̃ ij = aij , bij , cij aij = min aijk bij = 1
M bijk cij = max cijk (3)
k K k=1 k
3.2. Fuzzy Delphi Analytical Hierarchy Process
AHP is one of the simple and common MADM techniques, in which
the preference assessment is implemented by ratio-scale pairwise com­
parisons of the decision elements (Saaty, 1977), (Saaty and Kearns,
1985). The AHP analysis has some shortcomings, such as working with
crisp values, lack of a balanced scale for judgments, and inability to

7
 M. Hayati et al.
Table 8
Fuzzy paired comparison matrix of criteria based on the first group’s opinions.
Criteria C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7

C1 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.08 1.29 1.00 1.27 2.25 1.00 1.41 2.67 1.00 1.23 1.80 0.78 1.32 1.80 0.89 1.33 2.25
C2 0.78 0.92 1.13 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.17 2.00 0.88 1.30 2.33 0.78 1.14 1.60 0.78 1.22 1.80 0.78 1.23 1.75
C3 0.44 0.79 1.00 0.50 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 1.11 2.33 0.67 0.97 1.40 0.67 1.04 1.60 0.78 1.05 1.75
C4 0.38 0.71 1.00 0.43 0.77 1.14 0.43 0.90 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.43 0.88 1.60 0.60 0.94 1.40 0.33 0.94 2.00
C5 0.56 0.81 1.00 0.63 0.88 1.29 0.71 1.03 1.50 0.63 1.14 2.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.78 1.07 1.60 0.78 1.08 1.80
C6 0.56 0.76 1.29 0.56 0.82 1.29 0.63 0.96 1.50 0.71 1.06 1.67 0.63 0.93 1.29 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.56 1.00 1.80
C7 0.44 0.75 1.13 0.57 0.82 1.29 0.57 0.96 1.29 0.50 1.06 3.00 0.56 0.93 1.29 0.56 1.00 1.80 1.00 1.00 1.00
C8 0.44 0.69 1.00 0.50 0.74 0.89 0.67 0.87 1.00 0.57 0.97 1.67 0.57 0.85 1.14 0.44 0.91 1.60 0.56 0.91 1.33
C9 0.78 0.92 1.13 0.78 1.00 1.14 0.88 1.17 2.25 0.86 1.30 2.33 0.86 1.13 1.80 0.67 1.22 1.80 0.78 1.22 1.80
C10 0.38 0.71 1.00 0.43 0.77 1.13 0.43 0.90 1.50 0.71 1.00 1.50 0.43 0.87 1.20 0.56 0.94 1.40 0.33 0.94 1.50
C11 0.56 0.75 0.89 0.67 0.81 0.89 0.71 0.95 1.75 0.63 1.06 1.67 0.67 0.93 1.40 0.67 0.99 1.40 0.56 1.00 1.40
C12 0.56 0.86 1.14 0.63 0.93 1.14 0.86 1.09 1.33 0.83 1.22 2.00 0.78 1.06 1.40 0.89 1.14 1.80 0.67 1.15 1.75
C13 0.33 0.64 1.00 0.38 0.69 0.89 0.63 0.81 1.00 0.50 0.89 2.00 0.56 0.78 1.20 0.44 0.84 1.60 0.60 0.84 1.50
C14 0.78 0.97 1.29 0.78 1.05 1.29 0.88 1.23 2.00 1.00 1.36 2.33 1.13 1.25 1.80 1.00 1.28 1.80 0.78 1.28 2.25
8

Criteria C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14

C1 1.00 1.46 2.25 0.89 1.09 1.29 1.00 1.41 2.67 1.13 1.33 1.80 0.88 1.16 1.80 1.00 1.57 3.00 0.78 1.03 1.29
C2 1.13 1.34 2.00 0.88 1.00 1.29 0.89 1.30 2.33 1.13 1.23 1.50 0.88 1.07 1.60 1.13 1.45 2.67 0.78 0.96 1.29
C3 1.00 1.15 1.50 0.44 0.86 1.14 0.67 1.11 2.33 0.57 1.05 1.40 0.75 0.91 1.17 1.00 1.24 1.60 0.50 0.82 1.14
C4 0.60 1.03 1.75 0.43 0.77 1.17 0.67 1.00 1.40 0.60 0.95 1.60 0.50 0.82 1.20 0.50 1.12 2.00 0.43 0.73 1.00
C5 0.88 1.18 1.75 0.56 0.88 1.17 0.83 1.14 2.33 0.71 1.08 1.50 0.71 0.94 1.29 0.83 1.28 1.80 0.56 0.84 1.13
C6 0.63 1.10 2.25 0.56 0.82 1.50 0.71 1.07 1.80 0.71 1.01 1.50 0.56 0.88 1.13 0.63 1.19 2.25 0.56 0.78 1.00
C7 0.75 1.10 1.80 0.56 0.82 1.29 0.67 1.06 3.00 0.71 1.00 1.80 0.57 0.87 1.50 0.67 1.19 1.67 0.44 0.78 1.29
C8 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.44 0.75 1.14 0.67 0.97 1.67 0.57 0.91 1.33 0.50 0.80 1.14 0.83 1.08 1.60 0.44 0.71 1.14
C9 0.88 1.34 2.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.30 2.33 1.00 1.23 1.50 0.75 1.07 1.80 1.13 1.45 3.00 0.67 0.95 1.13
C10 0.60 1.03 1.50 0.43 0.77 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.60 0.94 1.29 0.50 0.82 1.20 0.50 1.12 2.00 0.43 0.73 1.00
C11 0.75 1.09 1.75 0.67 0.82 1.00 0.78 1.06 1.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.87 1.40 0.75 1.18 2.33 0.56 0.78 1.00
C12 0.88 1.26 2.00 0.56 0.94 1.33 0.83 1.22 2.00 0.71 1.15 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.36 2.00 0.63 0.89 1.29
C13 0.63 0.92 1.20 0.33 0.69 0.89 0.50 0.90 2.00 0.43 0.85 1.33 0.50 0.74 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.38 0.66 0.89
C14 0.88 1.41 2.25 0.89 1.05 1.50 1.00 1.36 2.33 1.00 1.29 1.80 0.78 1.12 1.60 1.13 1.52 2.67 1.00 1.00 1.00

Resources Policy 80 (2023) 103287

M. Hayati et al. Resources Policy 80 (2023) 103287

Table 9 where, αij and γij respectively denote the lower and upper bound of
Fuzzy weights of evaluation criteria.
opinions, δij is the geometrical mean of opinions, and βijk is the relative
W1 0.045 0.089 0.190 W8 0.027 0.061 0.127
W2 0.043 0.082 0.172 W9 0.041 0.082 0.176
importance of parameter i over parameter j from the kth person view­
W3 0.032 0.070 0.144 W10 0.024 0.063 0.131 point. A fuzzy positive reciprocal matrix (T)
̃ can then be established as:
W4 0.024 0.063 0.141 W11 0.033 0.067 0.138 [ ]
W5 0.034 0.072 0.152 W12 0.036 0.077 0.155 ̃ = ̃tij
T , ̃t × ̃tij ≈ 1, ∀i, j = 1, 2, …, n
n×n ij
(9)
W6 0.030 0.067 0.151 W13 0.024 0.056 0.123
W7 0.029 0.067 0.161 W14 0.044 0.086 0.184 The T̃ will be written for a 3 × 3 matrix as an instance:
⎡ ⎤
(1, 1, 1) (α12 , δ12 , γ 12 ) (α13 , δ13 , γ13 )
handle the uncertainty (Chen and Hwang, 1992). Nonetheless, the ⎢( ) ⎥
⎢ 1 1 1 ⎥
perception of a decision-maker in realistic problems is ordinarily vague, [ ] ⎢ , , (1, 1, 1) (α 23 , δ 23 , γ ) ⎥
̃tij 3×3 = ⎢ γ δ α 23 ⎥
fuzzy, or linguistic (Tzeng and Huang, 2011). Due to that, this research ⎢ ⎥
12 12 12
⎢( ) ( ) ⎥
tries to develop a Fuzzy Delphi Analytical Hierarchy Process (FDAHP) ⎣ 1 1 1
, ,
1 1 1
, , (1, 1, 1)
⎦
model in order to cope with such deficits (Murray et al., 1985; Ishikawa γ13 δ13 α13 γ23 δ23 α23
et al., 1993; Chino, 1990; Khorramshahgol and Moustakis, 1988). In
The relative fuzzy weight of parameters (Z
̃j ) is calculated as:
fact, the fuzzy sets are incorporated into pairwise comparison in the AHP
/
method to more accurately describe the ambiguous knowledge of [ ]1
decision-makers (Kazemi et al., 2015), (van Laarhoven and Pedrycz, ̃j = ̃tij ⨂… ⨂ ̃tin n
Z (10)
1983).
( )
On the other hand, the Delphi method, as a flexible technique, is ̃j =Z
W ̃j ⊘ Z̃j ⨁…⨁Z
̃n (11)
effectively applied to discover new concepts within and outside the
knowledge systems using statistical methods (Dalkey and Helmer, ̃ j is the weight of the jth criterion.
where, W
1963). Delphi is briefly an iterative procedure to assemble and adapt
judgments of experts via a series of data collection, analysis techniques, 3.3. Fuzzy TOPSIS
and brainstorming for problems, opportunities, solutions, and forecasts
(Hsu et al., 2010). The Delphi technique has also suffered a high cost of In order to deal with the uncertainty associated with qualitative data,
administration, low convergence of expert opinions, and potential the ranking procedure in TOPSIS is accomplished by the fuzzy set in our
elimination of opinions (Hwang and Lin, 1987), which may be improved research. The mathematical concept of the fuzzy TOPSIS is therefore
by introducing the fuzzy Delphi method (Ishikawa et al., 1993). summarized in the following five steps (Chen, 2000):
In FDAHP, the input data are obtained by experts in the form of
Step I: Suppose that we are given a fuzzy decision matrix (D),
̃ which
natural language, and a systematic qualitative process is followed to
contains n criteria (C1 to Cn ) and m alternatives (A1 to Am ). Based on the
converge the collected information in a set of sequential questionnaires.
TFNs, M
̃ ij = (aij , bij , cij ) are the inputs of the matrix, which are calculated
Let C1 , C2 , …, Cn are the set of criteria in a questionnaire, and tij is the
for each linguistic variable.
linguistic judgment on a pair of criteria Ci and Cj . The relative impor­
tance of the two criteria is then obtained from the division rate of Ci on C1 C2 . . . Cn
the rate of Cj . The n × n comparison matrix (T) can therefore be estab­ ⎡ ̃ ̃ 12 ̃ 1n ⎤
A1 M 11 M ⋯ ⋯ ⋯ M
lished for each expert as (Chen and Liu, 2007), (Chen and Wang, 2010): ⎢ ̃
A2 ⎢ M 21 ̃ 22
M ⋯ ̃ 2n ⎥
⋯ ⋯ M ⎥
⎡ 1 t ⋯ t ⎤ [ ] ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
(12)
12 1n
̃= M
D ̃ ij = . ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 1 ⎥ m×n ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 1 … t2n ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
[ ] ⎢ ⎢t
⎥
⎥ . ⎢ ⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ⎥
T = tij = ⎢ 12 ⎥ (4) .
⎢
⎢
⎥
⎥
⎢ ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⎥ ⎣ ⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ⎦
⎢ ⎥
⎣ 1 1 ⎦ Am ̃ m1
M ̃ m2
M ⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ̃ mn
M
⋯ 1
t1n t2n
The input data may have different units, and for converting the
After developing the pairwise comparison matrices, the TFNs (̃tij ) are different units into a comparable unit, the normalization method is
rewritten in Delphi format to represent the pessimistic, moderate, and accomplished using linear scale transformation to keep data in a pre­
optimistic estimates about each criterion expressed by experts (Fig. 1). scribed range of 0 and + 1. Therefore, a fuzzy normalized decision
( )
̃tij = αij , δij , γ ij , αij ≤ δij ≤ γ ij (5) matrix (R)
̃ will be obtained as:

( )
αij = Min βijk (6)

( )1/k
∏
K
δij = βijk (7)
k=1

( )
γ ij = Max βijk (8)

Table 10
Spectrum of linguistic variables to score the strategies (Chen, 2000).
Linguistic Variable Very High (VH) High Moderate High (MH) Moderate Moderate Low (ML) Low Very Low (VL)
(H) (M) (L)

TFN (9, 10, 10) (7, 9, 10) (5, 7, 9) (3, 5, 7) (1, 3, 5) (0, 1, 3) (0, 0, 1)

9
M. Hayati et al. Resources Policy 80 (2023) 103287

C1 C2 . . Cn.

10
10
10

10
10
10
10
10
10
10
7
⎡ ̃r ̃r12 ⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ̃r1n ⎤
A1 11

10
10
10

10

10

10
10
⎢ ⎥

9
A2 ⎢ ̃r21 ̃r22 ⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ̃r2n ⎥
C14 [ ] ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
(13)

9
9
9
3
9
7
9
7
9
9
7
̃ = ̃rij
R = . ⎢ ⎥
m×n ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ⎥

10
10

10
10

10
10
10
10
10
. ⎢ ⋯ ⋯ ⎥

9
⎢ ⎥
. ⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ⎦

10

10
9
9
7
9

7
9
9
9
9
C13 7 Am ̃rm1 ̃rm2 ⋯ ⋯ ⋯ ̃rmn
7
5
7
9
5
7
7
7
7
9
10 in which ̃rij will be defined based on Eqs. (14) and (16) for the criteria
10

10

10
7
7
3

9
7
7
10 with the positive effects (benefit criteria) and the negative effects (non-
benefit criteria), respectively.
5
5
1
9

7
9
7
5
5
9
C12
3
3
0
7
9
5
7
5
3
3
7
( )
aij bij cij
̃rij = max , max , max (14)
10

10

10
10
10
10
ci ci ci
7
7

1
1
10

10
10
10 { ⃒ ( )}
(15)
5
5
9
5

0
0
9

C11
cmax
i = max cij ⃒M
̃ ij = aij , bij , cij
3
3
7
3
9
0
0
7
9
9
9

⎧ ( )
⎪ amin amin amin
3
3
3
5
3
1
1
3
3
3
3

⎪
⎪ i
, i , i , amin =0
∕
⎨ cij bij aij i
(16)
1
1
1
3
1
0
0
1
1
1
1

̃rij = ( )
C10 ⎪
⎪ cij bij aij
⎪ , 1 − max , 1 − max , amin
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

⎩ 1 − max i =0
ci ci ci
10
10
10

10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9

{ ⃒ ( )}
amin = min aij ⃒M
̃ ij = aij , bij , cij (17)
10
10
10

10

10

10

i
7

9
9

9
9

C9
Step II: The weighted normalized value ̃
vij is obtained by multiplying
9
9
9
5
9
7
7
9
7
7
9

the criteria weights (W

̃ j ) with the normalized fuzzy decision matrix ̃rij .
10
10
10
10
10

10
10
10
10
10
9

The weighted normalized decision matrix V ̃ for each criterion is:

10

10
10

( )
9
9
9
9

7
9
9

C8
̃ = ̃vij
V ̃ j ⊗ ̃rij
v =W
,̃
m×n ij
(18)
7
7
7
7
9
5
7
7
9
9
7

Step III: The fuzzy positive ideal solution (A+

j )
and fuzzy negative
10
10

10
10
10
10
10

ideal solution (A−j ) are thereafter obtained as:

9
9
9

7
10

10
10
10
10

{ ⃒ }
7
7
7
9

5
9

( + + + ) ⃒
C7 A+j = ̃ v2 , ̃v3 , …, ̃v+
v1 , ̃ vij ⃒(i = 1, 2, …, m; j = 1, 2, …, n)
n = max̃ (19)
5
5
5
7
9
3
7
9
9
9
9

i
10
10
10

10
10
10

{ ⃒ }
7
7
7

7
9

( − − − ) ⃒
A−j = ̃ v2 , ̃v3 , …, ̃v−n = miñ
v1 , ̃ vij ⃒(i = 1, 2, …, m; j = 1, 2, …, n) (20)
10

10

i
5
5
5
9

9
5
7
9
9

j and Aj are calcu­

Step IV: The distance of each alternative from A+
C6
−
3
3
3
7
9
7
3
5
7
7
9

lated as:
10
10

10
10

10

10
9

9
9
9

∑
n ( )
(21)
10

10

di+ = v+
d ̃vij , ̃
9
9
7
9

5
9
7
7
7

j
C5 j=1
7
7
5
7
9
3
7
5
5
5
9

∑
n ( )
10

10
10
10
10

(22)
7
7
7
3

5
9

di− = v−j
d ̃vij , ̃
TFN values based on the expert opinions for the first strategy.

j=1
10

10
10
10
5
5
5
1

3
7
9

C4
where, d+
i and di are respectively the primary and secondary distant
−
3
3
3
0
9
1
5
7
9
9
9

measures. The distance measurement between two TFNs of A

̃ = (a1 , b1 ,
9
9
5
3
5
5
7
5
3
3
5

c1 ) and B
̃ = (a2 , b2 , c2 ), can be calculated by the vertex method as:
7
7
3
1
3
3
5
3
1
1
3

C3 √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
5
5
1
0
1
1
3
1
0
0
1

1[ ]
̃ ̃
d(A, B) = (a1 − a2 )2 + (b1 − b2 )2 + (c1 − c2 )2 (23)
3
10
10

10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
9

Step V: The alternatives are finally ranked by the relative closeness

10
10

10

10
10
7
9
9
9

C2 index (CI) in decreasing order. The larger the index value, the better the
performance of the alternatives. The CI simultaneously takes into ac­
9
9
5
7
7
7
9
7
9
9
7

count the d+i and di as:

−
10
10
10
10
10
10
10

10
10
10
9

di−
(24)
10
10
10
10

CI = ( ) CI = 1 if Ai = A+ CI = 0 if Ai = A−
9
9

9
7
9
9
9

C1 di+ + di−
7
7
9
9
9
9
7
5
7
7
7

As d−i ≥ 0 and d+
i ≥ 0, then clearly CI ε [0, 1].
Table 11

G 10
G 11
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
G7
G8
G9

10
 M. Hayati et al.
Table 12
Fuzzy decision matrix based on the aggregated TFNs.
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7

STR 1 5.00 9.18 10.00 5.00 9.27 10.00 0.00 3.36 9.00 0.00 6.82 10.00 3.00 8.09 10.00 3.00 7.55 10.00 3.00 8.55 10.00
STR 2 3.00 8.82 10.00 7.00 9.27 10.00 1.00 4.45 10.00 1.00 6.73 10.00 3.00 7.09 10.00 1.00 7.91 10.00 3.00 7.36 10.00
STR 3 1.00 8.36 10.00 1.00 8.73 10.00 1.00 4.64 10.00 0.00 5.45 10.00 1.00 6.55 10.00 5.00 8.55 10.00 3.00 6.45 10.00
STR 4 1.00 6.82 10.00 5.00 8.64 10.00 1.00 4.27 9.00 0.00 5.00 9.00 1.00 6.82 10.00 3.00 6.18 10.00 3.00 7.64 10.00
STR 5 1.00 9.09 10.00 5.00 9.09 10.00 0.00 4.27 10.00 1.00 7.36 10.00 0.00 8.00 10.00 3.00 7.82 10.00 3.00 7.55 10.00
STR 6 5.00 9.09 10.00 5.00 9.18 10.00 0.00 4.09 9.00 0.00 5.64 10.00 0.00 7.64 10.00 3.00 7.00 10.00 3.00 8.00 10.00
STR 7 5.00 8.73 10.00 5.00 8.27 10.00 1.00 4.64 9.00 1.00 6.91 10.00 3.00 7.00 10.00 3.00 8.64 10.00 3.00 7.64 10.00
STR 8 3.00 8.55 10.00 3.00 7.36 10.00 1.00 6.09 10.00 0.00 6.36 10.00 3.00 7.27 10.00 1.00 7.36 10.00 3.00 8.09 10.00
STR 9 5.00 8.09 10.00 5.00 8.09 10.00 0.00 4.82 9.00 0.00 4.91 10.00 1.00 6.27 10.00 5.00 8.55 10.00 0.00 6.36 10.00
STR 10 1.00 5.55 10.00 3.00 7.36 10.00 1.00 6.73 10.00 0.00 3.91 10.00 3.00 6.64 10.00 1.00 6.55 10.00 3.00 7.64 10.00
STR 11 1.00 9.18 10.00 3.00 8.27 10.00 1.00 4.09 9.00 1.00 7.00 10.00 3.00 7.18 10.00 3.00 8.45 10.00 3.00 7.55 10.00
STR 12 1.00 6.64 10.00 3.00 7.55 10.00 1.00 5.55 10.00 0.00 5.64 10.00 3.00 8.36 10.00 1.00 5.91 10.00 1.00 8.00 10.00
STR 13 3.00 6.36 10.00 3.00 7.73 10.00 1.00 6.55 10.00 0.00 5.36 10.00 5.00 8.55 10.00 1.00 4.18 10.00 5.00 8.64 10.00
STR 14 7.00 9.73 10.00 5.00 9.27 10.00 0.00 3.18 7.00 3.00 6.82 10.00 3.00 7.82 10.00 1.00 7.55 10.00 5.00 8.55 10.00
STR 15 5.00 8.45 10.00 5.00 8.82 10.00 0.00 3.91 9.00 0.00 3.73 10.00 5.00 8.45 10.00 3.00 6.27 10.00 1.00 7.45 10.00
STR 16 3.00 6.45 10.00 3.00 7.91 10.00 3.00 8.45 10.00 0.00 4.64 10.00 3.00 8.09 10.00 1.00 5.36 10.00 1.00 5.82 10.00
STR 17 5.00 8.82 10.00 7.00 9.55 10.00 1.00 5.18 9.00 0.00 4.00 10.00 3.00 8.09 10.00 1.00 8.00 10.00 3.00 8.00 10.00
STR 18 3.00 8.09 10.00 3.00 8.27 10.00 0.00 3.73 9.00 1.00 5.91 10.00 1.00 6.91 10.00 3.00 8.18 10.00 3.00 7.55 10.00
STR 19 1.00 7.91 10.00 1.00 8.45 10.00 0.00 3.73 9.00 0.00 3.55 10.00 1.00 7.09 10.00 3.00 7.45 10.00 3.00 8.00 10.00
STR 20 5.00 9.45 10.00 5.00 9.09 10.00 0.00 3.55 9.00 1.00 8.18 10.00 1.00 8.27 10.00 1.00 7.27 10.00 3.00 8.00 10.00
STR 21 1.00 4.82 9.00 3.00 8.73 10.00 0.00 8.00 10.00 0.00 5.91 10.00 3.00 8.09 10.00 1.00 5.91 10.00 3.00 7.91 10.00
STR 22 5.00 9.55 10.00 3.00 8.91 10.00 0.00 3.00 9.00 1.00 7.91 10.00 3.00 7.91 10.00 1.00 8.27 10.00 1.00 7.55 10.00
STR 23 1.00 6.00 10.00 1.00 7.82 10.00 3.00 8.64 10.00 0.00 7.18 10.00 5.00 9.18 10.00 1.00 4.36 10.00 1.00 7.64 10.00
11

STR 24 1.00 6.82 10.00 5.00 8.73 10.00 3.00 7.55 10.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 3.00 7.82 10.00 1.00 5.27 10.00 3.00 7.73 10.00

C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14

STR 1 5.00 9.09 10.00 5.00 9.36 10.00 0.00 1.00 5.00 0.00 6.64 10.00 0.00 6.55 10.00 5.00 8.82 10.00 3.00 9.27 10.00
STR 2 3.00 8.45 10.00 5.00 8.36 10.00 0.00 0.91 5.00 0.00 6.82 10.00 3.00 7.45 10.00 3.00 7.82 10.00 3.00 8.27 10.00
STR 3 3.00 8.00 10.00 5.00 8.36 10.00 0.00 1.18 5.00 0.00 4.73 10.00 1.00 7.00 10.00 1.00 8.00 10.00 3.00 8.82 10.00
STR 4 3.00 7.45 10.00 1.00 7.00 10.00 0.00 1.64 10.00 0.00 1.55 10.00 1.00 4.64 9.00 1.00 4.45 9.00 3.00 8.18 10.00
STR 5 3.00 8.00 10.00 5.00 9.00 10.00 0.00 1.55 7.00 0.00 5.36 10.00 3.00 7.27 10.00 3.00 7.55 10.00 3.00 9.27 10.00
STR 6 3.00 6.82 10.00 1.00 7.82 10.00 0.00 2.55 10.00 0.00 5.55 10.00 3.00 7.36 10.00 3.00 6.64 10.00 3.00 8.55 10.00
STR 7 3.00 7.36 10.00 3.00 7.45 10.00 0.00 1.45 7.00 0.00 3.73 10.00 3.00 6.82 10.00 1.00 6.82 10.00 3.00 9.09 10.00
STR 8 3.00 6.91 10.00 1.00 5.91 10.00 0.00 3.55 10.00 0.00 4.91 10.00 1.00 5.73 10.00 1.00 5.91 10.00 1.00 7.09 10.00
STR 9 0.00 6.91 10.00 1.00 7.45 10.00 0.00 2.36 10.00 0.00 2.45 10.00 3.00 7.18 10.00 1.00 6.64 10.00 3.00 7.82 10.00
STR 10 3.00 7.64 10.00 0.00 6.36 10.00 0.00 0.36 5.00 0.00 1.73 9.00 3.00 6.55 10.00 1.00 6.27 10.00 1.00 7.64 10.00
STR 11 1.00 7.91 10.00 3.00 8.73 10.00 0.00 1.18 5.00 0.00 4.27 10.00 3.00 6.27 10.00 3.00 7.64 10.00 3.00 8.73 10.00
STR 12 5.00 8.91 10.00 3.00 6.91 10.00 0.00 0.82 5.00 0.00 2.27 9.00 1.00 6.82 10.00 1.00 5.91 10.00 3.00 8.18 10.00
STR 13 3.00 8.09 10.00 1.00 4.55 10.00 0.00 0.36 5.00 0.00 2.45 10.00 3.00 7.55 10.00 3.00 7.45 10.00 0.00 4.36 10.00
STR 14 5.00 8.27 10.00 0.00 7.82 10.00 0.00 1.00 7.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 1.00 6.45 10.00 1.00 8.09 10.00 3.00 9.18 10.00
STR 15 1.00 8.36 10.00 1.00 7.55 10.00 0.00 0.27 5.00 0.00 0.91 7.00 1.00 6.36 10.00 1.00 6.73 10.00 3.00 9.36 10.00
STR 16 1.00 6.91 10.00 1.00 5.73 10.00 0.00 1.45 7.00 0.00 1.27 7.00 0.00 6.00 10.00 3.00 6.55 10.00 1.00 4.73 10.00
STR 17 3.00 7.73 10.00 3.00 8.64 10.00 0.00 0.36 5.00 0.00 4.73 10.00 3.00 6.82 10.00 3.00 7.64 10.00 3.00 8.91 10.00

Resources Policy 80 (2023) 103287

STR 18 1.00 7.82 10.00 1.00 8.00 10.00 0.00 0.36 5.00 0.00 3.00 10.00 1.00 6.36 10.00 1.00 6.91 10.00 3.00 8.00 10.00
STR 19 3.00 7.55 10.00 5.00 8.36 10.00 0.00 0.36 5.00 0.00 2.55 9.00 3.00 7.00 10.00 1.00 7.18 10.00 3.00 9.18 10.00
STR 20 5.00 8.91 10.00 3.00 8.55 10.00 0.00 0.64 5.00 0.00 5.09 10.00 1.00 7.00 10.00 1.00 7.73 10.00 3.00 8.00 10.00
STR 21 3.00 8.09 10.00 0.00 3.64 10.00 0.00 0.55 7.00 0.00 1.64 10.00 3.00 7.73 10.00 1.00 7.27 10.00 1.00 6.27 10.00
STR 22 3.00 8.45 10.00 1.00 8.45 10.00 0.00 0.36 5.00 0.00 5.27 10.00 3.00 7.27 10.00 1.00 8.73 10.00 3.00 9.36 10.00
STR 23 1.00 8.55 10.00 0.00 3.64 10.00 0.00 0.27 5.00 0.00 3.73 10.00 0.00 4.82 10.00 1.00 5.36 10.00 1.00 6.00 10.00
STR 24 5.00 8.55 10.00 0.00 4.00 10.00 0.00 0.91 7.00 0.00 5.18 10.00 1.00 7.45 10.00 3.00 7.64 10.00 1.00 5.36 10.00
 M. Hayati et al.
Table 13
Fuzzy weighted normal decision matrix.
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7

STR 1 0.000 0.007 0.095 0.022 0.076 0.172 0.000 0.024 0.129 0.000 0.043 0.141 0.010 0.058 0.152 0.000 0.016 0.106 0.009 0.057 0.161
STR 2 0.000 0.010 0.133 0.030 0.076 0.172 0.003 0.031 0.144 0.002 0.042 0.141 0.010 0.051 0.152 0.000 0.014 0.136 0.009 0.049 0.161
STR 3 0.000 0.015 0.171 0.004 0.071 0.172 0.003 0.032 0.144 0.000 0.034 0.141 0.003 0.047 0.152 0.000 0.010 0.076 0.009 0.043 0.161
STR 4 0.000 0.028 0.171 0.022 0.071 0.172 0.003 0.030 0.129 0.000 0.031 0.127 0.003 0.049 0.152 0.000 0.026 0.106 0.009 0.051 0.161
STR 5 0.000 0.008 0.171 0.022 0.074 0.172 0.000 0.030 0.144 0.002 0.046 0.141 0.000 0.058 0.152 0.000 0.015 0.106 0.009 0.050 0.161
STR 6 0.000 0.008 0.095 0.022 0.075 0.172 0.000 0.029 0.129 0.000 0.035 0.141 0.000 0.055 0.152 0.000 0.020 0.106 0.009 0.053 0.161
STR 7 0.000 0.011 0.095 0.022 0.068 0.172 0.003 0.032 0.129 0.002 0.044 0.141 0.010 0.050 0.152 0.000 0.009 0.106 0.009 0.051 0.161
STR 8 0.000 0.013 0.133 0.013 0.060 0.172 0.003 0.043 0.144 0.000 0.040 0.141 0.010 0.052 0.152 0.000 0.018 0.136 0.009 0.054 0.161
STR 9 0.000 0.017 0.095 0.022 0.066 0.172 0.000 0.034 0.129 0.000 0.031 0.141 0.003 0.045 0.152 0.000 0.010 0.076 0.000 0.043 0.161
STR 10 0.000 0.039 0.171 0.013 0.060 0.172 0.003 0.047 0.144 0.000 0.025 0.141 0.010 0.048 0.152 0.000 0.023 0.136 0.009 0.051 0.161
STR 11 0.000 0.007 0.171 0.013 0.068 0.172 0.003 0.029 0.129 0.002 0.044 0.141 0.010 0.052 0.152 0.000 0.010 0.106 0.009 0.050 0.161
STR 12 0.000 0.030 0.171 0.013 0.062 0.172 0.003 0.039 0.144 0.000 0.035 0.141 0.010 0.060 0.152 0.000 0.027 0.136 0.003 0.053 0.161
STR 13 0.000 0.032 0.133 0.013 0.063 0.172 0.003 0.046 0.144 0.000 0.034 0.141 0.017 0.061 0.152 0.000 0.039 0.136 0.014 0.058 0.161
STR 14 0.000 0.002 0.057 0.022 0.076 0.172 0.000 0.022 0.101 0.007 0.043 0.141 0.010 0.056 0.152 0.000 0.016 0.136 0.014 0.057 0.161
STR 15 0.000 0.014 0.095 0.022 0.072 0.172 0.000 0.027 0.129 0.000 0.023 0.141 0.017 0.061 0.152 0.000 0.025 0.106 0.003 0.050 0.161
STR 16 0.000 0.031 0.133 0.013 0.065 0.172 0.010 0.059 0.144 0.000 0.029 0.141 0.010 0.058 0.152 0.000 0.031 0.136 0.003 0.039 0.161
STR 17 0.000 0.010 0.095 0.030 0.078 0.172 0.003 0.036 0.129 0.000 0.025 0.141 0.010 0.058 0.152 0.000 0.013 0.136 0.009 0.053 0.161
STR 18 0.000 0.017 0.133 0.013 0.068 0.172 0.000 0.026 0.129 0.002 0.037 0.141 0.003 0.050 0.152 0.000 0.012 0.106 0.009 0.050 0.161
STR 19 0.000 0.019 0.171 0.004 0.069 0.172 0.000 0.026 0.129 0.000 0.022 0.141 0.003 0.051 0.152 0.000 0.017 0.106 0.009 0.053 0.161
STR 20 0.000 0.005 0.095 0.022 0.074 0.172 0.000 0.025 0.129 0.002 0.052 0.141 0.003 0.060 0.152 0.000 0.018 0.136 0.009 0.053 0.161
STR 21 0.005 0.046 0.171 0.013 0.071 0.172 0.000 0.056 0.144 0.000 0.037 0.141 0.010 0.058 0.152 0.000 0.027 0.136 0.009 0.053 0.161
STR 22 0.000 0.004 0.095 0.013 0.073 0.172 0.000 0.021 0.129 0.002 0.050 0.141 0.010 0.057 0.152 0.000 0.012 0.136 0.003 0.050 0.161
STR 23 0.000 0.035 0.171 0.004 0.064 0.172 0.010 0.060 0.144 0.000 0.045 0.141 0.017 0.066 0.152 0.000 0.038 0.136 0.003 0.051 0.161
12

STR 24 0.000 0.028 0.171 0.022 0.071 0.172 0.010 0.053 0.144 0.000 0.031 0.141 0.010 0.056 0.152 0.000 0.032 0.136 0.009 0.052 0.161

C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14

STR 1 0.014 0.055 0.127 0.000 0.005 0.088 0.012 0.057 0.131 0.000 0.044 0.138 0.000 0.050 0.155 0.012 0.050 0.123 0.000 0.006 0.129
STR 2 0.008 0.051 0.127 0.000 0.013 0.088 0.012 0.057 0.131 0.000 0.045 0.138 0.011 0.057 0.155 0.007 0.044 0.123 0.000 0.015 0.129
STR 3 0.008 0.049 0.127 0.000 0.013 0.088 0.012 0.055 0.131 0.000 0.031 0.138 0.004 0.054 0.155 0.002 0.045 0.123 0.000 0.010 0.129
STR 4 0.008 0.045 0.127 0.000 0.024 0.159 0.000 0.053 0.131 0.000 0.010 0.138 0.004 0.035 0.140 0.002 0.025 0.111 0.000 0.016 0.129
STR 5 0.008 0.049 0.127 0.000 0.008 0.088 0.007 0.053 0.131 0.000 0.036 0.138 0.011 0.056 0.155 0.007 0.042 0.123 0.000 0.006 0.129
STR 6 0.008 0.042 0.127 0.000 0.018 0.159 0.000 0.047 0.131 0.000 0.037 0.138 0.011 0.056 0.155 0.007 0.037 0.123 0.000 0.013 0.129
STR 7 0.008 0.045 0.127 0.000 0.021 0.123 0.007 0.054 0.131 0.000 0.025 0.138 0.011 0.052 0.155 0.002 0.038 0.123 0.000 0.008 0.129
STR 8 0.008 0.042 0.127 0.000 0.033 0.159 0.000 0.041 0.131 0.000 0.033 0.138 0.004 0.044 0.155 0.002 0.033 0.123 0.000 0.025 0.165
STR 9 0.000 0.042 0.127 0.000 0.021 0.159 0.000 0.048 0.131 0.000 0.016 0.138 0.011 0.055 0.155 0.002 0.037 0.123 0.000 0.019 0.129
STR 10 0.008 0.046 0.127 0.000 0.030 0.176 0.012 0.061 0.131 0.000 0.012 0.124 0.011 0.050 0.155 0.002 0.035 0.123 0.000 0.020 0.165
STR 11 0.003 0.048 0.127 0.000 0.010 0.123 0.012 0.055 0.131 0.000 0.028 0.138 0.011 0.048 0.155 0.007 0.043 0.123 0.000 0.011 0.129
STR 12 0.014 0.054 0.127 0.000 0.025 0.123 0.012 0.058 0.131 0.000 0.015 0.124 0.004 0.052 0.155 0.002 0.033 0.123 0.000 0.016 0.129
STR 13 0.008 0.049 0.127 0.000 0.045 0.159 0.012 0.061 0.131 0.000 0.016 0.138 0.011 0.058 0.155 0.007 0.042 0.123 0.000 0.048 0.184
STR 14 0.014 0.050 0.127 0.000 0.018 0.176 0.007 0.057 0.131 0.000 0.033 0.138 0.004 0.049 0.155 0.002 0.046 0.123 0.000 0.007 0.129
STR 15 0.003 0.051 0.127 0.000 0.020 0.159 0.012 0.061 0.131 0.000 0.006 0.096 0.004 0.049 0.155 0.002 0.038 0.123 0.000 0.005 0.129
STR 16 0.003 0.042 0.127 0.000 0.035 0.159 0.007 0.054 0.131 0.000 0.008 0.096 0.000 0.046 0.155 0.007 0.037 0.123 0.000 0.045 0.165
STR 17 0.008 0.047 0.127 0.000 0.011 0.123 0.012 0.061 0.131 0.000 0.031 0.138 0.011 0.052 0.155 0.007 0.043 0.123 0.000 0.009 0.129

Resources Policy 80 (2023) 103287

STR 18 0.003 0.048 0.127 0.000 0.016 0.159 0.012 0.061 0.131 0.000 0.020 0.138 0.004 0.049 0.155 0.002 0.039 0.123 0.000 0.017 0.129
STR 19 0.008 0.046 0.127 0.000 0.013 0.088 0.012 0.061 0.131 0.000 0.017 0.124 0.011 0.054 0.155 0.002 0.040 0.123 0.000 0.007 0.129
STR 20 0.014 0.054 0.127 0.000 0.012 0.123 0.012 0.059 0.131 0.000 0.034 0.138 0.004 0.054 0.155 0.002 0.044 0.123 0.000 0.017 0.129
STR 21 0.008 0.049 0.127 0.000 0.052 0.176 0.007 0.059 0.131 0.000 0.011 0.138 0.011 0.059 0.155 0.002 0.041 0.123 0.000 0.032 0.165
STR 22 0.008 0.051 0.127 0.000 0.013 0.159 0.012 0.061 0.131 0.000 0.035 0.138 0.011 0.056 0.155 0.002 0.049 0.123 0.000 0.005 0.129
STR 23 0.003 0.052 0.127 0.000 0.052 0.176 0.012 0.061 0.131 0.000 0.025 0.138 0.000 0.037 0.155 0.002 0.030 0.123 0.000 0.034 0.165
STR 24 0.014 0.052 0.127 0.000 0.049 0.176 0.007 0.057 0.131 0.000 0.035 0.138 0.004 0.057 0.155 0.007 0.043 0.123 0.000 0.040 0.165
M. Hayati et al. Resources Policy 80 (2023) 103287

4. Results and discussion

0.161
0.000

0.184
0.000
An improved SWOT analysis is followed in this research to formulate
the strategies using the internal weaknesses and strengths as well as the

0.161
0.000

0.184
0.000
external threats and opportunities of the dimension stone industry in
Lorestan province. For this purpose, two types of questionnaires are first
developed to be filled out by experts working at dimension stone mines
and stone processing plants in the investigated region. One of the

0.161
0.000

0.184
0.000
C14
C7 questionnaires has been developed based on the traditional SWOT
analysis, and the other has been designed according to the improved
SWOT analysis proposed in our research.
0.136
0.000

0.123
0.002
4.1. Data gathering
0.136
0.000

0.123
0.002 Implementing the proposed strategic planning, the dimension stone
mines and stone processing plants located in the Lorestan province are
focused. The probable and proven reserves of dimension stones in
0.136
0.000

0.123
0.002
C13
C6

Lorestan are respectively estimated as 800 and 65.5 million tonnes,

which is ranked the first one in the country (Khoshbakht, 2016). Ac­
cording to the statistics published by the Ministry of Cooperatives, La­
0.152
0.000

0.155
0.000

bour, and Social Welfare, 24% of the whole extracted dimension stone in
the country is mined in Lorestan. Also, about 10% of the stone pro­
cessing plants in the country are in this province producing 27% of the
0.152
0.000

0.155
0.000

country’s processed stone. Although his province is a suitable region

with several dimension stone mines and stone processing plants, there
are many problems with regard to productivity, effectiveness, and re­
0.152
0.000

0.155
0.000
C12
C5

covery (Khoshbakht, 2016). Most of the production is consumed in do­

mestic markets, and only a few percent is exported to the Middle East,
Europe, and south-east Asian countries.
0.141
0.000

0.138
0.000

There are more than 80 dimension stone mines and about 450 stone
processing plants in Lorestan province. However, the whole mines and
plants are not active, and some of them are abandoned due to financial,
0.141
0.000

0.138
0.000

administrational, and operational problems. In addition, the overall

recoveries may not touch the nominal capacities in some mines or plants
in the province. On the other hand, a key problem related to the stone
0.141
0.000

0.138
0.000
C11

industry in Lorestan results from unavailability and deteriorated ma­

C4

chinery leading to reducing recovery and increasing the processing

wastes. Due to that, this research was planned to investigate the stone
0.144
0.000

0.131
0.000

industry in the province and to present the best strategies for preventing
environmental damages, improving economic growth, and paying
attention to social concerns. In order to implement a practical model for
0.144
0.000

0.131
0.000

strategic planning in this province, the developed questionnaires were

distributed in almost all dimension stone mines and stone processing
plants in the province to be filled out by experts. After preliminary
0.144
0.000

0.131
0.000
C10

evaluation, 59 questionnaires were completed in 11 expert groups.

C3

Accordingly, 30 internal environmental factors (weaknesses and

strengths), 20 external environmental factors (threats and opportu­
0.172
0.004

0.176
0.000

nities), and 24 key strategies were identified using the SWOT matrix.
Each of these factors was entered on the margin of the SWOT matrix, and
then appropriate strategies were developed in four categories SO, WO,
0.172
0.004

0.176
0.000

ST, and WT. In the following subsections, the SWOT analysis is pre­
sented at first, and then our improved MADM-based SWOT will be
described. The procedure followed in this research is briefly depicted in
0.172
0.004

0.176
0.000

Fig. 2. As seen, in the traditional SWOT analysis, importance coefficients

C2

C9
Fuzzy positive and negative ideal values.

are firstly calculated based on the experts’ opinions, and then the stra­
tegic planning is determined by analyzing the questionnaire informa­
0.171
0.000

0.127
0.000

tion. While in the improved SWOT analysis, a complete set of evaluation

criteria is introduced at first, and then the FDAHP and fuzzy TOPSIS are
applied to prioritize the strategies.
0.171
0.000

0.127
0.000

4.2. Traditional SWOT analysis

0.171
0.000

0.127
0.000

The fundamental purpose in SWOT analysis is to identify the stra­

C1

C8

tegies creating a specific model that will best align, fit or match the
Table 14

resources and abilities to the demands. As shown in Fig. 3, the SWOT

A+

A+
j
A−j

j
A−j

technique is the foundation for evaluating the internal limitations and

13
M. Hayati et al. Resources Policy 80 (2023) 103287

Table 15
Calculating CI and ranking the strategies.
Strategy d+
i
d−i CI Rank Strategy d+
i
d−i CI Rank

STR24 0.833 0.731 0.46731 1 STR20 0.866 0.667 0.43505 13

STR21 0.839 0.731 0.46565 2 STR18 0.877 0.675 0.43493 14
STR23 0.843 0.731 0.46436 3 STR17 0.866 0.665 0.43439 15
STR13 0.834 0.719 0.46291 4 STR4 0.878 0.672 0.43346 16
STR10 0.859 0.718 0.45511 5 STR6 0.874 0.664 0.43153 17
STR8 0.869 0.701 0.44676 6 STR14 0.872 0.66 0.43093 18
STR16 0.859 0.692 0.4462 7 STR19 0.884 0.66 0.42734 19
STR12 0.863 0.69 0.44432 8 STR3 0.884 0.659 0.42727 20
STR2 0.859 0.672 0.43884 9 STR7 0.875 0.651 0.42675 21
STR22 0.871 0.677 0.43748 10 STR1 0.87 0.645 0.42593 22
STR11 0.873 0.677 0.43662 11 STR15 0.88 0.65 0.42506 23
STR5 0.872 0.673 0.43541 12 STR9 0.89 0.65 0.42194 24

potential, and the probable threats and opportunities from the external
environment.
In order to develop the traditional SWOT matrix in our research, the
external and internal factors are identified in accordance with the
designed questionnaires. Thereafter the External Factors Evaluation
Matrix (EFEM), the Internal Factors Evaluation Matrix (IFEM), and the
Internal-External Matrix (IEM) are generated in accordance with the
experts’ opinions, as presented in Table 2. The details of the analyses are
described in the following subsections.
4.2.1. External factors evaluation matrix
To develop the EFEM, the relative importance of each factor has been
assigned as very low (1), low (2), medium (3), high (4), and very high
(5). Since the sum of the allotted weights should be equal to one, the
relative importance or weight for each one of the factors is equal to its
value divided by the sum of the weights. Then, in order to calculate the
weighted score of each factor, a number between 1 and 4 is assigned to
the current status of each factor, as shown in Table 3. Then, the relative
importance of each factor is multiplied by the calculated score of the
current status, which will be recorded in the weighted score column for
each matrix row (each factor). In the end, the sum of the weighted scores
will be calculated. Based on the responses gathered from eleven expert
groups in our research, the final score of EFEM for the stone industry will
be equal to 2.004, which is the sum of the weighted scores of opportu­
nities and threats.
4.2.2. Internal factors evaluation matrix
In order to develop the IFEM, the relative importance of each factor
is firstly normalized, and then, the current status score of each factor will
be identified by a number between 1 and 4 (Table 3). The score of
weaknesses can be just 1 or 2, and the score of strengths can be only 3 or
4. Therefore, the weighted score of each factor and the total weighted
scores are calculated, which are between 1 and 4. If the final score of the
internal factors is less than 2.5, the organization is generally weak, and if
the final score is more than 2.5, it indicates that the organization is
typically strong in terms of internal factors (David and David, 2017).
According to the responses gathered from eleven expert groups in our
research, the final score of IFEM for the stone industry is equal to 1.829,
which is the sum of the weighted scores of strengths and weaknesses.
4.2.3. Internal-external matrix
The IEM is developed to determine the strategic positions of the stone
industry in Lorestan province through simultaneous analyzing the in­
ternal and external factors. IEM is formed when the scores derived from
the EFEM and IFEM are placed in the vertical and horizontal dimensions
of the matrix. Given that four strategy categories (SO, ST, WO, and WT),
the position obtained in the IEM determines the focus area of strategies
within the SWOT framework (David and David, 2017). As shown in
Fig. 4, the WT set is chosen as the suitable strategy for the Lorestan stone
industry in our study, since the scores of EFEM and IEFM are
respectively 2.004 and 1.829. Being placed in the WT implies that the
Lorestan stone industry has unfortunately been placed in the worst po­
sition of the SWOT matrix. WT strategy indicates a defensive mode in
which appropriate strategies are to be employed to resolve the weak­
nesses and reduce the effects of existing threats in the stone industry.
4.3. Improved SWOT analysis
In the traditional SWOT analysis, different strategic options may be
presented, and the best one will then be nominated for implementation,
as a simple checklist of external and internal factors (Hill and West­
brook, 1997). Despite widespread applications, a significant gap is be­
tween the analysis procedure and strategy formulation in the traditional
SWOT analysis. Therefore, the output of the traditional SWOT is only a
general strategy package, as in our research that we reached the WT
strategies for the Lorestan stone industry.
Although the traditional SWOT analysis has been praised for its
simplicity and applicability since the 1960s, it may sometimes offer an
inefficient result or even a wrong decision due to qualitative judgments
(Coman and Ronen, 2009). In addition, SWOT factors in each region are
either not measurable or ranked by the significance of the performance
(Giles and Piercy, 1989). In other words, due to the limitations of IEM,
the traditional SWOT analysis cannot propose a combination of all
strategies, and consequently, it cannot prioritize strategies based on
their importance for execution. In fact, strategies introduced in the
traditional approach might not be prioritized, since they are not
measured and evaluated based on certain criteria. Thus, the output of
the traditional SWOT analysis cannot be reliable due to the fact that the
introduced strategies may not be really those influencing the relative
status.
In order to address the aforementioned defects, the traditional SWOT
analysis has been improved in this research by employing FDAHP and
FTOPSIS to develop a new structure for evaluating and prioritizing the
strategies in fuzzy environment.
4.3.1. Defining evaluation criteria
In order to evaluate the strategies in the improved SWOT analysis,
the relative importance of the criteria is identified based on the ques­
tionnaires gathered from dimension stone mines and stone processing
plants. Thereafter, fourteen technical, economic, social, and environ­
mental criteria are comprehensively determined. These criteria, along
with their symbol and the respective effect, are summarized in Table 4.
Greater criterion values with a positive (negative) effect imply that the
intended strategy is more (less) desirable and preferable.
4.3.2. Calculating the weight of criteria using FDAHP
In order to score the evaluation criteria, the relative importance of
the criteria is determined in a range from 1 to 9 according to Table 5, and
the results are presented in Table 6. Since the experts in our research
were categorized into eleven groups, the evaluation matrix of the

14
M. Hayati et al.
relative importance of criteria presented in Table 6 has eleven rows. As
fourteen criteria are determined based on Table 4, eleven matrices with
dimensions 14 × 14 are built at first to develop our proposed model.
As mentioned, the relative importance of the investigated criteria is
calculated using the FDAHP method. Therefore, the paired comparison
matrices are determined for each group of experts. For instance, Table 7
presents the paired comparison matrix of criteria based on the opinions
of the first group. For brevity, the other ten paired comparison matrices
are not presented. In the next step, eleven fuzzy paired comparison
matrices are calculated corresponding to the paired comparison
matrices. For brevity, the results of the fuzzy paired comparison matrix
for the first group are presented in Table 8. Finally, the fuzzy weights of
the evaluation criteria are determined based on all eleven fuzzy paired
comparison matrices, and the results are summarized in Table 9.
4.3.3. Ranking the strategies by FTOPSIS
In order to rank the strategies by FTOPSIS, the verbal variables
presented in questionnaires are replaced with corresponding TFNs based
on the spectrum shown in Table 10. Since, 24 strategies are evaluated
based on the fourteen criteria in our research, 24 tables are consequently
filled out by eleven expert groups. For instance, Table 11 presents the
TFN values based on the expert opinions for the first strategy. For
brevity, the results of the quantifying expert opinions for the other 23
strategies are not presented.
Then, the fuzzy decision matrix is obtained according to the aggre­
gated TFNs of the expert opinions, as seen in Table 12. This table sum­
marizes the 24 strategies with respect to fourteen evaluation criteria by
aggregated TFNs. Given the relative importance values of the criteria
(weights of criteria calculated by FDAHP in Table 9), the fuzzy weighted
normal decision matrix can be calculated, as presented in Table 13.
Finally, the ideal positive and negative solutions are specified and pre­
sented in Table 14, and then the distance of strategies from the ideal
positive and negative solutions along with the CI for each strategy are
calculated, as summarized in Table 15. The ranking of strategies is
determined by descending order of CI values (from high to low), which
means higher values are preferable to be chosen. According to the ob­
tained results, the first three strategies are respectively ranked as STR24,
STR21, and STR23. Accordingly, for strategic planning, it should be
focused on the establishment of a stone research institute for conducting
the research plans to reduce the polishing wastes and related costs,
recruiting specialized and educated human resources for the scientific
management, and branding and e-commerce strategies.
According to the results, it can be concluded that the traditional
SWOT analysis can only indicate the WT strategy based on the scores of
EFEM and IEFM, which was presented in IEM (Fig. 4). In contrast, the
improved MADM-based SWOT analysis not only could direct the WT
strategies, but also could rank the priority of the momentous strategies.
This research shows that the traditional SWOT analysis is a valuable
technique to identify the issues affecting the dimension stones industry,
but it does not necessarily offer solutions. Thus, the proposed MADM-
based SWOT analysis presented in our research is capable of consid­
ering and prioritizing the critical criteria in evaluating strategies.
In fact, the relative importance of the strategies is not measurable in
the traditional SWOT analysis, since the evaluation of diverse strategies
based on different criteria is impossible. In the traditional SWOT anal­
ysis, appropriate strategy will be selected as one of the defensive,
aggressive, revising, and diverse modes based on the IEM. However, the
best strategies to improve the productivity of the dimension stone in­
dustry may practically be a combination of the four aforementioned
modes. In addition, traditional SWOT analysis cannot distinguish the
most significant or optimum strategies, as it cannot rank and prioritize
the investigated strategies.
However, the interesting points in employing MADM techniques for
improving SWOT analysis are overcoming the inherent uncertainty
associated with qualitative data (fuzzy calculation), paired comparisons
of evaluation criteria (AHP analysis), modifying experts’ judgments
15
Resources Policy 80 (2023) 103287
(Delphi analysis), and prioritizing and ranking the strategies (TOPSIS
analysis).
As far as our study shows, the previous researchers mainly employed
the SWOT factors (weaknesses, strengths, opportunities, and threats) as
evaluation criteria, and the strategies are also prioritized based on them.
However, there might be no meaningful or rational relationship between
irrelevant strategies (options) and evaluation criteria. For instance, it
might be impossible to evaluate SO strategies based on weaknesses and
threats. In addition, the strategies introduced in the traditional SWOT
analysis may not be on their real priority, since they are not measured
and evaluated based on any criteria.
Overcoming this deficit, the MADM-based SWOT analysis was pro­
posed in this research, in which after identifying the principal factors
affecting the stone industry, a comprehensive set of fourteen criteria
with positive and negative effects was introduced to evaluate strategies
instead of focusing only on the importance coefficients of SWOT factors.
And then, by considering the inherent uncertainty associated with
qualitative data in a fuzzy environment, a combination of strategies was
offered, analyzed, and prioritized by employing the FDAHP and FTOP­
SIS techniques.
5. Conclusion
Given considerable stone reserves in Lorestan province, it is neces­
sary to find proper strategies and policies to promote productivity and
efficiency. This research was then conducted to investigate the poten­
tials of the Lorestan stone industry by developing strategic planning. For
this purpose, a MADM-based SWOT technique was proposed to cope
with the deficits of traditional SWOT analysis. The interesting points in
employing MADM techniques for improving SWOT analysis are over­
coming the inherent uncertainty associated with qualitative data, paired
comparisons of evaluation criteria, modifying experts’ judgments, and
prioritizing and ranking the strategies. In our research, two types of
questionnaires were filled out by eleven groups of experts, and then 30
internal factors, 20 external factors, and 24 key strategies were identi­
fied based on the gathered information. According to the traditional
SWOT analysis, the strategic position of the Lorestan stone industry was
located in the WT status of the IEM based on the IFEM and EFEM scores,
which illustrated just one option out of defensive, aggressive, revision,
and diverse modes. Nonetheless, in the proposed MADM-based SWOT
analysis, different criteria in evaluating strategies were considered,
uncertainties were covered, and the developed strategies were priori­
tized, which are vital in decision making. According to the results of the
improved SWOT analysis, the first three strategies are respectively
ranked as STR24, STR21, and STR23. Consequently, for strategic plan­
ning it should be focused on the establishment of a stone research
institute for conducting the research plans to reduce the polishing
wastes and related costs, recruiting specialized and educated human
resources for the scientific management, and branding and e-commerce
strategies. These strategies not only are in accordance with the current
situation of the Lorestan stone industry, but also will provide appro­
priate solutions to protect the environment by reusing the mines’ wastes,
and also promote marketing.
Author statement
Mohammad Hayati: Data acquisition, Methodology, Software,
Analysis, Validation, Reviewing and Editing. Satar Mahdevari:
Conceptualization, Methodology, Analysis, Writing- Original draft
preparation. Kianoush Barani: Data acquisition, Analysis, Validation,
Reviewing and Editing.
Declaration of interest statement
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests to disclose
regarding the publication of this paper.
M. Hayati et al.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
References
Aghasafari, H., Karbasi, A., Mohammadi, H., Calisti, R., 2020. Determination of the best
strategies for development of organic farming: a SWOT – fuzzy Analytic Network
Process approach. J. Clean. Prod. 277.
Amin, S.H., Razmi, J., Zhang, G., 2011. Supplier selection and order allocation based on
fuzzy SWOT analysis and fuzzy linear programming. Expert Syst. Appl. 38 (1),
334–342.
Arsić, S., Nikolić, D., Živković, Z., 2017. Hybrid SWOT - ANP - FANP model for
prioritization strategies of sustainable development of ecotourism in National Park
Djerdap, Serbia. For. Policy Econ. 80, 11–26.
Arsić, S., Nikolić, D., Mihajlović, I., Fedajev, A., Živković, Ž., 2018. A new approach
within ANP-SWOT framework for prioritization of ecosystem management and case
study of national park Djerdap, Serbia. Ecol. Econ. 146, 85–95.
Ashmole, I., Motloung, M., 2008. Dimension stone: the latest trends in exploration and
production technology. South. African Inst. Min. Metall. 1, 35–70.
ASTM C119-14, 2007. Standard Terminology Relating to Dimension Stone, pp. 1–7.
Barbosa, P.I., Szklo, A., Gurgel, A., 2022. Sugarcane ethanol companies in Brazil: growth
challenges and strategy perspectives using Delphi and SWOT-AHP methods. Biomass
Bioenergy 158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2022.106368.
Blachowski, J., Buczyńska, A., 2020. Spatial and multicriteria analysis of dimension
stones and crushed rocks quarrying in the context of sustainable regional
development: case study of lower silesia (Poland). Sustain. Times 12 (7).
Bonfante, M.C., Raspini, J.P., Fernandes, I.B., Fernandes, S., Campos, L.M.S., Alarcon, O.
E., 2021. Achieving Sustainable Development Goals in rare earth magnets
production: a review on state of the art and SWOT analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 137.
Büyüközkan, G., Mukul, E., Kongar, E., 2021. Health tourism strategy selection via SWOT
analysis and integrated hesitant fuzzy linguistic AHP-MABAC approach. Socioecon.
Plann. Sci. 74, 100929. 1-14. doi:10.1016/j.seps.2020.100929.
Cayir Ervural, B., Zaim, S., Demirel, O.F., Aydin, Z., Delen, D., 2018. An ANP and fuzzy
TOPSIS-based SWOT analysis for Turkey’s energy planning. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 82, 1538–1550.
Chang, H.H., Huang, W.C., 2006. Application of a quantification SWOT analytical
method. Math. Comput. Model. 43 (1–2), 158–169.
Chatterjee, K.K., 2009. Uses of industrial minerals, rocks, and freshwater. Nova Science
Publishers, Inc, New York, ISBN 978-1-60741-400-1, p. 584.
Chen, C.T., 2000. Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy
environment. Fuzzy Set Syst. 114 (1), 1–9.
Chen, SJ., Hwang, CL., 1992. Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making Methods. In:
Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making. Lecture Notes in Economics and
Mathematical Systems, 375. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-642-46768-4_5.
Chen, C.S., Liu, Y.C., 2007. A methodology for evaluation and classification of rock mass
quality on tunnel engineering. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 22 (4), 377–387.
Chen, M.K., Wang, S.C., 2010. The use of a hybrid fuzzy-Delphi-AHP approach to develop
global business intelligence for information service firms. Expert Syst. Appl. 37 (11),
7394–7407.
Chino, T., 1990. Strategic decision making. Japan and the World. Economy 2 (2),
189–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/0922-1425(90)90013-I.
Coman, A., Ronen, B., 2009. Focused SWOT: Diagnosing critical strengths and
weaknesses. Int. J. Prod. Res. 47 (20), 5677–5689.
Currier, L.W., 1960. Geologic Appraisal of Dimension-Stone Deposits. United States
Geological Survey Bulletin, Report No. 1109. https://doi.org/10.3133/b1109.
Dalkey, N., Helmer, O., 1963. An experimental application of the DELPHI method to the
use of experts. Manag. Sci. 9 (3), 458–467.
David, Fred R., David, Forest R., 2017. Strategic Management Concepts and Cases A
Competitive Advantage Approach, sixteenth ed., pp. 1–692
Etongo, D., Kanninen, M., Epule, T.E., Fobissie, K., 2018. Assessing the effectiveness of
joint forest management in Southern Burkina Faso: a SWOT-AHP analysis. For.
Policy Econ. 90, 31–38.
Giles, W., Piercy, N., 1989. Making SWOT analysis work. Market. Intell. Plann. 7, 5–7.
Gottfried, O., De Clercq, D., Blair, E., Weng, X., Wang, C., 2018. SWOT-AHP-TOWS
analysis of private investment behavior in the Chinese biogas sector. J. Clean. Prod.
184, 632–647.
Gürel, E., Tat, M., 2017. SWOT analysis: a theoretical review. J. Int. Soc. Res. 10 (51),
994–1006.
Haque, H.M.E., Dhakal, S., Mostafa, S.M.G., 2020. An assessment of opportunities and
challenges for cross-border electricity trade for Bangladesh using SWOT-AHP
approach. Energy Pol. 137.
Hatami-Marbini, A., Tavana, M., Hajipour, V., Kangi, F., Kazemi, A., 2013. An extended
compromise ratio method for fuzzy group multi-attribute decision making with
SWOT analysis. Appl. Soft Comput. J. 13 (8), 3459–3472.
Hill, T., Westbrook, R., 1997. SWOT analysis: it’s time for a product recall. Long. Range
Plan. 30 (1), 46–52.
Hsu, Y.L., Lee, C.H., Kreng, V.B., 2010. The application of Fuzzy Delphi Method and
Fuzzy AHP in lubricant regenerative technology selection. Expert Syst. Appl. 37 (1),
419–425.
Humphrey, A.S., 2005. SWOT analysis for management consulting. SRI Alumni
Newsletter. SRI International, United States.
16
Resources Policy 80 (2023) 103287
Hwang, C.L., Lin, M.J., 1987. Group Decision Making Under Multiple Criteria: Methods
and Applications. Lecture Notes in Economic and Mathematical Systems 281 (9),
1689–1699. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-61580-1.
Hwang, CL., Yoon, K., 1981a. Methods for Multiple Attribute Decision Making. In:
Multiple Attribute Decision Making. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical
Systems, 186. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-
48318-9_3.
IranStoneExpo, 2018. Iran International Stone Expo Mahallat/Nimvar [Online].
Available: https://www.iranstoneexpo.com/en/blog?id=3715.
Irfan, M., Hao, Y., Panjwani, M.K., Khan, D., Chandio, A.A., Li, H., 2020. Competitive
assessment of South Asia’s wind power industry: SWOT analysis and value chain
combined model. Energy Strategy Rev. 32.
Ishikawa, A., Amagasa, M., Shiga, T., Tomizawa, G., Tatsuta, R., Mieno, H., 1993. The
max-min Delphi method and fuzzy Delphi method via fuzzy integration. Fuzzy Set
Syst. 55 (3), 241–253.
Kazemi, S., Homayouni, S.M., Jahangiri, J., 2015. A fuzzy delphi-analytical hierarchy
process approach for ranking of effective material selection criteria. Adv. Mater. Sci.
Eng. 2015.
Khan, M.I., 2018. Evaluating the strategies of compressed natural gas industry using an
integrated SWOT and MCDM approach. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 1035–1052.
Khorramshahgol, R., Moustakis, V.S., 1988. Delphic hierarchy process (DHP): a
methodology for priority setting derived from the Delphi method and analytical
hierarchy process. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 37 (3), 347–354.
Khoshbakht, N., 2016. Business and sustainable employment development plan in
Lorestan province, Report No. 95-1008, Ministry of Cooperatives, Labour, and Social
Welfare of Iran.
Kornbluth, J.S.H., 1992. Dynamic multi-criteria decision making. J. Multi-Criteria Decis.
Anal. 1 (2), 81–92.
Lahdelma, R., Salminen, P., 2001. SMAA-2: stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis
for group decision making. Oper. Res. 49 (3), 444–454.
Lai, YJ., Hwang, CL., 1994. Fuzzy Multiple Objective Decision Making. In: Fuzzy
Multiple Objective Decision Making. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical
Systems, 404. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-
57949-3_3.
Learned, E.P., Andrews, K.R., Christensen, C.R., Guth, William D., 1965. Business Policy :
Text and Cases. Homewood/Ill.. Irwin.
Lee, J., Kim, I., Kim, H., Kang, J., 2021. SWOT-AHP analysis of the Korean satellite and
space industry: strategy recommendations for development. Technol. Forecast. Soc.
Change 164.
Li, D.F., 2007. Compromise ratio method for fuzzy multi-attribute group decision
making. Appl. Soft Comput. J. 7 (3), 807–817.
Li, C., Negnevitsky, M., Wang, X., 2020. Prospective assessment of methanol vehicles in
China using FANP-SWOT analysis. Transport Pol. 96, 60–75.
Lin, Y.H., Lee, P.C., Chang, T.P., Ting, H.I., 2008. Multi-attribute group decision making
model under the condition of uncertain information. Autom. ConStruct. 17 (6),
792–797.
Liu, G., Zheng, S., Xu, P., Zhuang, T., 2018. An ANP-SWOT approach for ESCOs industry
strategies in Chinese building sectors. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 93, 90–99.
Mahdevari, S., Shahriar, K., Esfahanipour, A., 2014. Human health and safety risks
management in underground coal mines using fuzzy TOPSIS. Sci. Total Environ.
488–489 (1), 85–99.
Merke, G., 2000. Sustainable Development in the Natural Stone Industry. Roc Maquina,
pp. 56–58.
Murray, T.J., Pipino, L.L., Van Gigch, J.P., 1985. A pilot study of fuzzy set modification
of delphi. Hum. Syst. Manag. 5 (1), 76–80.
Nikolaou, I.E., Evangelinos, K.I., 2010. A SWOT analysis of environmental management
practices in Greek Mining and Mineral Industry. Resour. Pol. 35 (3), 226–234.
Niu, D.X., Song, Z.Y., Xiao, X.L., 2017. Electric power substitution for coal in China:
status quo and SWOT analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 70, 610–622. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.092.
Polat, Z.A., Alkan, M., Sürmeneli, H.G., 2017. Determining strategies for the cadastre
2034 vision using an AHP-Based SWOT analysis: a case study for the Turkish
cadastral and land administration system. Land Use Pol. 67, 151–166.
Posch, A., Brudermann, T., Braschel, N., Gabriel, M., 2015. Strategic energy management
in energy-intensive enterprises: a quantitative analysis of relevant factors in the
Austrian paper and pulp industry. J. Clean. Prod. 90, 291–299.
Ren, J., Gao, S., Tan, S., Dong, L., 2015. Hydrogen economy in China: strengths-
weaknesses-opportunities-threats analysis and strategies prioritization. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 41, 1230–1243.
Ritson, N., 2019. Business Strategy and Strategic Planning. Bookboon. ISBN:
9788578110796.
Saaty, T.L., 1977. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J. Math.
Psychol. 15 (3), 234–281.
Saaty, R.W., 1987. The analytic hierarchy process—what it is and how it is used. Math.
Model. 9 (3–6), 161–176.
Saaty, T.L., Kearns, K.P., 1985. The analytic hierarchy process. In: Analytical Planning,
pp. 19–62.
Sanito, R.C., You, S.J., Chang, T.J., Wang, Y.F., 2020. Economic and environmental
evaluation of flux agents in the vitrification of resin waste: a SWOT analysis.
J. Environ. Manag. 270.
Savari, M., Shokati Amghani, M., 2022. SWOT-FAHP-TOWS analysis for adaptation
strategies development among small-scale farmers in drought conditions. Int. J.
Disaster Risk Reduc. 67.
Sevkli, M., Oztekin, A., Uysal, O., Torlak, G., Turkyilmaz, A., Delen, D., 2012.
Development of a fuzzy ANP based SWOT analysis for the airline industry in Turkey.
Expert Syst. Appl. 39 (1), 14–24.
M. Hayati et al.
Shahba, S., Arjmandi, R., Monavari, M., Ghodusi, J., 2017. Application of multi-attribute
decision-making methods in SWOT analysis of mine waste management (case study:
sirjan’s Golgohar iron mine, Iran). Resour. Pol. 51, 67–76.
Singh, R.S., Ghosh, P., 2021. Geotourism Potential of Coal Mines: an Appraisal of
Sonepur-Bazari Open Cast Project. Int. J. Geoheritage Park., India.
Solangi, Y.A., Tan, Q., Mirjat, N.H., Ali, S., 2019. Evaluating the strategies for sustainable
energy planning in Pakistan: an integrated SWOT-AHP and Fuzzy-TOPSIS approach.
J. Clean. Prod. 236.
Szulecka, J., Monges Zalazar, E., 2017. Forest plantations in Paraguay: historical
developments and a critical diagnosis in a SWOT-APH framework. Land Use Pol. 60,
384–394.
Tahernejad, M.M., Khalokakaie, R., Ataei, M., 2013. Determining proper strategies for
Iran’s dimensional stone mines: a SWOT-AHP analysis. Arabian J. Geosci. 6 (1),
129–139.
TehranTimes, 2021. Tehran Times [Online]. Available: https://www.tehrantimes.
com/news/448431/Nearly-55-of-Iran-s-decorative-facade-stone-mines-operational.
Tzeng, G.H., Huang, J.J., 2011. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and
Applications. Chapman and Hall/CRC, New York, p. 352. https://doi.org/10.1201/
b11032.
17
Resources Policy 80 (2023) 103287
van Laarhoven, P.J.M., Pedrycz, W., 1983. A fuzzy extension of Saaty’s priority theory.
Fuzzy Set Syst. 11 (1–3), 229–241.
Voukkali, I., Zorpas, A.A., 2022. Evaluation of urban metabolism assessment methods
through SWOT analysis and analytical hierocracy process. Sci. Total Environ. 807.
Wang, Y., Xu, L., Solangi, Y.A., 2020. Strategic renewable energy resources selection for
Pakistan: based on SWOT-Fuzzy AHP approach. Sustain. Cities Soc. 52.
Weihrich, H., 1982. The TOWS matrix a tool for situational analysis. Long. Range Plan.
15 (2), 54–66.
Wheelen, T.L., Hunger, J.D., Hoffman, A.N., Bamford, C.E., 2018. Strategic Management
and Business Policy Globalization, Innovation and Sustainability. Pearson Education
Limited.
Xu, Z., 2015. Uncertain Multi-Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications.
Springer, Berlin, p. 373. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-45640-8.
Zadeh, L.A., 1965. Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 8 (3), 338–353.
Zharan, K., Bongaerts, J.C., 2017. Decision-making on the integration of renewable
energy in the mining industry: a case studies analysis, a cost analysis and a SWOT
analysis. J. Sustain. Min. 16 (4), 162–170.
Zhü, kèyù, Zhao, S. yao, Yang, S., Liang, C., Gu, D., 2016. Where is the way for rare earth
industry of China: an analysis via ANP-SWOT approach. Resour. Pol. 49, 349–357.