See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/321435812

Intermodal Transport Terminal Location Selection Using a Novel Hybrid

MCDM Model

Article in International Journal of Uncertainty Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems · December 2017
DOI: 10.1142/S0218488517500362

CITATIONS READS

16 517

3 authors, including:

Snežana Tadić
University of Belgrade
45 PUBLICATIONS 333 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

SI in journal Logistics: Application of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods for Evaluation in Logistics and Supply Chain View project

Journal Sustainability, Special Issue "Dry Port Management and Sustainable Regional Development" View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Snežana Tadić on 23 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Uncertainty,
Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems
Vol. 25, No. 6 (2017) 853
© World Scientific Publishing Company
DOI: 10.1142/S0218488517500362

Intermodal Transport Terminal Location Selection

Using a Novel Hybrid MCDM Model

Slobodan Zečević*, Snežana Tadić† and Mladen Krstić‡

University of Belgrade, Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering, Logistics Department,
Vojvode Stepe 305, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
*
s.zecevic@sf.bg.ac.rs
†
s.tadic@sf.bg.ac.rs
‡
m.krstic@sf.bg.ac.rs

Received 24 November 2015

Revised 27 January 2017

Intermodal Transport (IT) allows savings in energy, time and costs, improves the quality of services
and supports sustainable development of the transport system. In order to make IT more competitive
it is necessary to support the development of intermodal transport terminal (ITT), whereby it is very
important to make adequate decision on its location. This paper proposes a framework for the
selection of the ITT location which would be most appropriate for the various stakeholders
(investors, users, administration and residents). They often have conflicting goals and interests, so it
is necessary to define a large number of criteria for the evaluation. A novel hybrid MCDM model
that combines fuzzy Delphi, fuzzy Delphi based fuzzy ANP (fuzzy DANP) and fuzzy Delphi based
fuzzy Višekriterijumska Optimizacija i kompromisno Rešenje (fuzzy DVIKOR) methods is
developed in this paper with the aim of providing support to decision makers. The model is
developed in the fuzzy environment in order to overcome the ambiguity and uncertainty of the
decision makers' evaluations of the criteria, sub-criteria and alternatives. The validity and
applicability of the model is demonstrated by successfully resolving the problem of selecting the
location of the ITT in the City of Belgrade.
Keywords: intermodal transport, terminal, location, fuzzy Delphi, fuzzy ANP, fuzzy VIKOR.

1. Introduction
Intermodal transport (IT) is defined as the movement of goods in one and the same
loading unit or a vehicle, by successive modes of transport without handling of the goods
themselves when changing modes.1 The main objective is the application of various
modes of transport in order to reduce overall costs and improve service quality. The
savings in energy, cost and time, less environmental pollution and other positive effects
of intermodal transport are attracting significant attention in the developed European
countries.2 European Union set the objective to shift 30% of the road freight transport
over the distances of 300 km to other modes such as rail or waterborne transport by 2030,

‡
Corresponding author.

853
854 S. Zečević, S. Tadić & M. Krstić

and more than 50% by 2050.3 These objectives can be achieved only by intensive
development of intermodal transport.
One of the major subsystems of intermodal transport is intermodal terminal (ITT)
defined as the place equipped for transhipment and storage of intermodal transport units
between modes of transport.4 Intermodal terminals play a significant role in achieving
socio-economic and environmental sustainability and their development improves the
competitive advantage in the market, where determination of the location plays a key
role.5 Given the importance, different approaches for solving the ITT location selection
problem are defined. In order to include different stakeholders with often conflicting
objectives and requirements in the decision-making process, the application of the multi-
criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods is advisable.
In the literature, MCDM methods are used for solving various problems in the field of
intermodal transport, however there are only few studies in which they are used for
locating ITT. This paper presents a new hybrid MCDM model, used for the ITT location
selection from a set of potential locations, in accordance with the requirements of
different stakeholders and the specific attributes of the observed environment.
For the selection of the relevant sub-criteria from a larger set, in accordance with the
preferences of different stakeholders, the fuzzy Delphi method is used. Impacts between
criteria and sub-criteria for the evaluation of potential locations are analyzed by applying
the fuzzy Delphi based fuzzy ANP (fuzzy DANP) method. Lastly, to choose the
alternative, i.e. the ITT location, the fuzzy Delphi based fuzzy VIKOR (fuzzy DVIKOR)
method is used. The fuzzy logic is used in the process of evaluation because decision
makers (DM) operate with immeasurable and incomplete information.
Applicability of the fuzzy Delphi and fuzzy DVIKOR methods for solving various
MCDM problems is already proven, while there are no researches in which fuzzy DANP
method is used. Accordingly, there is not any research that combines these three methods
together. The paper proposes a new approach able to solve complicated decision
problems, with complex interrelations between the criteria, sub-criteria and alternatives,
in an environment that is difficult to clearly and precisely define. The applicability of the
approach is proven by solving a real-life case study.
The remainder of this paper is organized in the following manner. Section 2 gives an
overview of the literature concerning intermodal transport problems, with special
emphasis on the ITT location and application of MCDM methods. The proposed hybrid
MCDM model, and the steps of its application, is described in Section 3. The validity and
practical applicability of the proposed model is demonstrated within the section 4 by
solving the case study of the ITT location selection in the City of Belgrade. An analysis
and discussion of the results are given at the end of this section. The paper ends with
some concluding remarks and future research directions.

2. Literature Review
With the growth of the awareness of importance and benefits of the intermodal transport,
also grew the interest in research of the different areas of intermodal transport systems. In
the literature, there are examples of considering and resolving the problems of the route
selection,6 cost analysis,7 transport policy,8 decision-making,2 etc. Significant attention in
the researches attracted the problems related to the intermodal terminal, some of which
are: identification of the basic characteristics and different types of intermodal terminals,9
 A Novel Hybrid MCDM Model for Locating Intermodal Transport Terminal 855

evaluation of logistics performance for freight mode choice at an intermodal terminal,10

measuring the performance of terminals,11 terminal market analysis and description of the
most important stakeholders,12 modelling terminal operations,13 etc. Locating ITT
represents a special class of intermodal transport problems.
Intermodal transport is one of the key elements for achieving sustainable transport
systems. However, its efficiency largely depends on the location of terminals. 14 Terminal
is a place for transhipment of the intermodal transport units and/or changing the transport
mode.15,16 Location of the ITT represents the basis for the development and proper
utilization of the intermodal transport network15,17 and plays a significant role in
increasing the attractiveness of intermodal transport.18
Many classical and heuristic methods have been proposed in the literature to solve
location problems, like linear, non-linear programming, simplex algorithm, lagrangian
relaxation, branch and cut methods, branch and bound, local beam search, tabu search,
artificial neural network, fuzzy control, generic algorithms, multi-agent systems, expert
systems, etc.5 However, conventional location selection methods are unable to include all
indicators into the models. They are either too complex or too general to provide an
acceptable solution to the real-life problems.19 They are usually composed of some basic
elements, like objective function, potential locations, requirements, a distance or time
array, and some rules for allocation,20 therefore can only be applied for solving simple
problems.
The decision on the terminal location is complex and requires the involvement of
different stakeholders that often have conflicting requirements and objectives,9 which is
why the application of the conventional method requires a significant simplification of
the real situation. Therefore, in many cases it is necessary to define multiple criteria, most
of which are difficult to assess or evaluate, and use the MCDM methods for solving
location problems. These methods are applied for locating: facilities or plants,21 retails,22
ports,23 systems in the reverse logistics,24 logistics centers,25 urban distribution centers,26
warehouses,27 dry ports,28 etc.
Three groups of approaches for the ITT location selection are identified in the
literature:29 simulation techniques,30,31 network models16,32 and considerably less MCDM
methods.5,33
This paper proposes a new hybrid MCDM model that combines fuzzy Delphi, fuzzy
DANP and fuzzy DVIKOR methods for locating the ITT. There are papers in the
literature that combine Delphi, ANP and VIKOR methods,34 fuzzy Delphi and fuzzy
ANP,35 fuzzy Delphi and fuzzy VIKOR.36 However, there are no examples of combining
these three methods in the fuzzy environment, nor the examples of fuzzy DANP
application, therefore there are no papers that combine fuzzy Delphi, fuzzy DANP and
fuzzy DVIKOR methods.

3. The Proposed Hybrid MCDM Model

This paper proposes a new hybrid model based on the combination of fuzzy Delphi,
fuzzy DANP and fuzzy DVIKOR methods for solving the MCDM problem, i.e., for
selecting the most appropriate location for the ITT.
The first part of the model uses fuzzy Delphi method in order to gather the
information from a broader set of criteria and sub-criteria in order to extract those which
are, according to the DMs, relevant (critical evaluation criteria) for selecting the
856 S. Zečević, S. Tadić & M. Krstić

appropriate alternative. DMs belong to different groups of stakeholders which often have
conflicting goals.
The traditional Delphi method was first proposed by Dalkey and Helmer,37 and it has
been widely applied in various areas. The aim of the method is to collect data from the
field of expertise of the participants. The method is defined as a process of group
communication through which the convergence of thoughts about a particular real
problem is achieved. It is suitable for achieving the consensus through a series of
questionnaires by which the data from a group of selected participants (decision makers)
are collected in multiple iterations.
The Delphi method is characterized by the anonymity, iteration, controlled feedback,
statistical group response, and stability in responses among the DMs on a specific issue.35
However, although the Delphi method provides a chance to completely integrate diverse
DMs’ opinions, it is time-consuming, costly, and has a lower questionnaire return rate
because it tries to obtain converged results through repetitive surveys. In addition, the
problems of imprecise, vague and ambiguous evaluations of the DMs, due to incomplete
information or inability of their treatment in a decision environment, are also present.
As one of the possible ways to overcome the problems and limitations of the Delphi
method, Murry et al.38 suggested the involvement of the fuzzy set theory39 which can
efficiently deal with the vagueness in thinking and expressing preferences of DMs. Since
its first application, fuzzy Delphi method has been applied in many MCDM problems
from various fields, either alone or in a combination with other methods. 35,40,41
The fuzzy Delphi method can obtain converged responses of the DMs with fewer
survey rounds, or even in a single round, and effectively conduct the ambiguity and
uncertainty of the DMs’ evaluations.42 In the process of the group decision-making it
integrates the opinions of all DMs with the aim of achieving the consensus with
significant time and cost savings.40
The second part of the model refers to the application of the fuzzy DANP method for
establishing relations between the elements of the network structure and for obtaining the
final weights of the criteria and sub-criteria. The fuzzy Delphi part is introduced since the
criteria and sub-criteria are evaluated by the DMs who belong to the different groups of
stakeholders and whose evaluations have to be unified. The ANP method is chosen
because of its ability to adequately deal with complex network structure, which is formed
in this paper by the interrelated elements (criteria and sub-criteria).
ANP method43 is created as an upgrade to the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
method. Unlike the AHP method which uses the linear hierarchical structure, the ANP
method uses the network structure, which describes the dependence and the feedbacks
between the elements of the structure. This allows the ANP method to adequately model
and systematically examine the complex real-life problems. The aim of the method is to
determine the strength of the influences between the elements of the structure. This is
achieved by forming a supermatrix composed of sub-matrices indicating the interactions
and interdependencies between the elements. The elements can be placed within the same
(internal dependency) or different (external dependency) clusters, which represent the
nodes of the defined network structure.
Although the ANP method is a good technique for evaluating problems and making
decisions, it also has a problem of DMs’ imprecise judgments on decision factors, which
can be solved by applying fuzzy theory. Since its first application,44 the fuzzy ANP
method has been successfully applied in many fields, either alone or in a combination
with other methods.45-47 The method takes into account both dependence and
 A Novel Hybrid MCDM Model for Locating Intermodal Transport Terminal 857

independence between the elements, enables the assessment of consistency of DMs’

evaluations and facilitates the prioritization of elements because it decomposes the
problem into smaller segments suitable for detailed analysis. However, the method
requires a comparison of all pairs of interdependent elements of the network structure,
therefore the complexity of the problem grows exponentially with the increase of the
number of elements. Among other things, this is another reason why the fuzzy Delphi
method is applied in the first part of the model, thus reducing the number of elements
taken into further consideration. Besides that, the ANP method can be problematic in
terms of presentation of interdependence between criteria and alternatives.48 Therefore,
the fuzzy DVIKOR method is used in the third part of the model for ranking the
alternatives and selecting the best one.
The VIKOR method is chosen due to its advantages over some other methods,49 while
the fuzzy Delphi part is also introduced because the alternatives are evaluated by the
DMs who belong to the different groups of stakeholders and whose evaluations have to
be unified.
The VIKOR method50 is an MCDM method that can help the DMs’ to optimize the
complex systems, i.e. to solve discrete decision-making problems with conflicting
criteria. The method performs ranking of the alternatives on the basis of criterion
functions and the selection of a compromise solution that is closest to the ideal
alternative. The solution is considered to be a compromise because it is obtained by
mutual concessions, i.e. it provides a maximum group utility and a minimum individual
regret of the opponent.
In order to solve the problem of imprecision in expressing DMs’ preferences,
Opricovic51 extended the VIKOR method in fuzzy environment, and since then it has
been successfully applied in many fields, alone or in combination with other
methods.52,53,47
The steps of the proposed model have been described in the following, and the
general view of the proposed model is shown in Fig. 1. With certain adjustments, the
model can be applied for solving any MCDM problem.
Step 1: Definition of the evaluation model structure.
Step 1.1: Establishment of the list of alternatives.
Step 1.2: Definition of the sets of criteria and sub-criteria for the evaluation of the
alternatives.
Step 2: Identification of the stakeholders and definition of the fuzzy linguistic scale
for evaluations. Relationships among the structure’s elements and the importance of the
elements are defined using DMs’ opinions. DMs in this paper are stakeholders’
representatives and experts. The opinions of the stakeholders’ representatives are
gathered through interviews and questionnaires, based on which the expert evaluations
are obtained and converted into triangular fuzzy numbers using the fuzzy scale (Table 1).
Step 3: Evaluation and selection of the criteria and sub-criteria for the evaluation of
the alternatives, using fuzzy Delphi method.54
Step 3.1: Assessment of criteria and sub-criteria by the experts and conversion into
triangular fuzzy numbers using the relations given in Table 1.
Step 3.2: Definition of the unified evaluations of sub-criteria. The general approach
for establishing unified evaluations is as follows:
858 S. Zečević, S. Tadić & M. Krstić

Fig 1. The proposed hybrid MCDM model.

Table 1. Linguistic terms and corresponding fuzzy values.

Linguistic term Abbreviations Fuzzy scales

None N (1, 1, 2)
Very Low VL (1, 2, 3)
Low L (2, 3, 4)
Fairly Low FL (3, 4, 5)
Medium M (4, 5, 6)
Fairly High FH (5, 6, 7)
High H (6, 7, 8)
Very High VH (7, 8, 9)
Extremely High EH (8, 9, 9)

   ,  ,   ,
~
(1)

  Min  lh  , h  1,..., o , (2)

1/ o

    mh  , h  1,..., o ,
o

(3)
 h 1 
  Max  uh  , h  1,..., o , (4)
 A Novel Hybrid MCDM Model for Locating Intermodal Transport Terminal 859

where  ,  and  are the lower, medium and upper values of the unified fuzzy
~
evaluation  , respectively, and      . lh, mh and uh are lower, medium and upper
values of the triangular fuzzy evaluation which indicate the importance of the element
(criteria, sub-criteria, alternative) in relation to the stakeholder h. o is the number of the
considered stakeholders.
As it is necessary in this step to unify the evaluations of the sub-criteria with respect
to each stakeholder, by applying Eqs. (1)–(4) for the fuzzy evaluations bih  lih , mih , uih 
~

of the importance of the sub-criteria i with respect to the stakeholder h, unified fuzzy
evaluations  i   i ,  i ,  i  for the sub-criteria i, i=1..n, are obtained, where n is the
~

number of sub-criteria.
Step 3.3: Defuzzyfication. For the defuzzyfication of the triangular fuzzy values, in
this paper is used the equation with the general form:55
crisp( P)    4    / 6 , (5)
~
where crisp(P) represents the defuzzyfied value of some fuzzy value P  ( ,  ,  ) .
Accordingly, defuzzyfied value of the unified evaluation crisp(δi) is obtained by applying
Eq. (5) for the unified fuzzy evaluation  i   i ,  i ,  i  .
~
Step 3.4: Selection of the criteria and sub-criteria. The appropriate set of criteria and
sub-criteria for the evaluation of alternatives is obtained by setting the threshold θ. The
sifting principles are as follows:
If crisp( i )   , criteria (sub-criteria) i is acceptable,
If crisp( i )   , criteria (sub-criteria) i is unacceptable.
The threshold depends on the way the questionnaire is formed, and the scale used for
the evaluation.56
Step 4: Obtaining the weights of the selected criteria and sub-criteria using the fuzzy
DANP method. Experts’ pair wise comparisons of the elements (criteria and sub-criteria),
converted to triangular fuzzy numbers, indicate the relative strength, i.e., the preference
of each element in relation to other elements. By applying Eqs. (1)–(4), unified fuzzy
~
evaluations  ' ij of the elements’ pair wise comparisons are obtained, based on which the
~
fuzzy judgment matrix  ' is formed in the following way:
~ '11 ~ '12  ~ '1n 
~ ~ ~ 
'  ' 22   ' 2 n 
'   21
~
, (6)
     
~ ~ ~ 
 ' n1  ' n 2   ' nn 

where  'ij   ij ,  ij ,  ij  indicates the importance of element i over element j, and

~
i  j  1,2,...,n , obtained by applying Eqs. (1)–(4) on the evaluations g~ijh  lijh , mijh , uijh  ,
representing the comparison of element i with respect to element j by the stakeholder h.
Step 4.1: Calculation of the relative importance weights of the elements. The priority
vectors for each pair wise comparison matrix will be needed to complete the various
supermatrix sub-matrices. For obtaining the priority vectors ( W  w1 ,...,wn   0 ,
860 S. Zečević, S. Tadić & M. Krstić

w
~
i  1 ) from the fuzzy matrix  ' the “logarithmic fuzzy preference programmingˮ
i 1
~
(LFPP)57 method is used in this paper. Elements of the fuzzy comparison matrix (  ' ) are
~

triangular fuzzy judgments  'ij   ij ,  ij ,  ij of comparing element i in relation to 
element j, taken by the following approximate equation:
~

ln  'ij  ln  ij , ln  ij , ln  ij , i, j  1,2,...,n .  (7)

For obtaining the elements’ weights (wi) the following nonlinear priority model is
proposed:

    
n 1 n
Min J  1     M  
2 2 2
ij ij
i 1 j i 1

 x  x   ln /      ln  , i  1,...,n  1; j  i  1,...,n,

i j ij ij ij ij

 x  x   ln /       ln  , i  1,...,n  1; j  i  1,...,n,
(8)
i j ij ij ij ij
s.t. 
 , xi  0, i  1,...,n,
 ,  0, i  1,...,n  1; j  i  1,...,n,
 ij ij
where xi,j = lnwi,j for i=1,...,n, j = i+1,...,n, and M is a specified sufficiently large constant
such as M = 103. εij and ηij for i = 1,...,n1 and j = 1,...,n are the nonnegative deviation
variables introduced to avoid membership degree λ from taking a negative value. It is
most desirable that the values of the deviation variables are as small as possible, and they
have to meet the following inequalities:
 
ln wi  ln w j   ln  ij /  ij   ij  ln ij , i  1,...,n  1; j  i  1,...,n,

 lnwi  ln w j   ln /    ij ij ij   ln  ij , i  1,...,n  1; j  i  1,...,n.

Let xi i  1,...,n be the optimal solution to model (8). The normalized priorities for
fuzzy pair wise comparison matrix '   ' ij
~
~  nn
can then be obtained as:

wi 
  , i  1,...,n,
exp xi
(9)
 exp x 
n

j
j 1

where exp() is the exponential function, namely exp xi, j  e i , j for i=1,...,n, j=i+1,...,n.   x

This method results in crisp normalized weights.

In order to control the result of the method, the Consistency Ratio (CR) for each
matrix is calculated as follows:43
CR  CI / RI , (10)
where CI is the Consistency Index and is calculated as follows:
max  n
CI  , (11)
n 1
 A Novel Hybrid MCDM Model for Locating Intermodal Transport Terminal 861

~
 max is the principal eigenvalue of the matrix  ' . RI is the Random Index whose
values for matrices of various sizes are contained in Ref. 43. The comparisons are
acceptable only if the CR values are less than 0.10.
Step 4.2: Forming a supermatrix (W). Supermatrix enables the obtaining of the
network structure elements based on the established relations between the elements,
quantified in the form of the priority vectors. Supermatrix is actually a partitioned matrix
where each segment represents an interrelation between two elements that can be placed
in the same or in different clusters. Supermatrix (W) for a network with three levels can
be represented as follows:
C K A
Cilj (C )  0 0 0
W  , (12)
Kriterijumi ( K ) W21 W22 0 
Alternative ( A)  0 W32 I 

where the vector W21 represents the influence of the goal on the attribute, the vector W22
represents the mutual influence among criteria, the vector W32 represents the influence of
the attribute on each of the alternatives, and I is the identity matrix.58
Step 4.3: Obtaining the limit supermatrix. The limit supermatrix is obtaining by
raising the supermatrix to the sufficiently large power until the convergence of values by
columns is obtained, i.e., until the matrix with the identical values by columns is
obtained.
Step 5: Ranking the alternatives by using the fuzzy DVIKOR. First the experts’
evaluations of the alternatives (k) in relation to the sub-criteria (j) are obtained after
which they are converted into the triangular fuzzy numbers. By applying Eqs. (1)–(4), the
~
unified fuzzy evaluations  ' ' kj of the alternatives in relation to the sub-criteria are
obtained. Subsequently, the values of the alternatives are obtained by applying fuzzy
VIKOR method. The procedure is adapted from Ref. 53, and computational steps are
described below.
~
Step 5.1: Forming the fuzzy performance matrix ( D ) elements of which are the
triangular fuzzy numbers representing the unified evaluations of the alternatives, in
relation to the sub-criteria:
C1 C2  Cn
L1  ~ ' '11 ~ ' '12 
~
 ' '1n 
~ L ~ ~ ~ 
D 2  ' ' 21  ' ' 22   ' '2n  (13)
      
~ ~ ~ 
Lm  ' ' m1  ' ' m 2   ' ' mn 
where Lk denotes the alternative, i.e. potential location k, k = 1, ..., m; Cj represents the
~
 
criterion j, j = 1, ..., n;  ' ' kj   kj ,  kj ,  kj indicates the unified fuzzy evaluations
obtained by applying Eqs. (1)–(4) on the evaluations e~kjh  lkjh , mkjh , ukjh of the  
alternative Lk with respect to criterion Cj, by the stakeholder h.
~
  ~
 
Step 5.2: Determining the ideal  ' '*j   *j ,  *j ,  *j and the nadir  ' 'j   j ,  j ,  j
values of criterion functions, i.e. evaluations of alternatives in relation to the sub-criteria:
862 S. Zečević, S. Tadić & M. Krstić

~ ~ ~ ~
 ' '*j  max  ' ' kj ,  ' ' oj  min  ' ' kj for j  J b
k k
~ ~ ~ ~ , (14)
 ' '*j  min  ' ' kj ,  ' ' oj  max  ' ' kj for j  J c
k k

b c
where J and J are the sets of sub-criteria representing benefits and costs, respectively.
~
Maximum and minimum values of  ' ' kj are obtained by comparing the triangular fuzzy
numbers using the following equation:
  11   12 and
~ ~ 
 ' '11   ' '12 iff  11  11   12  12 and . (15)
    
 11 11 12 12

~
Step 5.3: Compute the normalized fuzzy difference d kj :

 ' '*j   ' ' kj  ' ' kj   ' '*j

~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
d kj  for j  J b d kj  for j  J c . (16)
 j  j
* 
 j  j
 *

~
Step 5.4: Compute the values S k  S k , S k , S k
~

and Rk  Rk , Rk , Rk , which   
~ ~
represent the fuzzy weighted distances of the alternative Lk from  ' ' j and  ' '*j
respectively, by the relations:
n

 w ' d
~ ~
Sk  j kj , (17)
j 1

Rk  max w j ' d kj .

~ ~
(18)
j

~
 
Step 5.5: Compute the values Qk  Qk , Qk , Qk , i.e. the overall distances of the
alternatives from the ideal solution, by the relation:
S S * Rk R *
~ ~ ~ ~
~
Qk  v k  1  v  , (19)
S  S * R   R *
~ ~ ~
where S *  min S k , S * is the lower value of the triangular fuzzy number S * ,
  k ~* ~ * ~
S  max S k , R  min Rk , R is the lower value of the triangular fuzzy number R *
k
and R   max Rk . The value v is introduced as a weight for the strategy of “the majority
k

k
of criteriaˮ (or “the maximum group utilityˮ), whereas 1 – v is the weight of the
individual regret.
~ ~ ~
Step 5.6: Defuzzifying S k , Rk and Qk using Eq. (5).
Step 5.7: Ranking the alternatives according to the increasing crisp values. The
results are three ranking lists LS , LR and LQ according to crisp(S), crisp(R) and
crisp(Q), respectively.
Step 5.8: Propose as a compromise solution the alternative L(1) which is the best
ranked by the measure Q, if the following two conditions are satisfied:
 A Novel Hybrid MCDM Model for Locating Intermodal Transport Terminal 863

Co.1. “Acceptable Advantageˮ: Adv ≥ DQ where Adv  Q L2  Q L1  /

    
Q  Lm   Q  L1  is the advantage rate of the alternative L(1) ranked first, L(2) is the
 
alternative with second position in LQ , and DQ = 1/(m – 1) is the threshold.
Co.2. “Acceptable Stability in decision makingˮ: The alternative L(1) must also be the
best ranked by S or/and R.
If one of the conditions is not satisfied, then a set of compromise solutions is
proposed, which consists of:
CS1. Alternatives L(1) and L(2) if only the condition Co.2 is not satisfied, or
CS2. Alternatives L(1), L(2), ..., L(M) if the condition Co.1 is not satisfied; L(M) is
         
determined by the relation Q LM   Q L1 / Q Lm   Q L1  DQ for maximum M
(the positions of these alternatives are “in closenessˮ).

4. Application of the Proposed MCDM Model for ITT Location Selection 

Case Study
Intermodal transport in Serbia is poorly developed, despite the great potential that Serbia
has due to the very favourable geographical position. In order to improve the
competitiveness of Serbian economy and reduce the negative environmental impact of
transport, the European Union has funded a study “Facilitating intermodal transport in
Serbiaˮ,59 in creation of which two authors of this paper were involved. The subject of
the Study was the establishment of an institutional framework for the development of
intermodal transport, strengthening the capacity of relevant stakeholders and preparation
of tender documents for the intermodal terminal, with the aim of the long-term
sustainable development of logistics infrastructure and intermodal transport in the
Republic of Serbia.

4.1. Intermodal transport terminal potential locations

Potential locations for ITT in Belgrade are taken from the study “Facilitating intermodal
transport in Serbiaˮ.59 The initial set of ten potential locations is defined by the
authorities of the City of Belgrade and the Ministry of Infrastructure, as well as by the
consultants on the project after the market analysis and consultation with the users.
After the analysis, the weighted values of the potential locations’ evaluations are
summarized and locations that require more detailed analysis are selected. These are the
locations of: Stara Pazova, Batajnica, Dobanovci, Surčin and Mali Makiš (Fig. 2). The
basic characteristics of the considered locations are given in the following.
L1 – The potential location Stara Pazova occupies the area of 270 ha and it is located
within the second-ring suburbs, 35 km away from the city centre. Most of the land is the
public property. The location is close to the various industrial zones and well connected
to the main consumption and economic zones of Belgrade. The international Corridor X
passes in the vicinity of the location, while the main road and railway lines to Zagreb and
Novi Sad are contiguous with the location. The closer residential area is moderately
dense. The area is mostly occupied by agricultural fields and has developed utilities
(water supply, sewage, electricity, etc.).60
864 S. Zečević, S. Tadić & M. Krstić

Fig. 2. The set of potential ITT locations in Belgrade.60

L2 – The potential location Batajnica occupies the area of around 180 ha and it is
located within the first-ring suburbs, 22.3 km away from the city centre. The land is
mostly private property. The location has good access to the inner-city and to the west-
Belgrade, where the main economic zones of the city are located. Besides the connection
with the corridor X, it has the access to the main roads leading to West and South through
the bypass. The location has very good access to the railway main line towards the north-
west (Budapest and Zagreb). The location is nearby the southern Batajnica residential
area, which is moderately to highly dense. The location is currently occupied by
agricultural fields and does not have developed sewage infrastructure.60
L3 – The potential location Dobanovci occupies the area of around 430 ha and it is
located within the first-ring suburbs, 21.2 km away from the city centre. The land is
mostly private property. An industrial zone with various operators and warehouses is
located in the vicinity of the location. It has a good access to the inner-city and main
industrial area of Belgrade. The location is situated on the radial road, i.e. on the
Belgrade’s railway ring through which it is directly connected to the corridor X. The
location is nearby two moderately dense residential areas, Dobanovci and Surčin. The
location is currently occupied by agricultural fields and industrial facilities and does not
have developed sewage infrastructure.60
L4 – The potential location Surčin occupies the area of 69 ha and it is located within
the first-ring suburbs, only 14.1 km away from the city centre. The land is mostly private
property. The location is nearby various industrial zones, concentrated near Dobanovci,
and has good access to the inner-city and to the main industrial zone of Belgrade thanks
to the radial road. The location is also close to the rail bypass but not contiguous with the
 A Novel Hybrid MCDM Model for Locating Intermodal Transport Terminal 865

railway line. The location is not close to any residential area. The location does not have
developed sewage infrastructure and currently there is no gas pipeline network.60
L5 – The potential location Mali Makiš occupies the area of 263 ha and it is located
within the ring road, 11.8 km away from the city centre. The land is mostly the property
of the Serbian Railways. The location has a good connection to the industrial zones and
the corridor X through the ring road. Considering that it spreads along the existing
shunting station it is ideally connected to the railway network and the corridor X. The
location is nearby the residential areas which are moderately to highly dense (Železnik,
Rupčina, Bele Vode). The available land is occupied by agricultural fields and
vegetation. The location does not have developed sewage infrastructure and currently
there are no optical fibre cables in the area.60

4.2. Criteria for the evaluation of the potential locations

For the evaluation of potential locations 26 sub-criteria structured into 6 main groups of
criteria are used: land use (LU), connectivity (CN), environmental impact (EN),
economic and social criteria (ES), technical criteria (TC) and utilities (UT).59 The criteria
are defined by the experts based on the interviews with all relevant public and private
entities, i.e. potential stakeholders of intermodal transport, performed during the market
analysis. The overview of the criteria is shown in Table 2.

4.3. The application of the proposed model for the ITT location selection
The hybrid MCDM model, described in detail in Section 3 is applied for solving the
problem of selecting the location for ITT in the City of Belgrade. Evaluation of the
criteria, sub-criteria and alternatives is performed according to various stakeholders
(investors – Inv., users – Use. and administration – Adm.) based on the market analysis
and interviews with all relevant public bodies (city authorities, customs administration,
ministries, etc.) and significant economic entities from Belgrade and Serbia.
The first step of the proposed methodology includes the definition of the evaluation
model structure, presented in Fig. 3 (Step 1). Five potential locations on the list of
alternatives (Step 1.1), and 26 sub-criteria classified into six groups (Step 1.2), represent
the elements of the defined structure. Relations between the elements of the structure are
obtained on the basis of expert’s linguistic evaluations converted into fuzzy values (using
the Table 1 defined in Step 2).
For the defined structure, first it is necessary to evaluate and select the sub-criteria for
the evaluation of the ITT potential locations using fuzzy Delphi method (Step 3).
Experts’ evaluations are converted into triangular fuzzy numbers (Step 3.1) using the
fuzzy scales (Table 1), and then unified using the Eqs. (1)–(4) (Step 3.2). The unified
evaluations are defuzzyfied using Eq. (5) (Step 3.3), based on which the sub-criteria are
selected, whereby θ took the value of 5 (as the middle of the used fuzzy scale) (Step 3.4).
Experts’ evaluations, unified evaluations and the set of selected sub-criteria are shown in
the Table 3. It can be seen from the table that 9 sub-criteria are eliminated from the
initial set of sub-criteria, and accordingly they will not be considered for the decision
making about the ITT location selection in the following.
866 S. Zečević, S. Tadić & M. Krstić

Table 2. Criteria for the evaluation of potential locations.

Criterion Sub-criterion Description

Compatibility with the spatial Compatibility of the land use with the spatial plans of the city (Master
plans (C1) plan)
Existence of detailed The existence of the detailed regulatory plan for the potential location
Land use regulatory plan (C2) of the terminal
(LU) Property of the land (C3) Property of the land of the potential location (private, public)
Possible available space (C4) Total possible available space on the location which can be used for
the required purposes
Distance from the city (C5) Distance of the potential location from the city centre
Road connection (C6) Connection of the potential location with the major roads and
corridors (main roads, highways)
Connecti- Rail connection (C7) Connection of the potential location with main railroads and corridors
vity (CN) River connection (C8) Connection of the potential location with min waterways (rivers)
Local connections (C9) Connection of the potential location with main economic and
industrial parts of the city
Protected areas (C10) Presence of the protected areas (water resources, cultural heritage,
Environ- fauna, flora or natural heritage) at, or near the potential location
mental
Residential areas (C11) Density of residential areas in the proximity of the potential location
impact
(EN) Water resources (C12) Presence of surface of underground waters in the proximity of the
potential location
Project costs (C13) Costs of the terminal construction at the potential location that depend
on various factors (land acquisition cost, technical issues,
Economic environmental protection...)
and social Employment (C14) Employment rate and qualifications of the workforce in the area of
criteria the potential location
(ES) Accessibility (C15) Accessibility of the potential location to the workforce (depends on
the number of public transportation lines and the possibility of other
non motorized accesses)
Distance to the potential The distance of the potential location from industrial zones, clients
market (C16) and final market
Flooding risk (C17) Exposure of the potential location to the flooding risks
Existing installations (C18) The presence of installations that represent an obstacle to the smooth
Technical construction of the terminal
criteria Geology (C19) Type of ground, level of underground water, presence of karst or
(TC) similar, etc. at the potential location
Existing utilities to be The existence of utility networks that could need relocation for the
relocated (C20) implementation of a terminal
Topology of the terrain (C21) Topology of the terrain on the potential location and possible need for
the earthwork
Water supply (C22) The existence of connections with the drinking water at the potential
location
Sewage (C23) The existence of the sewage system at the potential location
Electricity (C24) The existence of direct connection of the potential location with
Utilities
electricity network of suitable capacity
(UT)
Gas(C25) The existence of the gas pipeline of an adequate pressure at the
potential location
Internet (C26) The existence of a network of optical fibre cables at a potential
location
 A Novel Hybrid MCDM Model for Locating Intermodal Transport Terminal 867

Fig. 3. Evaluation model structure.

Table 3. Evaluations and selection of the sub-criteria.

Sub-
Inv. Use. Adm. Unified Defuzzyfied Selection
criteria
C1 (8,9,9) (5,6,7) (8,9,9) (5.00,7.86,9.00) 7.575 Selected
C2 (4,5,6) (2,3,4) (6,7,8) (2.00,4.72,8.00) 4.812 Unacceptable (UN)
C3 (8,9,9) (3,4,5) (7,8,9) (3.00,6.60,9.00) 6.403 Selected
C4 (7,8,9) (2,3,4) (6,7,8) (2.00,5.52,9.00) 5.512 Selected
C5 (2,3,4) (6,7,8) (5,6,7) (2.00,5.01,8.00) 5.009 Selected
C6 (8,9,9) (8,9,9) (3,4,5) (3.00,6.87,9.00) 6.579 Selected
C7 (7,8,9) (7,8,9) (6,7,8) (6.00,7.65,9.00) 7.601 Selected
C8 (3,4,5) (4,5,6) (5,6,7) (3.00,4,93,7.00) 4.955 Unacceptable
C9 (4,5,6) (7,8,9) (4,5,6) (4.00,5,85,9.00) 6.065 Selected
C10 (2,3,4) (1,2,3) (6,7,8) (1.00,3.48,8.00) 3.817 Unacceptable
C11 (5,6,7) (3,4,5) (8,9,9) (3.00,6.00,9.00) 6.000 Selected
C12 (4,5,6) (3,4,5) (6,7,8) (3.00,5.19,8.00) 5.295 Selected
C13 (8,9,9) (5,6,7) (6,7,8) (5.00,7,23,9.00) 7.154 Selected
C14 (6,7,8) (5,6,7) (8,9,9) (5.00,7.23,9.00) 7.154 Selected
C15 (4,5,6) (8,9,9) (7,8,9) (4.00,7,11,9.00) 6.909 Selected
C16 (8,9,9) (8,9,9) (4,5,6) (4.00,7.40,9.00) 7.099 Selected
C17 (4,5,6) (4,5,6) (3,4,5) (3.00,4.64,6.00) 4.594 Unacceptable
C18 (6,7,8) (2,3,4) (3,4,5) (2.00,4,38,8.00) 4.586 Unacceptable
C19 (6,7,8) (3,4,5) (4,5,6) (3.00,5.19,8.00) 5.295 Selected
C20 (5,6,7) (1,1,2) (4,5,6) (1.00,3.11,7.00) 3.405 Unacceptable
C21 (6,7,8) (3,4,5) (1,2,3) (1.00,3.83,8.00) 4.051 Unacceptable
C22 (7,8,9) (4,5,6) (7,8,9) (4.00,6.84,9.00) 6.727 Selected
C23 (6,7,8) (4,5,6) (5,6,7) (4.00,5.94,8.00) 5.963 Selected
C24 (7,8,9) (4,5,6) (7,8,9) (4.00,6.84,9.00) 6.727 Selected
C25 (5,6,7) (3,4,5) (2,3,4) (2.00,4.16,7.00) 4.273 Unacceptable
C26 (2,3,4) (2,3,4) (1,2,3) (1.00,2.62,4.00) 2.580 Unacceptable
868 S. Zečević, S. Tadić & M. Krstić

For the newly defined set of sub-criteria, first it is necessary to establish causal relations
within the groups of sub-criteria, between the sub-criteria belonging to different groups
and between the criteria. For the relations set like this, weights of criteria and sub-criteria
are obtained using fuzzy DANP method (Step 4). The procedure for the establishment of
the inner and outer dependencies is presented on the example of establishing the
dependencies of the Land use sub-criteria in relation to sub-criterion “Compatibility with
the spatial plansˮ (C1). First, a pair wise comparison of the sub-criteria is made by the
experts, as shown in Table 4. Fuzzy scores are obtained by converting the experts’
linguistic evaluations using the relations given in Table 1.

Table 4. Experts’ pair wise comparison of LU sub-criteria in relation to C1.

C3 C4 C5
Inv. Use. Adm. Inv. Use. Adm. Inv. Use. Adm.
C3 VL VL VL H L
C4 FH VL
C5 FL M

Unified evaluations of the sub-criteria, i.e. fuzzy evaluation matrix of the sub-criteria,
presented in Table 5, is obtained by applying Eqs. (1)(4). The rest of the relations are
obtained in the same manner.

Table 5. Unified evaluations of pair wise comparison of LU sub-criteria in relation to C1.

C3 C4 C5
C3 / (1.00,2.00,3.00) (1.34,1.74,2.19)
C4 (0.33,0.50,1.00) / (0.95,1.34,1.74)
C5 (0.45,0.57,0.75) (0.57,0.75,1.06) /

By solving the non-linear priority model (8), the weight vector is obtained (Step 4.1),
values of which are then normalized by applying Eq. (9). Using the previously described
LFPP method, the weight vector ( w3* , w4* , w5* ) = (0.533, 0.267, 0.200) is obtained from
the comparisons of the LU sub-criteria in relation to C1 (presented in Table 5). In order to
control the results of the method, CR values are calculated for each matrix using Eq. (10).
For the matrices of the pair wise comparisons of the LU sub-criteria in relation to C1 the
following CR values are obtained CR(Inv.) = 0.054, CR(Use.)=0.060 and CR(C&R) =
0.085, which are all less than 0.10, so it can be said that the comparison is acceptable. All
the other weight vectors for the established relations are obtained in the same manner.
The calculated CR values for these matrices were also less than 0.10.
By entering the weight vectors obtained by fuzzy DANP into the appropriate
columns, initial supermatrix (shown in Table 6) can be constructed (Step 4.2).
By raising the initial supermatrix to the sufficiently large power the limit supermatrix
shown in Table 7 is obtained (Step 4.3). The limit supermatrix is obtained by applying
the software SuperDecisions made by Creative Decisions Foundation (n.d.). Converged
values by columns of the limit supermatrix represent the sub-criteria weights.
 A Novel Hybrid MCDM Model for Locating Intermodal Transport Terminal 869

Table 6. Initial supermatrix.

C1 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C9 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 C19 C22 C23 C24
C1 0.00 0.84 0.83 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.00
C3 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
C4 0.27 0.16 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00
C5 0.20 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
C6 0.45 0.45 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.80 1.00 0.34 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00
C7 0.46 0.46 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00
C9 0.09 0.09 1.00 0.09 1.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00
C11 0.82 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.82 1.00 1.00 1.00
C12 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00
C13 0.25 0.42 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.42 0.25 0.25 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.42 1.00 1.00 1.00
C14 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.42 0.00 0.42 0.42 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.37 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
C15 0.34 0.58 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.58 0.34 0.34 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.00
C16 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
C19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
C22 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.00
C23 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00
C24 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00

Table 7. Limit supermatrix.

C1 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C9 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 C19 C22 C23 C24
C1 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12
C3 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
C4 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
C5 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
C6 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06
C7 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
C9 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
C11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
C12 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
C13 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06
C14 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34
C15 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
C16 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
C19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
C22 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
C23 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
C24 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

The next step is the ranking of the alternatives by applying the fuzzy DVIKOR method
(Step 5). First, the experts evaluated the alternatives in relation to sub-criteria using the
relations given in Table 1. Their evaluations, presented in Table 8, are converted into
triangular fuzzy numbers. Afterwards, the unified evaluations of the alternatives in
relation to sub-criteria are obtained by applying Eqs. (1)–(4), i.e. the fuzzy preference
matrix is formed (Step 5.1). The matrix showing the unified evaluations of the potential
locations in relation to sub-criteria is presented in Table 9.
870 S. Zečević, S. Tadić & M. Krstić

Table 8. Experts’ evaluations of the potential locations by the stakeholders.

Alternatives
Sub- L1 L2 L3 L4 L5
criteria Inv. Use. Adm. Inv. Use. Adm. Inv. Use. Adm. Inv. Use. Adm. Inv. Use. Adm.
C1 VH H H H VH H VH H VH H H H L L VL
C3 FH FH M M FH M FL M FL FL M M FH FL H
C4 VH VH VH H H H FH H H FL FL M FH M FH
C5 M VL L FH M M FH M M H H H VH H H
C6 FL L FL M M M FH FH FH FH FH FH M FL FL
C7 H H FH H FH H FH M M M FL FL VH H VH
C9 M FL M M M M FH FH FH M M FH FL FL L
C11 M M FH FH FH FH M FH M M M M FL L FL
C12 FL M FL FL M M FL FL FL M FH M FL FL FL
C13 M FH M VH H H FH FH FH FL M M M M FL
C14 M M FH FH FH FH M M FL M M FL H FH FH
C15 FL L FL V FH H M FL M M FL M H H H
C16 M M FH M FH M FH H FH H VH H M FH FH
C19 FH M M M M FL M FL FL FH FH M M FL M
C22 M M M FH M FH M FH M M M M M M M
C23 FH FH M FL FL FL L FL L L FL L FL FL FL
C24 FH FH M M M FL FH FH M M FL FL FH M M

Table 9. Unified evaluations of the potential locations in relation to sub-criteria.

Sub- Alternatives
criteria L1 L2 L3 L4 L5
C1 (6.32,7.32,8.32) (6.32,7.32,8.32) (6.65,7.65,8.65) (6.00,7.00,8.00) (1.59,2.62,3.63)
C3 (4.64,5.65,6.65) (4.31,5.31,6.32) (3.30,4.31,5.31) (3.63,4.64,5.65) (4.48,5.52,6.54)
C4 (7.00,8.00,9.00) (6.00,7.00,8.00) (5.65,6.65,7.65) (3.30,4.31,5.31) (4.64,5.65,6.65)
C5 (2.00,3.11,4.16) (4.31,5.31,6.32) (4.31,5.31,6.32) (6.00,7.00,8.00) (6.32,7.32,8.32)
C6 (2.62,3.63,4.64) (4.00,5.00,6.00) (5.00,6.00,7.00) (5.00,6.00,7.00) (3.30,4.31,5.31)
C7 (5.65,6.65,7.65) (5.65,6.65,7.65) (4.31,5.31,6.32) (3.30,4.31,5.31) (6.65,7.65,8.65)
C9 (3.63,4.64,5.65) (4.00,5.00,6.00) (5.00,6.00,7.00) (4.31,5.31,6.32) (2.62,3.63,4.64)
C11 (4.31,5.31,6.32) (5.00,6.00,7.00) (4.31,5.31,6.32) (4.00,5.00,6.00) (2.62,3.63,4.64)
C12 (3.30,4.31,5.31) (3.63,4.64,5.65) (3.00,4.00,5.00) (4.31,5.31,6.32) (3.00,4.00,5.00)
C13 (4.31,5.31,6.32) (6.32,7.32,8.32) (5.00,6.00,7.00) (3.63,4.64,5.65) (3.63,4.64,5.65)
C14 (4.31,5.31,6.32) (5.00,6.00,7.00) (3.63,4.64,5.65) (3.63,4.64,5.65) (5.31,6.32,7.32)
C15 (2.62,3.63,4.64) (5.65,6.65,7.65) (3.63,4.64,5.65) (3.63,4.64,5.65) (6.00,7.00,8.00)
C16 (4.31,5.31,6.32) (4.31,5.31,6.32) (5.31,6.32,7.32) (6.32,7.32,8.32) (4.64,5.65,6.65)
C19 (4.31,5.31,6.32) (3.63,4.64,5.65) (3.30,4.31,5.31) (4.64,5.65,6.65) (3.63,4.64,5.65)
C22 (4.00,5.00,6.00) (4.64,5.65,6.65) (4.31,5.31,6.32) (4.00,5.00,6.00) (4.00,5.00,6.00)
C23 (4.64,5.65,6.65) (3.00,4.00,5.00) (2.29,3.30,4.31) (2.29,3.30,4.31) (3.00,4.00,5.00)
C24 (4.64,5.65,6.65) (3.63,4.64,5.65) (4.64,5.65,6.65) (3.30,4.31,5.31) (4.31,5.31,6.32)

~
  ~
 
The ideal  ' '*j   *j ,  *j ,  *j and the nadir  ' ' j   j ,  j ,  j values of the criterion
functions (Step 5.2) are obtained by applying Eq. (14). Afterwards, by applying the
~
Eq. (16) the normalized fuzzy differences d kj are obtained (Step 5.3). The values
~
 
representing the maximum group utility S k  S k , S k , S k and the minimum individual
~
  

regret Rk  Rk , Rk , Rk are obtained using Eqs. (17) and (18), respectively (Step 5.4).
~

The distances of the alternatives from the ideal solution Qk  Qk , Qk , Qk are obtained 
 A Novel Hybrid MCDM Model for Locating Intermodal Transport Terminal 871

using Eq. (19), wherein the value of v = 0.5 is used for the weight coefficient of the
~ ~ ~
maximum group utility (Step 5.5). Obtained values for S k , R k and Q k are then
defuzzyfied using Eq. (5) (Step 5.6). Based on these defuzzyfied values, three ranking
lists LS , LR and LQ , presented in Table 10, are formed (Step 5.7).

Table 10. Results obtained by fuzzy DVIKOR.

L1 L2 L3 L4 L5
S 0.192 0.349 0.187 0.147 0.206
~ λ
S Sβ 0.274 0.116 0.279 0.319 0.260
Sγ 0.741 0.581 0.745 0.785 0.727
Crisp(S) 0.274 0.116 0.279 0.319 0.260
Rang 3 1 4 5 2
Rλ 0.015 0.000 0.003 0.013 0.051
~ Rβ 0.093 0.029 0.155 0.155 0.085
R
Rγ 0.278 0.214 0.340 0.340 0.185
Crisp(R) 0.111 0.055 0.160 0.162 0.096
Rang 3 1 4 5 2
Qλ 0.623 0.721 0.627 0.598 0.611
~
Q Qβ 0.054 0.071 0.093 0.115 0.042
Qγ 0.768 0.642 0.806 0.829 0.708
Crisp(Q) 0.061 0.061 0.092 0.115 0.044
Rang 3 1 4 5 2

The alternative L2 has been chosen as the compromise solution, i.e. the most suitable
location for the construction of the ITT in Belgrade, given that it is ranked as the best one
according to Q, while meeting both conditions (Co.1 and Co.2) (Step 5.8). Moreover, this
location is also selected as the most acceptable one in the Study.12

4.4. Discussion and analysis of the results

The applicability of the model is demonstrated by solving the problem of ITT location
selection. The fuzzy Delphi method made it possible to incorporate a large number of
criteria and sub-criteria into the process of decision making, as well as to form a critical
set of sub-criteria, i.e. identify those that are relevant from the point of view of all
stakeholders. Dimensions of the problem, as well as its complexity, are reduced in this
way. The fuzzy DANP method is applied in the second part of the model for obtaining
the weights of the sub-criteria used for the evaluation of the potential locations. The ANP
method is chosen due to its capability of taking into account the interrelations among the
elements. The fuzzy Delphi part, within the DANP method, is introduced in order to
unify evaluations of the mutually conflicting stakeholders. The obtained criteria weights
are used in the third part of the model in which the alternatives are ranked with the fuzzy
DVIKOR method. Again, the fuzzy Delphi part is introduced in order to unify
evaluations of the stakeholders. The VIKOR method is used because it considers the
strategy of the maximum group utility and minimum individual regret, while quantifying
many subjective assessments necessary for the evaluation of different alternatives, and
thus reaching a compromise solution. By considering the threshold θ in the fuzzy Delphi
872 S. Zečević, S. Tadić & M. Krstić

method and the coefficient v in the fuzzy DVIKOR method, the model becomes more
flexible and convenient for fine adjustments according to the nature and characteristics of
the problem being solved and various views of the participants in the decision-making
process.
The solution of the defined MCDM problem for the ITT location selection in
Belgrade is Batajnica. The terminal would be located in the industrial zone, designated in
the urban plan, and between the railway line to Belgrade, the rail ring heading south
(Corridor X), and the future Belgrade ring road. Initial connection to the railway could be
established at Batajnica Railway station, while the road connections could be somewhat
problematic. The direct access to the future ring road is not expected since the volume of
traffic generated by the centre does not justify this for the time being. However, the
location could be connected to the main roads M22 (E75) and M22.1 with very short
distances through the local road at the edge of Batajnica settlement. Although the land is
entirely free of buildings, the situation with the land ownership is not completely clear. In
comparison to the other locations, Batajnica is least sensitive in terms of social and
environmental issues. It is also expected that the overall investment costs at this location
would be more favourable in relation to other locations considered.
Besides the advantages of the model, described in the previous part of the paper, it is
important to emphasize once again the fuzzy component of the used MCDM methods,
which allows more adequate consideration of the opinions in the process of decision
making. In addition, the model enabled the extraction of the sub-criteria important for all
stakeholders, as well as the unification of the experts’ evaluations from the perspective of
the stakeholders which often have different goals.
The proposed methodology is universally applicable and with minimal adjustments
can be applied for solving various MCDM problems. The advantage of the model is the
possibility of solving the real life complex problems which consider a large number of
criteria and alternatives, evaluated by a large number of DMs belonging to different
stakeholders. The model allows the reduction of the problem complexity by defining and
considering the most important elements of the model, without affecting the quality of
the results. Another advantage of the model is that it supports group decision-making and
allows documentation of the different views and opinions in the decision making process.
This documentation is useful because it can provide a good basis for discussion of the
results obtained by members of the stakeholders that participated in the decision-making
process.

5. Conclusion
The proposed hybrid MCDM model is a systematic analytical model that can support
decision makers in solving various real-life problems. The model enables the adoption of
a single decision with respect to the variety of aspects of observing the problem,
generated by the different attitudes of stakeholders. Its applicability is demonstrated in
this paper on the example of ITT location selection. The main task of the paper was the
analysis of potential locations and selection of the most suitable one for the establishment
 A Novel Hybrid MCDM Model for Locating Intermodal Transport Terminal 873

of the ITT, while taking into account the specifics and characteristics of alternative
solutions, city and different requirements of the stakeholders. The problem addressed in
this paper is taken from the study “Facilitating intermodal transport in Serbiaˮ, in which
the potential locations, defined by the city authorities and the relevant ministries and
experts who performed the market analysis, are evaluated against the set of criteria. Each
of the considered locations has a number of specific features which are not easy to
identify and compare. Therefore, 26 sub-criteria divided into six groups are defined for
the evaluation. As none concrete MCDM method is used in the Study, the MCDM model
that suits the defined problem is developed in this paper. Application of the fuzzy Delphi
method for defining the critical set of sub-criteria enabled the reduction of the size, i.e.
the complexity of the problem. The fuzzy DANP method enabled obtaining the sub-
criteria weights by integrating interdependent relationships between criteria and sub-
criteria while taking into account the demands of the various stakeholders. Finally, the
fuzzy DVIKOR method is applied for ranking the alternatives and selecting the most
suitable one with respect to the unified attitudes of the stakeholders.
The proposed MCDM model that combines fuzzy Delphi, fuzzy DANP and fuzzy
DVIKOR methods is the main contribution of this paper. Moreover, only few papers
dealing with the ITT location selection using the MCDM methods are identified by
reviewing the literature. Future research could include the application of the model taking
into consideration the extended set of stakeholders, as well as the adjustment of the
model through the assignment of different importance to the stakeholders, depending on
the perspective of observing the problem. The model could also be applied for solving
various problems in the field of logistics and intermodal transport, for example: design of
the intermodal transport network, i.e. selection of the mode and technology of transport,
decision-making in the processes of the distribution channel management, supply chain
modelling, selection of the policies, measures, initiatives and concepts of logistics, etc.,
as well as for the problems in other fields. Besides that, the proposed model could serve
as the basis for the development of new hybrid models that would include the proposed
model, or any of its parts. The model could be expanded by using fuzzy Delphi method
for the determination of the critical set of alternatives too. The model could also include
some other method which would, on the stakeholders’ level, unify the evaluations of the
decision makers, i.e. the representatives of the stakeholders. An important aspect of the
future research would be the expansion of the model through a combination of the
MCDM methods with some other approaches (simulation models, network models, GIS,
etc.), with the aim of taking into consideration the allocation problem in cases of locating
more than one intermodal terminal.

References
1. European Conference of Ministers of Transport, Terminology on combined transport.
Available online http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/wp24/documents/term.pdf,
(New York and Geneva, 2001). Last accessed on 26.01.2017.
2. A Caris, C. Macharis and G. K. Janssens, Decision support in intermodal transport: a new
research agenda, Computers in Industry 64 (2013) 105–112.
874 S. Zečević, S. Tadić & M. Krstić

3. European Commission – EC, WHITE PAPER Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area
– Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system (Brussels, 2011).
4. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Illustrated glossary for transport statistics.
Available online http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3859598/5911341/KS-RA-10-028-
EN.PDF/6ddd731e-0936-455a-be6b-eac624a83db4, (Luxembourg: Publications Office of the
European Union, 2010). Last accessed on 26.01.2017.
5. Y. Kayikci, A conceptual model for intermodal freight logistics centre location decisions,
Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2 (2010) 6297–6311.
6. T. S. Chang, Best routes selection in international intermodal networks, Computers &
Operations Research 35 (2008) 2877–2891.
7. T. E. S. Hanssen, T. A. Mathisen and F. Jørgensen, Generalized transport costs in intermodal
freight transport, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 54 (2012) 189–200.
8. D. Tsamboulas, H. Vrenken and A. M. Lekka, Assessment of a transport policy potential for
intermodal mode shift on a European scale, Transportation Research Part A 41 (2007) 715–
33.
9. A. Sirikijpanichkul and L. Ferreira, Multi-objective evaluation of intermodal freight terminal
location decisions, in Proceedings of 27th Conference: Australian Institute of Transport
Research, Queensland University of Technology (QUT) (Brisbane, 2005).
10. P. Kunadhamraks and S. Hanaoka, Evaluation of logistics performance for freight mode
choice at an intermodal terminal, in Recent Advances in City Logistics, eds. E. Taniguchi and
R. G. Thompson, (Elsevier Science Ltd., 2005), pp. 191–205.
11. L. Ferreira and J. Sigut, Measuring the performance of intermodal freight terminals,
Transportation Planning and Technology 17(3) (1993) 269–280.
12. B. W. Wiegmans, E. Masurel and P. Nijkamp, Intermodal freight terminals: an analysis of the
terminal market, Transportation Planning and Technology 23(2) (1999) 105–128.
13. L. Ferreira ad J. Sigut, Modelling intermodal freight terminal operations, Road and Transport
Research: a journal of Australian and New Zealand Research and Practice 4(4) (1995) 4–16.
14. S. Limbourg and B. Jourquin, Optimal rail-road container terminal locations on the European
network, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review. 45(4) (2009)
551–63.
15. K. Sorensen and C. Vanovermeire, Bi-objective optimization of the intermodal terminal
location problem as a policy-support tool, Computers in Industry 64 (2013) 128–135.
16. K. Sorensen, C. Vanovermeire and S. Busschaert, Efficient metaheuristics to solve the
intermodal terminal location problem, Computers and Operations Research 39 (2012) 2079–
2090.
17. C. C. Lin, Y. I. Chiang and S. W. Lin, Efficient model and heuristic for the intermodal
terminal location problem, Computers & Operations Research 51 (2014) 41–51.
18. M. B. Pedersen, Optimization models and solution methods for intermodal transportation,
Ph.D. thesis (Centre for Traffic and Transport – Technical University of Denmark, 2005).
19. A. M. Moreira, R. A. Ribeiro, E. Declercq, O. Schinas, P. Guerreiro and G. K. Janssens,
Optimal location of intermodal terminals in Europe: an evaluation model, Proceedings of the
6th European Congress on Intelligent Techniques and Soft Computing (EUFIT ’98) 2 (1998)
1057–1061.
20. S. C. Chi and R. J. Kuo, Examination of the influence of fuzzy analytic hierarchy process in
the development of an intelligent location selection support system of convenience store, IFSA
World Congress and 20th NAFIPS International Conference 3 (2001) 1312–1316.
21. R. Z. Farahani and N. Asgari, Combination of MCDM and covering techniques in a
hierarchical model for facility location: A case study, European Journal of Operational
Research 176(3) (2007) 1839–1858.
 A Novel Hybrid MCDM Model for Locating Intermodal Transport Terminal 875

22. R. J. Kuo, S. C. Chi and S. S. Kao, A decision support system for selecting convenience store
location through integration of fuzzy AHP and artificial neural network, Computers in
Industry 47(2) (2002) 199–214.
23. C. Ugboma, O. Ugboma and I. Ogwude, An Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) approach to
Port selection decisions – empirical evidence from Nigerian Ports, Maritime Economics &
Logistics 8 (2006) 251–266.
24. G. Kannan, H. P. Noorul and P. Sasikumar, An application of the Analytical Hierarchy
Process and Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process in the selection of collecting centre location
for the reverse logistics Multi-criteria Decision-Making supply chain model, International
Journal of Management and Decision Making 9(4) (2008) 350–365.
25. G. Marković, M. Gašić, M. Kolarević, M. Savković and Z. Marinković, Application of the
MODIPROM method to the final solution of logistics centre location, Transport 28(4) (2013)
341–351.
26. A. Awasthi, S. S. Chauhan and S.K. Goyal, A multi-criteria decision making approach for
location planning for urban distribution centers under uncertainty, Mathematical and
Computer Modelling 53 (2011) 98–109.
27. T. Özcan, N. Çelebi and S. Esnaf, Comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision making
methodologies and implementation of a warehouse location selection problem, Expert Systems
with Applications 38 (2011) 9773–9779.
28. A. A. Núñez, N. G. Cancelas and A. C. Orive, Application of a model based on the use of
DELPHI methodology and Multicriteria Analysis for the assessment of the quality of the
Spanish Dry Ports location, Procedia  Social and Behavioral Sciences 162 (2014) 42–50.
29. C. Macharis and Y. M. Bontekoning, Opportunities for or in intermodal freight transport
research: a review, European Journal of Operational Research 153(2) (2004) 400–16.
30. E. Pekin, C. Macharis, D. Meers and P. Rietveld, Location Analysis Model for Belgian
Intermodal Terminals: Importance of the value of time in the intermodal transport chain,
Computers in Industry 64 (2013) 113–120.
31. C. Macharisa, E. Pekin and P. Rietveld, Location Analysis Model for Belgian Intermodal
Terminals: Towards an integration of the modal choice variables, Procedia Social and
Behavioral Sciences 20 (2011) 79–89.
32. M. Vidović, S. Zečević, M. Kilibarda, J. Vlajić, N. Bjelić and S. Tadić, The p-hub model with
hub-catchment areas, existing hubs and simulation: A case study of Serbian intermodal
terminals, Networks and Spatial Economics 11 (2011) 295–314.
33. C. Macharis, A. De Witte and J. Ampe, The multi-actor, multi-criteria analysis methodology
(MAMCA) for the evaluation of transport projects: theory and practice, Journal of Advanced
Transportation 43(2) (2009) 183–202.
34. P. Arzhang and N. Hamidi, Financing of tourism industry (a hybrid approach Delphi  ANP 
VIKOR), Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review 3(8) (2014) 17–26.
35. Y. C. Shen, G. T. R. Lin and G. H. Tzeng, Combined DEMATEL techniques with novel
MCDM for the organic light emitting diode technology selection, Expert Systems with
Applications 38 (2011) 1468–1481.
36. G. Buyukozkan and D. Ruan, Evaluation of software development projects using a fuzzy
multi-criteria decision approach, Mathematics and Computers in Simulation 77 (2008) 464–
475.
37. N. C. Dalkey and O. Helmer, An experimental application method to the use of experts,
Management Science 9(3) (1963) 458–467.
38. T. J. Murry, L. L. Pipino and J. P. Gigch, A pilot study of fuzzy set modification of Delphi,
Human Systems Management 5(1) (1985) 76–80.
39. L. A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets, Information & Control 8 (1965) 338–353.
 876 S. Zečević, S. Tadić & M. Krstić

40. R. Mikaeil, Y. Ozcelik, R. Yousefi, M. Ataei and S. M. Hosseini, Ranking the sawability of
ornamental stone using Fuzzy Delphi and multi-criteria decision-making techniques,
International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 58 (2013) 118–126.
41. T. U. Daim, X. Li, J. Kim and S. Simms, Evaluation of energy storage technologies for
integration with renewable electricity: Quantifying expert opinions, Environmental Innovation
and Societal Transitions 3 (2012) 29–49.
42. G. J. Klir and T. A. Folger, Fuzzy Sets, Uncertainty and Information (Prentice-Hall, New
Jersey, 1988).
43. T. L. Saaty, The analytic network process (RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, 1996).
44. L. Mikhailov, Deriving priorities from fuzzy pairwise comparison judgments, Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 134 (2003) 365–385.
45. G. Buyukozkan and G. Cifci, A novel hybrid MCDM approach based on fuzzy DEMATEL,
fuzzy ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS to evaluate green suppliers, Expert Systems with Applications
39 (2012) 3000–3011.
46. S. Tadić, S. Zečević and M. Krstić, Ranking of logistics system scenarios for central business
district, Promet – Traffic & Transportation 26(2) (2014a) 159–167.
47. S. Tadić, S. Zečević and M. Krstić, A novel hybrid MCDM model based on fuzzy
DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP and fuzzy VIKOR for city logistics concept selection, Expert Systems
with Applications 41 (2014b) 8112–8128.
48. M. Velasquez and P. T. Hester, An analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods,
International Journal of Operations Research 10(2) (2013) 56–66.
49. N. Caterino, I. Iervolino, G. Manfredi and E. Cosenza, A comparative analysis of decision
making methods for the seismic retrofit of RC buildings, The 14th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering (Beijing, China, October 1217, 2008).
50. S. Opricovic, Multi-Criteria Optimization of Civil Engineering Systems (Faculty of Civil
Engineering, Belgrade, 1998).
51. S. Opricovic, A fuzzy compromise solution for multicriteria problems, International Journal
of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems 15(3) (2007) 363–380.
52. T. H. Chang, Fuzzy VIKOR method: A case study of the hospital service 4 evaluation in
Taiwan, Information Sciences 271 (2014) 196–212.
53. S. Opricovic, Fuzzy VIKOR with an application to water resources planning, Expert Systems
with Applications 38 (2011) 12983–12990.
54. T. H. Hsu and T. H. Yang, Application of fuzzy analytic hierarchy process in the selection of
advertising media, Journal of Management and Systems 7(1) (2000) 19–39.
55. A. C. Kutlu and M. Ekmekcioglu, Fuzzy failure modes and effects analysis by using fuzzy
TOPSIS/based fuzzy AHP, Expert Systems with Applications 39 (2012) 61–67.
56. Y. C. Shen, S. H. Chang, G. T. R. Lin and H.C. Yu, A hybrid selection model for emerging
technology, Technological Forecasting & Social Change 77(1) (2010) 151–166.
57. Y. M. Wang and K. S. Chin, Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: A logarithmic fuzzy preference
programming methodology, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 52 (2011) 541–
553.
58. T. L. Saaty and M. Takizawa, Dependence and independence: From linear hierarchies to
nonlinear networks, European Journal of Operational Research 26 (1986) 229–237.
59. EC Delegation to the Republic of Serbia, Facilitating Intermodal Transport in Serbia
(Republic of Serbia, 20102012).
60. EC Delegation to the Republic of Serbia, Multi-criteria analysis of selected sites – Working
paper No.1 (Republic of Serbia, Unpublished results).

View publication stats