Environmental Science and Pollution Research

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-13718-8

SUSTAINABLE SUPPLY CHAIN NETWORK DESIGN

An efficient solution method for an agri-fresh food supply chain:

hybridization of Lagrangian relaxation and genetic algorithm
Navid Nasr 1 & Seyed Taghi Akhavan Niaki 2 & Ali Hussenzadek Kashan 3 & Mehdi Seifbarghy 4

Received: 13 October 2020 / Accepted: 25 March 2021

# The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2021

Abstract
In the traditional agri-fresh food supply chain (AFSC), geographically dispersed small farmers transport their products individ-
ually to the market for sale. This leads to a higher transportation cost, which is the primary cause of farmers’ low profitability.
This paper formulates a traditional product movement problem in AFSC. First, the aggregate product movement model is
combined with the vehicle routing model to redesign an existing AFSC (the ETKA Company; the most extensive domestic
agri-fresh food supply chain in Iran) based on the available data. For the four-echelon, multi-period supply chain under inves-
tigation, a mixed integer linear programming (MILP) model is developed for the location-inventory-routing problem of perish-
able products via considering the clustering of farmers to minimize the total distribution cost. Considering the complexity of the
problem, an efficient and effective “matheuristic” is introduced based on hybridizing the Lagrangian relaxation and genetic
algorithm (GA). The solution obtained by the proposed “matheuristic” algorithm is robust and efficient in comparison with an
exact solver, GA, and the Lagrangian relaxation approach individually. The comparison analysis reveals that the location-
inventory-routing model is efficient, leading to a reduction in total distribution cost by 33% compared to the existing supply
chain. Finally, the findings encourage further development and application of the proposed “matheuristic” to solve other
complicated location-inventory-routing problems heuristically.

Keywords Agri-fresh food supply chain (AFSC) . Location-inventory-routing problem . Aggregate product movement .
Perishability . Matheuristic . GA . Lagrangian relaxation

Introduction Republic of Iran’s government as a developing county.

Fresh fruits and vegetables are demanded regularly to com-
The impact of Iranian consumption and the production of food plete a balanced diet (Sellitto 2018; Waqas et al. 2018).
on its economic growth is very high. Ensuring the availability Today’s conscious customers are always trying to get these
of food to all the citizens and enough profitability for the items at the lowest possible price. On the other side, suppliers
farming community are the main challenges of the Islamic of these products (farmers) are not receiving fair prices due to
the supply chain’s poor design (Hindustan Times 2017; The
Economic Times 2017).
Responsible editor: Philippe Garrigues
Meanwhile, something between 30 and 40% of total trans-
action costs is incurred by the transportation process as report-
* Seyed Taghi Akhavan Niaki
Niaki@sharif.edu ed by Raghunath and Ashok (2009), Panda and Sreekumar
(2012), Hegde and Madhuri (2013), and Kundu (2013).
1
Farmers bear a significant portion of transportation costs.
School of Industrial & Mechanical Engineering, Islamic Azad
University, Qazvin Branch, Tehran, Iran
Thus, redesigning the supply chain to incorporate a suitable
2
transportation strategy (Patidar et al. 2018a; Patidar and
Department of Industrial Engineering, Sharif University of
Technology, Tehran, Iran
Agrawal 2020) is the main challenge in this paper.
3
Agri-fresh food supply chain (AFSC) (Shukla and
Faculty of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Tarbiat Modares
University, Tehran, Iran
Jharkharia 2013) is the chain of short shelf life agricultural
4
products defined as a sequence of processes involved within
Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran
and between different players (directly or indirectly) from

production to consumption. As such, the supply chain’s per-
formance depends on the interaction between drivers such as
transportation, facilities location, inventory, information,
sourcing, and pricing (Chopra and Meindl 2007). Transport
moves products from one place to another and enables farmers
(customers) to supply (receive) their products with intermedi-
aries’ assistance. Transportation decisions deal with the plan-
ning, execution, and optimization of the physical movement
of goods. It guarantees stakeholders’ profitability and ensures
less wastage of perishable items by fast delivering the items to
the customers (Raut et al. 2019). The transportation network
structure plays a vital role in achieving the above objectives
(Fathollahi-Fard et al. 2020a).
A set of review papers on the AFSC including Rajurkar and
Jain (2011), Samuel et al. (2012), Dandage et al. (2017),
Ganeshkumar et al. (2017), Gardas et al. (2017), Negi and
Anand (2017), and Siddh et al. (2017) claimed that it lacks
the efficient and effective delivery of products due to various
unfathomable problems in the chain. The authors mainly fo-
cused on farmers’ low profitability, high post-harvest losses,
and improper transportation networks besides other issues like
lack of standard quality control, lack of tracking and traceabil-
ity of facilities, and poor supply chain design. However,
Anjaly and Bhamoriya (2011), Kundu (2013), Sihariya et al.
(2013), and Sohoni and Joshi (2015) considered the concep-
tual models for the distribution of fresh produce. On the other
side, inappropriate transportation strategy causes air pollu-
tions, traffic congestions, and unintentional injury deaths
(transport accidents and incidents). Therefore, traditional
AFSC is not sustainable and requires a reform to address
real-life problems. Recently, Patidar et al. (2018a) developed
strategies to redesign the AFSC and suggested designing the
collaborative transportation model to collect products from
geographically dispersed small farmers. They observed that
aggregate product shipment could mitigate the effects of small
farmers’ supply and reduce the chain’s transportation cost.
In the current paper, the concept of aggregate transportation
of products from small geographically dispersed farmers is
implemented in two stages. In the first stage, the products
are aggregated at different central locations from nearby
farmers using the clustering of farmers, followed by transpor-
tation of these aggregated products to the market using vehicle
routing in the second stage. These transportation strategies
enable the movement of products from less than truck load
(LTL) to the full truck load (FTL) movement. Hence, it will
reduce transportation costs by sharing economics (Simchi-levi
et al. 2016). The aim is to redesign the AFSC considering the
perishability of products, clustering of farmers, and vehicle
routing such that the total distribution cost is minimized.
This complex location-inventory-routing model is classified
as NP-hard (Karampour et al. 2020; Zhang et al. 2020). As
such, an efficient solution that is computationally manageable
is obtained using a novel “matheuristic,” which is a
Environ Sci Pollut Res
combination of Lagrangian relaxation and genetic algorithm
(GA). A “matheuristic” is generally defined as a combination
of exact methods with heuristics. The performance of this
hybrid algorithm is compared with the ones of an exact solver,
the traditional GA, and the Lagrangian relaxation method in-
dividually to show its high efficiency to achieve better solu-
tions. In short, this study highlights the following research
objectives:
1. To formulate a multi-period mathematical model of tradi-
tional AFSC for perishable products (traditional product
movement model)
2. To improve the traditional product movement model by
incorporating farmers’ clustering for the aggregation of
products at cluster centers (the aggregate product move-
ment model)
3. To further enhance the aggregate product movement
model by employing the vehicle routing notion for pick-
ing up the aggregated products from cluster centers to the
market (aggregate product movement combined with the
vehicle routing model)
4. To consider a case study of the proposed AFSC in Iran
with the ETKA Company’s data (the most extensive do-
mestic agri-fresh food supply chain)
5. To solve the problem using a novel hybrid algorithm that
hybridizes the Lagrangian relaxation and GA for the first
time in the literature
The paper’s remnant is structured as follows: “Literature
review” section reviews the related literature on supply chain
models and the AFSC. “Problem description and mathemati-
cal formulation” section presents the problem and the mathe-
matical formulation of different product movement models.
“The proposed solution algorithm” section deploys the pro-
posed solution approach as a novel hybrid algorithm using the
Lagrangian relaxation approach combined with a GA. The
computational results are provided in the “Computational re-
sults” section for comparison and sensitivity analyses and
managerial insights. Finally, “Conclusion and future works”
section concludes the paper and provides suggestions for fu-
ture research.
Literature review
The literature review section is divided into two subsections:
works performed on supply chain models and AFSC,
respectively.
Review on supply chain models
An efficient and effective supply chain management requires
decision-making at two levels: strategic decisions for long-
Environ Sci Pollut Res
term planning and tactical-operational decisions for short-term
execution. While decisions related to the movement and stor-
age of products in a supply chain (i.e., vehicle routing and
inventory management) are known as tactical-operational de-
cisions, strategic decisions concern subjects such as finding
proper facility locations (Mousavi and Tavakkoli-
Moghaddam 2013). Both types of decisions are fundamental
and critical in managing products’ flow (Daskin et al. 2005).
These decisions have a positive impact on each other and
enforce developing a synchronized model to determine the
optimal decisions for the planning and execution of a supply
chain. Literature review to explore the state-of-the-art in the
domain of supply chain modeling is presented into three parts
as follows: the first part focuses on a single period and multi-
period supply chain models; perishability consideration in
supply chain modeling is discussed in the second part; and
third part explains sharing economy approach in terms of ag-
gregation of product and vehicle routing in supply chain
models.
Jayaraman and Ross (2003) solved a problem formulated
by a three-echelon multi-product supply chain using GA.
Melo et al. (2009) investigated the effect of supply and de-
mand variability on the supply chain structure using a multi-
period supply chain model. Hiremath et al. (2013) proposed a
hybrid and flexible multi-objective outbound logistics net-
work of a four-echelon supply chain for fast, slow, and very
slow-moving items. Gelareh et al. (2015) addressed a multi-
period supply chain problem formulated by the hub location
model for hub-and-spoke network structures that took into
consideration installation, maintenance, and closing costs
associated with each hub. Hong et al. (2018) addressed a
three-echelon supply chain to supply the goods from
manufacturing plants to distributors and retailers.
The published works during the years 2003 to 2019 show
the development achieved in supply chain modeling for sim-
pler to more complex problems. In the past decade, the re-
searchers have started focusing on the application of devel-
oped single/multi-period models to solve real-life problems
such as the ones in agriculture supply chains (Ahumada and
Villalobos 2011; Ahumada et al. 2012; Farahani et al. 2012;
Brulard et al. 2018). Khamjan et al. (2013) formulated a multi-
period model to determine the location-allocation and capacity
of both the existing and new sugar cane loading stations in
Thailand. Etemadnia et al. (2015) developed a three-echelon
wholesale hub location model to distribute locally grown
fruits and vegetables in the USA efficiently. For an Iranian
wheat supply chain, Gholamian and Taghanzadeh (2017) pro-
posed a five-echelon network model to determine location and
allocation decisions considering the blending of wheat, quality
variant, and multi-mode transportation. Soto-Silva et al.
(2017) suggested a model to optimize the decisions made in
purchasing, transporting, and storing a fresh apple processing
plant. Flores et al. (2019) identified climatically homogeneous
growing regions and developed an integrated supply chain
model for planting, harvesting, and distributing fresh vegeta-
bles to maximize small-sized farmers’ profitability.
Perishable products such as food and agricultural products
have a shelf life and start degrading after harvesting. Many
researchers focused on the perishability aspect of the products
by developing suitable models to optimize location,
inventory, and product movement decisions such that
product losses can be reduced. For instance, Rong et al.
(2011) formulated a production-distribution planning model
with continuous food quality deterioration in storage and
transportation activities. Nourbakhsh et al. (2016) developed
a supply chain model considering quantitative and qualitative
post-harvest losses in the distribution. Their model determines
optimal locations of pre-processing facilities and
transportation and infrastructure investment plans by
identifying roadway/railway capacity expansion. Dolgui
et al. (2018) proposed a model to optimize production, inven-
tory, and distribution decisions for perishable products in a
multi-period supply chain. Savadkoohi et al. (2018) addressed
a location-inventory pharmaceutical problem for which a
three-echelon supply chain model was suggested to minimize
the total cost of the network. The model determines
manufacturing and distribution centers’ locations, the material
flows in the network, and inventory decisions for the perish-
able products.
Sharing economy is the concept of execution of a task or
process by sharing available resources (equipment or service)
between two or more parties such that the total supply chain
cost is minimized. Chan and Zhang (2011) proposed a trans-
portation model for better integration and cooperation among
the supply chain partners to achieve the benefits of sharing
economies. These benefits are a significant reduction in total
cost and improvement in service level. The idea of sharing
economy in transportation can be implemented through aggre-
gate products and vehicle routing. The aggregation of prod-
ucts at common points (cluster centers) can be done by devel-
oping a suitable model for grouping suppliers in a region.
Further, after aggregation from supplier nodes, the prod-
ucts can be transported to customer nodes efficiently and
effectively compared to personal transportation. Bosona and
Gebresenbet (2011) built clusters of farmers and optimized
cluster centers’ location to integrate the logistics activities in
the local food supply chain. Boudahri et al. (2011) developed
a three-echelon chicken meat supply chain with customers
clustering in a two-stage model. The first stage determines
the centroid of customers’ clusters to establish the retail center.
Accordingly, the second stage determines the allocations of
facilities for product movement. Rancourt et al. (2015) and
Khalilpourazari and Khamseh (2017) used a covering radius
to identify the location from potential sites to establish food
distribution centers and temporary/permanent blood collec-
tion facilities in a disaster relief supply chain, respectively.

Some other researchers used various clustering approaches to
aggregate products, followed by their movement to customers
by modeling and solving problems in two stages (Zanjirani
et al. 2012). However, researchers have ignored the explicit
inclusion of cluster formation or grouping suppliers/retailers
in the supply chain modeling.
The collaborative transportation approach can be used for
the collection/distribution of products by visiting multiple
supply/demand nodes through an optimal vehicle route. Lee
et al. (2006) developed a capacitated vehicle routing model to
collect and distribute a product through a cross-dock. Mousavi
and Tavakkoli-Moghaddam (2013) formulated a two-stage
location and vehicle routing scheduling model to locate
cross-docks in a supply chain. The first stage determines the
location and allocation of facilities, followed by identifying
vehicle routing and scheduling in the second stage. Agustina
et al. (2014) addressed an integrated vehicle scheduling and
routing problem along with product consolidation at a cross-
dock and delivery time windows as specified by customers.
Hasani Goodarzi and Zegordi (2016) formulated a location-
routing model for cross-dock design, including the direct ship-
ment (from supplier to customer) and indirect shipment (from
supplier to customer via cross-dock). Ramos et al. (2018)
proposed and compared three different operational manage-
ment approaches for waste collection routing. The authors
used sensors’ information installed in dustbins—in supply
chain modeling and implemented a case study problem in
Portugal.
Moreover, few researchers have used vehicle routing in
the food supply chain in recent years. Rahimi et al. (2017)
developed an inventory-routing model to distribute fresh
produce from a supplier to retailers taking perishability
into account as a step function. Musavi and Bozorgi-
Amiri (2017) formulated a multi-objective sustainable
location-routing model for perishable products to optimize
total transportation cost, freshness, and quality of foods at
the time of delivery and total carbon emission of vehicles.
From the literature review on supply chain modeling, it is
observed that the integration of small and dispersed sup-
pliers (retailers) for the collection (distribution) of products
is overlooked.
More recently, Liu et al. (2020) evaluated the green degree
for ship transition and green logistics criteria based on a
hybrid of gray TOPSIS and cloud entropy theory.
Karampour et al. (2020) applied three calibrated
metaheuristics for addressing a green supply chain based on
the vendor-managed inventory contract. Last but not least, a
relief logistics network was developed by Nezhadroshan et al.
(2020) to optimize the total cost, traveling time, and resilience
levels of facilities. They contributed to the perishability of the
products in the case of emergency logistics. An epsilon con-
straint method and a combination of DEMATEL and ANP
were developed to solve their problem.
Environ Sci Pollut Res
Review on the AFSC
The studies on the AFSC can be classified into three groups to
address the problems, including (1) low profitability of
farmers, (2) high post-harvest losses, and (3) small and
fragmented landholdings. They are presented as follows.
Authors such as Gandhi and Namboodiri (2004),
Raghunath and Ashok (2009), Panda and Sreekumar (2012),
Hegde and Madhuri (2013), and Kundu (2013) studied the
traditional AFSC. They reported that farmers individually
transport their products using their owned or hired vehicles
to market premises for selling. During the process, farmers
arrange, manage, and pay the transportation facility cost in
30–40% of the total transaction costs. As the farmers observe
this as a headache on every trip to the market, they compel to
sell their products to local intermediator rather than direct
selling in the market. As such, they deprive of getting the
higher price of products, based on which their profit margin
goes to intermediaries’ pockets. Consequently, customers pay
a higher price of products, and farmers get only one-third of
the customer’s price (Gardas et al. 2019). Therefore, the tra-
ditional AFSC model, such as the one recently proposed by
Patidar and Agrawal (2020), is incompetent to provide an
adequate profit margin to the farmers.
The second main shortcoming in AFSC is the high post-
harvest losses as identified in a set of papers including
Balaji and Arshinder (2016), Gokarn and Kuthambalayan
(2017), Gardas et al. (2017, 2018), Chauhan et al. (2018),
and Raut et al. (2018). According to these papers, 15–25%
of fresh products are lost due to improper storage and han-
dling, lack of demand-supply integration, and poor trans-
portation in the chain. These losses lead to farmers’ low
profitability, higher prices of products, deficient nutrition
level, and non-productive use of natural resources. Another
cause of post-harvest losses is the perishable nature of the
products. That is why inhibiting the reduction of food
losses in the AFSC is the primary challenge (Gokarn and
Kuthambalayan 2017).
The population growth leads to family expansion, deduc-
tion in the availability of resources, and requirement of high
infrastructural facilities. The population of Iran has increased
from 36 million in 1970–1971 to 75 million in the year 2010–
2011. Consequently, the average size of farming landholdings
per family has been reduced by half from 2.28 in 1970–1971
to 1.16 ha in 2010–2011. Farming in small landholdings with
limited resources incurs high production and distribution costs
of products. Also, the small farmers are living in geographi-
cally scattered villages. The villages are situated far away
from markets (highly populated areas; demand zone) where
they have to bring their products by traveling a long distance
for selling (Hegde and Madhuri 2013). In this process, a
higher transportation cost is incurred, which leads to the low
profitability of farmers, as discussed in the previous section.
Environ Sci Pollut Res
As concluded in the literature review on supply chain
modeling, small and dispersed suppliers/farmers’ involvement
in the location-inventory-routing formulation is ignored.
Further, a review paper on food supply chain models (Zhu
et al. 2018) reported that aggregate product collection is
neglected in existing works. Moreover, from the application
point of view, aggregate product collection has the potential to
mitigate the identified shortcomings of the AFSC. The aggre-
gate product collection from small and fragmented farmers
can reduce total transportation costs, which would enhance
the farmers’ profitability. Therefore, it is worthwhile to devel-
op a model for the aggregation of products from small farmers
and their shipments to the market. To this aim, the clustering
of geographically dispersed small farmers would identify clus-
ter centers where the products can be aggregated. Besides,
vehicle routing determines optimal paths for collaborative
transportation to transport the aggregated products from these
cluster centers to the market. The literature indicates that the
clustering of farmers and vehicle routing to collect agri-fresh
products has not been addressed in existing supply chain
models. Therefore, this paper aims to propose a novel
location-inventory-routing model for aggregation, collection,
and distribution of perishable products from farmers to cus-
tomers through the market. Besides, as we show that the pro-
posed model is NP-hard, the need for an efficient solution
algorithm is highly observed. This paper develops a novel
“matheuristic” algorithm that takes advantage of both the
Lagrangian relaxation approach and GA simultaneously to
find a near-global solution in a low computational time. This
algorithm is contributed for the first time in the literature,
where its performance is compared with the ones of an exact
solver, the GA alone, and the Lagrangian relaxation approach,
individually.
Problem description and mathematical
formulation
This part formulates the proposed AFSC problem of the
ETKA Company located in Iran. In this chain, the farmers
grow crops and transport their products individually to the
agricultural market for selling. During the auctioning period,
the wholesalers purchase these products by bidding the
highest price. The wholesalers sort and sell these items to
retailers in small amounts. Further, the retailers transport and
peddle these products to customers’ proximity locations
(Hegde and Madhuri 2013; Kundu 2013; Patidar et al. 2018a).
In the literature, the researchers have given less attention to
the modeling of traditional AFSC. Therefore, a mathematical
model for traditional AFSC is developed, followed by propos-
ing models for aggregating product transportation to minimize
transportation inefficiency. Further, an extensive comparison
is performed between the traditional and the proposed models
using the case study problem to get justified results. The fol-
lowing product movement models are developed to transport
products from farmers to market:
& The traditional product movement (TPM) model (M1)
(Patidar and Agrawal 2020): This is a traditional way of
product distribution in the ETKA Company.
& The aggregate product movement (APM) model (M2): In
this model, the products are first aggregated at different
central locations from the nearby farmers. Then these ag-
gregated products are shipped directly to the market.
& The aggregate product movement with vehicle routing
(APMVR) model (M3): This is an extension of model
M2, where the aggregated products are picked up from
the cluster centers to the market using vehicle routing.
When APM is used instead of TPM, the sharing economy
concept is adapted since products of nearby farmers are first
aggregated at central locations and then are transported to the
market for the aim of transport economy. Further, the APM
model is extended in the APMVR by including vehicle
routing to pick up the aggregate products from different cen-
tral locations to the market. This will result in an added trans-
port economy due to the sharing of transportation resources.
The APMVR model suggests a novel transportation strategy
and a model of a new way of doing agri-business. This model
can be easily implemented with suitable information-sharing
applications to integrate and collaborate with supply chain
partners in real life. The APMVR model is well applicable,
where farmers have small quantities to supply from geograph-
ically dispersed locations to a market. In what follows, the
traditional AFSC model (the first one) taken from Patidar
and Agrawal (2020) is defined as follows:
In the chain, farmers individually transport their prod-
ucts to the hub. From the hub, these products are
transported to CZs to accomplish the expected demand. A
multi-period mathematical model is formulated to mini-
mize total distribution cost (TDC) by considering the sin-
gle transportation mode. This model assumes that the ex-
cess products are stored at CZs and are used in the next
period. Since perishable items expire after specific periods
(i.e., shelf life), a suitable inventory equation is developed
to determine expired products in each period for each prod-
uct type. The formulated mixed integer linear program-
ming (MILP) model determines location-allocation of
hubs, quantities of products movement, and inventory to
be expired products at CZs for each period.
The following assumptions, indices, parameters, and deci-
sion variables are used for the TPM model formulation.
Assumptions:
& Both the supply availability from framers’ and demand at
CZs’ are known.
 Environ Sci Pollut Res

& In each period, the total supply is greater than or equal to The supply chain model of TPM is formulated as follows:
the total demand.
Minimize TDC ¼ C1 þ C2 þ C3 þ C4 þ C5 ðZ1Þ
& Only CZ can store excess items.
& As the model is multi-period, it uses excess items in up- T J
C1 ¼ ∑ ∑ FC2 j H tj ð1Þ
coming periods. t¼1 j¼1
& All demands must be served, and there is no shortage.
T F J P
& The various cost parameters in different periods are the C2 ¼ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ D2fj T C 2 Qtfjp ð2Þ
same. t¼1 f ¼1 j¼1 p¼1

& Transportation lead time is zero. T J K P T

& There is no product flow between hubs. C3 ¼ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ D4jk T C 4 Qtτjkp ð3Þ
t¼1 j¼1 k¼1 p¼1 τ ≥ t

T K P
Indices: C4 ¼ ∑ ∑ ∑ HC kp I tkp ð4Þ
t¼1 k¼1 p¼1
f Index of farmers (suppliers), f ∈ F
j Index of hubs, j∈ J T K P
C5 ¼ ∑ ∑ ∑ DC kp Extkp ð5Þ
k Index of CZs (retailers), k ∈ K t¼1 k¼1 p¼1
p Index of product types, p ∈ P
t, τ Index of periods (days), t, τ ∈ T Subject to:

Parameters: J
∑ Qtfjp ¼ H tfp ; ∀ f ; ∀p; ð6Þ
j¼1

H tfp The quantity of product type p available to supply by F

farmer f in period t (kg) ∑ Qtfjp ≤ M  H tj ; ∀ j; ∀p; ∀t ð7Þ
f ¼1
lp The shelf life of product type p (days)
K T F
Dtkp The quantity of product type p demanded by CZ k in ∑ ∑ Qjkp
tτ 0
¼ ∑ Qtfjp ; ∀ j; ∀p; ∀t ð8Þ
period t (kg) k¼1 τ ≥ t f ¼1
D2fj Distance from farmer f to hub j (km) J T 0
τt
D4jk Distance from hub j to CZ k (km) ∑ ∑ Qjkp ≥ Dtkp ; ∀k; ∀p; ∀t ð9Þ
j¼1 t−lp ≤ τ ≤ t
TC2 Unit transportation cost from a farmer to a hub (US$/
km/kg) J T 0
kp þ ∑ ∑ Qjkp −Dkp −Exkp ¼ I kp ; ∀k; ∀p; ∀t
I t−1 ð10Þ
tτ t t t
TC4 Unit transportation cost from a hub to a CZ (US$/km/ j¼1 τ ≥ t
kg)
J T 0
HCkp Per period inventory holding cost of product type p at ∑ ∑ Qjkp
tτ
¼ Extkp ; ∀k; ∀p; ∀t ð11Þ
CZ k (US$/kg/period) j¼1 τ>tþl p

LBjp Lower bound on the capacity of hub j for product type K T 0

τt
p (kg) ∑ ∑ Qjkp ≥ LBjp H tj ; ∀ j; ∀p; ∀t ð12Þ
k¼1 τ ≥ t
NH Number of hubs to be opened
J
FC2j Fixed cost for opening hub j (US$) ∑ H tj ¼ NH; ∀t ð13Þ
DCkp Disposal cost of expired product type p (US$) j¼1
M Big number
H tj ¼ f0; 1g ð14Þ
Decision variables:
The objective (Z1) of the TPM model minimizes the TDC,
H tj
which consists of the following costs: Eq. (1) presents the
1 if hub j is opened in period t;
0 otherwise: fixed cost of opening hubs. Equations (2) and (3) denote the
transportation costs from farmers to hubs and hubs to CZs,
Qtfjp The quantity of product type p received by hub j from respectively. Equation (4) represents total inventory holding
farmer f in period t (kg) cost at CZs. Lastly, Eq. (5) deliberates the disposal cost to be
0
tτ
Qjkp The quantity of product type p received by CZ k from expired products at CZs.
hub j in period t for use in period τ (kg) (τ ≥ t) The following constraints represent various conditions for
I tkp Inventory of product type p at CZ k in period t (kg) each product type in each period to formulate the traditional
Extkp The quantity of the to be expired product type p at CZ supply chain model. Constraint (6) ensures the product moved
k received in period t (kg) from each farmer to any hub is equal to the available product.
Model formulation: Constraint (7) ensures the movement of products from farmers
Environ Sci Pollut Res

to the opened hub only. Constraint (8) governs the flow con- & A lower bound on an FCC’s capacity is considered to
servation at each hub. Constraint (9) guarantees that the ensure a minimum quantity of products at each FCC.
amount of delivered product to each CZ is greater than or
equal to the demand. Inventory flow balance is governed by As such, notations of the model including indices, param-
Constraint (10) for two consecutive periods at each CZ. eters, and variables are:
Constraint (11) determines the number of dimensions to be Indices:
expired products at each CZ based on the pre-defined shelf life
i index of FCCs; i ∈ I , i ∈ F
of product type. The lower bound on each hub’s capacity and
the product movement from the opened hub to any CZ are Parameters:
warranted by Constraint (12). Constraint (13) ensures the total D1fi Distance from farmer f to FCC i (km)
number of hubs to be opened. The binary integer variable of D1m Maximum distance to be traveled by a farmer to reach
an opening hub is ensured by Constraint (14). an FCC (km)
D2ij Distance from FCC i to hub j (km)
TC1 Unit transportation cost from a farmer to an FCC
Aggregate product movement model (US$/km/kg)
0
TC 2 Unit transportation cost from an FCC to a hub (US$/
In this model, the idea of aggregation of products is incorpo- km/kg)
rated by identifying farmers called farmers’ cluster (FC) based LBip Lower bound on the capacity of FCC i for product
on the location of neighborhood farmers. Farmers belonging type p (kg)
to an FC bring their products to the central location called FC1i The fixed cost of forming FCC i (US$)
farmers’ cluster center (FCC). The central location within an
FC is considered any location of a farmer in the group. In this Decision variables:
way, multiple FCs and the respective FCCs can be identified.

The aggregated products at these FCCs can now be shipped 1 if FCC i is formed in period t;
& F ti ¼
efficiently to the hub. This helps in hassle-free products’ 0 otherwise:


movement to reduce transportation costs in the delivery of 1 if farmer f is assigned to FCC i in period t;
& Gtfi ¼
fresh items. It is assumed that FCCs do not store any items 0 otherwise:
and are merely used to manage the transshipment of products & S tip = Aggregate supply availability of FCC i of product
in the network to satisfy customer demand economically. type p in period t (kg)
Using auctions in the traditional AFSC, an agent matches & Qtijp = The quantity of product type p received by hub j
demand and supply for a market and plays his monopoly in from FCC i in period t (kg)
pricing products (Viswanadham et al. 2012). This agent’s role
can be replaced with modern technology-enabled FCCs in the
proposed supply chain to make a reliable, applicable, and Model formulation
sustainable supply chain for the real scenario of the proposed
AFSC. The modern technology includes the use of image The proposed APM model is an extension of the TPM model,
processing to check the quality of the product, radio- formulated as follows:
frequency identification (RFID) tag to recognize and track
the products, and information and communication technolo- Minimize TDC ¼ C1 þ C3 þ C4 þ C5 þ C6 þ C7
gies (ICT) to share information between the partners and sys-
tem dynamic and expert for changing scenarios (Rais and þ C2’; ðZ2Þ
Sheoran 2015; Dandage et al. 2017; Gokarn and
where the distribution costs are as follows (note that C1, C3,
Kuthambalayan 2017; Patidar et al. 2018a, b; Patidar and
C4, and C5 are the same as the ones defined in the TPM
Agrawal 2020).
model).
Compared to the assumptions made in Rais and Sheoran
(2015), Dandage et al. (2017), Gokarn and Kuthambalayan T J
C1 ¼ ∑ ∑ FC2 j H tj ð15Þ
(2017), and Patidar et al. (2018a, b), Patidar and Agrawal t¼1 j¼1
(2020), the new assumptions in the APM model are:
T F J P
Assumptions: C2 ¼ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ D2fj T C 2 Qtfjp ð16Þ
t¼1 f ¼1 j¼1 p¼1

& Each farmer can be assigned to only one FCC in each T J K P T

period. This implies that the farmers cannot split their C3 ¼ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ D4jk T C 4 Qtτjkp ð17Þ
t¼1 j¼1 k¼1 p¼1 τ ≥ t
supply into multiple FCCs.
 Environ Sci Pollut Res

T K P
C4 ¼ ∑ ∑ ∑ HC kp I tkp ð18Þ Constraint (30) defines the binary integer variables for the
t¼1 k¼1 p¼1 formation of FCC and a farmer’s assignment to the FCC.
T K P
C5 ¼ ∑ ∑ ∑ DC kp Extkp ð19Þ
t¼1 k¼1 p¼1
Aggregate product movement with a vehicle routing
T I model
C6 ¼ ∑ ∑ FC1i F ti ð20Þ
t¼1 i¼1
T I F P The APMVR model is an extension of the APM model, in
C7 ¼ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ D1fi T C 1 H tfp Gtfi ð21Þ which instead of direct transportation from each FCC to a hub,
t¼1 i¼1 f ¼1 p¼1
the aggregated products from multiple FCCs are picked up by
T I J P 0 a vehicle. The vehicle departs from a hub, picks up aggregated
C20 ¼ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ D2ij T C 2 Qtijp ð22Þ
t¼1 i¼1 j¼1 p¼1 products by visiting multiple FCCs, and ends the route by
returning to the same hub. This will reduce transportation
Subject to: costs from FCCs to a hub. In this section, the vehicle routing
constraints are incorporated into the APM model to pick up
I
∑ Gtfi ¼ 1; ∀ f ; ∀t ð23Þ the aggregate products from FCCs to the hub.
i¼1 The proposed APMVR model simultaneously optimizes
Gtf i ≤ F ti ; ∀ f ; ∀t; ∀i ð24Þ the decisions related to location-allocation of FCCs and hubs,
quantities of product movement and storage, and vehicle
F
∑ H tfp Gtfi ¼ S tip ; ∀i; ∀p; ∀t ð25Þ routing to match the chain’s demand-supply. The aggregation
f ¼1 of small farmers’ supplies at FCCs and vehicle routing to pick
J up the aggregate products by visiting multiple FCCs will mit-
∑ Qtijp ¼ S tip : ∀i; ∀p; ∀t ð26Þ igate transportation inefficiency. The model combines the
j¼1
strategic and tactical-operational decision-making in a single
J
formulation to report optimized decisions and costs of the
∑ Qtijp ≥ LBip F ti ; ∀i; ∀p; ∀t ð27Þ
j¼1 supply chain due to their interdependency. This section for-
I
mulates a multi-period, four-echelon perishable supply chain
∑ Qtijp ≤ M  H tj ; ∀ j; ∀p; ∀t ð28Þ model that considers multiple single-mode vehicles.
i¼1
Compared to the APM model, the new assumptions in this
K T 0 I model are:
∑ ∑ Qjkp
tτ
¼ ∑ Qtijp ; ∀ j; ∀p; ∀t ð29Þ Assumptions:
k¼1 τ ≥ t i¼1

F ti ; Gtfi ¼ f0; 1g ð30Þ & An FCC supplies all the products to a single hub.
However, a CZ can receive a split supply from any hub.
Note that the above constraints are taken from Constraints & Enough vehicles are available to assume unlimited trans-
(7) to (14) of the TPM model proposed by Patidar and portation capacity.
Agrawal (2020). Besides, the APM model’s objective func-
tion (Z2) minimizes the total distribution cost TDC, where Eq. As such, the indices, parameters, and variables of the pro-
(20) presents the fixed cost of forming FCCs, while Eqs. (21) posed APMVR are:
and (22) are the transportation cost from farmers to FCCs and Indices:
FCCs to hubs, respectively. Furthermore, additional con-
m, n Indices of the nodes; m, n ∈ N ∈ (I∪ J)
straints are imposed in the APM model to present various
v Index of vehicles; v∈V
conditions in each period. Constraints (23) and (24) identify
the associated farmers of any FC based on the maximum dis-
tance traveled by a farmer and the respective FCC for the Parameters:
aggregation of the products. The quantities of aggregate prod- D3mn Distance from node m to node n (km)
00
ucts at FCCs are bounded in Constraint (25). Constraint (26) TC 2 Unit transportation cost from an FCC to a hub via
ensures that each product type shipped from each FCC to the vehicle routing (US$/km/kg)
hubs is equal to its availability. Constraint (27) ensures a lower TC3 The unit cost of vehicle running for product collection
bound on an FCC's capacity for each type of product. from one node to another node (US$/km)
Constraint (28) assures the shipment of each product type FCv Fixed cost of using vehicle v (US$)
from FCCs to the opened hubs only. The product flow con-
servation at each hub is governed by Constraint (29). Finally, Decision variables:
Environ Sci Pollut Res

& Z tij ¼ f 1 if products are received by hub j from an Z tij ; X tmnv ; Y tmv ¼ f0; 1g ð44Þ
FCC i in period t; 0 otherwise:

The objective function (Z3) of the APMVR model mini-
1 if vehicle v visits node m in period t;
& Y mv ¼
t mizes the TDC. Equation (31) defines the transportation cost
0 otherwise:
from FCCs to hubs. Equation (32) presents the fixed cost of
& X tmnv ¼ f 1 if vehicle v moves from node m to node vehicles. Equation (33) describes the cost of running vehicles
n to collect products in period t; 0 otherwise: to collect the products by visiting multiple FCCs. Once again
& U tiv = Auxiliary variable to give orders to all FCCs to while the Constraints (9) to (14) of the TPM model introduced
prevent the formation of sub tours by Patidar and Agrawal (2020) are used, Constraints (23) to
(30) of the proposed APM model given in the “Aggregate
product movement model” section are employed as well.
Model formulation Besides, the following constraints are formulated to represent
various conditions that occur in each period. Constraint (34)
The proposed APMVR is formulated as follows: determines the assignments between FCCs and the hubs for
product movement. Constraint (35) restricts the split supply
Minimize TDC ¼ C1 þ C3 þ C4 þ C5 þ C6 þ C7 þ C2” from any FCC to hubs. Constraint (36) ensures a vehicle’s
assignment to FCC if there is a product movement from an
þ C8 þ C9; ðZ3Þ
FCC to a hub. Constraint (37) assigns at least a single vehicle
where the costs C1, C3, C4, C5, and C6, C7 are the same as to the opened hub only. The assignment of a vehicle to only
defined in the TPM and APM models, respectively. Besides, the opened hub is warranted by Constraint (38). Constraint
(39) restricts the multiple assignments of a vehicle to the hubs.
T I J P 0 Constraint (40) ensures that a vehicle is assigned to a subset of
C2} ¼ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ D2ij T C 20 Qtijp ð31Þ
t¼1 i¼1 j¼1 p¼1 the FCC set that is assigned to a hub. Constraints (41) and (42)
T V J
ensure that the assigned vehicle to a node arrives and departs
C8 ¼ ∑ ∑ ∑ FC v Y tjv ð32Þ that node. Constraint (43) prevents the formation of the sub-
t¼1 v¼1 j¼1 tours in the vehicle routing solution. Finally, the binary integer
T V N N variables used in vehicle routing are defined in Constraint
C9 ¼ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ D3mn T C 3 X tmnv ð33Þ (44).
t¼1 v¼1 m¼1 n¼1
In conclusion, we call the traditional model M1, the aggre-
Subject to: gate product movement model M2, and our proposed aggre-
gate product movement with vehicle routing (APMVR) model
P
∑ Qtijp ≤ M  Z tij ; ∀i; ∀ j; ∀t ð34Þ M3. Since the proposed APMVR includes M1 and M2 and is
p¼1 more complex, the next section will provide a solution.
J
∑ Z tij ¼ F ti ; ∀i; ∀t ð35Þ
j¼1

V J The proposed solution algorithm

∑ Y tiv ¼ ∑ Z tij ; ∀i; ∀t ð36Þ
v¼1 j¼1
As the proposed APMVR is complex and classified as NP-
V hard (Fathollahi-Fard et al. 2020d), an efficient and practical
∑ Y tjv ≥ H tj ; ∀ j; ∀t ð37Þ
v¼1 solution is needed. To address the challenges involved in NP-
hard problems, heuristic and metaheuristic algorithms are the
Y tjv ≤ H tj ; ∀ j; ∀v; ∀t ð38Þ
alternatives (Fathollahi-Fard et al. 2020b, c). Besides, some-
J times these algorithms are combined with an exact solution
∑ Y tjv ≤ 1; ∀v; ∀t ð39Þ method to provide better solutions.
j¼1
This study applies an extension to the Lagrangian
Y tiv −Y tjv ≤ 1−Z tij ; ∀i; ∀ j; ∀v; ∀t ð40Þ relaxation-based algorithm. The Lagrangian approach uses
N both the lower and the upper bound solutions to reduce their
∑ X tmnv ¼ Y tnv ; ∀n; ∀v; ∀t ð41Þ gap to find a solution that has both feasibility and optimality
m¼1
features (Fisher 1981). In a minimization case such as the one
N
∑ X tmnv ¼ Y tmv ; ∀m; ∀v; ∀t ð42Þ aimed in this study, while the lower bound is updated in each
n¼1 iteration using the Lagrangian multiplier, the upper bound is
U tiv −U ti0 v þ N  X tii0 v ≤ N −1; ∀i; ∀i’ði; i0 ∈I; i0 ≠iÞ; ∀v; ∀t ð43Þ chosen randomly (Fathollahi-Fard et al. 2020b, c). This ran-
domization is one of the main demerits of this method. In this

paper, the Lagrangian relaxation method is combined with a
strong evolutionary algorithm called genetic algorithm (GA)
(Goldberg and Holland 1988). GA finds the upper bound in
each iteration in the proposed hybrid solution algorithm, while
the lower bound is updated by the Lagrangian multiplier. This
is a novel idea for a hybrid metaheuristic solution algorithm
that has never been used in the literature of AFSC network
design problems.
The lower bound
The model must be relaxed to find the lower bound. To this
aim, some hard constraints that increase the complexity of the
model are removed from the constraints set and added into the
objective function with a Lagrange multiplier. The most com-
plex constraints in the APMVR model refer to the formation
of the sub-tours in the vehicle routing solution, which in-
creases the computational time when a commercial solver is
used (Fathollahi-Fard et al. 2020a, b). Here, Constraint (43) is
relaxed from the model, and therefore, the APMVR would be
relaxed as follows:
Minimize TDC
! formed into the main hybrid algorithm. The main parameters
T I 
I V  of GA to do the mutation and crossover operations are:
þ ∑ πt ∑ ∑ ∑ U tiv −U ti0 v þ N  X tii0 v −N þ 1
t¼1 i¼1 i0 >i v¼1
ð45Þ
s.t.
Constraints ð18Þ to ð26Þ ð46Þ
Constraint ð28Þ; ð47Þ
where πt is a Lagrange multiplier. After solving the relaxed
model given in (45) to (47) and finding the lower bound in
each iteration, it is updated in consecutive iterations until its
feasibility is assured while it gets a higher value. To this aim,
the gap between a feasible lower bound and the upper bound
is obtained in each iteration to have a desirable low gap.
The upper bound
In this paper, an upper bound is found using the well-known
evolutionary algorithm called GA. In each iteration, the GA
finds a feasible solution, and the algorithm updates this solu-
tion if a low value is achieved. An encoding plan is considered
here to generate a feasible solution.
As the GA’s fitness evaluation, the encoding plan shows
how the constraints of the model are handled. In this regard,
the random key method is employed (Samanlioglu et al.
2008). This technique involves two steps. First, random con-
tinuous numbers are taken from the chromosome of GA.
Environ Sci Pollut Res
Then, a feasible solution is generated based on the value of
the variables in the constraints of the model.
Here, the first part of the encoding plan is about the allo-
cation of the products to be transported from an FCC to a hub
(Z tij ). In each period, this variable selects which hub to open
for receiving the products. Figure 1 shows the encoding plan
of this variable with three hubs and three FCC centers, for
example. As seen in this figure, the random numbers in the
GA chromosome are sorted in ascending order for the hubs
and FCCs, separately. Here, the first hub is allocated to the
second FCC.
Other decision variables are related to the routing decisions
(X tmnv ). Figure 2 demonstrates the encoding plan to find a
feasible sequence for routing optimization. In this example,
there are 12 nodes denoted from m1 to m12 and three vehicles.
Here, after sorting the chromosome’s genes in the ascending
order in the second row of Fig. 2, the first vehicle starts from
m2 to m1 and then m8 and next m5. Similarly, the second and
third vehicles start with m11 and m7, respectively.
Based on the above encoding plan, GA does the crossover
and mutation operators per iteration, based on which the best
solutions are selected at the end of each iteration. The global
best solution is the upper bound selected from GA to be trans-
nPop Population size in GA
Pc Percentage of the population for the crossover
operation
Pm Percentage of the population for the mutation
operation
Rc Rate of the crossover operator
Rm Rate of the mutation operator
The details of GA are not provided here as this algorithm is
well-defined in the literature.
The main loop of the proposed algorithm
Having the lower and upper bound solutions obtained in the
”The lower bound” and the “The upper bound” sections, the
main loop of the proposed algorithm is performed. The main
notations used in this loop are as follows:
it Iteration number
LBit Lower bound in iteration it
UBit Upper bound in iteration it
πitit Lagrange multiplier in the iteration it
f itLB
0.31 0.52 0.95 0.68 0.92 0.47
1 2 3 2 3 1
Fig. 1 The allocation from the FCC to the bubs
Environ Sci Pollut Res

Fig. 2 The sequence of nodes for m1 m2 m3 m4 m5 m6 m7 m8 m9 m10 m11 m12

routing solution 0.24 0.08 0.48 0.89 0.34 0.91 0.76 0.32 0.67 0.51 0.42 0.82

2 1 6 11 4 12 9 3 8 7 5 10

Value of the objective function given by Eq. (45) in

the iteration it
UBit −LBit
f itUB The value of the objective function taken from GA in gap ¼ ð51Þ
the iteration it LBit
fit Updater of the Lagrange multiplier in the iteration it In conclusion, the proposed hybrid algorithm has nine in-
α Rate of reduction for the updater put parameters, including f it ; α; π0t , and Maxit as well as
Maxit Maximum number of iterations nPop, Pm, Pc, Rc, and Rm. These parameters are tuned based
on the characteristics of a simulated test study. Generally, this
The steps involved in the main loop are:
algorithm’s flowchart is given in Fig. 3. The main difference
of the proposed metaheuristic with the original version of the
Step 0: Set the parameters of GA (i.e., nPop, Pm, Pc, Rc,
Lagrangian relaxation approach is the use of an upper bound
and Rm) and Lagrange multiplier π0t and let it=0.
by GA instead of generating a random solution. In the next
Step 1: Let πt ¼ πitt . Solve the relaxed model using Eq.s section, the performance of this metaheuristic is compared
(45) to (47). Replace this solution for the main model and with the ones of the original GA, the Lagrangian relaxation
update the lower bound as follows: method, as well as the exact solver individually.

 
LBit ¼ max LBit ; f itLB ð48Þ Computational results

In this section, a case study is provided first, and the required

input data for the solution algorithms are generated based on
Step 2: Call the GA for the main model. Then, find the
this case. Then, the algorithms’ parameters are calibrated by
upper bound and update it as follows:
the well-known Taguchi (Taguchi 1986) method. The pro-
posed hybrid algorithm is next validated by comparing its
 
UBit ¼ min UBit ; f itUB ð49Þ
Start

Step 3: Update the Lagrange multiplier as follows: Initialize algorithm’s parameters

Solve the relaxed problem and find the lower bound

! !
I I V  
πitþ1
t ¼ max πitt þ μit  ∑ ∑ ∑ U tiv −U ti0 v þ N  X tii0 v −N þ 1 ; 0
0
i¼1 i >i v¼1
Find the upper bound with the use of GA
ð50Þ
 
  Update the Lagrangian multiplier
where μit ¼ f it   ðUBLBit −LBitþ1
−LB Þ 2  and fit being a uniform ran-
itþ1 itþ1

dom number in (0,2), i.e., U(0,2) in the first iteration. This Update the upper bound and lower bound
number decreases in consequent iterations using fit + 1 =
fit × α when there is no improvement. Notably, α is a param-
eter in the range (0.5, 1) that will be tuned later. Stop condition
No
Step 4: Let it=it+1.
Step 5: If a feasible lower bound is found or it becomes
The end
the maximum number of iterations (Maxit) then, compute
the gap using Eq. (51). Otherwise, go to Step 1: Fig. 3 Flowchart of the proposed algorithm

solutions with the exact solver’s ones. Here, the comparison is
made based on the solution quality and the required compu-
tational times. Afterward, some sensitivity analyses are per-
formed to assess the impact of the main parameters. Finally,
the results’ discussion is done to identify the findings from
tuning, validation, comparison, and sensitivity analyses. It
should be noted that the algorithms are codded in
MATLAB2013a and GAMS software using DICOPT solu-
tion in a computer with 1.7GB CPU and 6.0GB RAM.
Case study
To show the proposed APMVR model’s applicability, a
case study of the ETKA Company, Tehran, Iran, is provid-
ed in this section. In this study, 22 villages, each
representing a farmer unit along with its location as a
farmer’s location, are taken under consideration. Tehran,
consisting of several wards, each assumed a customer zone
(CZ), is considered the demand area. Besides, three poten-
tial hub locations in this city are investigated. As there is a
cost involved in opening each hub, the hubs’ optimal loca-
tion in each period is decided based on the number of hubs
to be opened as given in Constraint (13).
The fixed cost of the vehicles for transportation is
around $1000. The variable rate of transportation is be-
tween $3 and $8 per unit distance. The capacity of FCC
for each product is around 1000 kg. Besides, Table 1
reports the sizes of six problems classified in two groups
of small and large sizes based on the number of FCCs, the
number of vehicles, and the number of demand zones.
These problems will be used later to demonstrate the com-
plexity of the problem at hand and the way the solution
algorithms handle them.
Parameter tuning
As the parameters of any optimization algorithm affect the
quality of the solutions they find, the parameters of the
proposed “matheuristic,” as well as the ones of the GA
and the Lagrangian relaxation method, are tuned in this
Table 1 The sizes of the
problems Complexity Test Number of
level problem FCCs
Small P1 12
P2 14
P3 18
Large P4 24
P5 36
P6 50
Environ Sci Pollut Res
section using the Taguchi experimental design methodol-
ogy (Taguchi 1986). The Taguchi calibration method uses
the signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio to reveal the impact of
changing the parameters on the response variable as the
objective function of the model. A higher value of S/N
brings a better quality for a specific level of the parame-
ters. In the case of minimization, the S/N ratio is formu-
lated as:
S=N ¼ −10 log10 ðobjective functionÞ2 ð52Þ
Three controlling levels defined as the low, medium, and
high denoted respectively by 1, 2, and 3 are considered for
each solution algorithm’s parameters. Table 2 presents the
values for these levels. These values are chosen based on
Fathollahi-Fard et al. (2020a, b, c, d).
All the test problems are solved 30 times by each algo-
rithm, based on which the average results are normalized
using the relative percentage deviation (RPD) defined as:
Alg sol −Minsol
RPD ¼ : ð53Þ
Minsol
In Eq. (53), Algsol is the average solution of an algorithm
for one of the test problems and Minsol is the best optimal
solution found by the algorithm.
One of the Taguchi method’s main merits is the use of
orthogonal arrays to lower the number of experiments and
hence reduce the experimental cost and time. If one desires
to perform all experiments regarding all the possible com-
binations of the parameter values in Table 2, then a big
number of experiments are required. For instance, GA
has six controlling parameters, each with three levels.
Therefore, 3^6 =729 experiments are required. In this case,
the Taguchi method proposes the L27 orthogonal array
design, which uses only 27 experiments. As this is a sim-
ilar pattern in the other two solution algorithms, the L9 and
L27 designs are employed for the Lagrangian relaxation
and the proposed hybrid algorithm, respectively. Due to
page limitation, the detailed results of RPD and S/N ratio
metrics, based on which the best combination of the pa-
rameters is found in Table 3, are not presented here.
Number of Number of Number of demand
hubs vehicles zones
2 6 30
2 8 40
3 10 50
5 12 80
7 16 100
10 20 110
Environ Sci Pollut Res

Table 2 Controlling levels of the algorithms’ parameters

Algorithms Parameters Levels

1 2 3

The proposed matheuristic fit 1.5 1.75 2

α 0.8 0.9 0.99
π0t 1000 1500 2000
Maxit 100 150 200
nPop 50 75 100
Pm 0.1 0.2 0.3
Pc 0.6 0.7 0.8
Rm 0.3 0.4 0.5
Rc 0.3 0.4 0.5
Lagrangian relaxation fit 1.5 1.75 2
α 0.8 0.9 0.99
π0t 1000 1500 2000
Maxit 50 100 150
GA Maxit 200 300 500
nPop 100 150 200
Pm 0.1 0.2 0.3
Pc 0.6 0.7 0.8
Rm 0.3 0.4 0.5
Rc 0.3 0.4 0.5

Validation and comparison
In this section, the solution algorithms are compared with each
other when they solve the problem modeled by the proposed
APMVR model. For the small test problems, the results ob-
tained by all algorithms are validated by comparing them with
the ones obtained by an exact solver. Table 4 summarizes the
results obtained when all algorithms solve the test problems
and the case study. Besides, the gaps between an algorithm
solution and the solution by the exact method are depicted in
Fig. 4. The gap between the proposed “matheuristic” solution
and the Lagrangian relaxation method is also shown in Fig. 5.
Finally, the comparisons among the algorithms can be made in
Fig 6, graphically.
The results given in Table 4 include the objective function
values and the exact solver’s processing times, the average
and the standard deviation of the solutions obtained based
on 30 runs of GA and its processing times, and the gaps from
the exact solver. Regarding the Lagrangian relaxation and the
proposed “matheuristic,” the lower bound and the gap be-
tween the lower and the upper bounds and the gap between
the lower bound and the exact solver, as well as the processing
time, are noted in this table. These results show that although
GA needs less computational time, the solutions obtained by
the proposed matheuristic are more accurate than those of the
other methods. This is because GA plays an important role in
finding an upper bound for the proposed “matheuristic” to
reduce the required computational time of the Lagrangian re-
laxation method employed in the hybrid algorithm.
As seen in Fig. 4, the gap between the solution obtained by
the proposed “matheuristic” from the exact solution is much
closer to zero in comparison with the GA. It is also observed
that the “matheuristic” provides closer solutions to the exact
solutions compared to the Lagrangian relaxation method.

Table 3 The optimal level of the algorithm’s parameters

Algorithms Parameters

Proposed matheuristic Maxit= 150; nPop=100; fit=2; α=0.99; Pm=0.1; Pc=0.7; Rm=0.3; Rc=0.5; π0t ¼ 1500
GA Maxit=100; nPop=150; Pm=0.2; Pc=0.7; Rm=0.3; Rc=0.4
Lagrangian relaxation method Maxit=300; fit=1.5; α=0.9; π0t ¼ 1000
Table 4 Results of the algorithms

Test Exact solver GA Lagrangian relaxation Matheuristic

problem
Solution Process time Average Standard The gap from Processing time Lower The gap from The gap from Processing Lower The gap from The gap from Processing
(second) deviation the exact (seconds) bound the bounds the exact time (second) bound the bounds the exact time (second)

P1 127,466 15.74 128,886 85.27 0.01114 5.83 119,084 0.24825 −0.06576 50.73 119,084 0.0774 −0.06576 38.92
P2 184,743 35.82 219,055 218.29 0.185728 6.92 168,933 0.1792 −0.08558 164.24 169,933 0.0653 −0.08017 94.58
P3 352,912 215.73 388,492 368.25 0.100818 12.32 347,559 0.1593 −0.01517 285.24 349,559 0.0738 −0.0095 185.28
P4 – – 577,825 428.64 – 20.71 537,377 0.1872 – 592.17 537,379 0.0538 – 216.83
P5 – – 799,182 1082.4 – 29.54 743,239 0.1794 – 837.55 743,238 0.0629 – 293.46
P6 – – 954,722 3192.56 – 54.36 887,891 0.2693 – 1139.42 894,895 0.0852 – 428.64
Case 105,883 23.82 111,857 119.83 0.056421 4.23 104,027 0.2264 –0.01753 60.85 103,827 0.0582 −0.01942 38.72
study
Environ Sci Pollut Res
Environ Sci Pollut Res

Fig. 4 The gap from the exact

0.2
solver

0.15

0.1

Gap
0.05

0
P1 P2 P3 Case Study
-0.05

-0.1
Test studies

GA Lagrangian relaxation Matheuristic

Note that a negative gap in this figure shows that the
Lagrangian relaxation method’s lower bound and the
“matheuristic” are not feasible.
What is envisaged from Fig. 5 confirms that the proposed
“matheuristic” is robust and more efficient than the original
version of the Lagrangian relaxation method. The original
version of the Lagrangian relaxation method changes the low-
er bound solution randomly to be feasible. Then, this feasible
solution is considered the upper bound. However, the pro-
posed “matheuristic” uses GA to find a better upper bound.
As such, the gap between the lower and upper bounds in the
proposed hybrid algorithm is less than the gap in the
Lagrangian relaxation approach.
As shown in Fig. 6, like other metaheuristics, GA is fast to
solve the problems. Although the exact solver works only on
small-size problems, its computational time is slightly lower
than both the Lagrangian relaxation and the “matheuristic.”
Conversely, the Lagrangian relaxation method in its original
version is time-consuming in this comparison. However, the
proposed “matheuristic” requires less computational time in
comparison with the Lagrangian method. Nevertheless, it is
not as fast as the GA, as expected.
The above investigation reveals that the proposed hybrid
algorithm works well to solve problems, especially large cases
for which an exact solution cannot be found. It has been ob-
served that it provides very accurate solutions for small prob-
lems with shallow gaps from the optimality. Besides, it is
faster than the original Lagrangian relaxation method.
Sensitivity analyses
In this section, the impact of model parameter changes on the
total cost is studied. The problem used for this investigation is
the ETKA case study discussed in previous sections. The op-
timal solutions obtained for the case based on models M1,
M2, and M3 are compared as given in Table 5. The gap per-
centages between the solutions obtained based on these
models are also noted in this table.
The results in Table 5 show that although the proposed
model has a higher total cost compared to the other models,

Fig. 5 The gap between the lower

0.3
bound and upper bound
0.25
Gap between LB and UB

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 Case Study
Test studies

Lagrangian relaxation Matheuristic

 Environ Sci Pollut Res

1200 decisions in the “Aggregate product movement with a vehicle

1000 routing model” section were taken into account to provide a
Time (second)

800 complex location-inventory-routing problem via an MINLP

600 model.
400 Although this research’s initial goal was the development
200 of an AFSC for perishable products, some managerial impli-
0 cations can be concluded from the results. The first practical
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 Case insight refers to the shifting AFSC management to the
Study location-inventory-routing AFSC management conceptually.
Test studies It provides an introduction to the design of supply chain net-
works via the option of forwarding and reverse logistics. The
Exact solver GA
rest of managerial insight refers to the algorithms’ dynamic
Lagrangian relaxation Matheuristic
sensitivity to find a well-tuned level of controlling parameters,
Fig. 6 The computational time of the algorithms as illustrated in Tables 2 and 3. This fact strongly encourages
further application and development of high-performance al-
it covers all the tactical and operational decisions from inven- gorithms such as the proposed algorithm, which is much more
tory and routing decisions for the AFSC network design prob- accurate and robust compared to the original version of the
lem. Besides, the impact of changing the fixed cost of vehicles Lagrangian approach, as seen in Fig. 5. Last but not least, the
from $1000 to $4000 on the total cost is significant in M3 (the comparison provided in Table 5 reveals that the location-
only model out of three that considers this cost due to its inventory-routing model is efficient, leading to a reduction
relative importance in the real-world environment). Figure 7 in total distribution cost by 33% compared to the traditional
shows this conclusion graphically. More sensitivity analyses supply chain.
can be ordered for the proposed models as a continuation of
this work.
Conclusion and future works

Managerial insights In this paper, an extension to the traditional agri-fresh food

Recently, the population growth in developing countries such
as Iran has increased the demand for AFSC networks. Due to
the AFSC mismanagement as a challengeable concern, a sim-
plified approach to the AFSC network design problem cannot
deliver satisfactory outcomes in a dynamic environment to
cover all the tactical and operational decisions. As such, in
this work, a traditional AFSC in the ETKA Company (located
in Iran) has been redesigned to consider the perishability of
products, clustering the farmers, and vehicle routing such that
the total distribution cost is minimized.
The results demonstrated the viability of a centralized
AFSC optimization with financial concerns and all the tactical
and operational decisions like the allocation of hubs and FCCs
and their inventory status and routing. At first, the traditional
AFSC was introduced. Then, the inventory decisions in the
“Aggregate product movement model” section and the routing
Table 5 Comparison of the models’ results
The total cost The total cost The total cost The gap
based on the based on the based on the between
M1 model M2 model M3 model M1 and
M3
89,731.3559 79,611.278 105,883 33%
supply chain (AFSC) in which geographically dispersed small
farmers transport their product individually to market for sell-
ing was proposed. The main demerit of the traditional AFSC
is a higher transportation cost, which is the major cause of
farmers’ low profitability. In this regard, the concept of shar-
ing economic approach was employed by an aggregate and
collaborative transportation of products to minimize transpor-
tation inefficiency. Specifically, an aggregate product move-
ment with the vehicle routing model was proposed to redesign
an AFSC in a case study in Iran based on ETKA Company’s
data. As this complex location-inventory-routing model was
classified as NP-hard, a computationally manageable solution
algorithm as an efficient hybrid algorithm that takes advantage
of GA for the Lagrangian relaxation method to provide a
proper upper bound was proposed. This hybrid algorithm is
defined as a matheuristic which was compared with an exact
solver and the traditional GA and the Lagrangian relaxation
method individually to show its high efficiency to achieve
near-optimal solutions. The results confirmed the high effi-
ciency of the proposed matheuristic and the performance of
The gap the developed location-inventory-routing AFSC model in
between practice.
M2 and Although the proposed AFSC model was much complex
M3
than most traditional AFSC frameworks, it is still so general,
18% and many new suppositions can be added. First of all, sustain-
able AFSC with the goals of environmental protection and
Environ Sci Pollut Res

Fig. 7 Sensitivity analysis on the

350000
fixed cost of the vehicles
300000

250000

Total cost ($)

200000

150000

100000

50000

0
1000 2000 3000 4000
Fixed cost of the vehicles

consumers’ satisfaction in addition to the total cost is an inter-
esting addition. The proposed “matheuristic” can be combined
with other robust and state-of-the-art metaheuristics to provide
a comparison with their results. Finally, more sensitivity anal-
yses and extra large-scale test studies can be evaluated for the
continuation of this work.
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary
material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-13718-8.
Author contribution N. Nasr: conceptualization, writing the initial draft,
software and analyses, validation, case study, and computational
experiments
S. T. A Niaki: supervision, project administrator, and review and
editing
A. H. Kashan: review and editing
M. Seifbarghy: review and editing
Data availability The authors declare that the data are not available pub-
lically but can be obtained upon request.
Declarations
Ethics approval Not applicable.
Consent to participate Not applicable.
Consent for publication The authors declare that they agree with the
publication of this paper in this journal.
Conflict of interest The authors declare no competing interests.
References
Agustina D, Lee CKM, Piplani R (2014) Vehicle scheduling and routing
at a cross docking center for food supply chains. Int J Prod Econ
152:29–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.01.002
Ahumada O, Villalobos JR (2011) A tactical model for planning the
production and distribution of fresh produce. Ann Oper Res 190:
339–358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-009-0614-4
Ahumada O, Villalobos JR, Mason AN (2012) Tactical planning of the
production and distribution of fresh agricultural products under un-
certainty. Agric Syst 112:17–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.
2012.06.002
Anjaly B, Bhamoriya V (2011) Samriddhii: redesigning the vegetable
supply chain in Bihar. Indore Manag J 2:40–52
Balaji M, Arshinder K (2016) Modeling the causes of food wastage in
Indian perishable food supply chain. Resour Conserv Recycl 114:
153–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.07.016
Bosona TG, Gebresenbet G (2011) Cluster building and logistics network
integration of local food supply chain. Biosyst Eng 108:293–302.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2011.01.001
Boudahri F, Sari Z, Maliki F, Bennekrouf M (2011) Design and optimi-
zation of the supply chain of agri-foods: application distribution
network of chicken meat. 2011 Int. Conf. Commun. Comput.
Control Appl. CCCA 2011. https://doi.org/10.1109/CCCA.2011.
6031424
Brulard N, Cung V, Catusse N, Dutrieux C (2018) An integrated sizing
and planning problem in designing diverse vegetable farming sys-
tems. Int J Prod Res 1–19:1018–1036. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00207543.2018.1498985
Chan FTS, Zhang T (2011) The impact of collaborative transportation
management on supply chain performance: a simulation approach.
Expert Syst Appl 38:2319–2329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.
2010.08.020
Chauhan A, Debnath RM, Singh SP (2018) Modelling the drivers for
sustainable agri-food waste management. Benchmarking An Int J
25:981–993. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-07-2017-0196
Chopra S, Meindl P (2007) Supply chain management: strategic, plan-
ning and operation, Third. ed. Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey
Dandage K, Badia-Melis R, Ruiz-García L (2017) Indian perspective in
food traceability: a review. Food Control 71:217–227. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2016.07.005
Daskin MS, Snyder LV, Berger RT (2005) Facility location in supply
chain design, logistics systems: design and optimization. https://doi.
org/10.1007/0-387-24977-X_2
Dolgui A, Tiwari MK, Sinjana Y, Kumar SK, Son Y (2018) Optimising
integrated inventory policy for perishable items in a multi-stage
supply chain. Int J Prod Res 56:902–925. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00207543.2017.1407500

Etemadnia H, Goetz SJ, Canning P, Tavallali MS (2015) Optimal whole-
sale facilities location within the fruit and vegetables supply chain
with bimodal transportation options: An LP-MIP heuristic approach.
Eur J Oper Res 244:648–661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.
01.044
Farahani P, Grunow M, Günther H-O (2012) Integrated production and
distribution planning for perishable food products. Flex Serv Manuf
J 24:28–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10696-011-9125-0
Fathollahi-Fard AM, Ahmadi A, Goodarzian F, Cheikhrouhou N (2020a)
A bi-objective home healthcare routing and scheduling problem
considering patients’ satisfaction in a fuzzy environment. Appl
Soft Comput 93:106385
Fathollahi-Fard AM, Hajiaghaei-Keshteli M, Mirjalili S (2020b) A set of
efficient heuristics for a home healthcare problem. Neural Comput
& Applic 32(10):6185–6205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-019-
04126-8
Fathollahi-Fard AM, Hajiaghaei-Keshteli M, Tian G, Li Z (2020c) An
adaptive Lagrangian relaxation-based algorithm for a coordinated
water supply and wastewater collection network design problem.
Inf Sci 512:1335–1359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2019.10.062
Fathollahi-Fard AM, Ahmadi A, Mirzapour Al-e-Hashem SMJ (2020d)
Sustainable closed-loop supply chain network for an integrated wa-
ter supply and wastewater collection system under uncertainty. J
Environ Manag 275:111277
Fisher ML (1981) The Lagrangian relaxation method for solving integer
programming problems. Manag Sci 27(1):1–18
Flores H, Villalobos JR, Ahumada O, Uchanski M, Meneses C (2019)
Use of supply chain planning tools for efficiently placing small
farmers into high-value, vegetable markets. Comput Electron
Agric 157:205–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2018.12.050
Gandhi VP, Namboodiri NV (2004) Marketing of fruits and vegetables in
India: a study covering the Ahmedabad, Chennai and Kolkata
markets
Ganeshkumar C, Pachayappan M, Madanmohan G (2017) Agri-food
supply chain management: literature review. Intell Inf Manag 9:
68–96. https://doi.org/10.4236/iim.2017.92004
Gardas BB, Raut RD, Narkhede B (2017) Modeling causal factors of
post-harvesting losses in vegetable and fruit supply chain: an
Indian perspective. Renew Sust Energ Rev 80:1355–1371. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.259
Gardas BB, Raut RD, Narkhede B (2018) Evaluating critical causal fac-
tors for post-harvest losses (PHL) in the fruit and vegetables supply
chain in Iran using the DEMATEL approach. J Clean Prod 199:47–
61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.153
Gardas BB, Raut RD, Cheikhrouhou N, Narkhede BE (2019) A hybrid
decision support system for analyzing challenges of the agricultural
supply chain. Sustain Prod Consum 18:19–32. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.spc.2018.11.007
Gelareh S, Neamatian Monemi R, Nickel S (2015) Multi-period hub
location problems in transportation. Transport Res E-Log 75:67–
94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2014.12.016
Gholamian MR, Taghanzadeh AH (2017) Integrated network design of
wheat supply chain: A real case of Iran. Comput Electron Agric 140:
139–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2017.05.038
Gokarn S, Kuthambalayan TS (2017) Analysis of challenges inhibiting
the reduction of waste in food supply chain. J Clean Prod 168:595–
604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.028
Goldberg DE, Holland JH (1988) Genetic algorithms and machine learn-
ing. Springer
Hasani Goodarzi A, Zegordi SH (2016) A location-routing problem for
cross-docking networks: a biogeography-based optimization algo-
rithm. Comput Ind Eng 102:132–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.
2016.10.023
Hegde RN, Madhuri NV (2013) A study on marketing infrastructure for
fruits and vegetables in India. National Institute of Rural
Development, Hyderabad
Environ Sci Pollut Res
Hindustan Times (2017) Why Mandsaur farmers are angry? All you need
to know about the Madhya Pradesh agitation [WWW Document].
URL http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/why-mandsaur-
farmers-are-angry-all-you-need-to-know-about-the-madhya-
pradesh-agitation/story-2t4cvwcLzzSVKxm56TO6LI.html
(accessed 9.16.17)
Hiremath NC, Sahu S, Tiwari MK (2013) Multi objective outbound lo-
gistics network design for a manufacturing supply chain. J Intell
Manuf 24:1071–1084. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-012-0635-8
Hong J, Diabat A, Panicker VV, Rajagopalan S (2018) A two-stage
supply chain problem with fixed costs: An ant colony optimization
approach. Int J Prod Econ 204:214–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijpe.2018.07.019
Jayaraman V, Ross A (2003) A simulated annealing methodology to
distribution network design and management. Eur J Oper Res 144:
629–645
Karampour MM, Hajiaghaei-Keshteli M, Fathollahi-Fard AM, Tian G
(2020) Metaheuristics for a bi-objective green vendor managed in-
ventory problem in a two-echelon supply chain network. Scientia
Iranica
Khalilpourazari S, Khamseh AA (2017) Bi-objective emergency blood
supply chain network design in earthquake considering earthquake
magnitude: a comprehensive study with real world application. Ann
Oper Res 1–39:355–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-017-2588-
y
Khamjan W, Khamjan S, Pathumnakul S (2013) Determination of the
locations and capacities of sugar cane loading stations in Thailand.
Comput Ind Eng 66:663–674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2013.09.
006
Kundu T (2013) Design of a sustainable supply chain model for the
Indian agri-food sector: an interdisciplinary approach. M.Tech
Thesis, Jadavpur Univ
Lee YH, Jung JW, Lee KM (2006) Vehicle routing scheduling for cross-
docking in the supply chain. Comput Ind Eng 51:247–256. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2006.02.006
Liu X, Tian G, Fathollahi-Fard AM, Mojtahedi M (2020) Evaluation of
ship’s green degree using a novel hybrid approach combining group
fuzzy entropy and cloud technique for the order of preference by
similarity to the ideal solution theory. Clean Techn Environ Policy
22:493–512
Melo MT, Nickel S, Saldanha-da-gama F (2009) Facility location and
supply chain management – a review. Eur J Oper Res 196:401–412.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2008.05.007
Mousavi SM, Tavakkoli-Moghaddam R (2013) A hybrid simulated an-
nealing algorithm for location and routing scheduling problems with
cross-docking in the supply chain. J Manuf Syst 32:335–347.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2012.12.002
Musavi MM, Bozorgi-Amiri A (2017) A multi-objective sustainable hub
location-scheduling problem for perishable food supply chain.
Comput Ind Eng 113:766–778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2017.
07.039
Negi S, Anand N (2017) Post-harvest losses and wastage in Indian fresh
agro supply chain Industry : A challenge. IUP J Supply Chain
Manag 14:7–24
Nezhadroshan AM, Fathollahi-Fard AM, Hajiaghaei-Keshteli M (2020)
A scenario-based possibilistic-stochastic programming approach to
address the resilient humanitarian logistics considering travel time
and resilience levels of facilities. Int J Syst Sci Oper Logist, 1-27,
https://doi.org/10.1080/23302674.2020.1769766
Nourbakhsh SM, Bai Y, Maia GDN, Ouyang Y, Rodriguez L (2016)
Grain supply chain network design and logistics planning for reduc-
ing post-harvest loss. Biosyst Eng 151:105–115. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.biosystemseng.2016.08.011
Panda RK, Sreekumar (2012) Marketing channel choice and marketing
efficiency assessment in agribusiness. J Int Food Agribus Mark 24:
213–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974438.2012.691812
Environ Sci Pollut Res
Patidar R, Agrawal S (2020) A mathematical model formulation to design
a traditional Indian agri-fresh food supply chain: a case study prob-
lem. Benchmarking An Int J. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-01-2020-
0013
Patidar R, Agrawal S, Pratap S (2018a) Development of novel strategies
for designing sustainable Indian agri-fresh food supply chain.
Sādhanā 43:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12046-018-0927-6
Patidar R, Agrawal S, Yadav BP (2018b) Can ICT enhance the perfor-
mance of indian agri-fresh food supply chain?, in: Proceedings of
3rd International Conference on Internet of Things and Connected
Technologies (ICIoTCT). SSRN, pp. 682–685. https://doi.org/10.
2139/ssrn.3170287
Raghunath S, Ashok D (2009) Delivering simultaneous benefits to the
farmers and the common man:time to unshackle the agricultural
produce distribution system, in: Chopra, S., Meindl, P., Kalra, D.
V (Eds.), Supply chain management: strategic, planning and opera-
tion. Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey, pp. 133–139
Rahimi M, Baboli A, Rekik Y (2017) Multi-objective inventory routing
problem: a stochastic model to consider profit , service level and
green criteria. Transport Res E-Log 101:59–83. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.tre.2017.03.001
Rais M, Sheoran A (2015) Scope of supply chain management in fruits
and vegetables in India. J Food Process Technol 6:1–7. https://doi.
org/10.4172/2157-7110.1000427
Rajurkar SW, Jain R (2011) Food supply chain management: review,
classification and analysis of literature. Int J Integr Supply Manag
6:33–72. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJISM.2011.038332
Ramos TRP, de Morais CS, Barbosa-Póvoa AP (2018) The smart waste
collection routing problem: alternative operational management ap-
proaches. Expert Syst Appl 103:146–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
eswa.2018.03.001
Rancourt MÈ, Cordeau JF, Laporte G, Watkins B (2015) Tactical net-
work planning for food aid distribution in Kenya. Comput Oper Res
56:68–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2014.10.018
Raut RD, Gardas BB, Kharat M, Narkhede B (2018) Modeling the
drivers of post-harvest losses – MCDM approach. Comput
Electron Agric 154:426–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.
2018.09.035
Raut RD, Luthra S, Narkhede BE, Mangla SK, Gardas BB,
Priyadarshinee P (2019) Examining the performance oriented indi-
cators for implementing green management practices in the Indian
agro sector. J Clean Prod 215:926–943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2019.01.139
Rong A, Akkerman R, Grunow M (2011) An optimization approach for
managing fresh food quality throughout the supply chain. Int J Prod
Econ 131:421–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2009.11.026
Samanlioglu F, Ferrell WG Jr, Kurz ME (2008) A memetic random-key
genetic algorithm for a symmetric multi-objective traveling sales-
man problem. Comput Ind Eng 55(2):439–449
Samuel MV, Shah M, Sahay BS (2012) An insight into agri-food supply
chains: a review. Int J Value Chain Manag 6:115–143. https://doi.
org/10.1504/IJVCM.2012.048378
Savadkoohi E, Mousazadeh M, Torabi SA (2018) A possibilistic
location-inventory model for multi-period perishable
pharmaceutical supply chain network design. Chem Eng Res Des
138:490–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2018.09.008
Sellitto MA (2018) Reverse logistics activities in three companies of the
process industry. J Clean Prod 187:923–931. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.262
Shukla M, Jharkharia S (2013) Agri-fresh produce supply chain manage-
ment: a state of the art literature review. Int J Oper Prod Manag 33:
114–158. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443571311295608
Siddh MM, Soni G, Jain R, Sharma MK, Yadav V (2017) Agri-fresh food
supply chain quality (AFSCQ): a literature review. Ind Manag Data
Syst 117:2015–2044. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-10-2016-0427
Sihariya G, Hatmode VB, Nagadevara V (2013) Supply chain manage-
ment of fruits and vegetables in India. Int J Oper Quant Manag 19:
113–122
Simchi-levi D, Kaminsky P, Simchi-levi E, Shankar R (2016) Designing
and managing the supply chain: concepts, strategies and cases stud-
ies, Third. ed. McGraw Hill Education, New Delhi
Sohoni V, Joshi A (2015) Nisarg Nirman: the social farming venture from
India. Emerald Emerg Mark Case Stud 5:1–16. https://doi.org/10.
1108/EEMCS-03-2015-0053
Soto-Silva WE, González-Araya MC, Oliva-Fernández MA, Plà-
Aragonés LM (2017) Optimizing fresh food logistics for processing:
application for a large Chilean apple supply chain. Comput Electron
Agric 136:42–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2017.02.020
Taguchi G (1986) Introduction to quality engineering: designing quality
into products and processes
The Economic Times (2017) Farmers Agitation [WWW Document].
URL http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Farmers-agitation
(accessed 9.16.17)
Viswanadham N, Chidananda S, Narahari H, Dayama P (2012) Mandi
electronic exchange: orchestrating Indian agricultural markets for
maximizing social welfare, in: IEEE International Conference on
Automation Science and Engineering. pp. 992–997. https://doi.
org/10.1109/CoASE.2012.6386465
Waqas M, Nizami AS, Aburiazaiza AS, Barakat MA, Rashid MI (2018)
Optimizing the process of food waste compost and valorizing its
applications: a case study of Saudi Arabia. J Clean Prod 176:426–
438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.165
Zanjirani R, Asgari N, Heidari N, Hosseininia M, Goh M (2012)
Covering problems in facility location: a review. Comput Ind Eng
62:368–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2011.08.020
Zhang C, Tian G, Fathollahi-Fard AM, Wang W, Wu P, Li Z (2020)
Interval-valued intuitionistic uncertain linguistic cloud petri net
and its application to risk assessment for subway fire accident.
IEEE Trans Autom Sci Eng. https://doi.org/10.1109/TASE.2020.
3014907
Zhu Z, Chu F, Dolgui A, Chu C, Zhou W (2018) Recent advances and
opportunities in sustainable food supply chain: a model-oriented
review. Int J Prod Res 1–23:5700–5722. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00207543.2018.1425014
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.