Research in Transportation Business & Management 44 (2022) 100734

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Research in Transportation Business & Management

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

A multi-criteria spatial approach for determination of the logistics center

locations in metropolitan areas
İsmail Önden a, *, Fahrettin Eldemir b
a
Mobility and Logistics Research Group, Turkish Management Science Institute, Kocaeli, Turkey
b
Department of Industrial Engineering, Jeddah University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

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

Keywords: Logistics centers are providing integrated services. Due to they are the central points of the logistics activities,
Logistics centers these facilities have considerable influence over logistic structure of the cities. Therefore, using spatial data is a
Multi-criteria spatial decision making way to use the power of the data science instead of considering limited parameters in determining their location.
Transportation
For a location decision, it is necessary to evaluate different decision parameters, especially spatial suitability. A
Location analysis
F-AHP
methodology that combines a complex problem structure, expert opinion, geographical characteristics and
GIS mathematical modeling approach that provides cost minimization is proposed in the study for multiple logistic
facility location analyzes. The proposed method combines different analysis methods under a systematic
approach including economic analysis of the centralization level. Results showed that the proposed methodology
is capable of dealing such problems with the given considerations.

1. Introduction
Logistics centers have very important effects on city logistics struc­
ture. They collect and distribute the major portion of the total distri­
bution. Due to the their role, they effect the regulations and planning of
city logistics and transit logistics flows over the city. These centers do
not just plan logistics activities. At the same time, they have effects on
logistic costs and service level. Therefore, the location of these facilities
will determine the planning of logistics activities and how the logistics
costs will be shaped. Since the logistics costs are one of the most
important evaluation parameters of the business world, the strategic
importance of this decision also arises. The emphasis on logistics center
facilities attracted the attention of academics, as well as private sector
professionals.
Logistics center concept is emerged in the literature firstly in 1950s,
and the study area has evolved from the first day with the effect of
growing trade volumes and the use of very large capacity facilities.
Different approaches are created to similar study area with different
names such as logistics center, regional warehouse, mega center, dis­
tribution center and freight / transport terminal (Rimiene & Grundey,
2007). However, even if there are different naming schemes in general
terms, the logistics center name has been generally accepted and is now
being used to describe the concept. Logistics centers can be defined as
centers where all logistics activities are carried out in a single point
where multiple logistics services are provided.
With the expansion of the literature, different mathematical ap­
proaches and solutions with different considerations were studied. The
current logistics center literature has been a subject to a location anal­
ysis (Dablanc & Ross, 2012; Elevli, 2014; Li, Liu, & Chen, 2011) or
compliance. Influencing parameters are also studied (Onden, Eldemir, &
Canci, 2015). The existing studies focused on building a better logistics
network structure. The proposed new system provides cost advantages
and ensure that users who use the center by bringing together logistics
functions can perform all operations in different qualities such as
warehousing, customs operations, taxation, storage, transportation in
one place. In addition, the fact that there are different logistics com­
panies in these centers and the interaction of firms with each other and
integrated service offerings should be possible. This integrated structure
provided by the logistics centers should also provide a position advan­
tage. When these benefits are provided, it can be expected that these
facilities will offer many advantages in addition to the cost of the
companies they host.
Logistics is the connection between supply and demand. The dis­
tances between supply and demand, geographical features and obsta­
cles, road structure is based on location and they can be expressed as
spatial features. In order to be able to make an acceptable location

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ismail.onden@tubitak.gov.tr (İ. Önden), eldemir@uj.edu.sa (F. Eldemir).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2021.100734
Received 17 June 2020; Received in revised form 18 September 2021; Accepted 28 October 2021
Available online 4 November 2021
2210-5395/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
İ. Önden and F. Eldemir
decision, it is necessary to take into account spatial characteristics.
Otherwise, it would be a possibility to invest in a facility that the cus­
tomers cannot reach and that the incoming goods cannot be distributed
to the customers. Therefore, as it is taken into consideration in every
location analysis, information related to the location should also be
considered in order to reflect the structure of the problem in the re­
searches related to the logistics centers. The combination of spatial
analysis and decision theory has been used in the literature to solve this
problem (Aljohani & Thompson, 2020; Jankowski & Richard, 1994;
Malczewski, 2004). The advantage of these analyzes is that they can
solve multi-criteria solution approaches by combining them with GIS
outputs rather than further complicating complex mathematical models
that are already difficult to solve. It is possible for researchers to obtain a
solution in this regard. Instead of dealing with complex optimization
models, simpler models can be achieved by feeding on a GIS output.
In this article, a multiple facility location decision for logistics cen­
ters in a metropolitan area is studied with a comprehensive perspective.
The main motivation of the study is to propose a methodology which can
deal the sophisticated problem structure. To that aim, a multi-step
methodology used and different analysis domains’ calculation strength
is combined to model general structure of the decision analysis. The
model combines five domain’s approaches; (1) economic analysis, (2)
GIS/spatial analysis, (3) multi criteria decision analysis, (4) mathematic
modeling, (5) green consideration.
GIS-based methodology considers location suitability and econom­
ical centralization needs for a logistical center location. The methodol­
ogy has several steps but it can be clustered in two main parts excluding
data preparation step. The first step is economic analysis where
centralization level of the logistics centers based on Return of Invest­
ment Analysis (ROI) is considered. The second analysis is determining
the locations of the determined number of the logistics facilities deter­
mined in the previous step.
The approach takes fuzzy decision-making capabilities and GIS’s
spatial and network analysis capabilities in one accounts. With this
method, an approach has been introduced to calculate the area of in­
fluence of each logistics center facility and to prevent this area from
intersecting with the domain of the other facility. The proposed meth­
odology is not intended to extend the deep and extensive GIS literature.
Instead, previously developed GIS methods used to produce geograph­
ical information necessary for decision making. In the study, the liter­
ature contribution was obtained by a more comprehensive study of the
geographical dimension of the solution variants for the logistic center
decision and an economic analysis of the level of centralization.
GIS analysis methods are combined with fuzzy decision theory in the
study, and the generated approach has been able to produce a solution
for complex problem structure. Using spatial analysis, spatial statistics,
and network analysis techniques, the study was conducted to determine
the distance analysis of geographical criteria on the impacts of the areas
and the distance. The reclassification tool is used for these measure­
ments. In the proposed iterative approach, iterative land suitability
calculations were applied for the first time in the literature for logistic
centers. In addition, a phased solution approach has been developed in
solving the p-median model. In this view, a method proposal was
implemented that carried out the most centralized facility finalization
and centered on this location and extracted the coverage map. This
method, along with the coverage area of the candidate logistics center
facilities, also adds a suitability map calculation with the effects of
spatial decision criteria. The suitability map is iteratively updated via
the approach when a new facility location is finalized among the loca­
tion alternatives. With this approach, a heuristic solution method for
solving the p-median model has been proposed. The methodology covers
different disciplinary capabilities. The facility number for the city lo­
gistics is uncertain in the study and ROI calculation is integrated with
spatial decision making analysis. This approach brings a novelty to the
spatial decision making literature.
The structure of the paper is formed as follows. First, the current
2
Research in Transportation Business & Management 44 (2022) 100734
literature survey was given and it was discussed which decision criteria
influenced logistic center decision and which methods were used for
logistic center decision. Then, in the methodology section, the back­
ground and steps of the solution method produced for the logistic center
decision are included in the study. After the methodology, in the
application section, the steps of determining how the facility locations
are calculated are given. And which of the alternative locations are
appropriate is given in detail. In addition, sensitivity analyzes for the
decision are given. In conclusion, findings obtained in the conclusion
section were evaluated and summarized with a brief discussion.
2. Literature review
Logistics centers and their effects have been discussed in the litera­
ture for a long time (Rimiene & Grundey, 2007). Within this long
literature history, analysis of major logistics facilities under different
names has been carried out. As a result, the logistics center was accepted
for the expression of the concept (Meidute, 2005). In addition to dis­
cussing the term that represents the concept, the definition of the clas­
sification of facilities and their properties has also been the subject of
study (Meidute, 2005). This term is defined as centers that have different
logistics facilities, which are in transportation, logistics and distribution-
related conditions, support multiple modes of transportation,
geographical coverage and offer various services (Rimiene & Grundey,
2007).
Drawing the general framework of logistics centers, discussing and
classifying their capabilities has been studied in the literature (Andreoli,
Goodchild, & Vitasek, 2010). In this context, classifications from the
XXL terminal to the S terminal are determined by the amount of cargo
handled (Andreoli et al., 2010). Meidute has discussed what services the
logistics centers should offer. In this context, international cargo trans­
portation pricing, reservations of vehicle capacity and storage areas,
customs clearance preparation of necessary documents, international
trade licenses, insurance, handling operations such as loading, unload­
ing, packaging, multimodal transport, managing payment transactions
and customer relationships should be done in these facilities (Meidute,
2005). In addition to defining the logistics centers, the criteria affecting
the decision of large warehouse and logistics center settlement were also
researched in the literature and a comprehensive definition of decision
making was made (Onden, Eldemir, & Canci, 2015). It is reported that a
total of 89 criteria were effective in the location decision under quan­
titative, qualitative and cost criteria (Onden, Eldemir, & Canci, 2015). In
another study frequency of the used techniques and the decision criteria
are summarized and AHP technique is found as the most used technique
in the literature (Uyanik, Tuzkaya, & Oğuztimur, 2018). Strategic aspect
of the inland freight hub location is also discussed with definitions and
expert opinions and hub location criteria model is formulated (Long &
Grasman, 2012).
Logistics center problem is a study area of the location science. And,
there are different optimization model alternatives. Logistics center
problems can be formulated as hub location analysis problems. Thus,
these models can be used for one to many, many to many or p to many
location problems (Farahani, Hekmatfar, Arabani, & Nikbakhsh, 2013).
P-median, P-center problem is also adequate to model logistics structure
to define service locations in metropolitan areas due to its capability to
analyze network from supply to demand (Çakmak, Önden, Acar, &
Eldemir, 2021). Hub to serve the city, urban consolidation centers are
also related to this classifications. These problems are also discussed in
the literature (van Heeswijk, Larsen, & Larsen, 2019).
On the other hand, multi-criteria decision analyses are very popular
in the literature and most of the solutions are provided by these tech­
niques for such location problems. There are different applications
solved via different techniques such as AHP, ANP, TOPSIS, ELECTRE,
DEMATEL BWM etc. with their fuzzy extensions (Farahani, SteadieSeifi,
& Asgari, 2010). Similar to the general location problems, multi-criteria
decision making is also popular for logistics center decision making
İ. Önden and F. Eldemir
studies (Li et al., 2011; Peker, Baki, Tanyas, & Murat Ar, 2016; Ulutaş,
Karakuş, & Topal, 2020; Żak & Węgliński, 2014).
When we look at the multi-criteria analyses, there are different use of
fuzzy approaches. Fuzzy theory is found by Zadeh (Zadeh, 1965) and it
is found very useful to normalize the point of views over decisions.
Zadeh’s fuzzy approach is commonly used by researches and in­
tegrations to MC techniques are developed. After Zadeh’s foundation of
a fuzzy set, some key developments have taken place (Yanase & Tri­
antaphyllou, 2019). First Atasanov (1986) intuitionistic fuzzy sets
(Atanassov, 1986) and in addition to Zadeh’s traditional membership
value, also a non-membership value is assigned. Smarandache (1998)
introduced the concept of neutrosophic fuzzy sets and it can be seen how
hesitant a person (Smarandache, 1998; Yanase & Triantaphyllou, 2019).
The method covers uncertainty and also indeterminacy (Karaşan &
Kaya, 2019). Another extension to intuitionistic fuzzy sets is introduced
by Yager (Yager, 2013) as the Pythagorean fuzzy sets.
Logistics center location analysis is studied with the mentioned ap­
proaches. Kayikci (2010) has developed an application based on f-AHP
and artificial neural networks for multimodal transport (Kayikci, 2010).
Li et. Al (2011) used the axiomatic fuzzy set clustering method and
TOPSIS method to determine the logistics center location for 15 cities
and 13 criteria (Li et al., 2011). Zak and Weglinsk (2014) developed a
two stage methodology for a Poland case study. In the first step they
evaluated macro-analysis for the potential regions and in the second
phase they used ELECTRE III/IV method for the problem of logistic
center location selection (Żak & Węgliński, 2014). Peker et al. (2016),
applied ANP technique under 13 Befenifts, Opooprtunitiesi Costs and
Risks criteria consideration to determine the appropriate logistics center
location for Trabzon / Turkey (Peker et al., 2016). Özceylan et al. (2016)
conducted a research for location analysis of a logistics center with GIS
based solution approach under 13 criteria consideration for Ankara/
Turkey. They used ANP technique for criteria importance calculation
and TOPSIS technique to make a decision with GIS inputs (Özceylan,
Erbaş, Tolon, Kabak, & Durğut, 2016). Onden et al. (2018) has devel­
oped an application that investigates the suitabilities of governmental
investment decisions for rail logistics villages of Turkey with f-AHP and
GIS combined methodology (). Onden (2018) proposed a fuzzy multi­
criteria spatial decision analysis for a single logistics center location with
an iterative approach (Önden, 2018). Cakmak et al. (2020) used Binary
Particle Swarm Optimization algorithm to solve a city logictics center
problem which is also integrated GIS and multicriteria inputs (Çakmak
et al., 2021). Yazdani et al. (2020) used developed two stage analysis
methodology for location selection of logistics centers in the Spanish
autonomous communities. In the first stage they used data envelopment
for evaluating five decision criteria and in the second stage model is
designed to evaluate the performance using rough full consistency (R-
FUCOM) and combined compromise solution (R-CoCoSo) methods.
Analysis for a logistics center problem in Spain (Yazdani, Chatterjee,
Pamucar, & Chakraborty, 2020). The data envelopment analysis is
convenient to evaluate the impact of the decision criteria. There are
different studies for transportation planning (Musolino, Rindone, &
Vitetta, 2017; Russo & Rindone, 2010).
It is seen that there is an increasing interest to logistics center loca­
tion problems. There are multiple factors effecting the decision
including geographical characteristics of the cities, cost parameters, lead
time considerations and also green aspects. To be able to evaluate these
criteria we need to use expert opinions, spatial analysis and also opti­
mization techniques with decision theory techniques. And these char­
acteristics make the problem suitable for multi-criteria decision making
techniques which is widely analyzed with such techniques.
3. Methodology
In the scope of the study, a method proposal which can be called as a
decision support system for the decision of the logistics center is real­
ized. For this method, the flow of analysis was created as the output of
3
Research in Transportation Business & Management 44 (2022) 100734
different analysis techniques would be the input of another analysis step.
In this section, the purposes and methods of use of the proposed analyzes
for use in the methodology are given. It also provides an explanation of
the iterative solution approach.
3.1. Fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (F-AHP)
The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a technique that reaches
the best decision-making criteria and candidates by comparing them
with each other after setting out the different parameters affecting the
decisions. The technique proposed by Saaty (1980) provides for
simplification of the complex decision environment and elimination of
the risk of ignoring the criteria, rather than being directly determined by
the best candidates (Saaty, 1980). In the AHP technique, expert judg­
ments are taken with pairwise comparisons of criteria rather than being
taken directly. Fuzzy AHP (F-AHP) technique has emerged as a result of
the integration of fuzzy logic with AHP, which is capable of reflecting
different point of views. Various approaches have been developed for F-
AHP (Buckley, 1985; Chang, 1996; van Laarhoven & Pedrycz, 1983),
and there are various discussions on techniques. There is a research
shows that Buckley’s method is the most appropriate and due to that
finding we used that method in the calculations (Önden, Acar, & Eld­
emir, 2018).
The application of the F-AHP technique can be carried out in four
stages. Since the formulations of these steps are given in several articles,
a summary of the steps to be taken in the steps of the study are given. As
the first step of the technique, the selection of the experts should be
carried out to determine the affecting criteria. After this step, it is
necessary to establish a comparison matrix expressing expert judgment
in order to be able to make the evaluation of the criteria. In the second
step, the created matrix will first express the comparison values (with
linguistic or metric scale). The averages and weights of the values in this
comparison matrix with fuzzy values will be calculated and these values
will represent what the criterial weights are as fuzzy values. In the fourth
stage, the fuzzy values obtained will be converted to crisp values, the
values obtained will give the sought criteria weight or the success levels
of the alternatives. The total integration method was used in this step
(Liou & Wang, 1992).
The F-AHP technique has been proposed in the context of the study in
order to determine the weighting of the decision criteria affecting the
probing. In this context, criteria weights determined by technique will
be entered into other decision stages. In this way, it is possible to reflect
different effect levels of GIS outputs.
3.2. GIS
GIS is a popular data analysis tool and it also used in different
location selections studies. Taking into account these advantages of GIS,
it is integrated with the methodology to make complex problem struc­
ture easier and to facilitate calculations. In this context, the use of GIS in
the analysis of intensity and distance of geographical decision criteria is
proposed. In addition, network analysis has been proposed to determine
the driving distances and to calculate the logistical intensities by spatial
statistical analysis.
The GIS was used as a data source to perform the iterative method of
data feed operation proposed in the study. In this context, vector data­
sets are analyzed to provide geographical information related to the
logistic center. Within the scope of the method, three different GIS
analysis approaches were used.
3.2.1. Spatial analysis
Spatial Analysis was used in the analysis of the distance and intensity
cases of the data sets belonging to the geographical decision criteria
evaluated within the scope of the study. In this context, distance ana­
lyzes were run to calculate euclidean distance distances. This analysis
calculates the Euclidean distance value of any region on the plane of the
İ. Önden and F. Eldemir Research in Transportation Business & Management 44 (2022) 100734

data set being evaluated. The analysis was used in the analysis of
geographical decision criteria with limited amount of data and calcu­
lation of the distances on the plane.
The second spatial analysis used is point density analysis. The anal­
ysis is described by ESRI (ESRI, 2014) “Magnitude-per-unit area from
point of fall in a neighborhood around each cell” The analysis is sug­
gested to a a large data set is needed to be handled in the methodology.
3.2.2. Spatial statistical analysis
Within the context of the study, spatial statistics was used for the
purpose of determining logistic densities. Hot Spot Analysis is capable of
resulting clustered areas by considering neighborhoods. Therefore, Hot
Spot Analysis has been used to determine the density of logistics facil­
ities. In order to use the clustering analysis, the character on the plane of
the data set needs to be analyzed. The data set must be in a clustered
structure in order for the clustering analysis to be performed and the
density classes to be determined. Pattern analysis should be done to
measure the distributions on the plane. Moran’s I statistics which also
considers spatial correlation is able to analyze the pattern of a dataset to
evaluate the logistics clusters in the study area. After proving that the
data set shows a clustered structure, mapping the clusters can be
completed with a hot spot analysis based on Getis Ord Gi* methodology
(Önden, Eldemir, & Çancı, 2014). As a result of this analysis, it is
possible to calculate the amount of attraction generated by the logistics
facilities located in the region taking into consideration the neighbor­
hoods. These outputs are used to calculate the logistic densities of the
evaluated regions.
3.2.3. Network analysis
Network analysis is a method of analysis that allows the network
structure on the city to be edited and inferred. It is possible to make
relevant deductions with the cities thanks to the network analysis run on
of the applied models also calculates the economic gain obtained during
the improvement. According to these values, the return period of the
investment (ROI) is calculated and compared with this value. In this
calculation, the cost of driving between points i and j, the number of
driving and the cost of facility installation are also taken into account.
The parameters and the model structure is given as follows;
dij: distance between demand node i and candidate facility j,
hi: demand weight of demand node i,
Mj: setup cost of the facility j,
SC: setup cost
P: number of the considered facility number, centralization level
tij: number of transportation trips in the study area
fcij: transportation cost of a transportation trip
ROI: return of investment values (annual)
Decision variables:
Yij: if customer i served by the candidate facility j 1, otherwise
0 {0,1}
Xj: if we locate at candidate site j 1, otherwise 0 {0,1}
The objective function of the mathematical model is given in Eq. (1).
The model takes travelled distances and logistics activities into consid­
eration with setup costs of new facilities.
∑
1 ∑
n ∑
n
Min.Z. hi dij Yij + Mj Xj (1)
k j j=1
There are constraints are to represent the limits of the solution. The
number of the facilities constraint which is p is given in Eq. (3). All fa­
cilities should be served by the established new service centers (Eq. (4)).
Eq. (4) expresses the constraint how the sited facility will serve the
demand nodes. Eqs. (5) and (6) show that the decision variables are
integers.
∑
n

the GIS that has expanded its analysis capabilities over time and has the Yij = 1, ∀i (2)
j=1
ability to reflect the existing transport network. In this way it is possible
to simulate the city network and to operate discrete or continuous ∑
n
models. In calculation, line and point data can be used to reflect origin, Xj = P (3)
destination, and arcs between segments. In this case, the cost of each j=1

road segment can be obtained in the computer environment.

Yij − Xj ≤ 0, ∀i, j (4)
When analyzing the road usage related to the logistics mobility, the
distances between the n*n points evaluated by the shortest path algo­
Yij ∈ {0, 1}, ∀j (5)
rithm can be determined. The method that will form the basis for this
calculation is the Dijkstra algorithm (Dijkstra, 1959). Within the scope
Xj ∈ {0, 1}, ∀i, j (6)
of the study, network analysis was used to determine the distances be­
tween the candidate logistics facilities according to the Dijkstra algo­ The given model structure gives the results of centralization. How­
rithm and to calculate the costs and determine the changes according to ever, for new centralization and comparison with the existing system, it
these distances. As these scenarios take into account different scenarios, is necessary to calculate the total cost of the decentralized system. Thus
the network must be constructed for different situations and the road Eqs. (7) and (8) are given to express how these cost parameters can be
hierarchy must be constructed according to these changes. calculated; where tij is the total flow volumes. Eq. (7) represents the
special case for the decentralized system. Where the system is not
3.3. P-median based mathematical model approach centralized, all nodes are both demand and service nodes for logistics
activities. Therefore, the total amount of distances travelled is half of the
Within the study, p-median model is used to measure the effects of total values, and the formula refers to this special case. Eq. (8) refers to
the centralization and it is used as an important part of locating the other events that need to be taken into consideration for multiple in­
logistics facilities in the iterative solution approach. The model is an stallations for economic analysis.
example of the mini-sum models. The mathematical model searches for ( ) /
∑n ∑ n
( )
the minimum travelling distance in the evaluation of the n*n sized dij *tij 2 (7)
candidate facility evaluation. The model can be weighted or un­ j=1 i=1

weighted. Weight values in the weighted objective function are the ( )

result of logistic clustering analysis obtained from GIS. In another words, ∑
n ∑
n
( )
dij *tij (8)
the weight parameter hi is gathered by GIS. In the model, the distances j=1 i=1
travelled between the facilities which are dij are obtained from the
network analysis of GIS. Decision variables are Xj which establishment The results of the models give two outputs. The first decision is the
decision of facility j, and Yij which is trips between origin i to destination location decision and second is the total cost for the investment decision.
j. For another expression of the success, ROI value will be calculated to
Within the mathematical model, no assessment is made only with create an easier way to understand for the decision makers. Within that
truck driving distances. The cost calculation based on the model outputs calculation, ROI is calculated based on the reached cost advantage. The

4
İ. Önden and F. Eldemir
expression of that calculation can be given as:
ROI = ((Marginal fuel cost advantage–Setup Cost))/(SetupCost )
For the fuel cost calculation Eq. (9) is given.
(( ) )/
∑n ∑ n ∑ P
Fuel Cost =
( )
dij *tij *fcij SC (9)
j=1 i=1 p=1
After the expressions formulas, the ROI (∆X) calculation can be done
with the Eq. (10) where xn, the total cost for establishment of the n
facilities.
Xn+1 − Xn
%∆X = (10)
Xn+1
3.4. Proposed iterative solution approach
An iterative solution approach was developed by integrating the
analysis methods given. The method continues from the expert selection
until all the locations of the plants have been determined. In addition,
after the location decision, it tests how the suitability values will emerge
as a result of encountering alternative situations with sensitivity anal­
ysis. It would not be wrong to say that the methodology is a basis of a
decision support system with the reasons for these qualities.
Fig. 1 gives all the analysis steps for the proposed methodology. All of
the work to be performed by the figure is given in a flow. The analysis
begins with a literature search and the taking of expert opinions, and
ends with an assessment of location decisions. In the study, decision
criteria are firstly determined and interviews are carried out with the
experts of the subject by following the steps of the f-AHP technique. The
results of pairwise comparisons from experts are used to determine the
weights of each criterion and sub-criteria.
After the decision criteria are determined, GIS analysis starts. The
datasets of the decision criteria to be analyzed at the geographical
dimension are created as vectors. These resulting vector datasets are
kept in the geographic database and are ready for analysis. Geographical
analyzes are carried out under three analysis methods. Spatial analysis is
the type of analysis in which euclidean distance and point density an­
alyzes are performed. Clustering of logistical densities is achieved
through spatial statistical analysis. With the network analysis, OD dis­
tance matrix is calculated taking into consideration the roads on the city.
GIS analyzes produce required outputs with spatial analysis. This
spatial suitability is a map and specifies the positional appropriateness
of the logistic center location. The results of spatial analysis and spatial
statistical analysis are used to generate the suitability map in layers. The
reclassification method is used to bring these different types of maps to
the same scale. These maps on the same scale are then combined with
criterial weights measured by f-AHP analysis. This process is performed
with the overlay tool of the GIS and a conformity map is obtained. On
the other hand, the distances between the network analysis and the
candidate points were calculated. These distances represent distances
between regions in the p-median model. The suitability map and the
weights in the p-median model regions indicate the superiorities of the
facilities. The p-median model is run with the number of centralization
levels to be evaluated. Cost changes that will occur according to the
number of facilities to be located in this area will be determined
empirically. With the optimization modeling solutions realized, truck
driving distances are obtained according to the number of facilities.
Logistic costs can be calculated according to these distances. From these
costs the return on investment can be calculated. Each ROI value is
recorded and the optimal level of centralization is determined by taking
into account expert opinions.
Once the optimal number of facilities has been determined as the
result of the economic analysis, the most preferred alternative facility
for ROI calculations is finalized. After the first facility is set, it is
removed from the number of facilities to be installed. The coverage area
5
Research in Transportation Business & Management 44 (2022) 100734
of the finalized facility is then calculated. The coverage map is combined
with the suitability map as a penalty map so that this region is not
preferred. The resulting map represents the new suitability map for the
next logistics facility location analysis. Then, the location selection
process is continued until the p = m. These steps for locating other
alternative location analysis are to run the p-median model in accor­
dance with the suitability map and determine the most appropriate
point. The detected alternative is removed from the alternative set. The
distance matrix and the suitability map are updated. This process is
continued until the locations of all facilities are selected.
Once all plant locations have been identified, sensitivity analyzes for
these plant sites must also be performed. In this context, what-if ques­
tions will be analyzed to determine how the suitability values will
change, and to identify the conformity levels of the facilities to be
located as a result of possible different situations. Since the output of this
step will be an assessment of the position decision that was reached prior
to the occurrence of the different situations, the feasible field solution
will be finalized as a result of the sensitivity analysis. The end result of
this phase will be the result of the site selection analysis.
4. Application
The implementation of the iterative solution approach described in
the methodology for Istanbul was carried out in the application section.
Within the scope of the chapter, firstly, a sub-chapter on the decision
environment in which the work was carried out was given. Afterwards,
the number of suitable facilities was determined in the economic anal­
ysis for centralization decision. Then, these logistics facilities are located
at the designated number. The procedures followed in determining the
plant location are given in the section. Decisions taken with sensitivity
analyzes have also been tested.
4.1. Decision environment
Istanbul Metropolitan Planning Department (IMP) report (IMP,
2007) express that a new logistic center is a necessity in Istanbul for
improving the quality of logistics activities, decreasing the logistics
costs, and also benefiting the scale economy. After this report, following
studies (Oğuztimur, Çancı, & Oğuztimur, 2011; Özdemir, 2010) also
express that establishing a logistics center is a necessity for Istanbul and
may provide benefits. In addition to the logistics center requirement, the
structure of the logistics system in Istanbul is an example of decentral­
ized system and the flows are taking place on road transportation
network that is illustrated in Fig. 2. Istanbul is a demand center of
Turkey and it has high traffic national and international cargo. To meet
the service demand in Istanbul, a vast number of logistics companies are
in service and all of these firms are building independent supply chain
network similar to Turkey’s all cities. Due to the relevance of logistics
flows structure with focused problem’s network structure; Istanbul is
selected as study area for experimentations within the study. The aim is
to build a hub for logistics activities to serve the city. Due to this aim, the
facility has to be able to handle different types of cargo types such as
industrial products, perishable products, earth products and so on.
Istanbul is the most populous metropolis in Europe with a population
of over 14 million (TUIK - Turkish Statistical Institute, 2020). In addition
to population density, the city is a popular tourist destination with its
cultural heritage and more than 10 million tourists visit the city annually
(TUIK - Turkish Statistical Institute, 2013). While population size makes
it one of the biggest demand centers in the urban area, traffic congestion
and environmental harmful gas emissions have become a big problem as
the logistics infrastructure in road transport is land-based. In addition to
its high consumption level, the city is also the largest production and
service center in the region. Moreover, the city is a natural crossing
bridge between Asia and Europe, and most of the transportation is done
by motorway transport, which increases the complexity of intra-city
logistics.
İ. Önden and F. Eldemir Research in Transportation Business & Management 44 (2022) 100734

Start GIS/Network
Analysis

Defining Decision Data Collecon

Network data set
Criteria
creaon
Literature & Expert Judgements

Creang a GeoDB

Expert Selecon Dijkstra Algorithm

GIS Analysis
Calculaon OD
Fuzzy pairwise
distance matrix
comparison

Measuring the GIS/ Spaal GIS / Spaal Assign i=1..n

weights of the Analysis Stascs
decision criteria
Perform p-median
model

Density & Distance Spaal Cluster Mapping record ROI values

Mapping

i=n
no
Reclassificaton yes

Select the lowest ROI

Overlay
Define the best
centralizaon level
p=m where min(ROI)
Assign i=1

Locate the most

preferred alternave

m=m-1
Overlay
Update the network
dataset
New OD distance matrix
Calculate the coverage
map for assigned node
no

Perform p-median model

Set the new facility

İ=m Assign i=i+1

yes
All Facilies Assigned End
Sensivity Analysis

Legend
Flow in the Framework
Analysis Acvity
Decision
Calculaon in the Framework
Start/End Points

Fig. 1. Location analysis framework.

6
İ. Önden and F. Eldemir
Fig. 2. Transportation infrastructure of the study area.
In Istanbul, the structure of the city logistics activities is an example
of decentralized system, and the logistics activities are done mostly via
trucks. There are also railway and maritime transportation infrastruc­
ture; yet, these alternatives are not used for inner city logistics activities.
For example, there are railway logistics center alternatives are existed in
Turkey. These facilities are owned by government and can be rented for
operation. However the use of these facilities are limited due to the need
of speed for the operations. When we look at the city logistics opera­
tions, both supply and demand sources are scattered over the city. That
causes higher transportation costs, traffic congestion, and unwilling
environmental impacts. According to the findings of the existing studies,
centralization of the logistics facilities may decrease total cost factors.
The centralization proposal has been conceptually suggested by city
planners and academics so that this benefit can be obtained and a better
logistical network structure can be built. However, a change in this
dimension will be critical, especially in a huge city of 15 million.
Fig. 3. Candidate nodes.
7
Research in Transportation Business & Management 44 (2022) 100734
Therefore, a comprehensive assessment is needed on how to create
centralized logistics in the city.
4.2. Analysis of the centralization level & number of the logistics centers
In Istanbul, logistics facilities serve in a structure that is not
centralized. Because of this structure, every company that needs trans­
portation needs to either deal with its own trucks, contract with the
transport company or use a 3PL company. In order to be able to evaluate
a logistic network in this structure, it is necessary to be able to reflect the
mobility in the city. It is a way to reflect the current system of selecting
the intersection points of the main artery and the intermediate arteries
as the candidate points in the road network for the reason that the
transportation is carried out by large roads in the current situation. On
this count, the actual highway participation zones were chosen as cen­
ters of mobility. Domestic regions are ignored if they arrive in these
İ. Önden and F. Eldemir Research in Transportation Business & Management 44 (2022) 100734

regions. With this assumption, 43 alternative intersection regions have From these values, it is also possible to see the marginal changes ac­
been selected as both demand and supply nodes. The selected alternative cording to the profit obtained by increasing the number of facilities by 1.
areas is given in Fig. 3. Each demand node has been identified as a point As a result, it is observed that the ROI value is 1.97 years at best and the
of making the transportation services itself. The distance matrix created best number of facilities for the city is 5. The change graph of ROI value
by GIS analysis is used to show distances between nodes and these cir­ according to scenario is given in Fig. 4.
culation distances used. A mathematical model has been used to un­ As can be seen from the figure, when the level of centralization is
derstand how the centralization of facilities has changed the truck increased from 2 to 3, the marginal benefit is improving at a high rate.
travelling distances. Although improving continues up to 3 facilities, the marginal utility
In calculation Eq. (11) is used for current logistics environment and change is limited. The reason for this finding and the level of centrali­
Eq. (12) is used to find centralized system’s travelled distances where tij zation level has been identified as 3 facilities. The main factor in this
is total travel times and dij is distances between i and j nodes. The reason decision is that the number of logistics companies that are centralized in
of taking half of the total calculation for decentralized system is each fewer region is higher when centralized in 3 logistics centers. That will
supply node is also a demand node which decreases half of total trans­ lead the interaction between companies is higher.
portation cost.
During calculation of ROI, the fixed construction cost is accepted as
4.3. Decision parameters for logistics centers location decision in Istanbul
200 hundred million Turkish Liras (TL) for single facility, and for each
additional facility it is added 75 million TL to total construction cost
It is calculated within the scope of the economic analysis that ben­
parameter. Equation of 11 and 12 are taken the total travelled distances
efits the level of centralization. It has been determined that the optimal
in the network for the comparisons. Eq. (11) is used for decentralized
number of facilities should be 3 in this calculation. After the number of
system due to each origin point is also destination point. Eq. (12) is used
necessary facilities is determined, plant settlement analysis is started.
to determine the transportation cost based on the centralization level
Expert interviews were carried out in two stages; the first discussion of
which is determined by the parameter p.
the realization of decision criteria which have been identified in the
( ) /
∑43 ∑ 43
( ) literature is the pairwise weighting evaluation stage of the decision
dij *tij 2 (11) criteria which are considered to be suitable for other applications.
j=1 i=1
As a result of the first phase of the interviews, it was determined that
( ) the criteria list identified in Fig. 5 is suitable for the study area. Although
∑
43 ∑
43
(
dij
)
*tij (12) decision criteria are used in different aspects in the literature, it has been
j=1 i=1 determined that expert interviews are the most classical parameters for
the logistic central decision of transportation, demand and supply
Three different network structures are considered during the anal­
criteria and should be used. Multi-billion investments have been pro­
ysis. These are mainly the restrictions on the existing network structure
posed for the city to be used to reflect areas where the use of space is to
for road transport. The second scenario is to evaluate that there are no
expand and to reflect future claims.
restrictions and that all roads are used for road haulage. And the third
Transportation refers to the transportation infrastructure in which
scenario analyzes the situation in which the new network structure that
logistics activities are to be carried out and all modes of transportation
is currently under construction is also taken into service.
are defined as sub-criteria of transportation. Demand is generally a
The analysis was run with weighted objective function (Eq. (1)) with
criterion reflecting the demand of the city. Supply shows the origins and
its constraints (Eqs. (2)–(6)). The analysis results expressed the total fuel
destinations of the city’s production and logistics movements. In addi­
cost spent according to the located logistics center count. The model was
tion, production centers and export and import centers, where a large
run 10 times and the total cost value determined empirically. According
portion of the trade has been realized, have also been identified as
to the number of logistics centers, the fuel saving data obtained from the
important sub-criteria. As multi-billion investments, three projects were
reduced travel distance is calculated. The marginal fuel saving rate and
undertaken in the city that would dramatically change the city’s use of
ROI values obtained by the number of logistics centers are also
space.
calculated.
Table 1 outlines the findings of scenarios I, II, and III.
Scenario I: If the current network was considered, 4.4. Weights of the decision criteria
Scenario II: If there were no constraints in the logistics network,
Scenario III: If the future transportation network was considered. Within the scope of the study, Buckley’s f-AHP method was used to
Table 1 presents the cost changes and ROI data from three different interview experts with a linguistic scale. 11 experts are invited to
scenarios as a result of the analysis. The number of facility (Nof) starts evaluate the decision criteria due to their expertise. City managers, lo­
with 0, which indicates the logistical costs incurred in the decentralized gistics and transportation managers, location data scientists were
system. Then, how logistics costs change from p = 1 to p = 10 is given. invited to individual interviews. During the interviews pairwise com­
parison based survey is done under supervision of the research group.

Table 1
Logistics cost calculation for existing logistics structure.
NoF Fuel cost (Annual) Establishing cost Fuel cost saved (Annual/Sc.II) Marginal change ROI Sc⋅I ROI Sc.II ROI Sc.III Selected facility alternatives

0 423.091.674 – – – – – – –
1 594.379.337 200.000.000 − 171.287.664 − 0,40 34
2 343.083.002 275.000.000 80.008.672 0,42 3,43 3,44 4,98 16;39
3 261.332.680 350.000.000 161.758.993 0,24 2,58 2,16 2,58 7;41;35
4 215.071.221 425.000.000 208.020.453 0,18 2,28 2,04 2,28 7;33;38;41
5 169.417.488 500.000.000 253.674.186 0,21 2,12 1,97 2,12 1;14;20;38;41
6 152.625.000 575.000.000 270.466.674 0,10 2,25 2,13 2,25 2;14;20;24;38;41
7 138.475.790 650.000.000 284.615.883 0,09 2,40 2,28 2,40 2;14;20;24;26;28;41
8 125.614.733 725.000.000 297.476.941 0,09 2,54 2,44 2,54 7;14;16;21;24;26;28;41
9 114.182.561 800.000.000 308.909.112 0,09 2,73 2,59 2,73 7;14;17;21;24;26;30;39;43
10 103.067.707 875.000.000 320.023.966 0,10 2,88 2,73 2,88 7;14;16;21;23;26;30;34;39;43

8
İ. Önden and F. Eldemir Research in Transportation Business & Management 44 (2022) 100734

Fig. 4. ROI results of travelled distances in regard to facility number (ROI Year / facility number).

Decision Criteria

Transportation Demand Supply Multi-Billion

Investments

Highway Logistics 3rd Bridge

Warehouses
Railway 3rd Airport
Manufact.
Seaway Zones KanalIstanbul

Logistics
Airway
Facilities

Export and
Import
Centers

Fig. 5. Decision criteria.

Evaluations were carried out after clarifying how to evaluate the ex­ weight values of the main criteria, the importance ratings of each sub-
perts. Pairwise comparisons in the obtained linguistic measure were criterion were determined within the scope of the study and was given
converted to triangular fuzzy values and then f-AHP steps were applied in Table 2.
to determine the criterial weights. The criterion weights obtained as a
result of the evaluations are given in Table 2.
According to the analysis result, the most important main criterion 4.5. GIS analysis and suitability map calculation
was determined as transportation. This criterion was followed by sup­
ply, demand and multi-billion investment criteria. In addition to the After the selection of suitable criteria, geographical data sets of
determined decision criteria were created. The data related to trans­
portation from the data sets used in the study were obtained from the
Table 2 local authority. The data other than this data were produced within the
Criteria Weights of the decision criteria. scope of the study. Clear water resources and environment, forest areas
Main criteria Weights Sub-criteria Weights Global and high cost areas, which are not included in the decision criteria but
weights are limiting the work, are derived from the scope of the study as
Transportation (c1) 0,390 Highway (c11) 0,3054 0,119 constraint maps. The maps of the geographical decision criteria are
Railway (c12) 0,2978 0,116 given in Figs. 6 and 7. Fig. 6 gives the criteria maps for supply and de­
Seaway (c13) 0,3204 0,125 mand. Fig. 7 shows the transportation related criteria on the map.
Airway (c14) 0,0764 0,030 Some regions in metropolitan settlements have to be protected. The
Demand (c2) 0,238
Supply (c3) 0,304 Logistics 0,1759 0,053
main ones are forest areas and water basins. For this reason, these two
Warehouses (c31) areas have been removed from the focus areas due to environmental
Manufacturing 0,1724 0,052 conservation sensitivity. In addition, the areas already in use for other
Zones (c32) purposes are ineligible for logistics center installation. Areas with high
Logistics Facilities 0,0938 0,028
area cost are not suitable for logistic centers planned to offer competitive
(c33)
Free Trade Zones 0,5579 0,169 prices. Therefore, constraint maps are created in four different criteria
(c34) and the areas falling in these zones are kept outside the solution space.
Multi-Billion 0,068 3rd Bridge (c41) 0,3165 0,021 These areas are visualized on the map in Fig. 8.
Investments (c4) 3rd Airport (c42) 0,3374 0,023 In order to be able to form the suitability analysis, it is necessary to
Kanal Istanbul (c43) 0,3462 0,024
carry out the criterion evaluation analysis for the decision criteria and to

9
İ. Önden and F. Eldemir Research in Transportation Business & Management 44 (2022) 100734

Fig. 6. Supply and demand nodes.

Fig. 7. Transportation infrastructure and multi-billion investments.

determine the criterial importance ratings and to complete the mapping
of the decision criteria. After these steps, the suitability map can be
determined. Geographical analysis is required in order to create the
suitability map. Input data types differ from each other. Data size has
been taken into consideration in the data analysis performed. The types
of point type data with high number of features were evaluated by
spatial analysis / density analysis and line type data sets were analyzed
by spatial analysis euclidean distance analysis. Regional data within the
polygon-type dataset are subjected to spatial statistical analysis to ac­
count for spatial autocorrelation.
Fig. 9 is a map which obtained GIS/suitability analysis. The figure
also reflects the analysis phases. It can be seen how the analysis output

10
İ. Önden and F. Eldemir Research in Transportation Business & Management 44 (2022) 100734

Fig. 8. Constraint maps.

Analysis Maps
Transportation Demand Supply Multi-Billion Investments
Wi 0,39 0,238 0,304 0,068
Highway Railway Seaway Airway Log. WH Log. Facilities I.&E. Man. Z. 3rd Bridge 3rd Airport Kanalistanbul
Wi 0,119 0,116 0,125 0,03 0,053 0,052 0,028 0,169 0,021 0,023 0,024

+
Geographic Constraints
Forestry Fresh Water Landuse Land Values

¯ ¯
Legend
Legend Legend İstanbul

Orman Alanları Su Havzaları En Ucuz Değer

İstanbul İstanbul

0
0

0
00

00

00

00

00

00

00
00

00

00

00

00

00

00
,0

,0

,0

,0

,0

0,0
5,0
0 13.750 27.500 55.000 Meters 0 12.500 25.000 50.000 Meters

50

50

50

50

50
-2

50
-1

-2

-4

-7

-9

-1
0
00

1
00

00

00

00

00

1
00

00
00

00

00

00

00
2,0

00
,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0
25

15

25

45

75

95
¯ 0 13.500 27.000 54.000 Meters

=
Suitability Map

Fig. 9. Suitability map calculation.

obtained from the GIS analysis and reclassified is combined with the After the first plant was identified, the areas served by this facility
geographic constraint maps. How the output map was obtained can also were identified by GIS / Network analysis. The boundaries of this
be seen. The results of the analysis were combined with the criteria coverage area are drawn based on the distance breakpoint values. The
weights determined by f-AHP in the overlay analysis to show where the highest penalty area closest to the plant, which is designed to map the
logistics center should be located within the city. most distant parts of the lowest form of penalty will be imposed. The
penalty map generated according to this coverage area is combined with
the suitability map to obtain the new suitability map. The region closest
4.6. Location decisions of the logistics centers to the facility produced the highest penalty value. The farthest area is
accepted as 100 km for a logistics facility and that the area has the
Within the scope of economic analysis, the p-median model was run minimum penalty value in the penalty map.
10 times. The suitability values obtained from the GIS analysis under New spatial suitability values constitute the suitability values for the
this model are taken into the model as the weights of the candidate fa­ second logistic facility decision. In the analysis of the new facility, the
cilities. The most frequently selected candidate facility in the model run first plant site is determined and the alternative is eliminated from the
in is considered as the first positioned facility.

11
İ. Önden and F. Eldemir
existing facility alternatives. OD distance matrix is updated with GIS /
Network analysis. The remaining alternative regions are then analyzed
with the new data. The most suitable region is determined as the facility
site that gives the lowest cost in the model. The analysis stages for the
second plant are also carried out for the third plant. In this context, the
penalty map is produced for the second logistics center’s determined
location. Suitability map with second logistics centers’ penalty map is
overlayed to obtain the new suitability map. P-median model is run
according to the new generated data and the location of the third plant
will be determined. The maps produced during the stage of site selection
are given in Fig. 10.
4.7. Sensitivity analysis
In the scope of the study, a method proposal was made to determine
the locations of the logistics centers and the application for Istanbul was
carried out and appropriate facility locations were determined. How­
ever, if different situations arise before a site selection decision is made,
sensitivity analyzes should be carried out to determine how the site
selection decision will change. In this context, a sensitivity analysis was
carried out and different situations were assessed with what-if questions.
Five different scenarios were developed within the scope of the
evaluations. These scenarios have tested the dominance of a criterion
weight for a changing decision environment, the fact that decision
criteria in different criteria have similar weights and the two criteria are
predominant. In the scenario definitions, the main criteria are
mentioned and sub-criteria are taken into account in the analysis. The
First Logistics Center's Service Area
Second Logistics Center's Service Area
Selected Alternatives in Candidate Alternatives Set
Fig. 10. Location decision of the new logistics centers.
12
Research in Transportation Business & Management 44 (2022) 100734
scenarios produced in this context are as follows:
Scenario I – What if the supply criteria were not considered and the
remained criteria has the equal priorities (c1 = 0.33; c2 = 0.33; c3 = 0;
c4 = 0.33).
Scenario II – What if all decision criteria carry the same weight value
(c1 = 0.25; c2 = 0.25; c3 = 0.25; c4 = 0.25).
Scenario III – What if only transportation and its sub-criteria were the
solely considered criterion (c1 = 1; c2 = 0; c3 = 0; c4 = 0).
Scenario IV – What if only transportation and supply criteria were
selected for location decisions (c1 = 0.5; c2 = 0; c3 = 0.5; c4 = 0).
Scenario V - What if only demand and supply criteria were selected as
decision parameters (c1 = 0; c2 = 0.5; c3 = 0.5; c4 = 0).
Different criteria weights were entered into the overlay tool for
sensitivity analysis. These criteria weights are the values of the five
scenarios forming the sensitivity analysis. As a result of these analyzes,
suitability maps for alternative situations have been produced. Suit­
ability map was produced by the stated steps are shown in Fig. 11.
The sensitivity results are summarized in the Table 3. The results
show, under different scenarios selected alternatives has different per­
formances. For example the best alternative has the best performance in
the first three scenarios. But in the last two scenarios, third best alter­
native has a better performance than the best alternative. The reason of
this result can be understood with the given Fig. 12. The Fig. 12 shows
the 35; 50 and 65 km demand and supply coverages of the selected al­
ternatives. If we consider only transportation and supply or supply and
demand criteria, one alternative might have a better performance.
However, in the study we want to optimize the system under four main
Updated Suitability Map for the Secondary Logistics Center
Updated Suitability Map for the Tertiary Logistics Center
İ. Önden and F. Eldemir Research in Transportation Business & Management 44 (2022) 100734

A35: 2 A35: 1 A35: 2

A41: 5 A41: 5 A41: 5
A8 : 3 A8 : 1 A8 : 3

A35: 5 A35: 4
A41: 7 A41: 8
A8 : 2 A8 : 1

Fig. 11. Sensitivity results.

Table 3
Criteria Weights of the decision criteria.
Selection order Scenario I Scenario II Scenario III Scenario IV Scenario V

Alternative 8 3 3 1 3 2 1
Alternative 35 1 2 1 2 5 4
Alternative 41 2 5 5 5 7 8

Fig. 12. Selected best alternatives’ coverage distances.

13
İ. Önden and F. Eldemir
criteria. These results show the methodology is capable to take whole
decision criteria in account and overcome the difficulty of the sophis­
ticated multi-criteria problems.
The differentiation of suitability values against alternative situations
is given in Fig. 11. According to values, it was seen that the first posi­
tioned plant achieved the highest suitability values. The third plant also
achieved successful results. The second facility was found to have lower
compliance scores than the other two.
5. Conclusions
In the study, an iterative methodology for multi logistics center lo­
cations is proposed. This methodology takes different analyzing steps
such as ROI calculations, fuzzy MCDM analysis, network analysis,
spatial analysis. And the results gathered by the application and the
sensitivity analysis showed that the approach is capable for the logistics
center selection problems.
As a result of the analysis, it was determined that the centralization
decision has positive benefits depending on the level of centralization. It
is estimated that the investment to be realized will pay for itself with the
fuel gain that will be obtained within a short period of 2 to 2.3 years. In
addition to cost benefits, the creation of a synergy by logistics companies
that form a cluster in a particular region is a result of the emergence of
an integrated logistics business environment. In addition to the eco­
nomic evaluations, spatial suitability levels of the facilities is considered.
The suitability levels calculated with the criteria maps with their
weights calculated based on the experts judgments. According to their
evaluations transportation’s weight is found as the most important
criteria over the location decision with weight of 0.39; supply and de­
mand is followed to the transportation with the values of 0.304 and
0.238. The new and important projects is found also influential but
relatively less important from the first three criteria and had the impact
weight 0.068. With the help of the spatial data and their weights the city
is divided into 9 suitability levels including restricted areas due to the
constraint maps. The suitability levels is used in the optimization and the
location decision is made according to the weighted trucks’ travelled
distances. And the ROI values calculated with the savings calculated
from these values.
In the article, a wider scope is defined than the approaches in the
existing literature. In the previous studies using solely one approach
such as MCDM or optimization preferred adequate for the solution
approach. However each analysis technique have limitations. In this
study, the approach does not just focus to a MCDM methodology and its
application. Using a holistic approach and integrating different methods
is a novelty for logistics center problems. Using GIS analysis results
provides a more comprehensive calculation opportunity. Secondly
considering the centralization level with location consideration is
another novelty to the literature. How the GIS results are reclassified and
used in the MCDM analysis can be seen as the third contribution to the
literature.
The proposed methodology is capable of dealing with a vast number
of locations. Within the scope of this method, candidate facility sites
were determined by considering transportation network first. Then, the
most suitable facility locations were determined by expert opinion,
spatial characteristics and optimization approach. The method being
followed involves a new approach to decision making and broadens the
existing literature.
As a final word related the analysis approach, the method carried out
within the scope of the study shows that the logistics centers will benefit
the region concerned. This decision is made by considering the spatial
decision criteria and the coverage areas of the facilities and by testing
how the decisions taken will change under different scenarios.
In this study we focused on consideration of the location of such
facilities. Location of these facilities is very important. To be able to
reach the economic improvements the implication of the new business
model for the centralized logistics structure will be very important. In
14
Research in Transportation Business & Management 44 (2022) 100734
this implementation phase, the governance of the network will also be
crucial and three main actors which are users (e.g. retailers); operators
(logistic providers) and public Administration (e.g. regional authorities)
will take their roles in the new business environment. For the future
studies, in addition to the decision making and data analysis of the fa­
cility location, management aspects should be considered.
References
Aljohani, K., & Thompson, R. G. (2020). A multi-criteria spatial evaluation framework to
optimise the siting of freight consolidation facilities in inner-city areas.
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 138, 51–69.
Andreoli, D., Goodchild, A., & Vitasek, K. (Apr. 2010). The rise of mega distribution
centers and the impact on logistical uncertainty. Transportation Letters-The
International Journal of Transportation Research, 2(2), 75–88.
Atanassov, K. T. (1986). Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 20(1), 87–96.
Buckley, J. J. (1985). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17(3), 233–247.
Çakmak, E., Önden, İ., Acar, A. Z., & Eldemir, F. (Jul. 2021). Analyzing the location of
city logistics centers in Istanbul by integrating geographic information systems with
binary particle swarm optimization algorithm. Case Studies in Transport Policy, 9(1),
59–67.
Chang, D.-Y. (1996). Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. European
Journal of Operational Research, 95(3), 649–695.
Dablanc, L., & Ross, C. (Sep. 2012). Atlanta: A mega logistics center in the Piedmont
Atlantic megaregion (PAM). Journal of Transport Geography, 24, 432–442.
Dijkstra, E. W. (1959). A note on two problems in connexion with graphs. Numerische
Mathematik, 1(1), 269–271.
Elevli, B. (2014). Logistics freight center locations decision by using fuzzy-PROMETHEE.
Transport, 29(4), 412–418.
ESRI. (2014). How point density works. ESRI GIS Dictionary. https://pro.arcgis.com/en
/pro-app/latest/tool-reference/spatial-analyst/how-point-density-works.htm.
Farahani, R. Z., Hekmatfar, M., Arabani, A. B., & Nikbakhsh, E. (2013). Hub location
problems: A review of models, classification, solution techniques, and applications.
Computers and Industrial Engineering, 64(4), 1096–1109. Elsevier Ltd.
Farahani, R. Z., SteadieSeifi, M., & Asgari, N. (Jul. 2010). Multiple criteria facility
location problems: A survey. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 34(7), 1689–1709.
van Heeswijk, W., Larsen, R., & Larsen, A. (2019). An urban consolidation center in the
city of Copenhagen: A simulation study. International Journal of Sustainable
Transportation, 13(9), 675–691.
IMP. (2007). Greater Istanbul municipality 1/25000 master plan report.
Jankowski, P., & Richard, L. (1994). Integration of GIS-based suitability analysis and
multicriteria evaluation in a spatial decision support system for route selection.
Environment and Planning. B, Planning & Design, 21, 323–340.
Karaşan, A., & Kaya, İ. (2019). Neutrosophic TOPSIS method for technology evaluation
of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). In International conference on intelligent and
fuzzy systems (pp. 665–673).
Kayikci, Y. (2010). A conceptual model for intermodal freight logistics Centre location
decisions. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 6297–6311.
van Laarhoven, P. J. M., & Pedrycz, W. (1983). A fuzzy extension of Saaty’s priority
theory. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 11(1–3), 199–227.
Li, Y., Liu, X., & Chen, Y. (Jun. 2011). Selection of logistics center location using
axiomatic fuzzy set and TOPSIS methodology in logistics management. Expert
Systems with Applications, 38(6), 7901–7908.
Liou, T.-S., & Wang, M.-J. J. (1992). Ranking fuzzy numbers with integral value. Fuzzy
Sets and Systems, 50(3), 247–255.
Long, S., & Grasman, S. E. (2012). A strategic decision model for evaluating inland
freight hub locations. Research in Transportation Business and Management, 5, 92–98.
Malczewski, J. (Jul. 2004). GIS-based land-use suitability analysis: A critical overview.
Progress in Planning, 62(1), 3–65.
Meidute, I. (2005). Comparative analysis of the definitions of logistics centres. Transport,
20(3), 106–110.
Musolino, G., Rindone, C., & Vitetta, A. (2017). Evaluation in transport planning: A
comparison between data envelopment analysis and multi criteria decision making
methods. In 31st annual European simulation and modelling conference 2017 (ESM
2017).
Oğuztimur, Ş., Çancı, M., & Oğuztimur, S. (2011). Urban logistics in master plan and a
review on Istanbul master plan. In 51st Congress of the European regional science
association.
Önden, İ. (2018). Integrating GIS with F-AHP for locating a single facility. Transport, 33
(5), 1173–1183.
Önden, İ., Acar, A. Z., & Eldemir, F. (2018). Evaluation of the logistics center locations
using a multi-criteria spatial approach. Transport, 33(2), 322–334.
Onden, Ismail, Eldemir, Fahrettin, & Canci, Metin (2015). Logistics Center Concept And
Location Decision Criteria. 33 pp. 325–340). SIGMA JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING
AND NATURAL SCIENCES-SIGMA MUHENDISLIK VE FEN BILIMLERI DERGISI.
Önden, İ., Eldemir, F., & Çancı, M. (2014). Clustering logistics facilities in a metropolitan
area via a hot-spot analysis. Journal of Business Research-Türk, 6(4), 6–15.
Özceylan, E., Erbaş, M., Tolon, M., Kabak, M., & Durğut, T. (2016). Evaluation of freight
villages: A GIS-based multi-criteria decision analysis. Computers in Industry, 76,
38–52.
Özdemir, D. (2010). Strategic choice for Istanbul: A domestic or international orientation
for logistics? Cities, 27(3), 154–163.
İ. Önden and F. Eldemir
Peker, I., Baki, B., Tanyas, M., & Murat Ar, I. (Mar. 2016). Logistics center site selection
by ANP/BOCR analysis: A case study of Turkey. Journal of Intelligent Fuzzy Systems,
30(4), 2383–2396.
Rimiene, K., & Grundey, D. (2007). Logistics centre concept through evolution and
definition. The Engineering Economist, 54(4), 87–95.
Russo, F., & Rindone, C. (2010). Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) for evacuation
planning. In Proc. of risk analysis VII & brownfields V, WIT transactions on information
and communication.
Saaty, T. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Smarandache, F. (1998). Neutrosophy: Neutrosophic probability, set, and logic: analytic
synthesis & synthetic analysis. 105. Am. Res. Press.
TUIK - Turkish Statistical Institute. (2013). Tourism statistics revised results.
TUIK - Turkish Statistical Institute. (2020). Population size of the districts at the study
area. In The results of address based population registration system.
15
Research in Transportation Business & Management 44 (2022) 100734
Ulutaş, A., Karakuş, C. B., & Topal, A. (2020). Location selection for logistics center with
fuzzy SWARA and CoCoSo methods. Journal of Intelligent Fuzzy Systems, 38(4),
4693–4709.
Uyanik, C., Tuzkaya, G., & Oğuztimur, S. (2018). A literature survey on logistics centers’
location selection problem. Sigma Journal of Engineering and Natural Sciences, 36(1),
141–160.
Yager, R. R. (2013). Pythagorean fuzzy subsets. In 2013 joint IFSA world congress and
NAFIPS annual meeting (IFSA/NAFIPS) (pp. 57–61).
Yanase, J., & Triantaphyllou, E. (2019). A systematic survey of computer-aided diagnosis
in medicine: Past and present developments. Expert Systems with Applications, 138.
Yazdani, M., Chatterjee, P., Pamucar, D., & Chakraborty, S. (2020). Development of an
integrated decision making model for location selection of logistics centers in the
Spanish autonomous communities. Expert Systems with Applications, 148.
Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3), 338–353.
Żak, J., & Węgliński, S. (2014). The selection of the logistics center location based on
MCDM/A methodology. Transportation Research Procedia, 3, 555–564.