Expert Systems with Applications 37 (2010) 3943–3952

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Expert Systems with Applications

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

Multi-criteria warehouse location selection using Choquet integral

Tufan Demirel a, Nihan Çetin Demirel a, Cengiz Kahraman b,*
a
Yıldız Technical University, Department of Industrial Engineering, Yıldız, Istanbul, Turkey
b
Istanbul Technical University, Department of Industrial Engineering, Maçka, Istanbul, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: The location of a warehouse is generally one of the most important and strategic decision in the optimi-
Choquet integral zation of logistic systems. Warehouse location is a long-term decision and is influenced by many quan-
Fuzzy titative and qualitative factors. Among the main criteria taken into account in this paper, some are costs,
Hierarchy labor characteristics, infrastructure, and markets. This paper also includes some sub-criteria because of
Multi-criteria
the hierarchical structure of the problem, like tax incentives and tax structures, availability of labor force,
Warehouse location
Fuzzy measure
quality and reliability of modes of transportation, and proximity to customers. The conventional
approaches to warehouse location selection problem tend to be less effective in dealing with the impre-
cise or vague nature of the linguistic assessment. Under many situations, the values of the qualitative cri-
teria are often imprecisely defined for the decision-makers. Choquet integral is a suitable multi-criteria
method to capture this imprecise or vague nature. This paper shows a successful application of multi-cri-
teria Choquet integral to a real warehouse location selection problem of a big Turkish logistic firm.
Crown Copyright Ó 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Optimum location of distribution warehouses is an important
partial task of optimization of logistic systems. The efficient and
effective movement of goods from raw material sites to processing
facilities, component fabrication plants, finished goods assembly
plants, distribution centers, warehouses, retailers, and customers
is critical in today’s competitive environment. In today’s rapidly
evolving world of business, logistics and supply chain management
are more and more important.
Among supply chain studies, many papers on facility location
problem have been published. Vlachopoulou, Silleos, and Manthou
(2001) aim at developing a geographic decision support system for
the warehouse site selection process, enabling the manager to use
quantitative and qualitative criteria in order to classify alternative
warehouses or visualize the best one. Sharma and Berry (2007)
consider the single stage capacitated warehouse location problem
(SSCWLP) where goods are shipped from plants to warehouses and
from warehouses to markets. The problem is to choose a set of
points where warehouses are located so that the sum of warehouse
location costs and transportation costs are minimized. In their
study they consider different formulation styles due to Geoffrion
and Graves (1974) and Sharma (1991) for the multistage ware-
house location problem; and cast them in the formulation style
of Sharma and Sharma (2000) to obtain a variety of formulations
of the problem SSCWLP. A public warehouses selection support
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: kahramanc@itu.edu.tr (C. Kahraman).
system (PWSS) software has been built by Colson and Dorigo
(2004) to give the opportunity to industrial users of exploiting a
classical data base on public warehouses, where several items of
information are given on each warehouse located in a given coun-
try. Their software public warehouses selection support has two
purposes: to select public warehouses according to several criteria
and to exploit a database when some data are missing. They use
multiple criteria selections and rankings with a mixture of classical
true continuous criteria and Boolean ones from a methodological
point of view. Michel and Hentenryck (2004) present a very simple
tabu-search algorithm which performs amazingly well on the
uncapacitated warehouse location problem. The algorithm uses a
linear neighborhood. Drezner, Scott, and Song (2003) concern with
the optimal location of a central warehouse, when the possible
locations and the number of warehouses are known. They solve
the problem sequentially. First, for any given central warehouse
location, the problem is a pure inventory problem. They find the
optimal policy for the inventory problem. They express the total
inventory and transportation costs as a function of the central
warehouse location. The next step is to optimize this total cost
function over all possible central warehouse locations. Partovi
(2006) explains a new analytic model for facility location that takes
into account both external and internal criteria that sustain com-
petitive advantage. Partovi’s model, which is based on quality func-
tion deployment (QFD), also includes the analytic hierarchy
process (AHP) and the analytic network process (ANP) concepts
to determine the best location for a facility.
The most well known general heuristic methods for facility
location problems are Tabu Search (TS), Simulated Annealing

0957-4174/$ - see front matter Crown Copyright Ó 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2009.11.022
3944 T. Demirel et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 37 (2010) 3943–3952
(SA), and Genetic Algorithms (GA). Arostegui, Kadipasaoglu, and
Khumawala (2006) compare the relative performance of TS, SA,
and GA on various facilities location problems. Hidaka and Okano
(1997) propose a simulation-based approach to the large-scale
incapacitated warehouse/facility location problems, including a
heuristic algorithm named ‘‘Balloon Search”. Many warehouse
location models do not explicitly represent the effect of dependent
criteria. Most of the traditional multi-criteria decision making
(MCDM) methods are based on the additive concept along with
the independence assumption, but each individual criterion is
not always completely independent (Shee, Tzeng, & T, 2003). For
solving the interactions among elements, the Analytic Network
Process (ANP) as a MCDM method was proposed by Saaty (1996).
Kahraman, Ertay, and Büyüközkan (2006) develop fuzzy ANP and
apply it to a company producing PVC window and door systems.
Warehouse location decisions are among the most critical deci-
sions of distribution network design. The selection of a warehouse
location among alternative locations is a multi-criteria decision-
making problem including both quantitative and qualitative crite-
ria. The conventional approaches to warehouse location selection
problem tend to be less effective in dealing with the imprecise or
vague nature of the linguistic assessment. Under many situations,
the values of the qualitative criteria are often imprecisely defined
for the decision-makers.
Choquet integral has been used for the solution of multiple cri-
teria decision-making problems in the literature. Marichal, Meyer,
and Roubens (2005) analyze an ordinal sorting procedure (TOM-
ASO) for the assignment of alternatives to graded classes and pres-
ent a freeware constructed from this procedure. Meyer and
Roubens (2006) present a multiple criteria decision support ap-
proach in order to build a ranking and suggest a best choice on a
set of alternatives. The aggregation is performed through the use
of a fuzzy extension of the Choquet integral. This paper proposes
a multi-criteria decision-making method using fuzzy integral for
the evaluation of alternative warehouse locations. We first deter-
mine the main and sub-criteria and the hierarchy for the ware-
house location selection problem, then make a multi-criteria
evaluation of the warehouse location alternatives to illustrate
how the generalized Choquet integral is used to do this. The Cho-
quet integral is a flexible aggregation operator being introduced
by Sugeno (1974) and it is the generalization of the weighted aver-
age method, the Ordered Weighted Average (OWA) operator, and
the max–min operator (Grabisch, Murofushi, & Sugeno, 2000).
The Choquet integral is a generalization of the Lebesgue integral,
defined with respect to a non classical measure, often called fuzzy
measure, or non-additive measure or also capacity. A fuzzy integral
is a sort of very general averaging operator that can represent the
notions of importance of a criterion and interaction between
criteria.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2
presents multi-criteria methods for facility/warehouse location
selection problem. Section 3 introduces some definitions and for-
mulations associated with Choquet integral. The steps of the meth-
odology used for warehouse location selection are given in Section
4. Warehouse location criteria are defined in the Section 5. An
application to a warehouse location selection problem in a Turkish
logistic firm is presented in Section 6. The last section summarizes
the findings and makes suggestions for further research.
2. Multi-criteria methods for location selection
The existing literature does not indicate a systematic fashion of
location selection research. However, the study of location selec-
tion has a long and extensive history spanning many general re-
search fields including operations research (or management
science), industrial engineering, geography, economics, computer
science, mathematics, marketing, electrical engineering, urban
planning (Drezner, 1995). Various terms (e.g., facility location
selection, store choice, and site selection) are being used for loca-
tion selection, and they bear different meanings. For example, facil-
ity location problems are solved to minimize the total cost of
serving all customers (e.g., a service center). Retail location prob-
lems, on the other hand, center on how to identify a location that
can maximize the number of shoppers (Cheng & Li, 2004).
A rich source of seminal papers can be found from the field of
location science, which regards location selection problems as geo-
metrical and combinatorial optimization problems. Owen and Da-
skin (1998) attributed a large amount of facility location selection
studies to operations research. A number of mathematical pro-
gramming models have been developed, which can be classified
as (1) static and deterministic models, and (2) dynamic and stochastic
models. Current, Min, and Schilling (1990), on the other hand, re-
viewed that facility location are selected on the basis of four broad
categories of objectives (i.e., cost minimization, demand-orienta-
tion, profit maximization, and environmental concerns). Static
and deterministic location mathematical models are the main-
stream research topics in this area, but which cannot address many
of the complicated location selection problems. In consideration of
changing demands over time, potential expansions, and future
relocations over the long term, dynamic and stochastic models
are more robust in addressing these future uncertainty issues so
that the facilities built are able to remain operable over an ex-
tended time period.
According to Owen and Daskin (1998), static and deterministic
models have five basic purposes, which focus on:
 How to minimize the average distance traveled—This also corre-
sponds to minimization of travel time and traveling cost. For
example, schools, retail shops, and emergency service centers
must be near to target residents, and thus proximity is desirable
for a wide range of public and private facilities.
 How to achieve maximum coverage—With respect to facilities
such as police stations, fire stations, community centers, and
hospitals, the most crucial is about how to determine the mini-
mum number of facilities needed to cover all demands, given
that they can serve within an acceptable time. Such a cost min-
imization to save available resources is usually a policy for locat-
ing public facilities.
 How to determine a center that can maximize coverage and mini-
mize the distance traveled. Owen and Daskin (1998) referred to
this as ‘‘(the minimization of) the maximum distance between
any demand and its nearest facility”. This type of regret models
considers opposing problems in terms of distance and coverage
in locating a center for building a facility.
 How to deal with multiple objectives—Many location selection
problems are inherently complex in nature, which involve mul-
tiple decision objectives. For example, locating a hospital may
consider both location and allocation issues, while selecting a
site for a shopping mall may involve variables other than simply
minimal traveling cost and maximum coverage. Generally, most
of the objectives can be classified into one of the four general
objective function categories suggested by Current et al.
(1990), which are cost, demand, profit, and environment.
 How to locate undesirable facility—Apart from the selection of
desirable facilities location, there are practical applications deal-
ing with locating undesirable facilities that should be located
away from populations, such as waste disposal plants, airports,
water treatment centers, and nuclear plants.
In contrast to static and deterministic formulations, dynamic
and stochastic models are mainly dealing with planning for future
 T. Demirel et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 37 (2010) 3943–3952 3945

conditions under two core uncertainty situations: (1) planning
with known model input parameters, and (2) planning with imper-
fect information of input parameters. They are described briefly as
follows:
1. Dynamic facility location models—These models usually attempt
to locate facilities over a specified time horizon by formulating
such real-world problems as location–allocation, spatial, and
temporal aspects into either a single objective or multiple
objectives with an optimal or near-optimal solution. These
models assume that the future values of input parameters are
known or vary deterministically over time.
2. Stochastic location models—These models assume that future
values of inputs are uncertain. It can be grouped into two
approaches. Models that are developed under the probabilistic
approach focus explicitly on the probability distributions of
random variables, while the scenario approach embraces mod-
els that help generate a set of possible future values for the
variables.
As it is explained before, these methods do not take the interac-
tions among the location selection attributes into account and can
not handle vague and incomplete information. The methods trying
to consider the interactions, like ANP, are very tedious since they
require a huge amount of calculations. The Choquet integral is an
excellent multi-attribute tool for the problems having interactive
attributes under fuzziness.
3. Choquet integral and the steps of the methodology
A fuzzy integral is a sort of general averaging operator that can
represent the notions of importance of a criterion and interactions
among criteria. To define fuzzy integrals, a set of values of impor-
tance is needed. This set is composed of the values of a fuzzy mea-
sure. So, a value of importance for each subset of attributes is
needed.
The success of a Choquet integral depends on an appropriate
representation of fuzzy measures, which captures the importance
of individual criterion or their combination. In this paper, the gen-
eralized Choquet integral proposed by Auephanwiriyahul, Keller,
and Gader (2002) will be used, in which measurable evidence is
represented in terms of intervals, whereas fuzzy measures are real
numbers, is an extension of the standard Choquet integral. In con-
trast to Auephanwiriyahul et al. (2002) and Tsai and Lu (2006) pro-
poses another generalization that involves linguistic expressions as
well as information fusion between criteria to overcome vagueness
and imprecision of linguistic terms in questionnaires. Our method-
ology follows Tsai and Lu’s (2006) approach to Auephanwiriyahul
et al. (2002).
In the following, some definitions are given to explain the basics
of Choquet integral (Modave and Grabisch, 1998):
Let I be the set of attributes (or any set in a general setting). A
set function l : PðIÞ ! ½0; 1 is called a fuzzy measure if it satisfies
the three following axioms: (1) lðØÞ ¼ 0: an empty set has no
importance, (2) lðIÞ ¼ 1: the maximal set has a maximal impor-
tance, (3) lðBÞ 6 lðCÞ if B, C  I and B  C: a new added criterion
cannot make the importance of a coalition (a set of criteria) dimin-
ish. Therefore, in a problem where card(I)=n, a value for every ele-
ment of P(I) including 2n values is needed. Assuming that the
values of the empty set and of the maximal set are fixed, ð2n  2Þ
values or coefficients to define a fuzzy measure are needed. So,
there is clearly a trade-off between complexity and accuracy. How-
ever, the complexity can be significantly reduced in order to guar-
antee that fuzzy measures are used in practical applications. A
fuzzy integral is a sort of weighted mean taking into account the
importance of every coalition of criteria.
The methodology is composed of eight steps (Tsai & Lu, 2006):
Step 1. Given criterion i, respondents’ linguistic preferences for
the degree of importance, perceived performance levels
of alternative locations, and tolerance zone are surveyed.
Step 2. In view of the compatibility between perceived perfor-
mance levels and the tolerance zone, trapezoidal fuzzy
numbers are used to quantify all linguistic terms in this
study. Given respondent t and criteria i, linguistic terms
for the degree of importance is parameterized by

Best location selection for warehouse location

Costs Labor Infrastructure Markets Macro

characteristics environment

• Labor costs • Skilled labor • Existence of modes • Proximity to • Policies of

• Transportation • Availability of of transportation customers government
costs labor force • Telecommunication • Proximity to • Industrial
• Tax incentives systems suppliers or regulations laws
and tax • Quality and producer • Zoning and
structures reliability of • Lead Times and construction plan
• Financial modes of responsiveness
incentives transportation
• Handling costs

Location A1 Location A2 Location A3 Location A4

Fig. 1. The hierarchy of the warehouse location selection problem.

3946 T. Demirel et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 37 (2010) 3943–3952

8 n 
e t ¼ ðat ; at ; at ; at Þ, perceived performance levels by e
A p ti ¼ >
> Q
i i1 i2 i3 i4 >
< 1=k ½1 þ kgðAi Þ  1 if k – 0
ðpti1 ; pti2 ; pti3 ; pti4 Þ, and the tolerance zone by e
e ti ¼ ðeti1L ; eti2L ; i¼1
1 ¼ gðSÞ ¼ ð6Þ
eti3U ; eti4U Þ. In this case study, t ¼ 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; >
> P
n
>
: gðAi Þ if k ¼ 0;
nj ; j ¼ 1; 2; 3; 4; n1 ¼ 3; n2 ¼ 2; n3 ¼ 4; n4 ¼ 3; where nj i¼1
represents the number of criteria in dimension j.
where, Ai \ Aj ¼ / for all i; j ¼ 1; 2; 3; . . . ; n and i–j, and
~t ; p
Step 3. Average A ~ti and ~ ~ i , and ~
eti into A ei , respectively using Eq. k 2 ð1; 1.
i
(1). Let l be a fuzzy measure on (I,P(I)) and an application
f : I ! Rþ . The Choquet integral off with respect to l
Pk ~ t Pk Pk Pk Pk !
t t t t is defined by:
~i ¼ t¼1 Ai t¼1 ai1 t¼1 ai2 t¼1 ai3 t¼1 ai4
A ¼ ; ; ; : Z
k k k k k X
n
ðCÞ fdl ¼ ðf ðrðiÞÞ  f ðrði  1ÞÞÞlðAðiÞ Þ ð7Þ
ð1Þ I i¼1

where r is a permutation of the indices in order to have

Step 4. Normalize the location value of each criterion using Eq.
(2). f ðrð1ÞÞ 6 . . . 6 f ðrðnÞÞ; AðiÞ ¼ frðiÞ; . . . ; rðnÞg and
~f ¼
i k f ai ¼ k ½fi;a ; fi;þa ; ð2Þ  f ðrð0ÞÞ ¼ 0; by convention:
a2½0;1 a2½0;1

where fi 2 FðSÞ is a fuzzy-valued function. e F ðSÞ is the set of It is easy to see that the Choquet integral is a Lebesgue integral
h i pa ea þ½1;1
all fuzzy-valued functions f ; fia ¼ fi;a ; fi;þa ¼ i i2 ai
;p up to a reordering of the indices. Actually, if the fuzzy measure l is
additive, then the Choquet integral reduces to a Lebesgue integral.
and eai are a-level cuts of e e i for all a ¼ ½0; 1.
p i and e It is shown in Modave & Grabisch (1998) that under rather gen-
eral assumptions over the set of alternatives X, and over the weak
Step 5. Find the location value of dimension j using Eq. (3). orders i , there exists a unique fuzzy measure l over I such that:
8x; y 2 X; x  y () uðxÞ P uðyÞ; ð8Þ
Z  Z Z 
ðCÞ ef d e
g¼ k ðCÞ  
fa dg a ; ðCÞ þ
fa dg a ;
þ
ð3Þ where
a¼½0;1
X
n
 

where gi : PðSÞ ! IðRþ Þ; gi ¼ ½g  þ a  þ  uðxÞ ¼ uðiÞ ðxðiÞ Þ  uði1Þ ðxði1Þ Þ l AðiÞ ; ð9Þ
i ; g i ; g i ¼ ½g i;a ; g i;a ; f i : S !
IðRþ Þ, and fi ¼ ½fi ; fiþ  for i ¼ 1; 2; 3; . . . ; nj : i¼1

To be able to calculate this location value, a k value and
the fuzzy measures gðAðiÞ Þ, i = 1, 2, . . . , n, are needed. These
are obtained from the following Eqs. (4)–(6) (Sugeno,
1974; Ishii & Sugeno, 1985):
gðAðnÞ Þ ¼ gðfsðnÞ gÞ ¼ g n ;
gðAðiÞ Þ ¼ g i þ gðAðiþ1Þ Þ þ kg i gðAðiþ1Þ Þ;
which is simply the aggregation of the monodimensional utility
functions using the Choquet integral with respect to l.
Step 6. Aggregate all dimensional performance levels of the loca-
ð4Þ tion alternatives into overall performance levels, using a
hierarchical process applying the two-stage aggregation
process of the generalized Choquet integral. This is repre-
where 1 6 i < n
sented in Eq. (10). The overall performance levels yields a
ð5Þ fuzzy number, V e.

Fig. 2. Map of Turkey showing the alternative warehouse locations.

 T. Demirel et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 37 (2010) 3943–3952 3947

R
maincriterionð1Þ ¼ ðCÞ fdg 4.2. Labor characteristics
Z
.. iV ¼ ðCÞ maincriterion dg ð10Þ
. This main criterion defines the state of qualified labor at a loca-
R
maincriterionðmÞ ¼ ðCÞ fdg tion and the degree of the availability of such labor. Skilled labor de-
fines the personnel for a work, who has qualities to perform such
e is l ~ ðxÞ; defuzzify the work and who is trained, qualified. This is one of the requirements
Step 7. Assume that the membership of V V
e into a crisp value v using Eq. (11) and in order to perform a work timely and in a qualified manner. The
fuzzy number V
skilled labor may not be at the desired level at each location. Avail-
make a comparison of the overall performance levels of
ability of labor force is a criterion that changes based on the level of
alternative locations.
development in the region, training levels, and population
a1 þ a2 þ a3 þ a4 structure.
e ¼
Fð AÞ : ð11Þ
4

Step 8. Compare weak and advantageous criteria among the loca- Table 2
The criteria of warehouse location selection and their symbols.
tions alternatives using Eq. (1).
Criteria The symbol of each
criterion

4. Warehouse selection criteria Costs C

1. Labor costs C1
2. Transportation costs C2
In this study, five main criteria and 16 sub-criteria of these main 3. Tax incentives and tax structures C3
criteria were used for the selection of warehouse location. These 4. Financial incentives C4
criteria were selected from the studies of Min & Melachrinoudis 5. Handling costs C5
(1999), Alberto (2000) and MacCarthy & Atthrirawong (2003). Labor characteristics LC
Moreover, while determining these criteria and their hierarchy, 1. Skilled labor LC 1
the opinions of experts in the logistics sector were also taken into 2. Availability of labor force LC 2
account. The definitions of the main and sub-criteria are summa- Infrastructure I
rized as follows: 1. Existence of modes of transportation I 1
2. Telecommunication systems I 2
3. Quality and reliability of modes of transportation I 3
4.1. Costs
Markets M
1. Proximity to customers M 1
Costs are one of the factors that the facility location highly af- 2. Proximity to suppliers or producer M 2
fects. Under the cost criterion, five sub-criteria are defined: labor 3. Lead Times and responsiveness M 3
costs, transportation cost, tax incentives and tax structures, financial Macro environment ME
incentives, and handling costs. Labor costs are the criterion that 1. Policies of government ME1
changes with respect to the life conditions at alternative locations. 2. Industrial regulations laws ME2
Transportation costs vary according to the economic structure of 3. Zoning and construction plan ME3

the alternative regions, transportation facilities and alternative

transportation types as air, land, railroad, and marine. Tax incen-
tives and tax structures vary based on the regions that have prior-
ity in development. The credit incentives by the state or private
Table 3
banks, which can be called Financial incentives, are realized in var-
Individual importance of criteria, the tolerance zones, and each warehouse location’s
ious regions. Handling costs, which is caused by the storage of the linguistic evaluation.
goods, are the costs that are composed of capital, work power,
Criteria Individual The Linguistic evaluation
equipment and risk costs and vary from a region to another
importance of tolerance
region. criteria zone
Izmir Izmit/ Zonguldak Bursa
Gebze
C HI
C1 M [M, H] SH M H H
Table 1 C2 HI [SL, SH] SH SH M SH
The relationship between trapezoidal fuzzy numbers and degrees of linguistic C3 SI [M, H] M M H M
importances in a nine-linguistic-term scale (Delgado et al., 1998). C4 SI [SL, SH] SH SH M SH
C5 HI [L, M] M M L SL
Low/high levels The degrees of Trapezoidal fuzzy
LC SU
importance numbers
LC 1 M [L, M] SL M L SL
Label Linguistic Label Linguistic terms LC 2 SU [SH, VH] SH VH SH H
terms
I HI
EL Extra low EU Extra (0, 0, 0, 0) I1 HI [M, VH] VH VH H H
unimportant I2 HI [H, EH] EH EH VH VH
VL Very low VU Very unimportant (0, 0.01, 0.02, 0.07) I3 VI [SH, VH] VH VH SH H
L Low U Unimportant (0.04, 0.1, 0.18, 0.23)
M VI
SL Slightly low SU Slightly (0.17, 0.22, 0.36, 0.42)
M1 SI [M, VH] M VH H H
unimportant
M2 SI [SH, VH] H VH H H
M Middle M Middle (0.32, 0.41, 0.58, 0.65)
M3 HI [SL, SH] M SH SL SH
SH Slightly high SI Slightly (0.58, 0.63, 0.8, 0.86)
important ME SI
H High HI High important (0.72, 0.78, 0.92, 0.97) ME1 HI [M, H] SH M H H
VH Very high VI Very important (0.93, 0.98, 0.98, 1.0) ME2 SI [SL, SH] SH SH M SH
EH Extra high EI Extra important (1, 1, 1, 1) ME3 SI [L, M] M M SL SL
3948 T. Demirel et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 37 (2010) 3943–3952

4.3. Infrastructure modes of transportation defines the transportation service between

It is a main criterion defining the basic structure of transporta-
tion, and communication systems, based on the location of a ware-
house. This criterion is composed of three sub-criteria: the
existence of modes of transportation, telecommunication, and
quality and reliability of modes of transportation. Existence of
modes of transportation has an importance based on the availability
of different transportation types in the location. Telecommunication
systems is a criterion that defines the communication facilities and
communication technologies of the warehouse with the customer
nodes, the producers or the suppliers. Quality and reliability of
the customer nodes, suppliers, and the warehouse, to be performed
in a reliable and qualified way based on the different transporta-
tion modes. Reliable and quality service means timely delivery,
delivery to the correct location and undamaged delivery of the
goods.
4.4. Market
It is a main criterion that defines the distance of the location
of the warehouse to the customers, suppliers and producers.
Moreover, this criterion contains the supply periods and the abil-

Table 4
Compromised evaluations of five experts.

Criteria Individual importance The combined tolerance zone Perceived performance levels of alternative locations
_
Izmir _
Izmit-Gebze Zonguldak Bursa

C (0.72, 0.78,0.92, 0.97)

C1 (0.32, 0.41, 0.58, 0.65)
C2 (0.72, 0.78, 0.92, 0.97)
C3 (0.58, 0.63, 0.8, 0.86)
C4 (0.58, 0.63, 0.8, 0.86)
C5 (0.72, 0.78, 0.92, 0.97)
LC (0.17, 0.22, 0.36, 0.42)
LC 1 (0.32, 0.41, 0.58, 0.65)
LC 2 (0.17, 0.22, 0.36, 0.42)
I (0.72, 0.78, 0.92, 0.97)
I1 (0.72, 0.78, 0.92, 0.97)
I2 (0.72, 0.78, 0.92, 0.97)
I3 (0.93, 0.98, 0.98, 1.0)
M (0.93, 0.98, 0.98, 1.0)
M1 (0.58, 0.63, 0.8, 0.86)
M2 (0.58, 0.63, 0.8, 0.86)
M3 (0.72, 0.78, 0.92, 0.97)
ME (0.58, 0.63, 0.80, 0.86)
ME1 (0.72, 0.78, 0.92, 0.97)
ME2 (0.58, 0.63, 0.8, 0.86)
ME3 (0.58, 0.63, 0.8, 0.86)
(0.32, 0.41, 0.92, 0.97)
(0.17, 0.22, 0.8, 0.86)
(0.32, 0.41, 0.92, 0.97)
(0.17, 0.22, 0.8, 0.86)
(0.04, 0.1, 0.58, 0.65)
(0.04, 0.1, 0.58, 0.65)
(0.58, 0.63, 0.98, 1.0)
(0.32, 0.41, 0.98, 1.0)
(0.72, 0.78, 1, 1)
(0.58, 0.63, 0.98, 1.0)
(0.32, 0.41, 0.98, 1.0)
(0.58, 0.63, 0.98, 1.0)
(0.17, 0.22, 0.8, 0.86)
(0.32, 0.41, 0.92, 0.97)
(0.17, 0.22, 0.8, 0.86)
(0.04, 0.1, 0.58, 0.65)
(0.58, 0.63, 0.8, 0.86) (0.32, 0.41, 0.58, 0.65) (0.72, 0.78, 0.92, 0.97) (0.72, 0.78, 0.92, 0.97)
(0.58, 0.63, 0.8, 0.86) (0.58, 0.63, 0.8, 0.86) (0.32, 0.41, 0.58, 0.65) (0.58, 0.63, 0.8, 0.86)
(0.32, 0.41, 0.58, 0.65) (0.32, 0.41, 0.58, 0.65) (0.72, 0.78, 0.92, 0.97) (0.32, 0.41, 0.58, 0.65)
(0.58, 0.63, 0.8, 0.86) (0.58, 0.63, 0.8, 0.86) (0.32, 0.41, 0.58, 0.65) (0.58, 0.63, 0.8, 0.86)
(0.32, 0.41, 0.58, 0.65) (0.32, 0.41, 0.58, 0.65) (0.04, 0.1, 0.18, 0.23) (0.17, 0.22, 0.36, 0.42)
(0.17, 0.22, 0.36, 0.42) (0.32, 0.41, 0.58, 0.65) (0.04, 0.1, 0.18, 0.23) (0.17, 0.22, 0.36, 0.42)
(0.58, 0.63, 0.8, 0.86) (0.93, 0.98, 0.98, 1.0) (0.58, 0.63, 0.8, 0.86) (0.72, 0.78, 0.92, 0.97)
(0.93, 0.98, 0.98, 1.0) (0.93, 0.98, 0.98, 1.0) (0.72, 0.78, 0.92, 0.97) (0.72, 0.78, 0.92, 0.97)
(1, 1, 1, 1) (1, 1, 1, 1) (0.93, 0.98, 0.98, 1.0) (0.93, 0.98, 0.98, 1.0)
(0.93, 0.98, 0.98, 1.0) (0.93, 0.98, 0.98, 1.0) (0.58, 0.63, 0.8, 0.86) (0.72, 0.78, 0.92, 0.97)
(0.32, 0.41, 0.58, 0.65) (0.93, 0.98, 0.98, 1.0) (0.72, 0.78, 0.92, 0.97) (0.72, 0.78, 0.92, 0.97)
(0.72, 0.78, 0.92, 0.97) (0.93, 0.98, 0.98, 1.0) (0.72, 0.78, 0.92, 0.97) (0.72, 0.78, 0.92, 0.97)
(0.32, 0.41, 0.58, 0.65) (0.58, 0.63, 0.8, 0.86) (0.17, 0.22, 0.36, 0.42) (0.58, 0.63, 0.8, 0.86)
(0.58, 0.63, 0.8, 0.86) (0.32, 0.41, 0.58, 0.65) (0.72, 0.78, 0.92, 0.97) (0.72, 0.78, 0.92, 0.97)
(0.58, 0.63, 0.8, 0.86) (0.58, 0.63, 0.8, 0.86) (0.32, 0.41, 0.58, 0.65) (0.58, 0.63, 0.8, 0.86)
(0.32, 0.41, 0.58, 0.65) (0.32, 0.41, 0.58, 0.65) (0.17, 0.22, 0.36, 0.42) (0.17, 0.22, 0.36, 0.42)

Table 5
Evaluation results by the generalized Choquet integral for a ¼ 0.
R  R þ
Dimensions and criteria Individual importance of criteria The normalized discrepancy f i ¼ ½fi ; fiþ  and location value ½ðCÞ f  dg ; ðCÞ f þ dg 
þ
gi ¼ ½g 
i ; gi 
_
Izmir _
Izmit/Gebze Zonguldak Bursa

Costs [0.353, 0.8448] [0.3522, 0.8448] [0.3329, 0.8207] [0.3562, 0.8447]

C1 [0.32, 0.65] [0.305, 0.77] [0.175, 0.665] [0.375, 0.825] [0.375, 0.825]
C2 [0.72, 0.97] [0.36, 0.845] [0.36, 0.845] [0.23, 0.74] [0.36, 0.845]
C3 [0.58, 0.86] [0.175, 0.665] [0.175, 0.665] [0.375, 0.825] [0.175, 0.665]
C4 [0.58, 0.86] [0.36, 0.845] [0.36, 0.845] [0.23, 0.74] [0.36, 0.845]
C5 [0.72, 0.97] [0.335, 0.805] [0.335, 0.805] [0.195, 0.595] [0.26, 0.69]
Labor characteristics [0.265, 0.625] [0.357, 0.771] [0.211, 0.6139] [0.277, 0.692]
LC 1 [0.32, 0.65] [0.26, 0.69] [0.335, 0.805] [0.195, 0.595] [0.26, 0.69]
LC 2 [0.17, 0.42] [0.29, 0.64] [0.465, 0.71] [0.29, 0.64] [0.36, 0.695]
Infrastructure [0.49, 0.8361] [0.49, 0.8361] [0.43, 0.8194] [0.4356, 0.8211]
I1 [0.72, 0.97] [0.465, 0.84] [0.465, 0.84] [0.36, 0.825] [0.36, 0.825]
I2 [0.72, 0.97] [0.5, 0.64] [0.5, 0.64] [0.465, 0.64] [0.465, 0.64]
I3 [0.93, 1.0] [0.465, 0.71] [0.465, 0.71] [0.29, 0.64] [0.36, 0.695]
Markets [0.2992, 0.7385] [0.4489, 0.8443] [0.3286, 0.8054] [0.36, 0.8438]
M1 [0.58, 0.86] [0.16, 0.665] [0.465, 0.84] [0.36, 0.825] [0.36, 0.825]
M2 [0.58, 0.86] [0.36, 0.695] [0.465, 0.71] [0.36, 0.695] [0.36, 0.695]
M3 [0.72, 0.97] [0.23, 0.74] [0.36, 0.845] [0.155, 0.625] [0.36, 0.845]
Macro environment [0.3449, 0.8387] [0.325, 0.8366] [0.34, 0.8222] [0.3619, 0.8416]
ME1 [0.72, 0.97] [0.305, 0.77] [0.175, 0.665] [0.375, 0.825] [0.375, 0.825]
ME2 [0.58, 0.86] [0.36, 0.845] [0.36, 0.845] [0.23, 0.74] [0.36, 0.845]
ME3 [0.58, 0.86] [0.335, 0.805] [0.335, 0.805] [0.26, 0.69] [0.26, 0.69]
 T. Demirel et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 37 (2010) 3943–3952 3949

ity to respond to an order. Proximity to customers defines the dis-
tance of the warehouse location to the customer nodes. Proximity
to suppliers or producers defines the distance of the warehouse
location to the suppliers and the producers. Lead times and
responsiveness defines the ability and the period to fulfill an
order.
4.5. Macro environment
This main criterion includes the government policies, industrial
arrangements and laws, and the development plans of the region at
the macro level. Policies of government is considered as a sub-crite-
rion that differs from a region to another region. Being parallel to
the development level of the region, it includes the factors such
as various incentives, tax exemptions, and investment facilities.
Industrial regulations laws, which is parallel to the policies and
implementations of the local administrations, is a criterion that de-
fines various laws and arrangements. Zoning and construction plan
is a sub-criterion that defines the different development plans,
implementations and arrangements of local administrations at
alternative locations.
Employing the main and sub-criteria explained above, a hierar-
chical structure for a warehouse location selection problem is
shown in Fig. 1.

Table 6
Fuzzy measures.

_
Izmir _
Izmit/Gebze Zonguldak Bursa

g  ¼ ðAðiÞ Þ g þ ¼ ðAðiÞ Þ g  ¼ ðAðiÞ Þ g þ ¼ ðAðiÞ Þ g  ¼ ðAðiÞ Þ g þ ¼ ðAðiÞ Þ g  ¼ ðAðiÞ Þ g þ ¼ ðAðiÞ Þ

Fuzzy measures
k ¼ 0:989 k ¼ 0:999 k ¼ 0:989 k ¼ 0:999 k ¼ 0:989 k ¼ 0:999 k ¼ 0:989 k ¼ 0:999
g  ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:98 g þ ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 1 g  ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g þ ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g  ðAð4Þ Þ ¼ 0:716 g þ ðAð4Þ Þ ¼ 0:95 g  ðAð5Þ Þ ¼ 0:32 g þ ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:999
g  ðAð4Þ Þ ¼ 0:88 g þ ðAð4Þ Þ ¼ 0:9966 g  ðAð4Þ Þ ¼ 0:88 g þ ðAð4Þ Þ ¼ 0:9966 g  ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:975 g þ ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 1 g  ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:926 g þ ðAð4Þ Þ ¼ 0:9966
g  ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g þ ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g  ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:99 g þ ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 1 g  ðAð5Þ Þ ¼ 0:58 g þ ðAð5Þ Þ ¼ 0:86 g  ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g þ ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1
g  ðAð5Þ Þ ¼ 0:58 g þ ðAð5Þ Þ ¼ 0:86 g  ðAð5Þ Þ ¼ 0:58 g þ ðAð5Þ Þ ¼ 0:86 g  ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:885 g þ ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:994 g  ðAð4Þ Þ ¼ 0:716 g þ ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:86
g  ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:97 g þ ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 1 g  ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:97 g þ ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 1 g  ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g þ ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g  ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:9867 g þ ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 1

k ¼ 9:373 k ¼ 0:2567 k ¼ 9:373 k ¼ 0:2567 k ¼ 9:373 k ¼ 0:2567 k ¼ 9:373 k ¼ 0:2567

g  ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g þ ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:65 g  ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g þ ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:65 g  ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g þ ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g  ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g þ ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1
g  ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:17 g þ ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g  ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:17 g þ ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g  ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:17 g þ ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:42 g  ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:17 g þ ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:42

k ¼ 0:9939 k ¼ 0:9999 k ¼ 0:9939 k ¼ 0:9999 k ¼ 0:9939 k ¼ 0:9999 k ¼ 0:9939 k ¼ 0:9999

g  ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g þ ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:97 g  ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g þ ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:97 g  ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:9247 g þ ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:97 g  ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g þ ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:97
g  ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:72 g þ ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g  ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:72 g þ ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g  ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:72 g þ ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g  ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:72 g þ ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1
g  ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:9845 g þ ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 1 g  ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:9845 g þ ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 1 g  ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g þ ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 1 g  ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:9845 g þ ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 1

k ¼ 0:9299 k ¼ 0:9994 k ¼ 0:9299 k ¼ 0:9994 k ¼ 0:9299 k ¼ 0:9994 k ¼ 0:9299 k ¼ 0:9994

g  ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g þ ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g  ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:847 g þ ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:996 g  ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:847 g þ ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:86 g  ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g þ ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:996
g  ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:58 g þ ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:996 g  ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:58 g þ ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g  ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:58 g þ ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:98 g  ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:9117 g þ ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1
g  ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:9117 g þ ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:97 g  ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g þ ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:97 g  ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g þ ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g  ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:72 g þ ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:97

k ¼ 0:9299 k ¼ 0:9994 k ¼ 0:9299 k ¼ 0:9994 k ¼ 0:9299 k ¼ 0:9994 k ¼ 0:9299 k ¼ 0:9994

g  ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g þ ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g  ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g þ ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g  ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:72 g þ ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:97 g  ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:72 g þ ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:996
g  ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:58 g þ ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:86 g  ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:58 g þ ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:86 g  ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g þ ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:996 g  ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:9117 g þ ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:86
g  ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:847 g þ ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:98 g  ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:847 g þ ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:98 g  ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:9117 g þ ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g  ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g þ ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1

Table 7
Evaluation results by the generalized Choquet integral for a ¼ 1.
R  R þ
Dimensions and criteria Individual importance of criteria The normalized discrepancy f i ¼ ½fi ; fiþ  and location value ½ðCÞ f  dg ; ðCÞ f þ dg 
þ
gi ¼ ½g 
i ; gi 
_
Izmir _
Izmit/Gebze Zonguldak Bursa

Costs [0.4119, 0.789] [0.4125, 0.789] [0.4021, 0.7485] [0.4163, 0.7885]

C1 [0.41, 0.58] [0.355, 0.695] [0.245, 0.585] [0.43, 0.755] [0.43, 0.755]
C2 [0.78, 0.92] [0.415, 0.79] [0.415, 0.79] [0.305, 0.68] [0.415, 0.79]
C3 [0.63, 0.8] [0.245, 0.585] [0.245, 0.585] [0.43, 0.755] [0.245, 0.585]
C4 [0.63, 0.8] [0.415, 0.79] [0.415, 0.79] [0.305, 0.68] [0.415, 0.79]
C5 [0.78,0.92] [0.415, 0.74] [0.415, 0.74] [0.26, 0.54] [0.32, 0.63]
Labor characteristics [0.3211, 0.6111] [0.4337, 0.7127] [0.2743, 0.5562] [0.3376, 0.6354]
LC 1 [0.41, 0.58] [0.32, 0.63] [0.415, 0.74] [0.26, 0.54] [0.32, 0.63]
LC 2 [0.22, 0.36] [0.325, 0.585] [0.5, 0.675] [0.325, 0.585] [0.4, 0.645]
Infrastructure [0.5, 0.7824] [0.5, 0.7824] [0.46, 0.7423] [0.4648, 0.7461]
I1 [0.78, 0.92] [0.5, 0.785] [0.5, 0.785] [0.4, 0.755] [0.4, 0.755]
I2 [0.72, 0.78] [0.5, 0.61] [0.5, 0.61] [0.49, 0.6] [0.49, 0.6]
I3 [0.98, 0.98] [0.5, 0.675] [0.5, 0.675] [0.325, 0.585] [0.4, 0.645]
Markets [0.3592, 0.6763] [0.4896, 0.7881] [0.3769, 0.7301] [0.4117, 0.7857]
M1 [0.63, 0.8] [0.215, 0.585] [0.5, 0.785] [0.4, 0.755] [0.4, 0.755]
M2 [0.63, 0.8] [0.4, 0.645] [0.5, 0.675] [0.4, 0.645] [0.4, 0.645]
M3 [0.78, 0.92] [0.305, 0.68] [0.415, 0.79] [0.21, 0.57] [0.415, 0.79]
Macro environment [0.4077, 0.7782] [0.3943, 0.7741] [0.4048, 0.768] [0.42, 0.7813]
ME1 [0.78,0.92] [0.355, 0.695] [0.245, 0.585] [0.43, 0.755] [0.43, 0.755]
ME2 [0.63, 0.8] [0.415, 0.79] [0.415, 0.79] [0.305, 0.68] [0.415, 0.79]
ME3 [0.63, 0.8] [0.415, 0.74] [0.415, 0.74] [0.32, 0.63] [0.32, 0.63]
3950 T. Demirel et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 37 (2010) 3943–3952

5. Application to a warehouse location selection problem in a The other normalized discrepancies between for location 1 and
Turkish logistic firm main criterion C at /¼ 0 are f 02 ¼ ½0:36; 0:845; f 03 ¼ ½0:175; 0:665;
f 0 ¼ ½0:36; 0:845; and f 0 ¼ ½0:335; 0:805, respectively. Their corre-
4 5
Anadolum Logistics, a big logistics company in Turkey, wants to sponding degrees of individual importance are g01 ¼ ½0:32; 0:65;
decide on where it will locate its new warehouse. Since we were the 02 ¼ ½0:72; 0:97; g03 ¼ ½0:58; 0:86; g04 ¼ ½0:58; 0:86,
g and g05 ¼

managerial consultants of this company, we presented the criteria ½0:72; 0:97, respectively. First, the sequence fi;0 is sorted, where
to the experts’ team, given above in Fig. 1. The alternative locations i = 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, as follows:
have been determined by the five experts of the company: Izmir,
_ fC3 ¼ 0:175 < fC1 ¼ 0:305< fC5 ¼ 0:335< fC2 ¼ 0:36< fC4 ¼ 0:36
Bursa, Izmit/Gebze, and Zonguldak. These alternative locations
g
C 3 ¼ 0:58 g
C 1 ¼ 0:32 g
C 5 ¼ 0:72 g
C 2 ¼ 0:72 g
C 4 ¼ 0:58
are shown in Fig. 2. The experts were from the departments Logistics
g 1 ¼ 0:58 g 2 ¼ 0:32 g 3 ¼ 0:72 g 4 ¼ 0:72 g 5 ¼ 0:58
(3 experts), Marketing (1 expert), and Finance (1 expert). These five
experts confirmed the criteria and sub-criteria and decided on
By solving the following equation for k, the fuzzy measures
using the evaluation scale in Table 1. To express the sub-criteria
gðAðiÞ Þ,i=1,2,...,n are obtained as follows:
easier, the symbols in Table 2 were generated. The team generated
the individual importance of main and sub-criteria and their toler- 1
1 ¼ gðSÞ ¼ f½ð1 þ k0:58Þð1 þ k0:32Þð1 þ k0:72Þ
ance zones and made each warehouse location’s linguistic evalua- k
tion. Table 3 gives these results.  ð1 þ k0:72Þð1 þ k0:58Þ  1g:
Trapezoidal fuzzy numbers are used to quantify the linguistic
That is,
terms in Table 3. The tolerance zones in this table are obtained
in that way: the first two numerical values of the lower linguistic k ¼ 0:9898:
value of a tolerance zone in Table 3 are combined with the last
The fuzzy measures are,
two numerical values of the upper linguistic value of the same tol-
erance zone. Consider the tolerance zone [M, H]. The corresponding gðAð 5ÞÞ ¼ g 5 ¼ 0:58;
numerical values of M and H are (0.32, 0.41, 0.58, 0.65) and gðAð4Þ Þ ¼ g 4 þ gðAð5Þ Þ þ kg 4 gðAð5Þ Þ ¼ 0:88;
(0.72, 0.78, 0.92, 0.97), respectively. Then the combined tolerance
gðAð3Þ Þ ¼ g 3 þ gðAð4Þ Þ þ kg 3 gðAð4Þ Þ ¼ 0:97;
zone is (0.32, 0.41, 0.92, 0.97). Table 4 presents the compromised
evaluations of the experts’ team. If it is requested, the separate gðAð2Þ Þ ¼ g 2 þ gðAð3Þ Þ þ kg 2 gðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:98;
evaluations of each expert can be combined by calculating the gðAð1Þ Þ ¼ g 1 þ gðAð2Þ Þ þ kg 1 gðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 1:0:
arithmetic mean of these numerical values.
Tables 6 and 8 summarize the whole fuzzy measures and k values,
Table 5 gives the evaluation results by the generalized Choquet
which are calculated in the same way above.
Integral for a ¼ 0. For the sub-criteria, Eq. (2) is used while Eq. (3)
The aggregated Choquet integral values for the main criterion C
is for the main criteria. For example, the value [0.305, 0.77] of
are calculated as in the following. Tables 5 and 7 include the nor-
‘‘location 1 and sub-criterion C 1 ” is obtained in that way:
malized discrepancies and location values (Choquet integrals).
Z
½0:58; 0:86  ½0:32; 0:97 þ ½1; 1
f ; fia ¼ ½fi;a ; fi;þa  ¼ ¼ ½0:305; 0:77: ðCÞ

fa¼0 dg a¼0 ¼ 1ð0:175Þ þ 0:98ð0:305  0:175Þ
2
þ 0:97ð0:335  0:305Þ þ 0:88ð0:36  0:335Þ
For the value [0.353, 0.8448] of ‘‘location 1 and main-criterion C” is þ 0:58ð0:36  0:36Þ ¼ 0:353:
obtained in that way:

Table 8
Fuzzy measures.

_
Izmir _
Izmit/Gebze Zonguldak Bursa

g  ¼ ðAðiÞ Þ g þ ¼ ðAðiÞ Þ g  ¼ ðAðiÞ Þ g þ ¼ ðAðiÞ Þ g  ¼ ðAðiÞ Þ g þ ¼ ðAðiÞ Þ g  ¼ ðAðiÞ Þ g þ ¼ ðAðiÞ Þ

Fuzzy measures
k ¼ 0:996
g  ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:986
g  ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:974
g  ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1
g  ðAð4Þ Þ ¼ 0:87
g  ðAð5Þ Þ ¼ 0:78
k ¼ 0:9999 k ¼ 0:996 k ¼ 0:9999 k ¼ 0:996 k ¼ 0:9999 k ¼ 0:996 k ¼ 0:9999
g þ ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:9995 g  ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g þ ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g  ðAð4Þ Þ ¼ 0:7827 g þ ðAð4Þ Þ ¼ 0:916 g  ðAð5Þ Þ ¼ 0:41 g þ ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:9933
g þ ðAð4Þ Þ ¼ 0:984 g  ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:9853 g þ ðAð4Þ Þ ¼ 0:984 g  ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:9856 g þ ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:9987 g  ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:9546 g þ ðAð4Þ Þ ¼ 0:984
g þ ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g  ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:997 g þ ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:9998 g  ðAð5Þ Þ ¼ 0:63 g þ ðAð5Þ Þ ¼ 0:80 g  ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g þ ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1
g þ ðAð5Þ Þ ¼ 0:80 g  ðAð4Þ Þ ¼ 0:9205 g þ ðAð5Þ Þ ¼ 0:80 g  ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:9215 g þ ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:9832 g  ðAð4Þ Þ ¼ 0:7827 g þ ðAð5Þ Þ ¼ 0:80
g þ ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:9988 g  ðAð5Þ Þ ¼ 0:78 g þ ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:9988 g  ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g þ ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g  ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:9929 g þ ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:9995

k ¼ 4:1 k ¼ 0:2868 k ¼ 4:1 k ¼ 0:2868 k ¼ 4:1 k ¼ 0:2868 k ¼ 4:1 k ¼ 0:2868

g  ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g þ ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:58 g  ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g þ ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:58 g  ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g þ ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g  ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g þ ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1
g  ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:22 g þ ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g  ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:22 g þ ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g  ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:22 g þ ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:36 g  ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:22 g þ ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:36

k ¼ 0:9987 k ¼ 0:9997 k ¼ 0:9987 k ¼ 0:9997 k ¼ 0:9987 k ¼ 0:9997 k ¼ 0:9987 k ¼ 0:9997

g  ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g þ ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:92 g  ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g þ ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:92 g  ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:9391 g þ ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:92 g  ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g þ ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:92
g  ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:9953 g þ ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g  ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:9953 g þ ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g  ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:72 g þ ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:9826 g  ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:72 g þ ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1
g  ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:98 g þ ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:9986 g  ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:98 g þ ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:9986 g  ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g þ ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g  ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:9953 g þ ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:9986

k ¼ 0:9611 k ¼ 0:9966 k ¼ 0:9611 k ¼ 0:9966 k ¼ 0:9611 k ¼ 0:9966 k ¼ 0:9611 k ¼ 0:9966

g  ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g þ ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g  ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:8785 g þ ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:9865 g  ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:8785 g þ ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:80 g  ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g þ ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:9865
g  ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:63 g þ ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:9865 g  ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:63 g þ ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g  ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:63 g þ ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:9621 g  ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:9377 g þ ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1
g  ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:9377 g þ ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:92 g  ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g þ ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:92 g  ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g þ ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g  ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:78 g þ ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:92

k ¼ 0:9611 k ¼ 0:9966 k ¼ 0:9611 k ¼ 0:9966 k ¼ 0:9611 k ¼ 0:9966 k ¼ 0:9611 k ¼ 0:9966

g  ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g þ ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g  ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g þ ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g  ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:78 g þ ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:92 g  ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:78 g þ ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:9865
g  ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:8785 g þ ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:80 g  ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:8785 g þ ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:80 g  ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g þ ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:9865 g  ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:9377 g þ ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:80
g  ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:63 g þ ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:9621 g  ðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:63 g þ ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:9621 g  ðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 0:9377 g þ ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g  ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1 g þ ðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1
Table 9
Defuzzified overall values of alternative locations using generalized Chouqet integral.
R R
Criteria ðCÞ ~f dg~ Defuzzified ðCÞ ~f dg~

T. Demirel et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 37 (2010) 3943–3952

Izmir Izmit/Gebze Zonguldak Bursa _
Izmir _
Izmit/Gebze Zonguldak Bursa

Overall location value (0.449, 0.479, 0.788, 0.844) (0.485, 0.497, 0.789, 0.844) (0.404, 0.447, 0.748, 0.822) (0.414, 0.456, 0.788, 0.844) 0.640 0.653* 0.605 0.625
Costs (0.353, 0.4119, 0.789, 0.8448) (0.3522, 0.4125, 0.789, 0.8448) (0.3329, 0.4021, 0.7485, 0.8207) (0.3562, 0.4163, 0.7885, 0.8447) 0.599 0.599 0.576 0.601*
C1 (0.305, 0.355, 0.695, 0.77) (0.175, 0.245,0.585, 0.665) (0.375, 0.43, 0.755, 0.825) (0.375, 0.43, 0.755, 0.825) 0.531 0.417 0.596* 0.596*
C2 (0.36, 0.415, 0.79, 0.845) (0.36, 0.415, 0.79, 0.845) (0.23, 0.305, 0.68, 0.74) (0.36, 0.415, 0.79, 0.845) 0.602* 0.602* 0.489 0.602*
C3 (0.175, 0.245,0.585, 0.665) (0.175, 0.245,0.585, 0.665) (0.375, 0.43, 0.755, 0.825) (0.175, 0.245,0.585, 0.665) 0.417 0.417 0.596* 0.417
C4 (0.36, 0.415, 0.79, 0.845) (0.36, 0.415, 0.79, 0.845) (0.23, 0.305, 0.68, 0.74) (0.36, 0.415, 0.79, 0.845) 0.602* 0.602* 0.489 0.602*
C5 (0.335, 0.415, 0.74, 0.805) (0.335, 0.415, 0.74, 0.805) (0.195, 0.26, 0.54, 0.595) (0.26, 0.32, 0.63, 0.69) 0.574* 0.574* 0.397 0.475
Labor characteristics (0.265, 0.3211, 0.6111, 0.625) (0.357, 0.4337, 0.7127, 0.771) (0.211, 0.2743, 0.5562, 0.6139) (0.277, 0.3376, 0.6354, 0.692) 0.456 0.569* 0.414 0.486
LC 1 (0.26, 0.32, 0.63, 0.69) (0.335, 0.415, 0.74, 0.805) (0.195, 0.26, 0.54, 0.595) (0.26, 0.32, 0.63, 0.69) 0.475 0.574* 0.397 0.475
LC 2 (0.29, 0.325, 0.585, 0.64) (0.465, 0.5, 0.675, 0.71) (0.29, 0.325, 0.585, 0.64) (0.36, 0.4, 0.645, 0.695) 0.460 0.587* 0.460 0.525
Infrastructure (0.49, 0.5, 0.7824, 0.8361) (0.49, 0.5, 0.7824, 0.8361) (0.43, 0.46, 0.7423, 0.8194) (0.4356, 0.4648, 0.7461, 0.8211) 0.652* 0.652* 0.613 0.617
I1 (0.465, 0.5, 0.785, 0.84) (0.465, 0.5, 0.785, 0.84) (0.36, 0.4, 0.755, 0.825) (0.36, 0.4, 0.755, 0.825) 0.647* 0.647* 0.585 0.585
I2 (0.5, 0.5, 0.61, 0.64) (0.5, 0.5, 0.61, 0.64) (0.465, 0.49,0.6,0.64) (0.465, 0.49, 0.6, 0.64) 0.562* 0.562* 0.549 0.549
I3 (0.465, 0.5, 0.675, 0.71) (0.465, 0.5,0.675, 0.71) (0.29, 0.325, 0.585, 0.64) (0.36, 0.4, 0.645, 0.695) 0.587* 0.587* 0.460 0.525
Markets (0.2992, 0.3592, 0.6763, 0.7385) (0.4489, 0.4896, 0.7881, 0.8443) (0.3286, 0.3769, 0.7301, ,0.8054) (0.36, 0.4117, 0.7857, 0.8438) 0.518 0.642* 0.560 0.600
M1 (0.16, 0.215, 0.585, 0.665) (0.465, 0.5, 0.785,0.84) (0.36, 0.4, 0.755, 0.825) (0.36, 0.4, 0.755, 0.825) 0.406 0.647* 0.585 0.585
M2 (0.36, 0.4, 0.645, 0.695) (0.465, 0.5, 0.675, 0.71) (0.36, 0.4, 0.645, 0.695) (0.36, 0.4, 0.645, 0.695) 0.525 0.587* 0.525 0.525
M3 (0.23, 0.305,0.68, 0.74) (0.36, 0.415, 0.79, 0.845) (0.155, 0.21, 0.57, 0.625) (0.36, 0.415, 0.79, 0.845) 0.489 0.602* 0.390 0.602*
Macro environment (0.3449, 0.4077, 0.7782, 0.8387) (0.325, 0.3943, 0.7741, 0.8366) (0.34, 0.4048, 0.748, 0.8222) (0.3619, 0.42, 0.7813, 0.8416) 0.592 0.583 0.584 0.601*
ME1 (0.305, 0.355, 0.695, 0.77) (0.175, 0.245, 0.585, 0.665) (0.375, 0.43, 0.755, 0.825) (0.375, 0.43, 0.755, 0.825) 0.531 0.417 0.596* 0.596*
ME2 (0.36, 0.415, 0.79, 0.845) (0.36, 0.415, 0.79, 0.845) (0.23, 0.305, 0.68, 0.74) (0.36, 0.415, 0.79, 0.845) 0.602* 0.602* 0.489 0.602*
ME3 (0.335, 0.415, 0.74, 0.805) (0.335, 0.415, 0.74, 0.805) (0.26, 0.32, 0.63, 0.69) (0.26, 0.32, 0.63, 0.69) 0.574* 0.574* 0.475 0.475

* denotes the best alternative for the considered main attribute or sub-attribute.

3951
3952 T. Demirel et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 37 (2010) 3943–3952
Z Auephanwiriyahul, S., Keller, J. M., & Gader, P. D. (2002). Generalized Choquet fuzzy
þ
ðCÞ faþ¼0 dg a¼0 ¼ 0:8448:
That is,
Z European Journal of Operational Research, 153, 332–349.
ðCÞ ~f dg~ ¼ ½0:353; 0:8448:
In Table 9, using the calculation for Choquet integral just above, the
overall location values are obtained. The defuzzified overall values
of alternative locations using generalized Chouqet Integral are also
given in the same table . For location 1, the overall Choquet integral
value at a ¼ 0 are found as follows:
k ¼ 0:99; gðAð5Þ Þ ¼ 0:72; gðAð4Þ Þ ¼ 0:926; gðAð3Þ Þ ¼ 0:97;
gðAð2Þ Þ ¼ 1:0 and gðAð1Þ Þ ¼ 1:0
R Hidaka, K. K., & Okano, H. (1997). Simulation-based approach to the warehouse
and finally. ðCÞ ~f dg~ ¼ ½0:449; 0:844
From Table 9, the defuzzified overall values of alternative loca-
tions using generalized Chouqet Integral are obtained as 0.640,
0.653, 0.605, and 0.625. This means that the ranking order from
the best to the worst is Izmit/Gebze, Izmir, Bursa, and Zonguldak.
The best alternative Izmit/Gebze has the largest weights for labor
characteristics, infrastructure, and markets, while Izmir is for infra-
structure; Bursa is for costs and macro environments, and Zonguldak
is for none. Izmir and Izmit/Gebze have the same importance in
terms of costs and infrastructure. Similar comments can be made
analyzing the results in Table 9.
6. Conclusion
The Choquet integral is an extension of the additive operator for
the multi-criteria decision-making problems, but it considers
interactions between criteria. Taking into consideration informa-
tion fusion between criteria and linguistic terms, this study uses
the generalized Choquet integral. In the calculation of the Choquet
integral, fuzzy measures play an important role, although their
computation processes are quite complicated. A warehouse loca-
tion selection is a multi-criteria decision-making problem includ-
ing both quantitative and qualitative main and sub-criteria. This
paper shows that when these criteria include interactions between
each others, Choquet integral presents an excellent tool for the
solution. Since a hierarchical multi-criteria problem can be han-
dled by generalized Chouqet integral, it is an alternative method
against fuzzy ANP, which can also handle the dependent criteria
and hierarchical problem structure. The warehouse location selec-
tion problem in this paper can be solved by fuzzy ANP and the ob-
tained results can be compared for further research.
References
Alberto, P. (2000). The logistics of industrial location decisions: An application of
the analytical hierarchy process methodology. International Journal of Logistics:
Research and Application, 3(3), 273–289.
Arostegui, M. A., Kadipasaoglu, S. N., & Khumawala, B. M. (2006). An empirical
comparison of Tabu search, simulated annealing, and genetic algorithms for
facilities location problems. International Journal of Production Economics,
103(2), 742–754.
integral fusion. Information Fusion, 3, 69–85.
Cheng, E. W. L., & Li, H. (2004). Exploring quantitative methods for project location
selection. Building and Environment, 39, 1467–1476.
Colson, G., & Dorigo, F. (2004). A public warehouses selection support system.
Current, J., Min, H., & Schilling, D. (1990). Multiobjective analysis of facility location
decisions. European Journal of Operational Research, 49, 295–307.
Delgado, M., Herrera, F., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Martnez, L. (1998). Combining
numerical and linguistic information in group decision making. Information
Sciences, 107, 177–194.
Drezner, Z. (1995). Facility location: A survey of applications and methods. New York:
Springer.
Drezner, Z., Scott, C., & Song, J. S. (2003). The central warehouse location problem
revisited. IMA Journal of Management Mathematics, 14, 321–336.
Geoffrion, A. M., & Graves, G. W. (1974). Multicommodity distribution system
design by Benders decomposition. Management Science, 2, 82–114.
Grabisch, M., Murofushi, T., & Sugeno, M. (2000). Fuzzy measures and integrals. New
York: Physica-Verlag.
location problem for a large-scale real instance. In Proceedings of the 1997 winter
simulation conference.
Ishii, K., & Sugeno, M. (1985). A model of human evaluation process using fuzzy
integral. International Journal of Man–Machine Studies, 22(1), 19–38.
Kahraman, C., Ertay, T., & Büyüközkan, G. (2006). A fuzzy optimization model for
QFD planning process using analytic network approach. European Journal of
Operational Research, 171, 390–411.
MacCarthy, B. L., & Atthrirawong, W. (2003). Factors effecting location decisions in
international operations – A Delphi study. International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, 23(7), 794–818.
Marichal, J.-R., Meyer, P., & Roubens, M. (2005). Sorting multi-attribute alternatives:
The TOMASO method. Computers and Operations Research, 32, 861–877.
Meyer, P., & Roubens, M. (2006). On the use of the Choquet integral with fuzzy
numbers in multiple criteria decision support. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 157,
927–938.
Michel, L., & Hentenryck, P. V. (2004). A simple tabu search for warehouse location.
European Journal of Operational Research, 157, 576–591.
Min, H., & Melachrinoudis, E. (1999). The relocation of a hybrid manufacturing/
distribution facility from supply chain perspectives: A case study, omega. The
International Journal of Management Science, 27, 75–85.
Modave, F., & Grabisch, M. (1998). Preference representation by the Choquet
integral: The commensurability hypothesis. In Proceedings 7th international
conference on information processing and management of uncertainty in
knowledge-based systems (IPMU), Paris, France, July 1998.
Owen, S. H., & Daskin, M. S. (1998). Strategic facility location: A review. European
Journal of Operational Research, 111, 423–447.
Partovi, F. Y. (2006). An analytic model for locating facilities strategically, omega.
The International Journal of Management Science, 34, 41–55.
Saaty, T. L. (1996). Decision makings with dependence and feedback: The analytic
network process. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications.
Sharma, R. R. K. (1991). Modeling a fertilizer distribution system. European Journal
of Operational Research, 51, 24–34.
Sharma, R. R. K., & Berry, V. (2007). Developing new formulations and relaxations of
single stage capacitated warehouse location problem (SSCWLP): Empirical
investigation for assessing relative strengths and computational effort.
European Journal of Operational Research, 177(2), 803–812.
Sharma, R. R. K., & Sharma, K. D. (2000). A new dual based procedure for the
transportation problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 122(3),
96–109.
Shee, D. Y., Tzeng, G. H., & T, I. (2003). AHP fuzzy measure and fuzzy integral
approaches for the appraisal of information service providers in Taiwan. Journal
of Global Information Technology Management, 6(1), 8–30.
Sugeno, M. (1974). Theory of fuzzy integrals and its applications. Ph.D. thesis, Tokyo
Institute of Technology, Tokyo.
Tsai, H.-H., & Lu, I.-Y. (2006). The evaluation of service quality using generalized
Choquet integral. Information Sciences, 176(6), 640–663.
Vlachopoulou, M., Silleos, G., & Manthou, V. (2001). Geographic information
systems in warehouse site selection decisions. International Journal of
Production Economics, 71, 205–212.