1. Mollaghasemi M, Pet-Edwards J. Making multi-objective decisions. Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society Press; 1997.
2. Toloie-Eshlaghy A, Homayonfar M. MCDM methodologies and applications: A literature review from 1999 to 2009. Research Journal of International Studies 2011; 21: 86-137.
3. Vinodh S, Prasanna M, Hari Prakash N. Integrated fuzzy AHPTOPSIS for selecting the best plastic recycling method: A case study. Appl Math Model 2014; 38(19): 4662-72. [
DOI:10.1016/j.apm.2014.03.007]
4. Nguyen HT, Dawal SZM, Nukman Y, Aoyama H. A hybrid approach for fuzzy multi-attribute decision making in machine tool selection with consideration of the interactions of attributes. Expert Syst Appl 2014; 41(6): 3078-90. [
DOI:10.1016/j.eswa.2013.10.039]
5. Ghassemi SA, Danesh S. A hybrid fuzzy multi-criteria decision making approach for desalination process selection. Desalination 2013; 313: 44-50. [
DOI:10.1016/j.desal.2012.12.008]
6. Tavana M, Khalili-Damghani K, Abtahi AR. A hybrid fuzzy group decision support framework for advanced-technology prioritization at NASA. Expert Syst Appl 2013; 40(2): 480-91. [
DOI:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.07.040]
7. Sakthivel G, Ilangkumaran M, Nagarajan G, Shanmugam P. Selection of best biodiesel blend for IC engines: An integrated approach with FAHP-TOPSIS and FAHP-VIKOR. International Journal of Oil, Gas and Coal Technology 2013; 6(5): 581-612. [
DOI:10.1504/IJOGCT.2013.056153]
8. Kasirian MN, Yusuff RM. An integration of a hybrid modified TOPSIS with a PGP model for the supplier selection with interdependent criteria. Int J Prod Res 2013; 51(4): 1037-54. [
DOI:10.1080/00207543.2012.663107]
9. Wu CM, Hsieh CL, Chang KL. A hybrid multiple criteria decision making model for supplier selection. Math Probl Eng 2013; 2013: 324283. [
DOI:10.1155/2013/324283]
10. Kabak M, Burmaoglu S, Kazancoglu Yi. A fuzzy hybrid MCDM approach for professional selection. Expert Syst Appl 2012; 39(3): 3516-25. [
DOI:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.09.042]
11. Alcan P, Balin A, Basligil H. Fuzzy multicriteria selection among cogeneration systems: A real case application. Energy Build 2013; 67: 624-34. [
DOI:10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.08.048]
12. Mahdavi A, Niknejad M. Site suitability evaluation for ecotourism using MCDM methods and GIS: Case study-Lorestan province, Iran. Journal of Biodiversity and Environmental Sciences 2014; 4(6): 425-37.
13. Wang F, Kang S, Du T, Li F, Qiu R. Determination of comprehensive quality index for tomato and its response to different irrigation treatments. Agric Water Manag 2011; 98(8): 1228-38. [
DOI:10.1016/j.agwat.2011.03.004]
14. Shelton J, Medina M. Integrated multiple-criteria decision-making method to prioritize transportation projects. Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2010; (2174): 51-7. [
DOI:10.3141/2174-08]
15. Rossetti MD, Selandari F. Multi-objective analysis of hospital delivery systems. Comput Ind Eng 2001; 41(3): 309-33. [
DOI:10.1016/S0360-8352(01)00058-4]
16. Singpurwalla N, Forman E, Zalkind D. Promoting shared health care decision making using the analytic hierarchy process. Socioecon Plann Sci 1999; 33(4): 277-99. [
DOI:10.1016/S0038-0121(99)00009-9]
17. Vahidnia MH, Alesheikh AA, Alimohammadi A. Hospital site selection using fuzzy AHP and its derivatives. J Environ Manage 2009; 90(10): 3048-56. [
DOI:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.04.010]
18. Khaki AM, Mojaradi B, Ghobadipour B, Maghsoudi S, Naghibi F. Integration of GIS and analytical hierarchy process method for locating road emergency medical services station. Geosystem Engineering 2015; 18(2): 92-103. [
DOI:10.1080/12269328.2015.1006735]
19. Daskin MS, Stern EH. A hierarchical objective set covering model for emergency medical service vehicle deployment. Transport Sci 1981; 15(2): 137-52. [
DOI:10.1287/trsc.15.2.137]
20. Doerner KF, Gutjahr WJ, Hartl RF, Karall M. Heuristic solution of an extended double-coverage ambulance location problem for Austria. Cent Eur J Oper Res 2005; 13(4): 325-40.
21. Saaty TL. The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resource allocation. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1980.
22. Boroushaki S, Malczewski J. Implementing an extension of the analytical hierarchy process using ordered weighted averaging operators with fuzzy quantifiers in ArcGIS. Comput Geosci 2008; 34(4): 399-410. [
DOI:10.1016/j.cageo.2007.04.003]
23. Saaty TL. The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resource allocation. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications; 1990.
24. Saaty TL, Tran LT. On the invalidity of fuzzifying numerical judgments in the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Math Comput Model 2007; 46(7): 962-75. [
DOI:10.1016/j.mcm.2007.03.022]
25. Zadeh LA. Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 1965; 8(3): 338-53. [
DOI:10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X]
26. Zadeh LA. Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility. Fuzzy Sets Syst 1999; 100: 9-34. [
DOI:10.1016/S0165-0114(99)80004-9]
27. Rahman MA, Rusteberg B, Gogu RC, Lobo Ferreira JP, Sauter M. A new spatial multi-criteria decision support tool for site selection for implementation of managed aquifer recharge. J Environ Manage 2012; 99: 61-75. [
DOI:10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.01.003]
28. Van Laarhoven PJM, Pedrycz W. A fuzzy extension of Saaty's priority theory. Fuzzy Sets Syst 1983; 11(1): 229-41. [
DOI:10.1016/S0165-0114(83)80082-7]
29. Chang DY. Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. Eur J Oper Res 1996; 95(3): [
DOI:10.1016/0377-2217(95)00300-2]
31. Liu YC, Chen CS. A new approach for application of rock mass classification on rock slope stability assessment. Engineering Geology 2007; 89(1): [
DOI:10.1016/j.enggeo.2006.09.017]
33. Hwang CL, Yoon K. Multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications a state-of-the-art survey. Berlin, Germany: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 1981. [
DOI:10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9_3]
34. Saaty TL. How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 1990; 48(1): 9-26. [
DOI:10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I]
35. Forman E, Peniwati K. Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research 1998; 108(1): 165-9. [
DOI:10.1016/S0377-2217(97)00244-0]
36. Bonacich P. Factoring and weighting approaches to status scores and clique identification. J Math Sociol 1972; 2(1): 113-20. [
DOI:10.1080/0022250X.1972.9989806]
37. Hwang CL, Yoon K. Multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag; 1981. [
DOI:10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9_3]
38. Ramik J, Korviny P. Inconsistency of pair-wise comparison matrix with fuzzy elements based on geometric mean. Fuzzy Set Syst 2010; 161(11): 1604-13. [
DOI:10.1016/j.fss.2009.10.011]
39. Zhu K. Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: Fallacy of the popular methods. Eur J Oper Res 2014; 236(1): 209-17. [
DOI:10.1016/j.ejor.2013.10.034]
40. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) [Online]. [cited 2016]; Available from: URL: https://www.nhtsa.gov/research-data/fatality-analysis-reporting-system-fars
41. Homer C, Huang C, Yang L, Wylie B, Coan M. Development of a 2001 National Land Cover Database for the United States. Photogram Eng Rem S 2004; 70(7): 829-40. [
DOI:10.14358/PERS.70.7.829]