Volume 11, Issue 2 (12-2019)                   jorar 2019, 11(2): 118-128 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Mansour-Khaki A, Mojarradi B, Ghobadipour B, Maghsoud S. Assessment of Fuzzification Effect of AHP and TOPSIS in Site Selection of Roadside EMS Stations. jorar. 2019; 11 (2) :118-128
URL: http://jorar.ir/article-1-480-en.html
Faculty Member, School of Civil Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran
Abstract:   (1085 Views)
INTRODUCTION: In order to prevent and reduce the death and disability rates caused by road accidents, it is necessary to optimize the location of the roadside emergency medical service (EMS) stations. Optimal selection of the EMS stations is a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) problem and usually involves the analysis of a large number of possible options and evaluation criteria. Nowadays, various MCDM methods are used to solve location problems that may generate different results. The fuzzification of these methods has always been one of the controversial issues with many agreements and disagreements.
METHODS: In this study, a review was first performed on the weighting methods including five non-fuzzy weighting methods as row sum, column sum, arithmetic mean, geometric mean, and eigenvalues as well as two fuzzy weighting methods including: “Liu and Chen method” and “Chang Method”. Then, the fuzzy and non-fuzzy MCDM methods [including analytic hierarchy process (AHP), fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) Chang, FAHP Liu, Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), and fuzzy TOPSIS (FTOPSIS)] were employed to locate the roadside EMS stations. Due to insufficient information and all the required layers in Iran, the information of the Interstate-65 (I-65) Highway between Montgomery and Birmingham, Alabama, USA was used in the present study. Finally, the results of these methods were compared using the mean-score, Borda, and Copeland prioritization strategies.
FINDINGS: Given the importance and sensitivity of the issue, a combination of the MCDM methods was utilized to locate the EMS stations and the most appropriate non-fuzzy and fuzzy weighting methods were identified and the methods used were compared in terms of complexity, volume and time of computations, and the level of impact of the expert opinion.
CONCLUSION: The AHP, FAHP Liu and Chen, FAHP Chang, and TOPSIS methods yielded more reliable results in locating the roadside EMS stations, in addition, using FTOPSIS fuzzy method was more risky and is not recommended. The non-fuzzy AHP method was identified to be the most reliable method in the present study.
Full-Text [PDF 2010 kb]   (524 Downloads)    
Short Reports or Letters: Research Article | Subject: اپیدمی در بحران ها

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 AHPTOPSIS 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]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:

Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2022 CC BY-NC 4.0 | http://www.journalsystem.ir/demo5

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb