4.6 Article

Distance-Based Multi-Criteria Group Decision-Making Approaches with Multi-Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Information

Publisher

WORLD SCIENTIFIC PUBL CO PTE LTD
DOI: 10.1142/S0219622017500213

Keywords

Multi-hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets; generalized hesitant fuzzy linguistic distance; linguistic decision-making; green supply chain management

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71501192, 71571193, 71401185]
  2. Hunan Provincial Philosophy and Social Science Foundation of China [16YBA378]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

a In this paper, the distance-based multi-criteria group decision-making (MCGDM) approaches using multi-hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets (MHFLTSs) are proposed. MHFLTSs can contain nonconsecutive and repetitive linguistic terms, so as to deal with repeated linguistic values in group decision-making. A multi-hesitant fuzzy linguistic term element (MHFLTE) can be produced by collecting the evaluation values of several decision-makers or given by one person who has uncertainty in evaluation. The corresponding set operations and comparison rules are defined and the generalized hesitant fuzzy linguistic distance for MHFLTEs is given based on the linguistic scale function. Then this distance is embedded into the TOPSIS, VIKOR and TODIM approaches for the purpose of solving multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) problems in the context of multi-hesitant fuzzy linguistic information. With increasing concerns about deterioration in environment, organizations are obliged to carry out more environmental sustainable activities than before, such as progressive practices in green supply chain management (GSCM). Therefore, with respect to the application of MHFLTSs in GSCM, two illustrations for evaluating the related alternatives are finally provided, together with the sensitivity and comparison analysis, to show the validity and effectiveness of our proposal.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available