4.7 Article

Integrating interval-valued multi-granular 2-tuple linguistic BWM-CODAS approach with target-based attributes: Site selection for a construction project

期刊

COMPUTERS & INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING
卷 139, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cie.2019.106147

关键词

Site selection; Construction projects; Interval-valued multi-granular 2-tuple; linguistic; Best-worst method (BWM); COmbinative Distance-based ASsessment (CODAS); Target-based multiple attribute decision-making (T-MADM)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The site selection procedure for mega-structure projects can be an effective tool that could considerably improve the amount of income generation potential. Evidently, selecting the optimal location to establish a shopping center in a metropolitan area of Tehran, Iran is challenging due to the complexity of several conflicting evaluation criteria as well as multiple alternatives. Moreover, the site selection process of a mega-structure project can be viewed as a multiple attribute decision making (MADM) problem. Additionally, in such complex environments decision-makers and policy-makers usually might utilize linguistic terms to evaluate different alternatives with respect to multiple evaluation criteria according to their experience, qualifications, and preferences. Moreover, in real-world decision-making assessment problems, decision-makers tend to assign specific target-values for the selection attributes to obtain their optimal choices. In response, this study solves a site selection problem using a hybrid multi-granular interval-valued 2-tuple linguistic variables and target-valued criteria with the Best-Worst Method (BWM) and COmbinative Distance-based ASsessment (CODAS). Using the suggested hybrid MADM approach can results in an optimal and comprehensive site selection process without information loss. Finally, the outcomes of the current study show that the proposed target-based method is an optimal technique for such decision-making problems.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据