Scientific- Research Quarterly of Geographical Data (SEPEHR)

Scientific- Research Quarterly of Geographical Data (SEPEHR)

Optimum location of construction of edible oil refining plant in Iran under conditions of uncertainty with D-AHP combined method

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors
Hamed Asghari 1
Mohammad Reza Fallah Ghanbari 2
1 Department of Crisis Management, Faculty of Passive Defense, Malik Ashtar University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
2 Master's degree, Health in Disasters and Emergencies Department, School of Public Health and Safety, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences(SBMU), Tehran, Iran
10.22131/sepehr.2023.2005002.2986
Abstract
Extwnded Abstract
Abstract
Introduction: How to invest and choose the right place to build a factory is one of the issues that is of vital importance for factories / companies or organizations due to its effects on factors such as performance, profitability, competitiveness, survival and various criteria such as social, economic, environmental, quality and Quantities and other goals are always noticeable to investors and managers.
Materials & Methods: Since decision-making in this field is strategic and as a result, the incomplete information of experts in conditions of uncertainty may reduce the success of future exploitation; Therefore, researchers have introduced different methods to choose the right place; D number theory as an extension of Dempster-Shafer theory in locating, while solving the deficiencies in Dempster-Shafer theory, takes into account the lack of expert information in forecasting. In this research, due to the significant amount of demand and sensitivity in the correct direction of capital resources, considering the high amount of capital required and the great importance in choosing the right place in the geography of Iran to achieve success, and that investing in this industry has always been attractive, while choosing criteria with The importance of investigating the selection of a suitable location for the construction of an edible oil refinery in thirty-one provinces of the country with the combined method of Analytical Hierarchy Process and D-Number Theory (D-AHP), due to its ability to analyze data under conditions of uncertainty that can provide a more realistic estimate , has been investigated.
Results & Discussion: the factors affecting the research problem of this research in the form of a combined method (D-AHP) and based on the consensus of the opinions of ten experts and experts have been helped with the help of brainstorming, which include: access to Raw materials, provincial demand, fixed capital costs such as land, etc. and the production capacities (factories) in the region and the frequency of consumption in the neighborhood of the province and the potential threat to the industry in case of a favorable focus are based on the behavior of consumers and political and social factors. Based on the hierarchical structure, the paired relations of D numbers for the criteria, sub-criteria (1 to 17) and options at different levels of investigation and weights have been calculated with this method, and the criteria of access to raw materials (crude oil) and provincial demand are the most important criteria. Finally, the important weights and ranks of places (provinces) in relation to the overall goal have been calculated and prioritized. Important criteria include: access to primary oil raw materials (distance from ports), fixed capital costs such as land, etc., the amount of demand in the provinces, the amount of previously created production capacities, the frequency of consumption in the neighborhood of the provinces, the lifespan of the industry in The future and political and social factors have been investigated and evaluated for 31 provinces of the country with the combined method (D-AHP) and with the consensus opinion of ten experts in the field of Iranian oil industry.
Conclusion: Therefore, the suitable place for investment in the future according to the importance coefficient of the criteria and sub-criteria and in the order of priority are as follows: provinces; Tehran (first priority), Semnan (second priority), Alborz (third priority), Central (fourth priority), Mazandaran (fifth priority), Isfahan (sixth priority), Qom (seventh priority), Fars (eighth priority), Lorestan (priority 9th), South Khorasan (10th priority), Khuzestan (11th priority), Kahkiloyeh and Boyar Ahmad (12th priority), Zanjan (13th priority), Hormozgan (14th priority), Kerman (15th priority), Yazd (16th priority), Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari (17th priority), Bushehr (18th priority), Qazvin (19th priority), East Azerbaijan (20th priority), Razavi Khorasan (21st priority), Hamadan (22nd priority), West Azerbaijan (23rd priority) ), Gilan (24th priority), Kurdistan (25th priority), North Khorasan (26th priority), Ardabil (27th priority), Sistan and Baluchistan (28th priority), Ilam (27th priority) 9th), Kermanshah (30th priority), Golestan (31st priority). Finally, the important weights and ranks of the places (provinces) have been calculated and prioritized in relation to the overall goal, which will facilitate optimal decision-making and appropriate selection for new investment and prevent waste in the consumption of capital resources and strategic planning in the long term and prevent It helps and prevents the crisis of reduction of national gross product and reduction of capacity or closure of factories, which will lead to unemployment of many employees and activists in this field and social consequences. And it shows the rational policy making to reach the desired situation.
Keywords
D number theory
D-AHP hybrid method
uncertainty
Iran location
Subjects
1- Alcácer, J. (2006). Location choices across the value chain: How activity and capability influence collocation. Management Science, 52(10), 1457-1471.
2- Allon, G., & Van Mieghem, J. A. (2010). Global dual sourcing: Tailored base-surge allocation to near-and offshore production. Management Science, 56(1), 110-124.
3- Balinski, M. L. (1965). Integer programming: methods, uses, computations. Management science, 12(3), 253-313.
4- Brandeau, M. L., & Chiu, S. S. (1989). An overview of representative problems in location research. Management science, 35(6), 645-674.
5- Çebi, F., & Otay, İ. (2015). Multi-criteria and multi-stage facility location selection under interval type-2 fuzzy environment: a case study for a cement factory. international Journal of computational intelligence systems, 8(2), 330-344.
6- Church, R., & ReVelle, C. (1974, December). The maximal covering location problem. In Papers of the regional science association (Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 101-118). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
7- Cox, D. C., & Baybutt, P. (1981). Methods for uncertainty analysis: a comparative survey. Risk Analysis, 1(4), 251-258.
8- Current, J., Min, H., & Schilling, D. (1990). Multiobjective analysis of facility location decisions. European journal of operational research, 49(3), 295-307.
9- David, R. J., & Han, S. K. (2004). A systematic assessment of the empirical support for transaction cost economics. Strategic management journal, 25(1), 39-58.
10- De FSM Russo, R., & Camanho, R. (2015). Criteria in AHP: a systematic review of literature. Procedia Computer Science, 55, 1123-1132.
11- Deng, X., Hu, Y., Deng, Y., & Mahadevan, S. (2014). Environmental impact assessment based on D numbers. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(2), 635-643.
12- Deng, X., Hu, Y., Deng, Y., & Mahadevan, S. (2014). Supplier selection using AHP methodology extended by D numbers. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(1), 156-167.
13- Dogan, I. (2012). Analysis of facility location model using Bayesian Networks. Expert systems with applications, 39(1), 1092-1104.
14- Dey, P. K., & Ramcharan, E. K. (2008). Analytic hierarchy process helps select site for limestone quarry expansion in Barbados. Journal of Environmental management, 88(4), 1384-1395.
15- Francis, R. L., McGinnis, L. F., & White, J. A. (1983). Locational analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 12(3), 220-252.
16- García, S., & Marín, A. (2015). Covering location problems. Location science, 93-114.
17- Hernández, V., & Pedersen, T. (2017). Global value chain configuration: A review and research agenda. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 20(2), 137-150.
18- Kahraman, C., Cebeci, U., & Ulukan, Z. (2003). Multi‐criteria supplier selection using fuzzy AHP. Logistics information management, 16(6), 382-394.
19- Ketokivi, M., Turkulainen, V., Seppälä, T., Rouvinen, P., & Ali-Yrkkö, J. (2017). Why locate manufacturing in a high-cost country? A case study of 35 production location decisions. Journal of Operations Management, 49, 20-30.
20- Korpela, J., & Tuominen, M. (1996). A decision aid in warehouse site selection. International Journal of Production Economics, 45(1-3), 169-180.
21- Kumar, P., & Singh, R. K. (2012). A fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS methodology to evaluate 3PL in a supply chain. Journal of Modelling in Management, 7(3), 287-303.
22- Kushagra, S. (2020). Three-dimensional matching is NP-hard. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.00336.
23- Moffat, R. J. (1985). Using uncertainty analysis in the planning of an experiment.        
24- Osinuga, I. A., Stanimirović, P. S., Kazakovtsev, L. A., & Akinleye, S. A. (2015). A modeling framework on distance predicting functions for location models in continuous space. Facta Universitatis, Series: Mathematics and Informatics, 30(4), 419-443.
25- Partovi, F. Y. (2006). An analytic model for locating facilities strategically. Omega, 34(1), 41-55.
26- ReVelle, C. S., & Swain, R. W. (1970). Central facilities location. Geographical analysis, 2(1), 30-42.
27- Saatcioglu, O. (1982). Mathematical programming models for airport site selection. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 16(6), 435-447.
28- Shafer, G. (1976). A mathematical theory of evidence (Vol. 42). Princeton university press.
29- Suman, M. N. H., MD Sarfaraj, N., Chyon, F. A., & Fahim, M. R. I. (2021). Facility location selection for the furniture industry of Bangladesh: Comparative AHP and FAHP analysis. International Journal of Engineering Business Management, 13, 18479790211030851.
30- Tabari, M., Kaboli, A., Aryanezhad, M. B., Shahanaghi, K., & Siadat, A. (2008). A new method for location selection: a hybrid analysis. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 206(2), 598-606.
31- Tate, W. L., Ellram, L. M., Schoenherr, T., & Petersen, K. J. (2014). Global competitive conditions driving the manufacturing location decision. Business Horizons, 57(3), 381-390.
32- Tung, Y. K., & Yen, B. C. (2005). Hydrosystems engineering uncertainty analysis. Asce.
33- Weber, A., & Friedrich, C. J. (1929). Alfred Weber’s theory of the location of industries. University of Chicago Press.
34- Zeshui, Xu. (2007). Models for multiple attribute decision making with intuitionistic fuzzy information. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 15(03), 285-297.