• Home
  • Ranking of North Areas of Isfahan According to Measures Affecting Investment by Fuzzy TOPSIS and AHP Approach

Share To

Article Url


Manuscript ID : 537258 Visit : 108 Page: 83 - 96

Article Type: Original Research

Ranking of North Areas of Isfahan According to Measures Affecting Investment by Fuzzy TOPSIS and AHP Approach

Subject Areas : Industrial Management

Masoud Hekmatpanah 1 , Masoud Nasri 2 , Azar Barati 3

1 - Assistant Prof., Ardestan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ardestan, Iran.
2 - Assistant Prof. of Ardestan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ardestan, Iran.
3 - MA Industrial Management. University of Isfahan

Received: 2018-01-07 Accepted : 2018-01-07 Published : 2014-11-22

Keywords:

Abstract :

Usually, MCDM for choosing the best-provided option that their criteria may be in conflict with each other and by providing results, it facilitates the decision-making process. In this research, the aim is prioritizing Isfahan North areas(Kashan, Aran, and Bidgol, Nain, Natanz, and Ardestan), based on affecting measure for investors to determine which area requires the greatest amount of investment between mentioned areas. To achieve this aim, weighing the areas is performed by using of fuzzy TOPSIS and entropy methods and finally, it is ranked by AHP. To avoid confusion caused by uncertainty in decision making at all stages, triangular fuzzy numbers used. Results show, in the first phase, textile manufacturing with the most weight was selected as first priority; then, non-metallic mineral products, rubber and plastic products and machinery and equipment products placed accordingly. In the second phase, Natanz was placed in first priority, and Nain, Kashan, and Ardestan were placed at second, third and last priorities.  

References:


  1. Asgharpoor, M. J. (2006). Multi-criteria decision making, Publications of Tehran University, 196-7
    2.
  2. Akbari, N., & Zahedi, K. (2008). Use ranking methods and Multi-criteria decision making, Publications of municipalities.
    3.
  3. Dadashiyan saray, M., Dashti, Gh, Hayati, B. A., & Ghahremanzadeh, M. (2015). Using a Combination of AHP and TOPSIS techniques and evaluation criteria for weighting and determining the value of agricultural sustainability (Case Study: Elected East Azerbaijan province), Journal of agricultural science and sustainable production, 25:1.
    4.
  4. Ghodsipoor, H. (2011). Analytical Hierarchy Process, Publication Center Amirkabir University of Technology (Tehran Polytechnic).
    5.
  5. Kordbacheh, H. (2006). Macroeconomic, Hamedan, Noor Elem, 93.
    6.
  6. Abo-Sinna, M. A., & Amer, A. H. (2005). Extensions of TOPSIS for multi-objective large-scale nonlinear programming problems. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 162(1), 243–256.
    7.
  7. Chang, C.-W., Wu, C.-R., & Chen, H.-C. (2008). Using expert technology to select unstable slicing machine to control wafer slicing quality via fuzzy AHP. Expert Systems with Applications, 34(3), 2210–2220.
    8.
  8. Chang, D. Y. (1996). Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 95(3), 649–655.
    9.
  9. Chen C-T, Lin C-T, Huang S-F. (2006). A fuzzy approach for supplier evaluation and selection in supply chain management. International Journal of Production Economics; 102:289–301.
    10.
  10. Constanta-Zoie, R. and Turek-Rahoveanu, A. (2010). A hybrid multi-criteria method for performance evaluation of Romanian South Muntenia Region in context of sustainable agriculture. Proceedings of the International Conference on Applied Computer Science.
    11.
  11. Gums, A. T. (2009). Evaluation of hazardous waste transportation firms by using a two-step fuzzy-AHP and TOPSIS methodology, Expert Systems with Applications, 36 (2009) 4067–4074.
    12.
  12. Lee, A. H. I., Chen, W.-C., & Chang, C.-J. (2008). A fuzzy AHP and BSC approach for evaluating performance of IT department in the manufacturing industry in Taiwan. Expert Systems with Applications, 34(1), 96–107.
    13.
  13. Saaty, T. & Thomas, L. (2001). Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, with Luis G. Vargas.
    14.
  14.  Shih. H-S, Shyur H-J, Lee ES. (2007). an extension of TOPSIS for group decision making. Mathematical and Computer Modelling; 45:801–13.
    15.
  15. Sun, C-C. (2010). A performance evaluation model by integrating fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods, Expert Systems with Applications, 37: 7745–7754.
    16.
  16. Yang, T., & Hung, C.-C. (2007). Multiple-attribute decision making methods for play layout design problem. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 23(1), 126–137.
    17.
_||_

  1. Asgharpoor, M. J. (2006). Multi-criteria decision making, Publications of Tehran University, 196-7
    2.
  2. Akbari, N., & Zahedi, K. (2008). Use ranking methods and Multi-criteria decision making, Publications of municipalities.
    3.
  3. Dadashiyan saray, M., Dashti, Gh, Hayati, B. A., & Ghahremanzadeh, M. (2015). Using a Combination of AHP and TOPSIS techniques and evaluation criteria for weighting and determining the value of agricultural sustainability (Case Study: Elected East Azerbaijan province), Journal of agricultural science and sustainable production, 25:1.
    4.
  4. Ghodsipoor, H. (2011). Analytical Hierarchy Process, Publication Center Amirkabir University of Technology (Tehran Polytechnic).
    5.
  5. Kordbacheh, H. (2006). Macroeconomic, Hamedan, Noor Elem, 93.
    6.
  6. Abo-Sinna, M. A., & Amer, A. H. (2005). Extensions of TOPSIS for multi-objective large-scale nonlinear programming problems. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 162(1), 243–256.
    7.
  7. Chang, C.-W., Wu, C.-R., & Chen, H.-C. (2008). Using expert technology to select unstable slicing machine to control wafer slicing quality via fuzzy AHP. Expert Systems with Applications, 34(3), 2210–2220.
    8.
  8. Chang, D. Y. (1996). Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 95(3), 649–655.
    9.
  9. Chen C-T, Lin C-T, Huang S-F. (2006). A fuzzy approach for supplier evaluation and selection in supply chain management. International Journal of Production Economics; 102:289–301.
    10.
  10. Constanta-Zoie, R. and Turek-Rahoveanu, A. (2010). A hybrid multi-criteria method for performance evaluation of Romanian South Muntenia Region in context of sustainable agriculture. Proceedings of the International Conference on Applied Computer Science.
    11.
  11. Gums, A. T. (2009). Evaluation of hazardous waste transportation firms by using a two-step fuzzy-AHP and TOPSIS methodology, Expert Systems with Applications, 36 (2009) 4067–4074.
    12.
  12. Lee, A. H. I., Chen, W.-C., & Chang, C.-J. (2008). A fuzzy AHP and BSC approach for evaluating performance of IT department in the manufacturing industry in Taiwan. Expert Systems with Applications, 34(1), 96–107.
    13.
  13. Saaty, T. & Thomas, L. (2001). Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, with Luis G. Vargas.
    14.
  14.  Shih. H-S, Shyur H-J, Lee ES. (2007). an extension of TOPSIS for group decision making. Mathematical and Computer Modelling; 45:801–13.
    15.
  15. Sun, C-C. (2010). A performance evaluation model by integrating fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods, Expert Systems with Applications, 37: 7745–7754.
    16.
  16. Yang, T., & Hung, C.-C. (2007). Multiple-attribute decision making methods for play layout design problem. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 23(1), 126–137.
    17.

Related articles

The rights to this website are owned by the Raimag Press Management System.
Copyright © 2021-2024

Home| Login| About Us| Contact Us|
[فارسی] [العربية] [fa] [ar]