Research in Transportation Business & Management 57 (2024) 101232

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Research in Transportation Business & Management

journal homepage: [Link]/locate/rtbm

Transit warehouse location selection by IF AHP- TOPSIS integrated

methods for disaster logistics: A case study of Turkey
Nigar Yesilcayir a,* , Gulsah Ayvazoglu b , Sefa Celik c , Iskender Peker d
a
Gumushane University, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Department of Business Administration, Gumushane, Turkey
b
Hatay Mustafa Kemal University, Faculty of Health Science, Hatay, Turkey
c
Ataturk University, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Department of Business Administration, Erzurum, Turkey
d
Gumushane University, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Department of Business Administration, Gumushane, Turkey

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Disasters; like earthquakes, fires, floods, wars, etc., are totally undesired events because they can cause un-
Disaster logistics foreseen enormous physical, economic and social losses. In this respect, disaster logistics is crucial in providing
Intuitionistic fuzzy AHP fast and effective humanitarian aid at the lowest cost and with no profit motive in case of these unpredictable
Intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS
events. There are many supporting elements to achieve this goal and one of them is building transit warehouses.
Transit warehouse
The aim of this study is to select the most suitable transit warehouse location in the Province of Hatay, Turkey.
The weights of the criteria are determined by Intuitionistic Fuzzy AHP and the alternatives are ranked by
Intuitionistic Fuzzy TOPSIS. The results show that “Emergency Cases and Natural Disaster” is the most important
criterion and Alternative 3 (Kırıkhan) is the best location for the transit warehouse.

1. Introduction biological (insect infestations, epidemics,) disasters. Examples for

human induced disasters are chemical accidents, terrorism and wars
Disasters are sudden and unforeseen events that cause various losses, (Van Wassenhove, 2006).
interrupt human life and bring operations to standstill or limit them. Disaster logistics in general can be defined as the planning, imple-
According to another definition, disasters are the events that cause mentation and control of all activities including collection, recording,
disruption in the lives of individuals and groups and cause deviations in storage and distribution process of related products and materials in
their expectations (Van Wassenhove, 2006). In a broader sense, disasters order to meet the essential needs of the victims at the right time and the
are defined as “situations or events that occur suddenly and cause great right place (Thomas & Kopczak, 2005). According to another definition,
losses, suffering, need for help at national and/or international level” disaster logistics are the activities of distribution of the right materials to
(Hoyois et al., 2007). Although differences of definitions exist, there the right people at the right time, in the right amount and in the right
appears to be some agreement that disasters refer to nature or human way (Barbarosoglu et al., 2002). The important points in disaster lo-
induced destructions that develop unforeseen and cause some undesir- gistics are the proper execution of preventive actions before disasters,
able consequences in human life. the response in the event of disasters, and the organization of recovery in
It is not possible to gather disasters characteristically under one the post-disaster phase (Kovacs & Spens, 2012).
heading. Disasters may be classified depending on type of occurrence, Within the scope of disaster management, coordination of multiple
size of the destruction, source of the disaster, etc. However, in the actions is necessary for a flawless execution of the logistic support ac-
literature it is generally divided into two categories as natural and tivities. One of the most important supporting key elements are distri-
human induced disasters (Van Wassenhove, 2006). According to the bution centers or transit warehouses at the best possible locations
international emergency database, natural disasters are subdivided into (Agdas et al., 2014; Yadav & Barve, 2015). Warehouses are defined as
5 categories (EMDAT, 2020); geophysical (earthquake, tsunami, volcano “storage space where something is put to be protected, stored or used
activity, rock fall, landslide etc.), meteorological (storm, hurricane, when necessary” (Lambert et al., 1998). Transit Warehouses can be
tornado), hydrological (avalanche, flood), climatic (drought, fire) and defined as smaller distribution centers with the aim of rapid and

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: nigar1677@[Link] (N. Yesilcayir), gulsahayvazoglu@[Link] (G. Ayvazoglu), [Link]@[Link] (S. Celik), iskenderpeker@
[Link] (I. Peker).

[Link]
Received 29 September 2020; Received in revised form 9 September 2024; Accepted 22 October 2024
Available online 30 October 2024
2210-5395/© 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.
N. Yesilcayir et al. Research in Transportation Business & Management 57 (2024) 101232

effective intervention. Time-lagged response to emergency events can property, the importance of this issue continues to be important for fast
occur due to the sub-optimal location and size of the warehouses. and effective response to earthquakes and other disasters. Therefore,
Therefore, transit warehouses are of great importance in such events. this current study is conducted to develop the methodological model to
Optimal located transit warehouses in the pre-phase of disasters provide meet this demand with the academic intention of a universally appli-
easy and least-cost transportation in the response-phase and minimize cable purpose.
the losses. Due to the differences in expert group opinions and the inability to
How to organize in the event of disaster and what are the duties, make a definitive ranking between the criteria, the intuitive fuzzy AHP
powers and responsibilities of the organizations involved in the disaster (IF-AHP) method was preferred to reach the most ideal solution. In
response system and planning applications are determined by Law No addition, the IF-TOPSIS method, which takes into account both positive
(Official Gazette, 2020). One of the heads of the institutions operating and negative solutions, was preferred to determine the most suitable
under this law is AFAD. AFAD is responsible for all necessary activities to alternative for the criteria. Transit warehouse that are not positioned
prevent disasters, reduce their losses, respond to disasters and complete correctly can cause some problems in transportation and material dis-
post-disaster recovery efforts. Some of these activities include planning, tribution during disasters. So sub-optimal locations of distribution
directing, supporting, coordinating and collaborating. AFAD is the warehouses and/or transit warehouses can lead to unforeseen problems
institution that recently implemented transit warehouses (20 container in terms of distribution and support during the response phase of di-
capacity) projects in the scope of the 100-day program of the Turkish sasters. Warehouse location selection problems require the holistic
Presidency in order to increase capacity, respond to disasters, meet evaluation of many different tangible and intangible criteria. In partic-
victims in a short time and provide necessary shelter. ular, the evaluation of decision-makers participating in the warehouse
The statement in the 100-day program of the Presidency of the Re- location selection for pre- and post-disaster phases, as well as the degree
public of Turkey is as follows: “Increasing our capacity to respond to of expertise of the decision-makers can raise questions about how
disasters through the participation of our volunteer citizens in the objective the evaluations are. For this reason, IF-MCDM techniques are
disaster management system, opening emergency gathering areas to developed to give the opportunity to take the knowledge, expertise and
public access and establishing new logistic support warehouses”(URL- hesitation levels of decision makers into account to overcome these
5). In the context of disaster management operations, logistics plays a contradictions. By examining the literature of IF-MCDM techniques it is
vital part in the implementation of strategies and policies established by seen that Intuitionistic Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (IF AHP) and
relevant government agencies (De Moura et al., 2020; Negi & Negi, Intuitionistic Fuzzy TOPSIS (IF TOPSIS) methods are the most imple-
2021; Salam & Khan, 2020). There are two main components to the mented. An integrated model of this two IF AHP - IF TOPSIS is preferred
logistics planning process for disaster relief: the strategic aspect and the and developed for this current study. Furthermore, since there is a large
operational part. The strategic component in this context pertains to the number of location selection alternatives for transit warehouses in
placement of warehouses and the storage of relief supplies, namely the Hatay, the number is reduced to an evaluable set by electing the best
issue of facility location and inventory prepositioning. Since these are alternatives using Geographic Information Systems (GIS).
long-term strategic decisions, they must be carefully considered in In recent years AHP, TOPSIS and GIS have en integrated some areas
addition, there is also a greater focus on the coordination of disaster such as; agriculture (Azadi et al., 2023; Urker & Gunlu, 2024; Zahedifar,
relief efforts (Wang et al., 2024). Disaster logistics warehouse location 2023) water management (Çelik et al., 2024; Maohua & Le, 2023; Sri-
selection is a critical aspect of disaster response planning aimed at vastava et al., 2024), site selection of wind farms (Amsharuk & Łaska,
efficiently optimizing the distribution of relief supplies. One option to 2023; Amsharuk & Łaska, 2024), solid waste dumping site selection
shelf-based warehousing for the storage of humanitarian materials could (Kapilan et al., 2023; Sinha, 2024), soil erosion susceptibility assessment
be to preposition freight containers (Demirbas & Ertem, 2021). In (Dzwairo et al., 2024), detect flood-prone areas (Karami et al., 2024;
Turkey, prepositioning relief supplies within freight containers has just Solaimani et al., 2023), selecting solar farm sites (Jong & Ahmed, 2024;
been put into practice (Demirbas & Ertem, 2021; Sahin et al., 2014; Saraji et al., 2024), sustainable wildfire prevention planning (Al-Sha-
Sahin & Ertem, 2019). Throughout the country, 27 Logistics Warehouses beeb et al., 2023), the selection of thermal power plant installation site
and 54 Logistics Support Warehouses which called transit warehouse at risk of sinkhole formation (Gumussoy et al., 2024), earthquake
were established by analyzing factors such as population, disaster, vulnerability (Fayaz et al., 2023; Nyimbili et al., 2018), landslide sus-
infrastructure and transportation (URL-6). ceptibility (Aslam et al., 2022; Jam et al., 2023) and fire station site
The challenge of disaster relief logistics planning is tackled in this selection (Vahidnia et al., 2022).
context by taking into account the location of the facility and inventory By integrating these approaches, disaster-prone regions can enhance
prepositioning, which combines strategic and operational decision- their disaster preparedness and response capabilities through strategi-
making. The aim of this study is to determine the most suitable transit cally located warehouses. Disaster logistics warehouse location selection
warehouse location within the scope of disaster logistics for AFAD is a critical aspect of disaster response planning aimed at efficiently
operating in Hatay, which is located at a strategic region of Turkey in optimizing the distribution of relief supplies. These methods include
terms of disaster management, by Intuitionistic Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Multi-Criteria Decision Making MCDM to identify selection criteria
Decision Making (IF-MCDM) methods. The Province of Hatay, which (Handayani et al., 2015; Mittal & Obaid, 2023; Polat, 2022), spatial
is the subject of this study is located in the south of the Turkey, has analysis using multicriteria decision-making and Geographic Informa-
suffered from many of the above-mentioned disasters. Throughout in its tion System (GIS) (Cetinkaya et al., 2022; Feng et al., 2023), and ranking
history, Hatay has been exposed to many major earthquakes (URL 1), possible locations based on.
flood disasters (URL 2), tornadoes (URL 3), epidemics (Kaya & Kıyılı, The best of our knowledge, no study has used the IF AHP-TOPSIS for
2009), and terror attacks (URL 4) in recent years especially with the transit warehouse location selection, nevertheless, some previous
effects of the civil war in the neighboring country Syria. Being exposed research studies have utilized this method to deal with site selection
to this wide range of disaster probabilities brings up the essential de- issues in other fields. This is the first study on site selection for transit
mand of Hatay for an effective disaster logistics management. Hence, an warehouse in Turkey and contributes to the literature. In this context,
optimal location selection for the planned transit warehouse is indis- this study seeks to answer the following research questions:
pensable to develop Hatay’s ability to respond to disasters that can occur RQ1: What are the criteria for selecting the most suitable transit
simultaneously. On the other hand, inaccurate assessments and evalu- warehouse location?
ations could induce misdirection of disaster logistics, waste of critical RQ2: What is the level of importance of the criteria for the most
response time, and irrepressible post-disaster effects. Hatay was affected suitable transit warehouse location?
by the 6 February 2023 earthquakes with the highest loss of life and RQ3: What is the most suitable transit warehouse location

2
N. Yesilcayir et al. Research in Transportation Business & Management 57 (2024) 101232

alternative to be established in Hatay? (2023) suggest considering the disruption of routes or facilities, using
The following sections of the study are as follows: In the second GIS software to locate facilities in safe areas. However, the site selection
section a literature review is given. Then, the methodology is presented of transit support depots requires a more complex and multi-criteria
in the third section. In the application section, the case study is applied decision-making process. In this process, the use of advanced methods
for the proposed method. In the last section, the results of the applica- such as IF-AHP, IF-TOPSIS and GIS is critical in terms of managing un-
tion are interpreted, limitations of the study are pointed out and future certainties and weighting the criteria precisely. These methods will in-
research topics are recommended. crease efficiency in disaster logistics processes by ensuring that transit
warehouses are located in the most appropriate locations.
2. Literature research
2.2. Studies using AHP, TOPSIS and GIS
Determining a disaster logistics warehouse location is an essential
part of disaster response planning, which aims to maximize the delivery The increasing number of disasters and the amount of losses caused
of relief goods as effectively as possible. In this regard the aim of the all over the world are inducing studies about important supporting key
study is to determine the most suitable transit warehouse location in elements in disaster management, like transit warehouses and their
Hatay, by implementing an integrated IF-MCDM (IFAHP-IFTOPSIS) location selections. Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) techniques
model. In terms of disaster logistics, Hatay is considered as one of the are implemented mostly in these studies (De Leeuw, 2012; Kunz &
strategically most important provinces of Turkey. For the purpose of the Reiner, 2012; Van Wassenhove & Pedraza Martinez, 2012) due to the
study, in this section literature is examined under three headings: impact of tangible and intangible factors. Also, to perform a realistic and
consistent evaluation process, the importance weights and hesitations of
1. Similarities and Differences of Related Studies. decision makers need to be evaluated too. Intuitionistic methods are
2. Studies using AHP, TOPSIS and GIS. developed to fill this implementation gap. There are a limited number of
3. Necessity of Investigating Transit Warehouse Location Using IF-AHP, studies present proposing intuitionistic methods (Karasan et al., 2018;
IF-TOPSIS, and GIS. Mete & Zabinsky, 2010; Saeidian et al., 2016; Temur et al., 2019).
When the studies are examined, it is seen that there are studies
conducted with classical AHP, TOPSIS and GIS and some examples are
2.1. Similarities and differences of related studies given in the Table 2. However, no transit warehouse location selection
study was found using intuitive sets. This study is the first study in which
In this sub-section, the studies cover a wide range of approaches with intuitive AHP, TOPSIS and GIS were used together.
a focus on disaster logistics, including warehouse and transit warehouse site When both disaster logistics and AHP, TOPSIS and GIS literature are
selection processes, the use of containers as storage units and the method- evaluated together, current study is important in terms of evaluating
ologies applied in these areas. The aim of this perspective is to reveal the transit warehouse location selection with intuitionistic fuzzy multi-
similarities and differences of the relevant studies more clearly. In this criteria decision making techniques. The complexity and uncertainty
context, Table 1 presents a summary of the studies on the subject within inherent in disaster scenarios should be evaluated with multi-criteria
the framework of the above-mentioned headings. decision-making processes that include qualitative and quantitative
Some researchers (De Leeuw, 2012; Kunz & Reiner, 2012; Van variables. In this study where transit warehouse location selection was
Wassenhove & Pedraza Martinez, 2012) studied warehouse location made in Hatay province, the IF-AHP method was preferred to determine
selection problems within the scope of disaster logistics. In these studies, the weights of the criteria affecting the location selection. Transit
land preparation and development, building construction, labor costs, warehouse location alternatives were determined with GIS and ranked
public and government attitudes towards storage, accessibility of with the IF-TOPSIS method. Due to the hesitation and indecision of the
transportation services and networks, development-growth potentials, experts, the AHP and TOPSIS methods were used to include intuition-
hazards (fire, flood, robbery etc.) labor potential, traffic level around the istic fuzziness. The study is also a strategically important point in
warehouse area, weather conditions, topography, vegetation, access to choosing the direction of natural disasters in Turkey and offers a
water supply, and taxes are identified as factors affecting the selection. contribution to the literature on the subject of acquisition of Hatay.
Roh et al. (2015), discussed the distance, security, office facilities, and
warehouse facilities at the micro level, and the suitability for installa- 2.3. Necessity of investigating transit warehouse location using IF-AHP,
tion, national stability, cost, cooperation and logistics criteria at the IF-TOPSIS, and GIS
macro level for humanitarian organizations, and applied AHP and Fuzzy
TOPSIS methods. Given the existing literature, there’s a clear need to explore transit
A number of studies have explored warehouse location selection warehouse locations in disaster logistics using more advanced decision-
within the context of disaster logistics, each with its own approach. For making methodologies, such as the Intuitionistic Fuzzy Analytic Hier-
example, Nezhadroshan et al. (2021) and Demirbas and Ertem (2021) archy Process (IF-AHP), Intuitionistic Fuzzy Technique for Order Pref-
analyze warehouse placement within specific disaster scenarios and erence by Similarity to Ideal Solution (IF-TOPSIS), and Geographic
existing logistics frameworks. In contrast, Koç and Sarıkaya (2024) take Information Systems (GIS).
a criteria-based approach, using methodologies like the Maximal The complexity and uncertainty inherent in disaster scenarios de-
Covering Location Problem (MCLP). Research by Morgan et al. (2006), mand a robust multi-criteria decision-making process. The IF-AHP and
Sahin (2014) and Sahin and Ertem (2019) highlights the potential of IF-TOPSIS methods ensure that selected locations are not only optimal
using containers in disaster logistics. These studies suggest that con- but also adaptable to the ever-changing nature of disaster logistics. By
tainers offer a flexible alternative to traditional warehouse setups, integrating GIS, these methodologies can perform spatial ana-
though they do not deeply explore the aspect of location selection. lysis—essential in disaster logistics. GIS allows for the visualization and
The current study by Sahin (2014) on the use of containers as mobile analysis of the geographical distribution of potential warehouse sites,
warehouses offers significant advantages in terms of storage and cost. assessing accessibility, and evaluating the impact of disasters on trans-
Recent studies have increasingly focused on optimizing disaster logistics portation networks. This spatial analysis is crucial for making informed
through pre-disaster planning and inventory management. For instance, decisions about warehouse placement, ensuring a timely and effective
Monzón et al. (2020) and Qezelbash-Chamak et al. (2023) model the disaster response.
logistics problem in a pre-disaster context, emphasizing the importance The studies reviewed address various aspects of disaster logistics,
of preparedness and effective response. Sheikholeslami and Zarrinpoor from warehouse location selection to the use of containers and pre-

3
N. Yesilcayir et al. Research in Transportation Business & Management 57 (2024) 101232

Table 1
Similarities and differences of related studies.
Main Focus

Study Aim Warehouse Use of Methodologies Used Disaster Logistics Focus

Location Containers
Selection

Vis & De Koster, 2003; Transit warehouses effectiveness in the

✓ Conceptual analysis Transportation efficiency
Steenken et al., 2004 transportation sector
Morgan et al., 2006 Using containers as storage units to manage
massive fatalities and provide aid to victims, with Conceptual idea and Case
✓ Mass fatality management
case studies from Thailand, Indonesia, and Sri studies
Lanka
Rodrigue & Developments in supply chain management and
Notteboom, 2009 temporary storage
The Terminalization of Supply Chains and the ✓ Conceptual analysis Supply chain management
Evolving Role of Terminals in Port/Hinterland
Logistics
Roh et al., 2013 Humanitarian relief logistics decision-making Conceptual analysis, factor
Humanitarian relief
criteria related to warehouse location ✓ analysis
logistics
MCDM-AHP
Sahin, 2014 Humanitarian logistics employs containers as
✓ Mathematical model Humanitarian logistics
storage facilities
Roh et al., 2015 Regional and local warehouses being Multi-criteria decision
prepositioned for humanitarian relief ✓ ✓ analysis, AHP and Fuzzy Humanitarian logistics
TOPSIS
Jahre et al., 2016 Integrating supply chains for UNHCR emergencies Case study, supply chain
✓ Emergencies and disasters
and operations integration
Peby et al., 2016 Using resilience criteria local humanitarian spatial multi-criteria Local humanitarian
✓
logistics warehouses sites are chosen evaluation (SMCE) logistics
Peker et al., 2016 Distribution center location selection within Multi-criteria decision analysis
✓ Disaster logistics
disaster logistics AHP, VİKOR
Saeidian et al., 2016 Allocation of earthquake relief centers Genetic Algorithm, Bees
✓ Earthquake relief centers
Algorithm
Maharjan & Hanaoka, Determining the location of a warehouse to Mathematical model, Branch-
Warehouse optimization in
2017 distribute humanitarian aid in Nepal ✓ and-bound algorithm, simplex
humanitarian aid
method
Ofluoglu et al., 2017 Model of Multi-criteria decision analysis for
✓ Multi-criteria decision analysis Disaster logistics
disaster logistics warehouse placement
Roh et al., 2018 Pre-positioned warehouse location selection for Multi-criteria decision analysis International disaster
✓
international humanitarian relief logistics fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS logistics
Sahin & Ertem, 2019 Using containers at the humanitarian logistics Mathematical model, Case Humanitarian logistics and
✓
planning stage study, disaster relief
Dhia, 2020 Determination of warehouse location for Multi-criteria decision analysis
emergency response operations in Padang City ✓ AHP, Comparative Natural disaster logistics
Performance Index (CPI)
Monzón et al., 2020 Pre-disaster humanitarian logistics model Prepositioning aid
Stochastic modeling
distribution centers
Ak & Acar, 2021 Selection of humanitarian supply chain warehouse
✓ Multi-criteria decision analysis Disaster logistics
location
Demirbas & Ertem, Benefits of operating equivalent warehouses for
✓ Mathematical model Disaster relief logistics
2021 better coordination
Hallak & Miç, 2021 Evaluation of humanitarian relief warehouses Fuzzy logic, multi-criteria
✓ Case study in Syria
decision making
Maghsoudi & Challenges in disaster relief operations
✓ Case study, interviews Humanitarian logistics
Moshtari, 2021 (Kermanshah earthquake)
Nezhadroshan et al., Humanitarian logistics network design with Possibilistic-stochastic Earthquake response
2021 central warehouses programming logistics
Bakhshi et al., 2022 Relief supply chain during post-disaster under Scenario-based analysis,
Post-disaster relief supply
uncertain parameters onlinear mixed-integer
chain under uncertainty
programming mode
Chipana-Surquislla Optimal prepositioning of warehouses using
Integer programming Humanitarian aid logistics
et al., 2022 integer programming
Cetinkaya et al., 2022 Emergency warehouse site selection (near Turkey-
✓ GIS-based AHP Emergency logistics
Syria border)
Polat, 2022 Distribution centre location selection for disaster Integrated goal programming,
✓ City-level disaster logistics
logistics at the city level AHP-TOPSIS
Mittal & Obaid, 2023 Sustainable warehouse location selection in Multi-Criteria Decision-
✓ Humanitarian logistics
humanitarian supply chain Making (MCDM)
Sheikholeslami & Designing an integrated humanitarian logistics Integrated network design,
Humanitarian logistics for
Zarrinpoor, 2023 network for the preparedness and response phases uncertainty modeling,
preparedness and response
under uncertainty fuzzy chance-constrained
phases
programming method
Qezelbash-Chamak Complex disaster management logistics (location, Mathematical model,
Earthquake relief logistics
et al., 2023 pre-disaster planning) Scenario-based approach
Buyukozkan & Uzturk, Enhancing disaster management through Multi-criteria decision-
2024 warehouse location selection using linguistic ✓ making, Disaster management
decision making 2-Tuple linguistic model,
(continued on next page)

4
N. Yesilcayir et al. Research in Transportation Business & Management 57 (2024) 101232

Table 1 (continued )
Main Focus

Study Aim Warehouse Use of Methodologies Used Disaster Logistics Focus

Location Containers
Selection

Cergibozan & Gölcük, Warehouse location selection in Izmir Multi-criteria decision-

2024 ✓ making, Disaster logistics
Fuzzy best-worst method
Koç & Sarıkaya, 2024 Regional Disaster Management Centres Maximal Covering Location Pre-disaster preparedness
✓
Problem (MCLP),GIS logistics

disaster planning. However, the complexity of selecting transit ware- this method can be stated as the loss of time in pairwise comparisons, the
house locations in disaster scenarios calls for the application of change of rankings when a new option is added, reaching wrong results
advanced methodologies like IF-AHP, IF-TOPSIS, and GIS. These ap- as a result of wrong criterion selection and determining the criteria
proaches provide a comprehensive framework for managing uncer- independently of the alternatives (Akyildiz & Mentes, 2017; Dagdeviren
tainty, making informed decisions, and optimizing logistics to enhance et al., 2005). The advanced stage of this method, which also includes
disaster preparedness and response. uncertainty in the process, is called fuzzy AHP, and the more advanced
The proposed study is both necessary and timely for Hatay, the stage, where users are unsure or have hesitation levels, is called intui-
province most affected by the February 6 earthquakes. By addressing the tionistic fuzzy AHP. In this study, where warehouse location selection
limitations of current methodologies and integrating advanced decision- was made, the intuitionistic fuzzy AHP (IF-AHP) method was preferred
making techniques with spatial analysis, this research could make sig- in order to reach the most ideal solution due to the differences of opinion
nificant contributions to the field of disaster logistics. It will offer a within the expert group in the rating of the criteria, the inability to make
robust framework for optimizing transit depot locations, ultimately a definitive rating, and the uncertainty and fuzziness of the parameters.
improving the efficiency and effectiveness of disaster response efforts in The TOPSIS method is a multi-criteria decision-making technique
Turkey. This research will fill critical gaps in the literature. The inte- based on selecting the one closest to the best and the one farthest from
gration of advanced decision-making tools IF-AHP, IF-TOPSIS, and GIS the worst in cases where the decision alternatives do not meet all the
will provide a comprehensive approach to warehouse location selection criteria (Wang & Elhag, 2006). In the alternative ranking, sometimes
by balancing both quantitative and qualitative factors. none of the alternatives can best meet all the determined criteria. At this
point, it is necessary to produce the closest solution to the ideal based on
3. Methodology criteria (Bedirhanoglu & Lezki, 2018). This method, which does not
contain complex algorithms and mathematical models and whose results
This study proposes an IF-MCDM approach. Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets, can be easily interpreted, is used in cases of uncertainty in its advanced
Intuitionistic Fuzzy AHP (IF-AHP) and Intuitionistic Fuzzy TOPSIS (IF- stage called fuzzy TOPSIS. The upper stage, which provides more
TOPSIS) are considered respectively in this section. objective results where decision makers are not sure or have hesitation
The fuzzy set theory developed by Zadeh in 1965 is based on the fact levels, is called Intuitionistic Fuzzy TOPSIS. In this study, the IF-TOPSIS
that each member takes values between 0 and 1. While the sum of these method, which takes into account both positive and negative solutions,
values defined as membership (1) and non-membership (0) should be 1, was preferred in order to determine the most appropriate alternative
it has been observed that in real life, these values can be lower than 1 in based on the criteria.
cases where there is a lack of information about membership (Zadeh, In this study, since there are differences of expert opinion and un-
1965). It has been observed that there are known situations and un- certainties in the ranking of the factors affecting the warehouse location
known situations about a subject, as well as uncertain and hesitant sit- selection, the most appropriate solution was tried to be found by
uations. For example, the situation of a student who is placed in point x choosing the IF-AHP method. In addition, since none of the alternatives
in a ranking exam expresses the status of being a member, while the fully meet all the criteria, the IF TOPSIS method was preferred to
expression that the student is placed in a successful place expresses determine the most suitable location, which will provide the closest
fuzziness and uncertainty. At this point, Atanassov developed intui- result to the ideal.
tionistic fuzzy sets by taking into account the lack of information/hes-
itation/uncertainty situation in the fuzzy set theory developed by Zadeh. 3.1. Intuitionistic fuzzy sets
Intuitionistic fuzzy sets are a decision-making method that helps obtain
more objective results by taking into account the membership, non- Intuitionistic Fuzzy Set Theory was developed by Atanassov in 1986.
membership and hesitation levels of the expertise of decision makers Atanassov claimed that the definition of classical fuzzy logic theory is
expressed in linguistic terms. In short, in this method, the degree of correct, but this is not always practical in reality. The intuitionistic fuzzy
membership is taken into consideration, not whether or not the mem- cluster is an alternative approach used in situations where available
bership exists (Atanassov, 1986). information is insufficient to define a concept (Kumar & Yadav, 2012).
The AHP method is a technique that determines the order of In intuitionistic fuzzy set theory, the state of an element a degree of
importance of decision options within the framework of the criteria membership to any set, non-membership, and degrees of hesitation are
determined by the decision makers among many options (Koçak, 2003). specified (Atanassov, 1986). In fuzzy sets, the degree of membership to
In this technique, many decision makers can be included in the process the set is μ, while the degree of non-membership is specified as 1 - μ.
and while evaluating quantitative-qualitative criteria, experience, However, the classical fuzzy approach is not an effective method since it
knowledge, intuition, judgment and thoughts can be included in the does not show uncertainty. Because in some cases, the sum of the degree
process with linear weight (Ozbek & Eren, 2012). It has advantages such of membership and the degree of non-membership may be less than 1
as being suitable for evaluation with many qualitative and quantitative (Atlas & Bedirhanoglu, 2018).
criteria, including the knowledge, intuition and judgments of decision
Assuming that X is a fixed set and A ⊂ X, an intuitive fuzzy set, Ã, in X
makers in the process, ease of use, being able to measure the consistency
is expressed as follows (Xu & Liao, 2014).
levels as a result of pairwise comparisons, and being able to analyze the
flexibility of the result (Bañuelas & Antony, 2004). The disadvantages of A = {(x, μA (x) , ϑA (x) ) : x ∈ X } (1)

5
N. Yesilcayir et al. Research in Transportation Business & Management 57 (2024) 101232

Table 2 Table 2 (continued )

The studies using AHP, TOPSIS and GIS integrated. Study Method Subject
Study Method Subject
Novkovic et al., 2021 Fuzzy AHP, TOPSIS Forest fire susceptibility
Earthquake Hazard and and GIS
Risk Assessment Sari, 2021 AHP, TOPSIS and Forest fire
Nyimbili et al., 2018 AHP, TOPSIS and Earthquake hazard GIS
GIS Al-Shabeeb et al., 2023 AHP, TOPSIS and Wildfire
Yavuz Kumlu & Tüdeş, AHP, TOPSIS and Earthquake hazard GIS
2019 GIS Solid Waste Management
Jena & Pradhan, 2020 AHP, TOPSIS and Earthquake risk assessment Ozkan et al., 2019 GIS and MCDM Solid waste
GIS Kapilan et al., 2023 Fuzzy AHP and GIS Solid waste
Fayaz et al., 2023 AHP, TOPSIS and Earthquake hazard Sinha, 2024 GIS and TOPSIS Solid waste
GIS Beekeeping Suitability
Water Management Sarı et al., 2020 AHP, TOPSIS and Beekeeping suitability
Arabameri et al., 2019 AHP, TOPSIS and Water management GIS
GIS Fire Station Site Selection
Çelik et al., 2024 AHP, TOPSIS and Water management Vahidnia et al., 2022 AHP, TOPSIS and Fire Station Site Selection
GIS GIS
Maohua & Le, 2023 AHP, TOPSIS and Water management Thermal Power Plant Site
GIS Selection
Srivastava et al., 2024 AHP, TOPSIS and Water management Gumussoy et al., 2024 GIS and TOPSIS Thermal power plant
GIS
Wind Farms μA : X→[0, 1] and ϑA : X→[0, 1] for every x ∈ X;
Konstantinos et al., 2019 AHP, TOPSIS and Wind farm
GIS
Díaz & Soares, 2021 AHP, TOPSIS and Floating wind farms 0 ≤ μA (x) + ϑA (x) ≤ 1 (2)
GIS
Spyridonidou et al., 2021 AHP, TOPSIS and Wind Farms (WFs) and At this part μA is membership function and ϑA is non-membership
GIS Photovoltaic Farms (PVFs) function. In addition, there is a degree of hesitation (π) in intuition-
Amsharuk & Łaska, 2023 AHP, TOPSIS and Wind farm istic clusters. Degree of hesitation means indecision and lack of infor-
GIS mation on any subject. The precision of the information increases as the
Barzehkar et al., 2024 AHP, TOPSIS and Wind farm
GIS
π value decreases. Otherwise, when π is equal to zero, it means that the
Solar Power Systems information is certain. This position explains the intuitionistic fuzzy sets
Asadi & Pourhossein, 2019 AHP, TOPSIS and Wind and solar farm (Efe et al., 2015).
GIS
Nhi et al., 2022 Fuzzy ANP, TOPSIS Solar power systems πA (x) = 1 − (μA (x) + ϑA (x) ) (3)
and GIS
Saraji et al., 2024 GIS and TOPSIS Solar power systems 0 < π A (x) < 1
Jong & Ahmed, 2024 GIS and Fuzzy Solar power systems
TOPSIS
Soil Erosion and Gully 3.2. Intuitionistic Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (IF-AHP)
Erosion Susceptibility
Jain & Ramsankaran, 2019 AHP, TOPSIS and Watershed and soil erosion
GIS
In this study, IF AHP used to obtain the importance weightings of the
Sadhasivam et al., 2020 AHP, TOPSIS and Soil erosion susceptibility criteria. This method can be used to solve more difficult problems,
GIS where the decision maker has some ambiguity in decision making pro-
Al-Bawi et al., 2021 AHP, TOPSIS and Gully erosion susceptibility cess. The stages of the IF Fuzzy AHP method is summarized as follows
GIS
(Xu & Liao, 2014).
Dzwairo et al., 2024 AHP, TOPSIS and Soil erosion
GIS Step1: Defining the hierarchy, criteria and alternatives: The aim of the
Flood Risk and Flood- multi-criteria decision-making problem, along with the criteria, sub-
Prone Areas criteria, and alternatives that support it, are arranged in a hierarchical
Lin et al., 2020 Interval (I)AHP, Flood risk structure.
TOPSIS and GIS
Shahiri Tabarestani & AHP, TOPSIS and Flood susceptibility
Step 2: Estimating the weights of each decision maker: Linguistic vari-
Afzalimehr, 2022 GIS ables are used to determine the significance of decision makers. These
Solaimani et al., 2023 AHP, FAHP, Flood-prone areas weights are determined by expressing linguistic concepts as intuition-
GeoTOPSIS and GIS istic fuzzy numbers. Given below is the weight of the k. decision maker.
Karami et al., 2024 AHP, TOPSIS and Flood-prone areas
K represents the number of decision makers and λ = λ1, λ2, λ3, … λk is
GIS
Agriculture the weight vector of decision makers and λk is a number greater than
Zahedifar, 2023 Fuzzy AHP, Fuzzy Agriculture zero (λk ≥ 0), The importance levels of a group of decision makers are
∑
TOPSIS and GIS calculated by k = 1,2, …K and Kk=1 λk = 1
Azadi et al., 2023 AHP, TOPSIS and Agriculture
( ( )
GIS
μk
Urker & Gunlu, 2024 AHP and GIS Agriculture μk + πk μk+ϑk ∑K
Landslide Susceptibility λk = K ( ( ) where λk = 1 (4)
∑ k=1
Salehpour Jam et al., 2021 AHP, TOPSIS and Landslide Susceptibility μk + πk μk+ϑkμk
GIS k=1
Aslam et al., 2022 AHP, TOPSIS and Landslide Susceptibility
GIS The linguistic terms used in assessment of decision maker is adopted
Jam et al., 2023 AHP, TOPSIS and Landslide Susceptibility from Boran et al. (2009) and presented in Table 3.
GIS Step 3: Obtaining decision maker’s assessments: The paired comparison
Forest Fire and Wildfire
Susceptibility
matrix is obtained by using the IFAHP linguistic scale (Table 4). After
linguistic data is converted into an IF matrix and the hierarchy is
established (Abdullah & Najib, 2016).
Step 4: Constructing group decision matrix: Eq. (5) states that the group

6
N. Yesilcayir et al. Research in Transportation Business & Management 57 (2024) 101232

Table 3 Step 7: Ranking the criteria and alternative: Eq. (8) calculates the
Linguistic terms to evaluate the decision makers’ weights. entropy weights which are used to rank the overall weights (Abdullah &
IF Values Najib, 2016).
Linguistic Variables
μ ϑ π 1 [ ( ) ( ) ]
wi = − μ lnμ + ϑj lnvj − 1 − πj ln 1 − πj − πj ln2 (8)
Very Important VI 0.90 0.10 0.00 nln2 j j
Important I 0.75 0.20 0.05
Medium Importance MI 0.50 0.45 0.05
Unimportant U 0.35 0.60 0.05
3.3. Intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS method
Very Unimportant VU 0.10 0.90 0.00
IF TOPSIS is utilized to rank the alternatives in this paper. This
method consists of the following (Boran et al., 2009);
decision matrix (Rij ) is created by combining the individual pairwise Step 1: Creating an IF TOPSIS decision matrix: It is obtained by
matrices for each decision maker after they have been aggregated. The combining the evaluations made by decision makers towards alterna-
IFAHP weights are represented by the resultant Rij matrix for each cri- tives. In this process, the thoughts of all decision makers should be
terion and the weights of alternatives are implied by the resulting Rij combined as group thoughts without loss of information.
matrix for each alternative across all criteria. [ )λk ⎞ ⎤
∏K ( )λk ∏K K (
∏ )λk ∏K
⎛ ⎞
∏K ( )λK rij = 1 − 1 − μij (k) , .ϑij (k) , 1 − μij (k) − .ϑij (k) ⎠ λk ⎦
1 1
(k)
⎜ − − μ ij , ⎟ k=1 k=1 k=1 k=1
⎜ k=1
⎟
⎜
⎜ K ( ( )λK )
⎟
⎟ (9)
⎜ ∏ ⎟
Rij = ⎜ (5)
⎜ (k) ⎟
ϑij , ⎟ Rij = (μij,ϑij, πij), (i = 1,2, …m; j = 1,2, …n), R is the element of the
⎜ k=1 ⎟
⎜
K ((
⎟ combined decision matrix.
⎜∏ K ( )λK ∏ )λK ) ⎟
⎝ ⎠
1 − μ(k)
ij − ϑ(k)
ij μ11, ϑ11, π11 μ11, ϑ12, π11 μ1n, ϑ1n, π1n
k=1 k=1
R = μ21, ϑ21, π21 μ22, ϑ22, π22 μ11, ϑ11, π2n
Rij represents the intuitive fuzzy value taken by the k. decision maker μm1, ϑm1, πm μm2, ϑm2, πm μ11, ϑ11, πmn
for the i. alternative from the j. criterion. r11 r12 … r1n
(μij ) λk expresses the degree to which the i. alternative meets the j.
(k) r21 r22 … r2n
=
… … … …
criterion according to the k. decision maker. rm1 rm2 … rmn
Step 5: Estimate the consistency ratio: Eq. 6 is utilized to check out the
consistency. CR for IFAHP weights is estimated by the use of the Random Step 2: Creating a Normalized and Weighted IF TOPSIS Decision matrix:
Index (RI) by Saaty is given in Table 5. After creating the weights of the criteria and the normalized and
∑ weighted decision matrixes are obtained respectively by Eq. (10− 11).
RI −
πij (x)
( )
CR = n
(6) R = R ⊗ W = μʹij , ϑ’ ij
n− 1
{( ) }
n is the number of matrix element and πij (x) is the hesitation value. The = x, μij. μj, ϑij + ϑj − ϑij .ϑj , x ∈ X πij= 1 − ϑij − ϑj − μij. .μj + ϑij .ϑj
CR is acceptable if it is smaller or equal to 0.10. Otherwise, the judg- (10)
ments are not consistent, and the opinions should be collected once
more. μʹ11, ϑʹ11, πʹ11 μʹ12, ϑʹ12, πʹ12 μʹ1n, ϑʹ1n, πʹ1n
Step 6: Fusing multi-level weights: Utilizing overall weights (w ̃ j ) of the R = μʹ21, ϑʹ21, πʹ21 μʹ22, ϑʹ22, πʹ22 μʹ11, ϑʹ11, πʹ2n
criteria and each alternative over the sub-criteria (w ̃ ij ), the overall μʹm1, ϑʹm1, πʹm1 μʹm2, ϑʹm2, πʹm2 μʹ11, ϑʹ11, πʹmn
rʹ11 rʹ21 … rʹ1n
weight of each alternative over the aim (W ̃ i ) is computed by Eq. (7).
rʹ21 rʹ22 … rʹ2n
( ) = (11)
… … … …
̃ i = ⨁n w
W ̃ j ⨂w
̃ ij (7)
j=1 rʹm1 rʹm2 … rʹmn

r’ij = (μʹij,ϑʹij, πʹij), (i = 1,2, …m; j = 1,2, …n), Ŕ is the element of the

Table 4
Linguistic terms for pairwise comparison (Abdullah & Najib, 2016).
Linguistic variable SCALE IF VALUES RECIPROCAL

Equally Important EI 1 0.02 0.18 0.80 1/1 0.18 0.02 0.80

Intermediate IV 2 0.06 0.23 0.70 ½ 0.23 0.06 0.70
Moderately More Important MI 3 0.13 0.27 0.60 1/3 0.27 0.13 0.60
Intermediate IV2 4 0.22 0.28 0.50 ¼ 0.28 0.22 0.50
Strongly More Important SI 5 0.33 0.27 0.40 1/5 0.27 0.33 0.40
Intermediate IV3 6 0.47 0.23 0.30 1/6 0.23 0.47 0.30
Very Strong Importance VSI 7 0.62 0.18 0.20 1/7 0.18 0.62 0.20
Intermediate IV4 8 0.80 0.10 0.10 1/8 0.10 0.80 0.10
Extremely More Important EMI 9 1.00 0.00 0.00 1/9 0.00 1.00 0.00

Table 5
Random index (Saaty, 1977).
N 1–2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

RI 0.00 0.58 0.90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49 1.52 1.54 1.56 1.57 1.59

7
N. Yesilcayir et al. Research in Transportation Business & Management 57 (2024) 101232

combined decision matrix. n [⃒

Step 3: Determination of the positive and negative ideal solution: A* is 1 ∑ ⃒ ʹ
⃒ ⃒
⃒ ⃒
⃒ ⃒
⃒ ⃒
⃒ ]
⃒
Si * = ⃒μij − μʹj* ⃒ + ⃒ϑʹij − ϑʹj* ⃒ + ⃒πʹij− − πʹj* ⃒ , i = 1, 2, …m (20)
positive ideal solution and A− is negative ideal solution; 2 j=1
( ) ( )
A* = rʹ1* , rʹ2* , …rʹn* , rʹj* = μʹj* , ϑʹj* , πʹj* , j = 1, 2, …n (12) 1 ∑n [⃒
⃒ ʹ
⃒ ⃒
⃒ ⃒
⃒ ⃒
⃒ ⃒
⃒ ]
⃒
Si − = ⃒μij − μʹj− ⃒ + ⃒ϑʹij − ϑʹj− ⃒ + ⃒πʹij − πʹj− ⃒ , i = 1, 2, …m (21)
2 j=1
( ) ( )
A = rʹ1− , rʹ2− , …rʹn− , rʹj− = μʹj− , ϑʹj− , πʹj− , j = 1, 2, …n
−
(13)
Step 5: Calculation of proximity coefficient for each alternative: Ac-
{( { } ) ( { } )} cording to the results in step 6, the proximity coefficient is calculated
μʹj* = max μʹij , j ∈ J1 , min μʹij , j ∈ J2 (14) using the formula below.

{( { } ) ( { } )} Ci * = ((Si − )/(Si * + Si − ) ), 0 ≤ Ci * ≤ 1, I = 1, 2, …, m (22)

ϑʹj* = min ϑʹij , j ∈ J1 , max ϑʹij , j ∈ J2 (15)
Step 6: Ranking the alternatives: Alternatives are ranked according to
{( { } { } )} the magnitude of the proximity coefficients.
πʹj* = 1 − max μʹij –min ϑʹij , j ∈ J1 (16)
4. A case study
{( { } { } )}
= 1 − min μʹij –max ϑʹij , j ∈ J2
The aim of the study is to determine the most suitable transit
{( { } ) ( { } )} warehouse location in Hatay province in Turkey within the scope of
μʹj− = min μʹij , j ∈ J1 , max μʹij , j ∈ J2 (17) disaster logistics using IF AHP- TOPSIS integrated model. The applica-
tion steps were shown in Fig. 1 and used for the case study conducted for
{( { } ) ( { } )} this purpose.
ϑʹj− = max ϑʹij , j ∈ J1 , min ϑʹij , j ∈ J2 (18) Step 1: Creating the Expert Group: Be aware that owing to ignorance
{( { } { } )} and personal prejudices, one person might not be able to evaluate the
πʹj− = 1 − min μʹij –max ϑʹij , j ∈ J1 (19) dynamics affecting a plan in an efficient manner. Moreover, it is argued
that there is no predetermined formula for determining the appropriate
{( { } { } )} sample size of experts to consult. Put another way, it is common for the
= 1 − max μʹij –min ϑʹij , j ∈ J2 size of an expert panel in comparable investigations to be unknown
(Bulut & Duru, 2018). Selecting experts who are sufficiently informed
Step 4: Calculation of Positive and Negative discrimination measure- and versed in disaster logistics to answer the questionnaire is essential.
ments: Two different methods can be used to calculate this measurement. Theoretical and practical expertise of transit warehouse location selec-
These methods are Hamming and Euclidean. In this study, Hamming is tion should also be possessed by experts. Taking these two variables into
preferred. Si* and S−i calculated according to the formula. consideration, the current study defines experts as a group of responders
that includes researchers, practitioners, and/or decision-makers and

Fig. 1. The Application Steps of the Research.

8
N. Yesilcayir et al. Research in Transportation Business & Management 57 (2024) 101232

who have sufficient research, expertise, and hands-on experience in Table 7

disaster logistics and transit warehouse location selection. We found Criterion interpretation and GIS analysis.
experts that met the above criteria by using a purposive sample that was Map Criterion Explanation GIS Analysis
augmented through snowball recruiting. In this regard experts group no
includes; two people from AFAD (warehouse manager and corporate 1 Distance to Transportation is one of the Distance (0–2 km = 5;
director), a person from the non-governmental organization of Turkish Roads important issues for fast 2–4 km = 4; 4–6 km =
Red Crescent (warehouse manager), a person from local government access in emergency 3; 6–8 km = 2; 8 km and
(construction engineer) and two academicians (studies on logistics and situations. If access to the more distances 1)
land is difficult,
disaster) from universities. transportation will take
Step 2: Defining the Criteria: For this study the main and sub-criteria longer and transportation
are determined by literature review (Agdas & Eroglu, 2016; Balcik & costs will be high, labor and
Beamon, 2008; Barbarosoglu et al., 2002; Kuo, 2011; Mete & Zabinsky, transportation costs in the
initial investment cost will
2010; Ofluoglu et al., 2017; Onsuz & Atalay, 2015; Ozcan et al., 2011;
be very high. Therefore,
Peker et al., 2016; Roh et al., 2018; Ureten, 2006; Yadav & Barve, 2015; proximity to transportation
Zejli et al., 2012) and expert group opinions. Criteria and sub-criteria are routes will be preferred
listed in Table 6. 2 Slope It is accepted that the most Slope (0–5 % 5; 5–10 %
Step 3: Determining the Alternatives: Alternatives are determined by economical slope value in 4; 10–15 % 3; 15–20 %
site selection is between 0 % 2; 20+ % 1)
using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) from the places where the and 5 %; lands with a slope
warehouse is likely to be established. GIS organizes layers of data and above 5 % are considered
analyzes spatial locations to enable display in maps and three- inefficient. However, if no
dimensional scenarios. It is an information system that combines func- alternative area can be
found, site selection can be
tions such as data collection, storage, analysis, and user presentation
made up to 5 % slope. On the
(Armenakis et al., 2017). Thus, GIS offers a deeper perspective to the other hand, completely flat
user by conducting data-to-data modeling and interrelationships to help lands with no slope are not
users make smarter decisions (Koller et al., 1995). For this reason, GIS preferred due to water
system was preferred in terms of making the most correct decision in this accumulation and drainage
problems
study. Considering the geographical structure, location, and disaster
3 Distance to Another decisive criterion in Distance (0–1 km 1,
risks of Hatay province, 10 criteria for the alternatives are shown with Settlements site selection is the distance 1–3 km 5, 3–5 km 4,
explanation in Table 7. Disasters and other criteria were simulated using of the warehouse to 5–7 km 3, 7 km and
ArcGIS. The maps generated by ArcGIS, which depict the criteria used in settlements. Warehouses more distances 2)
should be close to
the identification of alternatives, are shown in Fig. 2. Public lands cor-
settlements in order to
responding to these areas were considered, and the locations depicted in intervene quickly and
Fig. 3 were identified as alternatives. effectively, but since it is
Step 4: Determining the Decision Makers Weights: The importance of thought that the warehouse
decision makers is thought as linguistic variables and linguistic terms in the settlement will be
affected or cannot be used in
(Table 3) are used to determine the weight of decision makers. With the
a possible emergency, the
aim of a representative evaluation 5 different decision makers (Expert nearest areas may be
Group) from the relevant cooperation group participants in disaster lo- preferred, provided that they
gistics for Hatay are consulted for this study. The first one is AFAD are not in settlements.
4 Distance to In a city with strong currents Distance (0–0,5 km 0;
warehouse manager (very important), the second one is an engineer/
Streams such as Hatay, there may be 0,5–1 km 4; 1–3 km 5;
architect in AFAD (important), the third one is a manager of logistics very serious losses in a flood 3–5 km 3; 5–7 km 2; 7
firm (medium important), the forth one is an academician (medium with overflowing water in km and more distances
important) and the last one is a manager from Red Crescent (important). winter. It is preferable not to 1)
The importance levels are determined by the author’s opinions and their be too far away, provided
that the river is not in the
experts, and weights of decision makers are calculated with related Eq.
flood zone.
(4) and shown in Table 8. 5 Distance to Another decisive criterion in Distance (0–3 km 1;
Step 5: Weighting the Criteria: In order obtain the weights of the Fault Lines site selection is the distance 3–6 km 2; 6–9 km 3;
criteria, first the pairwise comparisons surveys were designed and to fault lines. In the process 9–12 km 4; 12 km and
of logistics support more distances 5)
warehouse site selection,
Table 6 especially in earthquake-
Criteria and Sub-criteria. prone areas, geological
factors, especially the
C1: Costs C11: Land Costs location of active (live)
C12: Construction Costs faults, as well as the
C13: Possible Supply and Transporting Costs liquefaction status of the
C2: Emergency Cases and C21: Hydro Meteorological Disasters ground should be taken into
Natural C22: Climatic Disasters account. Locations far away
Disasters C23: Geophysical Disasters from fault lines should be
C24: Human Caused Emergency Cases preferred.
C3: Substructure C31: Electricity Substructure 6 Vegetation Warehouse site selection Density (Plant Area 0;
C32: Water and Sewerage Substructure should be done without Bare Areas 5)
C33: Communication Substructure destroying existing green
C4: Logistics C41: Proximity to other Warehouse and Demand areas
Points 7 Distance to It is very important that the Distance (0–1 km 1;
C42: Proximity to Transportation Modes Landslide land to be selected is stony 1–2 km 2; 2–3 km 3;
C43: Land Size and Form (rocky) or soil. Agricultural 3–4 km 4; 4 km and
C44: Proximity to Settlement Areas and Health lands are not suitable areas more distance 5)
Organizations
(continued on next page)
C45: Proximity to Borders and Customs Gates

9
N. Yesilcayir et al. Research in Transportation Business & Management 57 (2024) 101232

Table 7 (continued ) presented to the Expert Group. Once the pairwise comparisons have
Map Criterion Explanation GIS Analysis been completed for main and sub-criteria as shown in Table 9–10
no respectively, eqs. (5–8) were used to calculate the importance weights of
for warehouse installation
the criteria. The final results are illustrated in Table 11. On the other
for economic reasons. In hand, for all pairwise comparisons, the consistency ratio is determined
addition, the warehouse area less than 0.10.
will be built on a concrete According to Table 11, Emergency Cases and Natural Disasters (C2), is
floor, and if there are too
the most important and Logistics (C4) is the least. Also, Hydro Meteoro-
many rocky parts on the
land, this will increase the logical Disasters (C21) is the most and Proximity to Borders and Customs
cost during the installation Gates (C45) is the least important criterion.
phase. Step 6: Ranking the Alternatives: After calculating the weights of the
8 Distance to For warehouse site selection, Distance (0–1 km 1; criterion using IF-AHP, IF TOPSIS was utilized to assess the alternatives.
Industrial it should be located far away 1–2 km 2; 2–3 km 3;
Zones from organized industrial 3–4 km 4; 4 km and
Table 12 shows the decision matrix of the IF-TOPSIS. Eqs. (9–22) were
zones in order not to be more distance 5) used to determine the ranking of the alternatives. The final results are
affected by a possible illustrated in Table 13.
industrial accident and to According to Table 13; A3 (Kırıkhan) and A5 (Erzin) are the most
continue its activities.
suitable locations for a transport warehouse in Hatay, respectively.
9 Proximity to Hatay, our border province Distance (0–3 km 1;
Border with Syria, should not be too 3–6 km 2; 6–9 km; 3 Step 7: Validating the Results: In order to validate the results,
close to the Syrian border 9–12 km 4; 12 km and comparative and sensitivity analysis were applied at this stage. The ef-
where the civil war more distances 5) fect of using different methods on the result was investigated with
continues for security comparative analysis, and the effect of the differentiation of the criteria
reasons, but not too far away
in order to respond quickly
weights on the result was investigated with sensitivity analysis. The
to humanitarian aid results are presented below.
10 Proximity to A large part of the Distance (0–1 km 1;
Customs Gates humanitarian aid to Syria is 1–5 km 4; 5–10 km 5;
4.1. Comparative analysis
provided from Hatay 10–15 km 3; 15 km and
province. Considering that more distances 2)
the warehouses will operate In this study, IF-AHP was used for criteria weighting. In order to
in this area, it is desirable to compare the analysis results with a different method, AHP analysis was
be close to the customs gates, also performed. As a result of the analysis, it was determined that
while relative proximity is
required when considering
although there were small differences between the criteria ranking
the safe area. values, the most important criterion Emergency Cases and Natural Di-
11 Result All criteria are simulated Weight (%10*10 = 100) sasters (C2) did not change.
collectively assuming a Additionally, VIKOR analysis was applied to compare the IF-TOPSIS
weight (10 %). Red denotes
results performed to rank the alternatives and the results are shown in
suitable locations for transit
warehouse location Table 14.
selection. The analysis results made with IF-TOPSIS were re-analyzed with the
VIKOR method and the analysis results showed that the best alternative
Kırıkhan (A3) did not change. This shows that the model is robust.

Fig. 2. ArcGIS -generated maps of the criteria used in the identification of alternatives.

10
N. Yesilcayir et al. Research in Transportation Business & Management 57 (2024) 101232

Fig. 3. Alternatives (URL 7).

5. Conclusion
Table 8
Weights of decision makers.
Being one of the border towns of Turkey, the Province of Hatay has
Decision Weighted Lingustic Terms Equation λ recently drawn frequent attention because of the ongoing civil war in its
Makers 4
neighboring country, Syria. Asides from the ongoing Syrian civil war
DM1 Very Important 0,90; 0,10: 0,00 0,900 % and terrorism threats, Hatay is exposed to a wide range of risks partic-
25,49
ularly earthquakes and other natural disasters. First aid is vital for those
DM2 Important 0,75; 0,20; 0,05 0,789 %
22,35
unforeseen sudden events due to their negative nature of uncertain
DM3 Medium 0,50; 0,45; 0,05 0,526 % destructive effects. Temporary storage units like transit warehouses are
Important 14,90 of great strategic importance by constituting key support elements for
DM4 Medium 0,50; 0,45; 0,05 0,526 % humanitarian aid and first aid situations. Officially, it is decided to
Important 14,90
quarter a 20 container capacitated transit warehouse in Hatay. An
DM5 Important 0,75; 0,20; 0,05 0,789 %
22,35
TOTAL 3.53 %100
Table 11
Criteria weights.
4.2. Sensitivity analysis C1 C2 C3 C4

0.360 0.362 0.167 0.111

It has been determined that the location of the A3 alternative has not Sub Criteria
changed (Fig.4) in the scenarios created with the difference in the C11 0.214 C21 0.298 C31 0.138 C41 0.067
criteria weights. Therefore, the A3 alternative is a dominant alternative C12 0.268 C22 0.197 C32 0.113 C42 0.050
and it has been determined that the best alternative has not changed C13 0.247 C23 0.184 C33 0.088 C43 0.034
C24 0.164 C44 0.034
even if the criteria weights change. Therefore, this situation can be said C45 0.013
as another explanation that shows that the study is robust.

Table 9
Main Criteria decision matrix.
C1 C2 C3 C4

C1 0.02 0.18 0.8 0.27 0.33 0.4 0.23 0.06 0.7 0.23 0.06 0.7
C2 0.33 0.27 0.4 0.02 0.18 0.8 0.33 0.27 0.4 0.13 0.27 0.6
C3 0.06 0.23 0.7 0.27 0.33 0.4 0.02 0.18 0.8 0.18 0.02 0.8
C4 0.13 0.27 0.6 0.27 0.13 0.6 0.02 0.18 0.8 0.02 0.18 0.8
CR 0.013 0.026 0.037 0.048

Table 10
Sub-Criteria decision matrix.
SUB CRITERIA DECISION MATRIX (μ)

C11 C12 C13 C21 C22 C23 C24 C31 C32 C33 C41 C42 C43 C44 C45
C11 0.02 0.06 0.23 C21 0.02 0.13 0.18 0.18 C31 0.02 0.02 0.02 C41 0.02 0.06 0.06 0.23 0.23
C12 0.23 0.02 0.18 C22 0.27 0.02 0.18 0.18 C32 0.18 0.02 0.02 C42 0.23 0.02 0.13 0.18 0.02
C13 0.06 0.02 0.02 C23 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.18 C33 0.23 0.18 0.02 C43 0.23 0.27 0.02 0.23 0.02
C24 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.02 C44 0.06 0.02 0.28 0.02 0.06
C45 0.02 0.23 0.18 0.23 0.02
SUB CRITERIA DECISION MATRIX (ϑ)
C11 C12 C13 C21 C22 C23 C24 C31 C32 C33 C41 C42 C43 C44 C45
C11 0.18 0.23 0.06 C21 0.18 0.27 0.02 0.02 C31 0.18 0.18 0.18 C41 0.18 0.23 0.23 0.06 0.06
C12 0.06 0.18 0.02 C22 0.13 0.18 0.02 0.02 C32 0.02 0.18 0.18 C42 0.06 0.18 0.27 0.02 0.18
C13 0.23 0.18 0.18 C23 0.23 0.23 0.18 0.02 C33 0.06 0.02 0.18 C43 0.06 0.13 0.18 0.06 0.18
C24 0.23 0.23 0.18 0.18 C44 0.23 0.18 0.22 0.18 0.23
C45 0.18 0.06 0.02 0.06 0.18

11
N. Yesilcayir et al. Research in Transportation Business & Management 57 (2024) 101232

Table 12
IF TOPSIS decision matrix.
DM1 DM2 DM3 DM4 DM5

C1 0.75 0.1 0.15 0.75 0.1 0.15 0.75 0.1 0.15 0.75 0.1 0.15 0.75 0.1 0.15
C2 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.1
A1 C3 0.6 0.25 0.15 0.6 0.25 0.15 0.6 0.25 0.15 0.6 0.25 0.15 0.6 0.25 0.15
C4 0.75 0.1 0.15 0.75 0.1 0.15 0.75 0.1 0.15 0.75 0.1 0.15 0.75 0.1 0.15
C1 0.6 0.25 0.15 0.75 0.1 0.15 0.6 0.25 0.15 0.75 0.1 0.15 0.6 0.25 0.15
C2 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.1
C3 0.6 0.25 0.15 0.6 0.25 0.15 0.6 0.25 0.15 0.6 0.25 0.15 0.6 0.25 0.15
A2 C4 0.75 0.1 0.15 0.75 0.1 0.15 0.75 0.1 0.15 0.75 0.1 0.15 0.75 0.1 0.15
C1 0.75 0.1 0.15 0.75 0.1 0.15 0.75 0.1 0.15 0.75 0.1 0.15 0.6 0.25 0.15
C2 0.6 0.25 0.15 0.6 0.25 0.15 0.6 0.25 0.15 0.6 0.25 0.15 0.75 0.1 0.15
C3 0.6 0.25 0.15 0.6 0.25 0.15 0.6 0.25 0.15 0.6 0.25 0.15 0.6 0.25 0.15
A3 C4 0.75 0.1 0.15 0.75 0.1 0.15 0.75 0.1 0.15 0.75 0.1 0.15 0.75 0.1 0.15
C1 0.6 0.25 0.15 0.75 0.1 0.15 0.75 0.1 0.15 0.75 0.1 0.15 0.75 0.1 0.15
C2 0.5 0.5 0 0.5 0.5 0 0.5 0.5 0 0.5 0.5 0 0.5 0.5 0
C3 0.6 0.25 0.15 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.6 0.25 0.15 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.6 0.25 0.15
A4 C4 0.75 0.1 0.15 0.75 0.1 0.15 0.75 0.1 0.15 0.75 0.1 0.15 0.75 0.1 0.15
C1 0.6 0.25 0.15 0.75 0.1 0.15 0.75 0.1 0.15 0.75 0.1 0.15 0.75 0.1 0.15
C2 0.6 0.25 0.15 0.6 0.25 0.15 0.6 0.25 0.15 0.6 0.25 0.15 0.6 0.25 0.15
C3 0.6 0.25 0.15 0.6 0.25 0.15 0.6 0.25 0.15 0.6 0.25 0.15 0.6 0.25 0.15
A5 C4 0.75 0.1 0.15 0.75 0.1 0.15 0.75 0.1 0.15 0.75 0.1 0.15 0.75 0.1 0.15

important to position the transit warehouse correctly. This current study

Table 13
is important in terms of providing efficiency in critical decision making
Ranking alternatives.
and it is the first to evaluate transit warehouse location selection from an
Sþ S¡ C*i Ranking intuitionistic fuzzy logic perspective. In addition, it is another specificity
A1 0.11702 0.076909 0.397 3 that it is the subject of transit warehouse location selection in the
A2 0.162515 0.031414 0.162 4 province of Hatay.
A3 0.015632 0.172391 0.917 1
Before ranking the evaluation criteria for this location selection
A4 0.162662 0.025361 0.135 5
A5 0.052133 0.13589 0.723 2
problem, pairwise comparisons of the criteria are made to guarantee the
consistency (proofed criteria consistency <0.10). According to the
criteria ranking, “Emergency Cases and Natural Disasters” (C2: weight =
0,362) is the most important main criterion. Thus, it cannot be ignored
Table 14
that the main criterion “Costs” (C1: weight = 0,360) owns nearly the
VIKOR analysis results.
same importance. “Hydro Meteorological Disasters (C21)” is determined
Sİ Rİ Qİ, v = 0,1 Qİ, v = 0,5 Qİ, v = 1 as the most important sub-criterion. Examining the literature, these re-
A3 0,168 A3 0,078 A3 0,000 A3 0,000 A3 0,000 sults are not surprising in the case of Hatay because of its geographical
A1 0,364 A2 0,118 A2 0,405 A2 0,478 A1 0,368 location. Hatay is exposed to risks of natural disasters, for example,
A5 0,430 A1 0,157 A1 0,732 A1 0,570 A5 0,491
earthquakes (URL 1) and floods (URL 2) are common in Hatay’s history.
A2 0,472 A5 0,180 A5 0,949 A5 0,745 A2 0,570
A4 0,701 A4 0,180 A4 1000 A4 1000 A4 1000 In addition, Hatay is affected the most by the Syrian civil war (Recber &
Ayhan, 2013). “Emergency Case and Natural Disasters” criterion opens
up a further evaluation perspective to the literature of warehouse
location selection problem within the scope of disaster logistics. For
example, cost (Chu, 2002), transportation convenience (Kuo, 2011) and
stock holding capacity (Ozcan et al., 2011) are the criteria which stand
out related to the importance of further criteria to evaluate problems of
warehouse location selection. This study makes a contribution to the
present literature by pointing out the relevance and importance of the
criterion related to disaster risk within the scope of disaster logistics by
conducting realistic evaluation technique of criteria.
Like mentioned in the literature review, the definition of disaster
logistics is related to the conditions of the countries and/or organiza-
tions and may change (Cetinkaya, 2019). The current study gives a
similar suggestion that the importance of criteria may change related to
Fig. 4. Sensitivity analysis the conditions of the countries. Trying to understand the impact of the
conditions on the importance of evaluation criterion, a logical starting
optimal location selection for the planned transit warehouse is indis- point of the current study is the fact that the “Costs” criterion owns
pensable to develop Hatay’s ability to respond to disasters that can nearly the same importance as the most important criterion “Emergency
possibly occur in the near future. Inaccurate assessments and evalua- Cases and Natural Disasters”. It reveals that the decision makers prior-
tions could induce misdirection of disaster logistics, waste of critical itize the economic property of transit warehouse location selection for
response time, misdistribution and waste of aid material, and irre- disaster logistics. The suggestion is obvious; trying to manage the highly
pressible post-disaster effects. Therefore, temporary storage centers for risks of contemporary disasters may increase the importance of the
Hatay need to be thought out and planned well. criterion related to the risk value one the one hand, but on the other
The aim of this study is to select a suitable transit warehouse location hand it would not minimize the importance of “Cost” evaluation crite-
by using Intuitionistic Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Making Techniques rion. Since one of the main goals for businesses is always to minimize
in Hatay. Due to the wide range area of Hatay, it is of distress and very costs and increase profit in general, minimizing costs in terms of

12
N. Yesilcayir et al. Research in Transportation Business & Management 57 (2024) 101232

warehouse location selection problems in the scope of disaster logistics Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
is the main goal too (Aktepe & Ersoz, 2014). Increasing profit can be editing.
interpreted as increasing the ability to respond to disasters in the most
effective mode with the aim of minimizing losses in any category Declaration of competing interest
(Kovács & Spens, 2007).
Disaster logistics effectiveness can be defined as disaster relief chain None.
effectiveness in the frame of a relief chain structure (Balcik & Beamon,
2008). In the same sense, Yadav and Barve (2015) express disaster relief
Acknowledgement
chain effectiveness as “operational effectiveness in emergency man-
agement”. The risk values of various disasters have an enormous impact
This study is an expanded version of the “Hub Warehouse Location
on the demand for an optimal disaster logistics management. For that
Selection for Disaster Logistics in Case of Hatay Province in Turkey: A
reason “Emergency Cases and Natural Disasters” criterion represents the
Multiple Hybrid Study” presented at the 17. International Logistics and
risk factors of disasters. In terms of directions for future research on
Supply Chain Congress in İstanbul in 2019.
warehouse location selection in the scope of disaster logistics, further
studies could be conducted by implementing IF MCDM technique based
References
on directly calculated risk values. The calculations of the risk values
should account the interactions of contemporary disaster event risks. To Abdullah, L., & Najib, L. (2016). Sustainable energy planning decision using the
overcome this mathematical calculation requirement, IF ANP can be intuitionistic fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: Choosing energy technology in
recommended as MCDM technique that takes the interactions of crite- Malaysia. International Journal of Sustainable Energy, 35(4), 360–377.
Agdas, M., Bali, O., & Balli, H. (2014). Afet lojistiği kapsamında dağıtım merkezi için yer
rion and sub-criterion into account. In addition, future research could seçimi: Smaa-2 Tekniği ile bir uygulama. Beykoz Akademi Dergisi, 2(1), 75–95.
provide objective judgment by conducting hybrid weighting methods, Agdas, M., & Eroglu, O. (2016). A decision support model suggestion for logistics support
subjective and objective (like entropy weights). A further study may be unit in risky environment. Journal of Economics Bibliography, 3(1S), 50–62.
Ak, M. F., & Acar, D. (2021). Selection of humanitarian supply chain warehouse location:
developed by using different multi-criteria decision-making techniques
A case study based on the MCDM methodology. Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, 22,
(IFVIKOR, IFPROMETHEE, IF DEMATEL, etc.) and findings can be dis- 400–409.
cussed comparatively. It would be interesting to repeat the analyses Aktepe, A., & Ersoz, S. (2014). AHP-VIKOR ve MOORA yöntemlerinin depo yeri seçim
probleminde uygulanması. Journal of Industrial Engineering, 25(1–2), 2–15.
implemented here for other transit warehouse location selection prob-
Akyildiz, H., & Mentes, A. (2017). An integrated risk assessment based on uncertainty
lems to compare the results in terms of different conditions related. analysis for cargo vessel safety. Safety Science, 92, 34–43.
According to IFTOPSIS results, A3 (Kırıkhan) is the most appropriate Al-Bawi, A. J., Al-Abadi, A. M., Pradhan, B., & Alamri, A. M. (2021). Assessing gully
location for the transit warehouse in Hatay. These results may be due to erosion susceptibility using topographic derived attributes, multi-criteria decision-
making, and machine learning classifiers. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk, 12(1),
Kırıkhan’s transportation facilities or its geographic location for disaster 3035–3062.
interventions, considering its crossroad point located on Gaziantep, Al-Shabeeb, A. R., Hamdan, I., Meimandi Parizi, S., Al-Fugara, A. K., Odat, S. A.,
Kahramanmaras and Hatay (major cities in the south of Turkey) road Elkhrachy, I., … Sammen, S. S. (2023). A comparative study of genetic algorithm-
based ensemble models and knowledge-based models for wildfire susceptibility
route. The relevant alternatives ranked in the transit warehouse location mapping. Sustainability, 15(21), 15598.
selection were determined on public land and the results were compared Amsharuk, A., & Łaska, G. (2023). The approach to finding locations for wind farms
by taking the disaster types, impact areas and experts’ opinions again in using GIS and MCDA: Case study based on Podlaskie Voivodeship, Poland. Energies,
16(20), 7107.
the Hatay provincial risk reduction plan (URL 8).Kırıkhan (A3) district Amsharuk, A., & Łaska, G. (2024). Site selection of wind farms in Poland: Combining
was evaluated as the most suitable alternative in terms of its theory with reality. Energies, 17(11), 2635.
geographical location and the criteria taken into consideration. Ac- Arabameri, A., Rezaei, K., Cerda, A., Lombardo, L., & Rodrigo-Comino, J. (2019). GIS-
based groundwater potential mapping in Shahroud plain, Iran. A comparison among
cording to the comparison and sensitivity analysis results, it was
statistical (bivariate and multivariate), data mining and MCDM approaches. Science
determined that the location of the A3 alternative did not change. of the Total Environment, 658, 160–177.
Several limitations to this study need to be acknowledged. There are Armenakis, C., Du, E. X., Natesan, S., Persad, R. A., & Zhang, Y. (2017). Flood risk
assessment in urban areas based on spatial analytics and social factors. Geosciences, 7
limitations considering the Intuitionistic Fuzzy AHP (IFAHP) and
(4), 123.
Intuitionistic Fuzzy TOPSIS (IFTOPSIS). Because the weighting of the Asadi, M., & Pourhossein, K. (2019, June). Wind and solar farms site selection using
criteria and evaluation of the alternatives are based on experts’ opin- geographical information system (GIS), based on multi criteria decision making
ions, the evaluation is limited by the subjective judgments of the ex- (MCDM) methods: A case-study for East-Azerbaijan. In In 2019 Iranian conference on
renewable energy & distributed generation (ICREDG) (pp. 1–6). IEEE.
perts’ opinion; if the experts group would change, the results could Aslam, B., Maqsoom, A., Khalil, U., Ghorbanzadeh, O., Blaschke, T., Farooq, D., …
differ. This limitation points towards a further issue considering “the Ghamisi, P. (2022). Evaluation of different landslide susceptibility models for a local
stakeholders” or in other words “the cooperation group participants” in scale in the Chitral District, Northern Pakistan. Sensors, 22(9), 3107.
Atanassov, K. T. (1986). Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 87–96.
disaster logistics for Hatay. The experts group was assembled from each Atlas, M., & Bedirhanoglu, S. B. (2018). Bulanık küme yaklaşımlarının sınıflandırılması.
cooperation group participant. While determining the experts groups for In 19th international symposium on econometrics, operations research and statistics at.
the evaluations, there was a limited access to the respective military Antalya.
Azadi, A., Jalali, S. A. S., & Navidi, M. N. (2023). Assessment of land suitability for
department because of strict safety precautions. If the department could sugarcane cultivation using TOPSIS and parametric methods in Southwestern Iran.
have been consulted, the results would have been more representative Eurasian Soil Science, 56(6), 818–829.
for all cooperation group participants in disaster logistics for Hatay. The Bakhshi, A., Aghsami, A., & Rabbani, M. (2022). A scenario-based collaborative problem
for a relief supply chain during post-disaster under uncertain parameters: A real case
result for the best alternative might not have changed because of its
study in Dorud. Journal of Modelling in Management, 18(3), 906–941.
obvious high score, but the criterion importance results would have Balcik, B., & Beamon, B. M. (2008). Facility location in humanitarian relief. International
differed for this current case. Journal of Logistics, 11(2), 101–121.
Bañuelas, R., & Antony, J. (2004). Modified analytic hierarchy process to incorporate
uncertainty and managerial aspects. International Journal of Production Research, 42
CRediT authorship contribution statement (18), 3851–3872.
Barbarosoglu, G., Ozdamar, L., & Cevik, A. (2002). An interactive approach for
hierarchical analysis of helicopter logistics in disaster relief operations. European
Nigar Yesilcayir: Conceptualization, Investigation, Supervision,
Journal of Operational Research, 140(1), 118–133.
Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Barzehkar, M., Parnell, K., Soomere, T., & Koivisto, M. (2024). Offshore wind power
Gulsah Ayvazoglu: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – original plant site selection in the Baltic Sea. Regional Studies in Marine Science, 73, Article
draft, Writing – review & editing. Sefa Celik: Data curation, Formal 103469.
Bedirhanoglu, Ş. B., & Lezki, Ş. (2018). KOBİ’lerin banka tercihini etkileyen kriterlerin
analysis, Methodology, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – AHP yöntemi ile belirlenmesi. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 18(1),
review & editing. Iskender Peker: Conceptualization, Investigation, 191–208.

13
N. Yesilcayir et al. Research in Transportation Business & Management 57 (2024) 101232

Boran, F., Genc, S., Kurt, M., & Akay, D. (2009). A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy Kapilan, S., Elangovan, K., & Joevivek, V. J. (2023). Optimal route selection for solid
group decision making for supplier selection with TOPSIS method. Expert Systems waste transportation using hybrid GIS and fuzzy AHP approach. Environmental
With Applications., 36(2009), 11363–11368. [Link] Engineering & Management Journal (EEMJ), 22(7).
eswa.2009.03.039 Karami, M., Abedi Koupai, J., & Gohari, S. A. (2024). Integration of SWAT, SDSM, AHP,
Bulut, E., & Duru, O. (2018). In P. T.-W. Lee, & Z. Yang (Eds.), Analytic hierarchy process and TOPSIS to detect flood-prone areas. Natural Hazards, 1–19.
(AHP) in maritime logistics: Theory, application and fuzzy set integration BT - multi- Karasan, A., Kaya, İ., & Erdogan, M. (2018). Location selection of electric vehicles
criteria decision making in maritime studies and logistics: Applications and cases (pp. charging stations by using a fuzzy MCDM method: A case study in Turkey. Neural
31–78). Springer International Publishing. [Link] Computing and Applications, 1–22.
62338-2_3. Kaya, S., & Kıyılı, R. (2009). Contagious diseases and natural disasters that occured in
Buyukozkan, G., & Uzturk, D. (2024). Enhancing disaster management through effective antioch in the medieval ages. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü
warehouse location selection using linguistic decision making: An integrated Dergisi, 6(12), 403–418.
approach. In Proceedings of the 8th North American international conference on Koç, M., & Sarıkaya, H. A. (2024). Maximal covering method in determining distribution
industrial engineering and operations management, Houston, Texas, USA, June 13-16, centers in disaster logistics. Endüstri Mühendisliği, 35(1), 22–60.
2023. Koçak, A. (2003). Yazılım seçilinde analitik hiyerarşi yöntemi yaklaşımı ve bir uygulama.
Çelik, M.Ö., Kuşak, L., & Yakar, M. (2024). Assessment of groundwater potential zones Ege Academic Review, 3(1), 67–77.
utilizing geographic information system-based analytical hierarchy process, vlse Koller, D., Lindstrom, P., Ribarsky, W., Hodges, L. F., Faust, N., & Turner, G. (1995).
kriterijumska optimizacija kompromisno resenje, and technique for order preference Virtual GIS: A real-time 3D geographic information system. In Proceedings
by similarity to ideal solution methods: A case study in Mersin, Türkiye. visualization’95 (pp. 94–100). IEEE.
Sustainability, 16(5), 2202. Konstantinos, I., Georgios, T., & Garyfalos, A. (2019). A decision support system
Cetinkaya, C., Özceylan, E., & Keser, I. (2022). A GIS-based AHP approach for emergency methodology for selecting wind farm installation locations using AHP and TOPSIS:
warehouse site selection: A case close to Turkey-Syria border. Journal of Engineering Case study in Eastern Macedonia and Thrace region, Greece. Energy Policy, 132,
Research, 10(3A). 232–246.
Cetinkaya, N. (2019). Anovel model for humanitarian logistics: Hot meal (Master’s thesis). Kovács, G., & Spens, K. M. (2007). Humanitarian logistics in disaster relief operations.
Chipana-Surquislla, W. C., Cornejo-Sanchez, C., & Vargas-Florez, J. (2022). Optimal International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 37(2), 99–114.
humanitarian warehouses location considering vulnerability previous condition. Kovacs, G., & Spens, K. M. (2012). Relief supply chain for disasters, humanitarian, aid and
Brazilian Journal of Operations & Production Management, 19(2), 1–9. emergency logistics. USA: Business Science.
Chu, T. (2002). Selecting plant location via a fuzzy TOPSIS approach. The International Kumar, M., & Yadav, S. P. (2012). A novel approach for analyzing fuzzy system reliability
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 20, 859–864. using different types of intuitionistic fuzzy failure rates of components. ISA
Dagdeviren, M., Eraslan, E., Kurt, M., & Dizdar, E. N. (2005). Tedarikçi seçimi Transactions, 51, 288–297.
problemine analitik ağ süreci ile alternatif bir yaklaşım. Teknoloji, 8(2). Kunz, N., & Reiner, G. (2012). A meta-analysis of humanitarian logistics research. Journal
De Leeuw, E. (2012). Do healthy cities work? A logic of method for assessing impact and of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management, 2(2), 116–147.
outcome of healthy cities. Journal of Urban Health, 89(2), 217–231. Kuo, M. S. (2011). Optimal location selection for an international distribution center by
De Moura, E. H., Ee Cruz, T. B. R., & Chiroli, D. M. D. G. (2020). A framework proposal to using a new hybrid method. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(6), 7208–7221.
integrate humanitarian logistics practices, disaster management and disaster mutual Lambert, D. M., Stock, J. R., & Ellram, L. M. (1998). Fundementals of logistics management.
assistance: A Brazilian case. Safety Science, 132, Article 104965. Boston: Mc-Graw Hill Professional.
Demirbas, S., & Ertem, M. A. (2021). Determination of equivalent warehouses in Lin, K., Chen, H., Xu, C. Y., Yan, P., Lan, T., Liu, Z., & Dong, C. (2020). Assessment of
humanitarian logistics by reallocation of multiple item type inventories. International flash flood risk based on improved analytic hierarchy process method and integrated
Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 66, Article 102603. maximum likelihood clustering algorithm. Journal of Hydrology, 584, Article 124696.
Dhia, H. S. (2020). Determination of warehouse location for supporting emergency response Maghsoudi, A., & Moshtari, M. (2021). Challenges in disaster relief operations: Evidence
operation of natural disaster in Padang City (Doctoral dissertation,. Universitas from the 2017 Kermanshah earthquake. Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply
Andalas. Chain Management, 11(1), 107–134.
Díaz, H., & Soares, C. G. (2021). A multi-criteria approach to evaluate floating offshore Maharjan, R., & Hanaoka, S. (2017). Warehouse location determination for humanitarian
wind farms siting in the Canary Islands (Spain). Energies, 14(4), 865. relief distribution in Nepal. Transportation Research Procedia, 25(1151–1163), 2017.
Dzwairo, R., Singh, S. K., & Patel, A. (2024). Soil erosion susceptibility assessment Maohua, L., & Le, L. (2023). Study on spatial-temporal differentiation of water resources
through morphometric analysis and morphotectonic implications in Rietspruit sub- carrying capacity evaluation in Liaoning province. Water Resources, 50(6), 857–867.
basin, South Africa. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1–22. Mete, H. O., & Zabinsky, Z. B. (2010). Stochastic optimization of medical supply location
Efe, B., Boran, F., & Kurt, M. (2015). Sezgisel bulanık TOPSIS yöntemi kullanılarak and distribution in disaster management. International Journal of Production
ergonomik ürün konsept seçimi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri ve Economics, 126(1), 76–84.
Tasarım Dergisi, 3(3), 433–440. Mittal, R., & Obaid, A. (2023). Sustainable warehouse location selection in humanitarian
EMDAT. (2020), 06.04 [Link] supply chain: A multi-criteria decision-making approach. International Journal of
Fayaz, M., Romshoo, S. A., Rashid, I., & Chandra, R. (2023). Earthquake vulnerability Mathematical, Engineering & Management Sciences, 8(2).
assessment of the built environment in the city of Srinagar, Kashmir Himalaya, using Monzón, J., Liberatore, F., & Vitoriano, B. (2020). A mathematical pre-disaster model
a geographic information system. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 23(4), with uncertainty and multiple criteria for facility location and network fortification.
1593–1611. Mathematics, 8(4), 529.
Feng, Z., Li, G., Wang, W., Zhang, L., Xiang, W., He, X., … Wei, N. (2023). Emergency Morgan, O. W., Sribanditmongkol, P., Perera, C., Sulasmi, Y., Van Alphen, D., &
logistics centers site selection by multi-criteria decision-making and GIS. Sondorp, E. (2006). Mass fatality management following the South Asian tsunami
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 96, Article 103921. disaster: Case studies in Thailand, Indonesia, and Sri Lanka. PLoS Medicine, 3(6),
Gumussoy, A. D., Onen, V., & Yalpir, S. (2024). Combined use of BWM-TOPSIS methods 809–815.
in the selection of thermal power plant installation site in the Karapinar/Turkiye Negi, S., & Negi, G. (2021). Framework to manage humanitarian logistics in disaster
Region, at risk of sinkhole formation. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 196 relief supply chain management in India. International Journal of Emergency Services,
(1), 83. 10(1), 40–76.
Hallak, J., & Miç, P. (2021). Multi criteria decision making approach to the evaluation of Nezhadroshan, A. M., Fathollahi-Fard, A. M., & Hajiaghaei-Keshteli, M. (2021).
humanitarian relief warehouses integrating fuzzy logic: A case study in Syria. Avrupa A scenario-based possibilistic-stochastic programming approach to address resilient
bilim ve teknoloji dergisi, 22, 71–80. humanitarian logistics considering travel time and resilience levels of facilities.
Handayani, N. U., Rinawati, D. I., & Wiguna, Y. K. (2015). Model of pre-positioning International Journal of Systems Science: Operations & Logistics, 8(4), 321–347.
warehouse logistics for disaster eruption of Mount Merapi in Sleman Yogyakarta. In Nhi, T. H. T., Wang, C. N., & Van Thanh, N. (2022). Fuzzy multi-criteria decision making
Proceedings of the joint international conference on electric vehicular technology and for solar power plant location selection. Computers, Materials Continua, 72(3),
industrial, mechanical, electrical and chemical engineering (ICEVT & IMECE). 4853–4865.
Hoyois, P., Jean, M. S., Below, R., & Debarati, G. (2007). Annual disaster statistical review: Novkovic, I., Markovic, G. B., Lukic, D., Dragicevic, S., Milosevic, M., Djurdjic, S., …
Numbers and trends 2006, Catholic University of Louvain (UCL). Centre for Research on Tadic, M. (2021). GIS-based forest fire susceptibility zonation with IoT sensor
the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED). network support, case study—Nature Park Golija, Serbia. Sensors, 21(19), 6520.
Jahre, M., Kembro, J., Rezvanian, T., Ergun, O., Håpnes, S. J., & Berling, P. (2016). Nyimbili, P. H., Erden, T., & Karaman, H. (2018). Integration of GIS, AHP and TOPSIS for
Integrating supply chains for emergencies and ongoing operations in UNHCR. earthquake hazard analysis. Natural Hazards, 92, 1523–1546.
Journal of Operations Management, 45, 57–72. Official Gazette. (2020), 06,04 [Link]
Jain, P., & Ramsankaran, R. A. A. J. (2019). GIS-based integrated multi-criteria [Link].
modelling framework for watershed prioritisation in India—A demonstration in Ofluoglu, A., Baki, B., & Ar, I. M. (2017). Multi-criteria decision analysis model for
Marol watershed. Journal of Hydrology, 578, Article 124131. warehouse location in disaster logistics. Journal of Management Marketing and
Jam, A. S., Mosaffaie, J., & Tabatabaei, M. R. (2023). Raster-based landslide Logistics, 4(2), 89–106.
susceptibility mapping using compensatory MADM methods. Environmental Onsuz, M., & Atalay, B. (2015). Afet Lojistigi. Osmangazi Tıp Dergisi, 37(3), 1–6.
Modelling & Software, 159, Article 105567. Ozbek, A., & Eren, T. (2012). Üçüncü parti lojistik (3PL) firmanın analitik hiyerarşi
Jena, R., & Pradhan, B. (2020). Integrated ANN-cross-validation and AHP-TOPSIS model süreciyle (AHS) belirlenmesi. International Journal of Engineering Research and
to improve earthquake risk assessment. International Journal of Disaster Risk Development, 4(2), 46–54.
Reduction, 50, Article 101723. Ozcan, T., Celebi, N., & Esnaf, S. (2011). Comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision
Jong, F. C., & Ahmed, M. M. (2024). Novel GIS-based fuzzy TOPSIS and filtration making methodologies and implementation of a warehouse location selection
algorithms for extra-large scale optimal solar energy sites identification. Solar problem. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(8), 9773–9779.
Energy, 268, Article 112274.

14
N. Yesilcayir et al. Research in Transportation Business & Management 57 (2024) 101232

Ozkan, B., Ozceylan, E., & Sarıçiçek, İ. (2019). GIS-based MCDM modeling for landfill Sheikholeslami, M., & Zarrinpoor, N. (2023). Designing an integrated humanitarian
site suitability analysis: A comprehensive review of the literature. Environmental logistics network for the preparedness and response phases under uncertainty. Socio-
Science and Pollution Research, 26, 30711–30730. Economic Planning Sciences, 86, Article 101496.
Peby, H., Boerboom, L. G. J., & Sagala, S. A. (2016). Developing site selection method for Sinha, S. (2024). Appropriate solid waste dumping site selection for Patna City by using
local humanitarian logistic warehouse using resilience criteria. Jurnal Perencanaan GIS-TOPSIS method. Journal of Earth System Science, 133(2), 98.
Wilayah Dan Kota B SAPPK, 5(1), 87–100. Solaimani, K., Shokrian, F., & Darvishi, S. (2023). An assessment of the integrated multi-
Peker, I., Korucuk, S., Ulutas, S., Okatan, B. S., & Yasar, F. (2016). Afet lojistiği criteria and new models efficiency in watershed flood mapping. Water Resources
kapsamında en uygun dağıtım merkez yerinin AHS-VIKOR bütünleşik yöntemi ile Management, 37(1), 403–425.
belirlenmesi: Erzincan ili örneği. Yönetim ve Ekonomi Arastırmaları Dergisi, 14(1), Spyridonidou, S., Sismani, G., Loukogeorgaki, E., Vagiona, D. G., Ulanovsky, H., &
82–103. Madar, D. (2021). Sustainable spatial energy planning of large-scale wind and PV
Polat, E. G. (2022). Distribution centre location selection for disaster logistics with farms in Israel: A collaborative and participatory planning approach. Energies, 14(3),
integrated goal programming-AHP based TOPSIS method at the city level. Afet ve 551.
Risk Dergisi, 5(1), 282–296. Srivastava, M. K., Gaur, S., & Ohri, A. (2024). Analysing the effectiveness of MCDM and
Qezelbash-Chamak, J., Badamchizadeh, S., & Seifi, A. (2023). A fast-response integrated weighting approaches in groundwater quality index development. Water
mathematical programming approach for delivering disaster relief goods: An Conservation Science and Engineering, 9(2), 35.
earthquake case study. Transportation Letters, 1–24. Steenken, D., Voß, S., & Stahlbock, R. (2004). Container terminal operation and
Recber, K., & Ayhan, V. (2013). Türkiye ile Suriye arasındaki krizin Hatay bölgesi operations research-a classification and literature review. OR Spectrum, 26(1), 3–49.
üzerindeki etkileri. Alternative Politics/Alternatif Politika, 5(3). Temur, G. T., Turgut, Y., Yılmaz, A., Arslan, S., & Camcı, A. (2019). Deprem sonrası
Rodrigue, J. P., & Notteboom, T. (2009). The terminalization of supply chains: planlamaya yönelik lojistik ağ tasarımı: Ümraniye bölgesinde farklı deprem
Reassessing the role of terminals in port/hinterland logistical relationships. Maritime senaryoları için bir uygulama. Pamukkale Universitesi Muhendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 25
Policy & Management, 36(2), 165–183. (1), 98–105.
Roh, S., Pettit, S., Harris, I., & Beresford, A. (2015). The pre-positioning of warehouses at Thomas, A. S., & Kopczak, L. R. (2005). From logistics to supply chain management: The
regional and local levels for a humanitarian relief organisation. International Journal path forward in the humanitarian sector. [Link]
of Production Economics, 170, 616–628. epaper/[Link].
Roh, S. Y., Jang, H. M., & Han, C. H. (2013). Warehouse location decision factors in Ureten, S. (2006). Uretim Islemler Yonetimi: Stratejik Kararlar ve Karar modelleri, Gazi
humanitarian relief logistics. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 29(1), Kitapevi Yayınlari, 5 (pp. 357–358). Ankara: Basim.
103–120. Urker, O., & Gunlu, A. (2024). Identification of plantation areas for the endangered
Roh, S. Y., Shin, Y. R., & Seo, Y. J. (2018). The pre-positioned warehouse location oriental sweetgum tree (Liquidambar orientalis Miller, 1768) in Türkiye.
selection for international humanitarian relief logistics. The Asian Journal of Shipping International journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 21(1), 153–168.
and Logistics, 34(4), 297–307. Vahidnia, M. H., Vahidi, H., Hassanabad, M. G., & Shafiei, M. (2022). A spatial decision
Saaty, T. L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of support system based on a hybrid AHP and TOPSIS method for fire station site
Mathematical Psychology, 15(3), 234–281. selection. Journal of Geovisualization and Spatial Analysis, 6(2), 30.
Sadhasivam, N., Bhardwaj, A., Pourghasemi, H. R., & Kamaraj, N. P. (2020). Van Wassenhove, L. N. (2006). Humanitarian aid logistics: Supply chain management in
Morphometric attributes-based soil erosion susceptibility mapping in Dnyanganga high gear. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 57(5), 475–489.
watershed of India using individual and ensemble models. Environmental Earth Van Wassenhove, L. N., & Pedraza Martinez, A. J. (2012). Using or to adapt supply chain
Sciences, 79, 1–28. management best practices to humanitarian logistics. International Transactions in
Saeidian, B., Mesgari, M. S., & Ghodousi, M. (2016). Evaluation and comparison of Operational Research, 19(1–2), 307–322.
genetic algorithm and bees algorithm for location–allocation of earthquake relief Vis, I. F., & De Koster, R. (2003). Transshipment of containers at a container terminal: An
centers. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 15, 94–107. overview. European Journal of Operational Research, 147(1), 1–16.
Sahin, A. (2014). Using containers as a storage facilities in humanitarian logistics (Master’s Wang, D., Yang, K., Yang, L., & Li, S. (2024). Distributional robustness and lateral
thesis). transshipment for disaster relief logistics planning under demand ambiguity.
Sahin, A., Alp Ertem, M., & Emür, E. (2014). Using containers as storage facilities in International Transactions in Operational Research, 31(3), 1736–1761.
humanitarian logistics. Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Wang, Y. M., & Elhag, T. M. (2006). On the normalization of interval and fuzzy weights.
Management, 4(2), 286–307. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 157(18), 2456–2471.
Sahin, A., & Ertem, M. A. (2019). A warehouse design with containers for humanitarian Xu, Z., & Liao, H. (2014). Intuitionistic fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. IEEE
logistics: A real-life implementation from Turkey. International Journal of Industrial Transactionas on Fuzzy Systems, 22(4).
Engineering, 26(2). Yadav, D. K., & Barve, A. (2015). Analysis of critical success factors of humanitarian
Salam, M. A., & Khan, S. A. (2020). Lessons from the humanitarian disaster logistics supply chain: An application of interpretive structural modeling. International
management: A case study of the earthquake in Haiti. Benchmarking: An International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 12, 213–225.
Journal, 27(4), 1455–1473. Yavuz Kumlu, K. B., & Tüdeş, Ş. (2019). Determination of earthquake-risky areas in
Salehpour Jam, A., Mosaffaie, J., Sarfaraz, F., Shadfar, S., & Akhtari, R. (2021). GIS- Yalova City Center (Marmara region, Turkey) using GIS-based multicriteria decision-
based landslide susceptibility mapping using hybrid MCDM models. Natural Hazards, making techniques (analytical hierarchy process and technique for order preference
108, 1025–1046. by similarity to ideal solution). Natural Hazards, 96, 999–1018.
Saraji, M. K., Streimikiene, D., & Suresh, V. (2024). A novel two-stage multicriteria Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3), 338–353.
decision-making approach for selecting solar farm sites: A case study. Journal of Zahedifar, M. (2023). Feasibility of fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (FAHP) and fuzzy
Cleaner Production, 444, Article 141198. TOPSIS methods to assess the most sensitive soil attributes against land use change.
Sari, F. (2021). Forest fire susceptibility mapping via multi-criteria decision analysis Environmental Earth Sciences, 82(10), 248.
techniques for Mugla, Turkey: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Forest Zejli, K., Azmani, A., & Khalissa, S. (2012). Applying fuzzy analytic hierarchy process
Ecology and Management, 480, Article 118644. (FAHP) to evaluate factors locating emergency logistics platforms. International
Sarı, F., Ceylan, D. A., Özcan, M. M., & Özcan, M. M. (2020). A comparison of Journal of Computer Applications, 57(21).
multicriteria decision analysis techniques for determining beekeeping suitability. Cergibozan, Ç., & Gölcük, İ. (2024). Fuzzy best–worst method–based approach for
Apidologie, 51, 481–498. warehouse location selection and a case study in Izmir. Kybernetes. a head of print.
Shahiri Tabarestani, E., & Afzalimehr, H. (2022). A comparative assessment of multi-
criteria decision analysis for flood susceptibility modelling. Geocarto International, 37
(20), 5851–5874.

15