sustainability

Article
A Comparative Analysis of Fuzzy TOPSIS and
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) for the
Location Selection of Shopping Malls: A Case Study
from Turkey
Ceren Erdin and Halil Emre Akbaş *
Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Yildiz Technical
University, 34210 Istanbul, Turkey
* Correspondence: [email protected]




Received: 15 May 2019; Accepted: 11 July 2019; Published: 14 July 2019


Abstract: Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques are increasingly being used for the
problem of location selection, which directly affects the long-term success of a company. Besides these
techniques, with the advantage of handling both spatial and non-spatial data, geographic information
systems (GIS) also represent a useful method for selecting the appropriate location for different kinds
of facilities and sites. In this respect, this study aims to compare the results of a MCDM technique,
fuzzy technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS), and GIS for the location
selection of shopping malls in Turkey. According to the results of both fuzzy TOPSIS and GIS, the
Marmara region was determined as the best alternative for shopping malls in Turkey.

Keywords: GIS; fuzzy TOPSIS; location selection

1. Introduction
Decision making is a process that involves scientific approaches in determining the options in
overcoming negative issues that are experienced in the operation of any establishment and selecting
the best among these options. The modern approach of running a business makes it indispensable to
use scientific approaches that are improved and suitable for today’s conditions in the decision-making
process. Making accurate decisions requires sufficient knowledge of the system where problems are
experienced and, most importantly, requires developing a reliable mathematical model (algorithm)
that represents the problem or problems well. The secret of corporate success today is considered to be
the diversity of the scientific approaches that are used in decision-making processes. Moreover, rapid
developments and competitive conditions also make it indispensable to act together when solving
problems and as well as use modern technological processes.
In this context, location selection, which provides a methodological framework to identify the
rules and criteria for the space deployment of production, trade and service activities, has been
considered to be an important research theme and has attracted a growing attention of researchers
from various scientific disciplines. Additionally, due to its significant and long-term effects on business
risks, costs and revenues, location selection also represents one of the most important strategic business
decisions [1–4]. The location selection process, which involves identification, analysis, evaluation
and selection among alternatives, is influenced by many quantitative and qualitative criteria or
factors such as investment costs, human resources, the availability of acquirement material, natural
conditions, infrastructure conditions, proximity to the raw materials and market, market size and
demand conditions, firm strategy and rivalry, related and supporting industries, etc. [3–8]. In this

Sustainability 2019, 11, 3837; doi:10.3390/su11143837 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2019, 11, 3837 2 of 22

sense, it can be easily said that location selection represents a typical multi-criteria decision-making
(MCDM) problem [3–5,9–11].
As an advanced and a widely used subdiscipline of operations research, MCDM basically
represents a decision-making technique that can be used to evaluate a number of alternatives by taking
into account multiple and usually conflicting criteria that may be quantitative or qualitative, and aims
to provide support to the decision maker for making the choice between alternatives [9,12–14]. In
this framework, MCDM can be defined as the process of evaluating alternatives for the purpose of
selection or ranking via utilizing a number of qualitative and/or quantitative criteria that have different
measurement units [15].
MCDM involves a set of techniques such as min-max, max-min, ELECTRE, PROMETHEE,
TOPSIS, fuzzy TOPSIS, compromise programming, analytic hierarchy process (AHP), fuzzy AHP,
data envelopment analysis, and goal programming, that can be used for comparing and prioritizing
multiple alternatives and finally selecting the best-fit choice [16]. Among these techniques, for the
solutions to location problems that contain vague and incomplete data and linguistic variables, fuzzy
decision-making techniques have been attracting growing attention [12,17].
On the other hand, it should be stated that these techniques are not suitable for spatial data [18]. In
this context, with the advantage of handling both spatial and non-spatial data, geographic information
systems (GIS) have been applied for solving location problems [18–20]. GIS represent computer-based
tools that can be used for maintaining, managing, integrating and analyzing spatial data from different
sources. GIS allow us to store, edit, manipulate and analyze geographically referenced data to generate
interpretive maps and related statistics relevant for decision making [11,14,21]. In this sense, one could
say that although MCDM and GIS have developed independently, they actually support one another
and their combination generates more useful and reliable information that makes it possible to reach
accurate decisions, especially in the case of location selection [11,14,22].
Starting from this point of view, this study intends to compare the results of a MCDM method
and GIS. More specifically, it is aimed to analyze the results of a fuzzy TOPSIS method and GIS that
were applied to the problem of location selection for shopping malls in Turkey.
In Turkey, the first modern shopping mall opened in Istanbul in 1988 [23–25]. From that date, the
number of shopping malls in Turkey has been increasing significantly [26,27]. According to a recent
report, the number of shopping malls, which was 12 in 1995, reached 400 as of July 2017 [28]. The
increase in population and income, the changing leisure and consumption patterns, the modernity
provided by the shopping malls and macro-level changes in the political, economic and social
environments of Turkey are seen as the main reasons for this significant increase in the number of
shopping malls [25,26,29–31]. As stated by Tabak et al. [25], these developments are still continuing
and creating a severe competition in the sector. In this framework, investigating the most suitable
location for shopping centers represents a difficult task for investors in Turkey [30].
Furthermore, from the sustainable development perspective, the economic, environmental and
social impacts of shopping malls’ locations on retail and urban systems have been well recognized
especially in the urban planning literature [29,32,33]. The economic dimension of sustainable
development simply indicates that the location of a shopping mall should make it possible to
achieve and sustain high profitability in the long term. From a broader perspective, the shopping
malls should also provide economic opportunities such as employment, chances to start up new
businesses and an increase in trading volume as well as household income for the community that
they serve [34,35]. With regard to the environmental aspect of sustainable development, the locations
of shopping malls have a direct impact on the amount of carbon emissions and energy consumptions
sourced from transportation. Additionally, out-of-town shopping malls in particular have increased
traffic load and occupy a higher amount of green areas in recent years [32,35]. Therefore, the location
of shopping malls should minimize these negative impacts. Finally, regarding the social dimension of
sustainable development, out-of-town shopping malls isolate and exclude households without cars,
the elderly and lower income households and have negative impacts on the vitality of traditional town
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3837 3 of 22

centers and shopping streets; thus, the locations of shopping malls should also enhance social inclusion
and social vitality in local shopping spaces [32,34,35]. In this framework, in the process of determining
the optimal location for shopping malls, investors need to synchronize economic, environmental and
social aspects to achieve the goals of sustainability [36].
The rest of the paper is structured as follows. The next section presents the related literature and
theoretical framework. Section 3 describes the materials and methods. The results are discussed in
Section 4 and, finally, Section 5 contains concluding remarks.

2. Literature Review
Retail site location has been considered to be one of the most important factors affecting the
retailer’s success or failure for a number of reasons. First of all, the location of a store or a shopping
center makes the products or services available to customers; thus, good locations are likely to attract
large numbers of customers. Additionally, considering the rapid increase in the number of retail stores
and shopping malls, with nearly identical product and service offerings, slight differences in location
can have a substantial effect on sales performance and profitability. Finally, the disadvantages or
problems of an initially wrong decision in retail store location are extremely difficult to overcome as
the location decision represents a long-term, fixed investment which is immobile and unique [37–39].
Given the importance of the issue, retail location decision has become the subject matter of
different disciplines such as marketing, urban sciences, economics, geography, applied mathematics
and geomarketing and different retail location theories, models and procedures have been proposed.
In this sense, it is possible to say that retail location theory is comprised of four broad theoretical areas
that are central place theory, spatial interaction theory, land value theory and the principle of minimum
differentiation [38,40–45].
Central place theory provides a powerful explanation of the spatial structure of retail facilities
and considers the behavior of consumers and retail firms in a spatial market. In the framework of
this theory, distance to the supply point and transportation costs are the most important factors. It
is predicted that the longer distance from the supply point will reduce the demand for a good or a
service since customers will choose the nearest retailer [38,42,46–48]. Land value theory, which is
also known as bid rent theory, stems from Alonso’s seminal land use model and asserts that since
the supply of land is fixed, the location of different activities will depend on competitive bidding for
specific sites and, consequently, all urban sites are occupied by the activities that are capable of paying
the highest rentals. In this sense, it can be argued that retailers intend to pay higher rents to gain
more and higher profile customers and the higher the returns for a retailer, the higher the rent that
the retailer is able to pay [41,42,49,50]. The principle of minimum differentiation theory proposes that
closeness to rivals is more important than closeness to consumers. In this framework, it is suggested
that a given number of retailers operating in the same sector will show a superior performance if they
are clustered together [41,47,49].
Finally, spatial interaction theory discards the main assumption of the central place theory which
argues that consumers will choose the nearest retailer and propounds that consumers place more
importance on the attractiveness of alternative shopping areas than their distances [39,40,48]. Gravity
models, which are based on Newton’s law of universal gravitation, have been widely used to represent
spatial interactions in the field of retail location. The first gravity model was proposed by Reilly. In this
model, by utilizing size and distance between consumer and facilities as the attractiveness variables, he
measured the probability of consumer patronage at one facility in a two-facility competition. According
to Reilly’s model, centers of higher attractiveness—often identified with size—draw customers from
greater distances than less attractive ones. This model proposes that customers trade off the cost
of travel with the attractiveness of alternative shopping opportunities and has been widely used to
estimate the intermetropolitan trade areas of shopping centers and [11,39,44,51]. Huff contributed to the
location theory by extending Reilly’s model to multifacility competition and using revealed preference
approach to analyze retail store choice [39,51]. Huff argued that consumers choose competing shopping
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3837 4 of 22

areas as the basis of their overall “utility”. He formulated the utility of a store as the function of its size
and distance. In this framework, it is suggested that the utility of a facility is positively correlated to
its size and negatively related to its distance [11,22,39,41,44,52]. Huff’s probabilistic model of retail
gravitation has been considered as one of the most widely used models in retail location studies [53,54].
In the framework of spatial interaction theory, by including a set of other attractiveness variables along
with size, Nakanishi and Cooper (1974) [55] extended Huff’s model and proposed the multiplicative
competitive interaction (MCI) model. This model is considered as a more general form of Huff’s
model and incorporates both subjective variables such as consumer evaluation of store image, store
appearance, service quality, visibility and brand recognition and objective variables such as number
of checkout counters, credit card services, number of sections and size [39,43,44,56]. As a result of
Nakanishi and Cooper’s demonstration that the parameters of MCI models can be easily estimated by
ordinary least square methods, these models have become one of the most popular models in the field
of retail location selection [39,44].
Based on the theories and models discussed above, it can be easily said that retail location selection
represents a decision-making problem with multiple criteria. In this sense, MCDM methods have
also been applied to the location selection of shopping malls in the retail location literature. These
studies mainly focus on identifying multiple criteria for shopping mall location selection [11,57,58]. For
instance, Cheng et al. [57] presented the comparison of analytic network process (ANP) and analytic
hierarchy process (AHP) for shopping mall location selection based on twenty-four criteria under
seven categories. They concluded that ANP is a powerful tool to solve the decision problem if the
decision model is substantially affected by interdependent relationships.
Zolfani et al. [58] proposed a hybrid MCDM model to evaluate potential alternatives for shopping
mall location selection. Based on an extensive literature review and experts’ opinions, they selected
seven main criteria such as total cost, population and economic characteristics, environmental
consideration, potential continuous development and flexibility, accessibility and transportation,
investor’s competency and attractiveness. In order to prioritize and calculate the relative importance of
the criteria, a stepwise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA) was applied and potential location
alternatives were evaluated using the weighted aggregated sum product assessment (WASPAS) method.
The authors suggested that this integrated approach can also be utilized to solve other location selection
problems. Önüt et al. [30] proposed a combined MCDM approach for selecting a suitable shopping
center site in Istanbul. In this approach, the fuzzy AHP technique was applied to determine the
weights of the criteria and fuzzy TOPSIS was used to rank the alternative locations. The results of
the study indicate that the proposed approach provides a practical methodology to rank alternatives
with respect to multiple conflicting criteria for the large-scale problems. In another empirical research,
Yavuz and Deveci [59] employed two different MCDM methods, fuzzy TOPSIS and fuzzy VIKOR, to
determine the most suitable location for the shopping center in another city of Turkey, Erzincan. They
found that the results of the two techniques indicate a similar ranking of alternative locations.
The theories, models and procedures mentioned above focus on developing location models and
place a special emphasis on geodemographic factors. In this sense, GIS have been increasingly used for
the purpose of location selection [11,60]. Based on a review of advances in location science and the
important contributions of GIS, Murray [61] introduced that GIS have supported location modelling in
four main areas: input, visualization, problem solution and theory advancement. In the context of
shopping mall location selection, Cheng et al. [19] presented the application of GIS by demonstrating
an illustrative project to create features related to household incomes, demand points, etc., and to set
queries to find solutions for four common location problems: minimum distance, maximum demands
coverage, maximum incomes coverage, and optimal center. They concluded that multi-layer maps
created by GIS software enable decision makers to reach more accurate solutions for problems.
More recently, ELSamen and Hiyasat [62] examined shopping mall location selection in the area
of West Amman in Jordan by utilizing GIS tools. Their results indicate that the area under stay has an
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3837 5 of 22

excessive number of shopping malls; thus, it suffers from excessive oversupply. In this sense, they
recommended the area outside the borders of the studied area for new shopping mall establishments.
In the context of Turkey, Bayar [63] investigated suitable locations for shopping malls in Ankara
based on retail sector and consumer behavior reports. Similarly, upon loading semantic (socio economic)
data on geographical (spatial) data, Erdin Gundogdu performed a detailed analysis with GIS, in
Istanbul [64] and on a geographical region basis in Turkey [65,66].
Based on the literature mentioned above, it can be easily said that both MCDM methods and
GIS can provide proper solutions for shopping mall location problems. However, the results of
fuzzy TOPSIS, a popular MCDM method, and GIS have never been compared, to the knowledge of
the authors.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Fuzzy Logic

The complexity of the system on which decisions will be made sometimes increases, the meaning of
the concepts that are used to define that system decreases, and there is a tendency towards uncertainty.
The ambiguity and uncertainty of the concepts that are used to define an objective and a system
represent “fuzziness.” The differences in the thought systems and perceptions of people may be shown
as a source of “fuzziness.” In some cases, there may be ambiguities caused by under-maturation
of human thoughts, uncertainties, or “fuzziness.” In these cases, decision-making data cannot be
numerical values; instead, they are replaced by linguistic variables, and in this process, the conditions
of Fuzzy Logic are applied.
The concept of fuzzy logic was introduced for the first time in 1965 by Lotfi A. Zadeh in the article
named “Fuzzy Sets”, in the journal “Information and Control”. Zadeh stated that the more closely
real-world problems are examined, the fuzzier the solution will be. This approach of Zadeh opened
new horizons in science and technology. For representing uncertainty, Zadeh developed the Fuzzy
Sets theory. Initially, the terms and concepts that represented general and specific uncertainty were
randomly classified and known by the theory on sets with binary values. The fuzzy sets theory, instead
of randomly classifying terms and concepts that represent uncertainty, assigned levels of certainty to
them and facilitated their definition in the theory on sets with multiple values [67].
The term fuzzy refers to the case that the limits of any set of values are not defined well. For
example, while it is very easy to categorize a person of 1.70 m height in the category of tall people
in a process of classifying people based on their heights, it is difficult to justify categorizing or not
categorizing a person of 1.60 m height in this category. The reason for this difficulty is that the criterion
of height does not represent a precisely defined limit. In the classical set theory, an object is either a
member or not a member of a set. That is, an object cannot partly be a member of a set. The proposal
of the fuzzy sets theory in 1965 by Zadeh eliminated these problems. In this theory, each member is
assigned a membership degree with the membership function. The degree of membership may take
values in the closed interval of [0, 1] [67].

3.2. Fuzzy Decision Making

In many situations, the data on which the decision-making process is based might not be complete
and reliable. In cases where decision makers have to make decisions with uncertain and ambiguous
data (fuzzy data), they are supposed to include the fuzzy sets theory in the decision-making process.
Moreover, the application of fuzzy sets in decision-making problems that are encountered in
real life provides more realistic solutions. The fundamental property of fuzzy decision making is to
provide a more flexible structure to eliminate problems caused by an inability to access information [68].
Likewise, one of the advantages of the fuzzy approach in decision making is that the relative priorities
of qualities are represented by fuzzy numbers rather than precise numbers [69].
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3837 6 of 22

Hence, the main area of work for fuzzy decision making is making decisions under uncertainty.
This is because the researcher has linguistic values at hand instead of numerical values related to the
criteria, alternatives
Sustainability andPEER
2019, 11, x FOR results.
REVIEW 6 of 21

3.3. Fuzzy
3.3. Fuzzy Multi-Criteria
Multi-Criteria Decision
Decision Making
Making
The fuzzy
The fuzzy sets
sets theory
theory had
had significant
significant contributions
contributions on on multi-criteria
multi-criteria decision
decision making
making (MCDM),
(MCDM),
and decision
and decision analysis
analysis has
has become
become oneone ofof the
the most
most suitable
suitable fields
fields for using this theory. By including
including
fuzzy sets
fuzzy sets in
in the
the MCDM
MCDM process,
process, aa great
great advancement
advancement was was achieved
achieved inin the
the field
field of
of MCDM,
MCDM, and and fuzzy
fuzzy
MCDM was
MCDM wasdeveloped.
developed.Although
Although thethe
classical MCDM
classical MCDM methods assume
methods that thethat
assume weights
the and priorities
weights and
of criteriaof
priorities are precisely
criteria known, they
are precisely fall short
known, in modelling
they fall problemsproblems
short in modelling that are encountered in reality.
that are encountered
Fuzzy
in MCDM
reality. Fuzzy methods,
MCDM in additionintoaddition
methods, allowingtothe use of linguistic
allowing the use ofvariables
linguistic invariables
assessingin criteria and
assessing
alternatives,
criteria also provide also
and alternatives, effective results
provide by quantifying
effective results by uncertain data.uncertain
quantifying Especially, in facility
data. location
Especially, in
problems,
facility the conventional
location problems, MCDM methods are
the conventional considered
MCDM as less
methods effective
are in dealing
considered with
as less the vague
effective in
nature of the linguistic assessment. In this sense, fuzzy MCDM methods have
dealing with the vague nature of the linguistic assessment. In this sense, fuzzy MCDM methods have been attracting an
increasing
been interest
attracting in the fieldinterest
an increasing of facility location
in the [17].
field of facility location [17].

3.4. Fuzzy
3.4. Fuzzy Numbers
Numbers
The term
The term ‘fuzzy
‘fuzzy number’
number’ is is used
used to to discuss
discuss uncertain
uncertain numerical
numerical valuesvalues such
such asas “close
“close to
to 10”
10” or
or
“about
“about 7”. A fuzzy
7”. A fuzzy number
number is is aa fuzzy
fuzzy network
network quantity
quantity thatthat is
is the
the generalized
generalized form
form ofof the
thereal
realnumber
number
r. Here, it is a measure of how far A(x) approaches r in value. In this case,
r. Here, it is a measure of how far A(x) approaches r in value. In this case, A(r) would be equal to A(r) would be equal to 1.
1.
Fuzzy sets
Fuzzy sets are
are defined
defined by by membership
membership functions,
functions, and and aa membership
membership function
functionshown
shownas µÃ (x)
as μà (x)
takes values in the closed interval
takes values in the closed interval of [0, 1]. of [0, 1].
If µÃ (x)
If μà (x) ==0,
0,the number xx is
thenumber isnot
not aamember
member of of the
the set;
set;
If µÃ (x)
If μà (x) ==1,
1,the number xx is
thenumber is aamember
member of of the
the set;
set;
and in other cases, the presence of x in the
and in other cases, the presence of x in the set is defined set is defined as as fuzzy.
fuzzy.
As the value of µÃ (x) is closer to 1, the membership
As the value of μà (x) is closer to 1, the membership level of level of the element xx in
the element in the
the set
set increases.
increases.
While there are different ways of expressing fuzzy numbers,
While there are different ways of expressing fuzzy numbers, generally triangular generally triangular and trapezoidal
and
fuzzy numbers are prevalently used.
trapezoidal fuzzy numbers are prevalently used.
For example,
For example, the the triangular
triangular fuzzy number ÃÃ is
fuzzy number is aa special
special type
type ofof fuzzy
fuzzy number
number thatthat is
is defined
defined byby
three real numbers, and it is expressed as à = (a1,
three real numbers, and it is expressed as à = (a1, a2, a3) (Figure 1).a2, a3) (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Triangular fuzzy number à = (a1, a2, a3).

Figure 1. Triangular fuzzy number à = (a1, a2, a3).
Among these parameters (a1, a2, a3), a1 represents the smallest possible value, a2 represents the
most possiblethese
Among parameters
value, (a1, a2, a3),
and a3 represents thea1 represents
largest thevalue.
possible smallest possible value, a2 represents the
most a1
possible value, and a3 represents the largest possible value.
and a3 are the lower limits of the fuzzy set interval, while a2 is the single number with
a1 and a3 are and
full membership, the lower limits of thefunction
the membership fuzzy setofinterval, while a2 is fuzzy
such a triangular the single number
number with full
is defined as
membership,
shown below.and the membership function of such a triangular fuzzy number is defined as shown
below.
0, 𝑥 < 𝑎1
𝑥 − 𝑎1
, 𝑎1 ≤ 𝑥 ≤ 𝑎2
𝑎2 − 𝑎1
𝜇𝐴 (𝑥) = 𝑎 − 𝑥
3
, 𝑎2 ≤ 𝑥 ≤ 𝑎1
𝑎3 − 𝑎2
{ 0, 𝑥 > 𝑎1
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3837 7 of 22

x < a1


 0,
x−a1

a2 −a1 , a1 ≤ x ≤ a2


µA (x) = 


a3 −x



 a3 −a2 , a2 ≤ x ≤ a1
x > a1

 0,
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 21

3.5. Fuzzy TOPSIS Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW

Method 7
3.5. Fuzzy TOPSIS Method
The TOPSIS method 3.5.isisan MCDM
Fuzzy TOPSIS method
Method that is based on the main principle of the proximity of
The TOPSIS method an MCDM method that is based on the main principle of the proximity
decision points to the ideal solution. The ideal solution is formed by the best accessible values of the
of decision points to the ideal The TOPSIS method issolution
solution. The ideal an MCDM is formed
methodby theisbest
that accessible
based values
on the main of
principle of the proxi
criterion, while the negative ideal solution is formed by the worst values of the criterion. During the
the criterion, while theofnegative ideal solution is formed by the worst values of the criterion.
decision points to the ideal solution. The ideal solution is formed by the best accessible valuDuring
processes of alternative selection, the best alternative would be the one that is the closest to the ideal
the processes of alternative selection,
the criterion, the the
while bestnegative
alternative would
ideal be the
solution one that
is formed byisthe
theworst
closest to theof the criterion. Du
values
solution and the farthest from the negative ideal solution [70].
ideal solution and the the
farthest from the negative ideal solution [70].
processes of alternative selection, the best alternative would be the one that is the closest t
In the classical method of TOPSIS, the performance values and the weights of criteria consist
In the classical method of TOPSIS,
ideal solution andthetheperformance
farthest fromvalues and theideal
the negative weights of criteria
solution [70]. consist of
of precise numbers. This is why it cannot account for uncertainty caused by human judgment in
precise numbers. This is why In theitclassical
cannot method
account of forTOPSIS,
uncertainty caused by values
the performance humanand judgment
the weightsin of criteria cons
determining the weights and qualitative criteria. As the current practices with precise data in real-life
determining the weights and qualitative criteria. As the current practices with precise
precise numbers. This is why it cannot account for uncertainty caused by human judgme data in real-
situations fall short in terms of modelling, subjective qualities and the weights of these qualities are
life situations fall shortdetermining
in terms of modelling,
the weightssubjective qualities
and qualitative and the
criteria. Asweights of these
the current qualities
practices with precise data in
usually expressed with linguistic variables [71]. For this reason, researchers developed a TOPSIS
are usually expressed with linguistic variables [71]. For this reason, researchers developed a TOPSIS
life situations fall short in terms of modelling, subjective qualities and the weights of these qua
method where uncertainty and ambiguity prevail (fuzziness), which uses linguistic variables instead of
method where uncertainty and ambiguity
are usually expressed prevail (fuzziness),
with linguistic which uses
variables [71].linguistic variables
For this reason, instead developed a TO
researchers
numerical data for decision making [72]. A decision-making process where multiple decision makers
of numerical data formethoddecisionwhere
making [72]. A decision-making
uncertainty and ambiguity prevail process where multiple
(fuzziness), which usesdecision
linguistic variables ins
evaluate and rank alternatives in the case of uncertainty based on multiple criteria is defined as fuzzy
makers evaluate and rank alternatives in the case of uncertainty based on multiple criteria
of numerical data for decision making [72]. A decision-making process where multiple dec is defined
TOPSIS. Several authors have proposed fuzzy TOPSIS methods. This study used the fuzzy TOPSIS
as fuzzy TOPSIS. Several authors
makers have and
evaluate proposed fuzzy TOPSIS
rank alternatives methods.
in the case of This study used
uncertainty basedtheonfuzzy
multiple criteria is de
method proposed by [73], where the fuzzy positive and negative solutions were taken as (1,1,1) and
TOPSIS method proposed as fuzzyby [73],
TOPSIS.where the fuzzy
Several authors positive and negative
have proposed fuzzy solutions
TOPSIS were takenThis
methods. as study used the f
(0,0,0) respectively.
(1,1,1) and (0,0,0) respectively.
TOPSIS method proposed by [73], where the fuzzy positive and negative solutions were take
In recent years, many researchers have used the Fuzzy TOPSIS method for location selection
In recent years, many
(1,1,1)researchers
and (0,0,0) have used the Fuzzy TOPSIS method for location selection
respectively.
problems. The determination of the best location for a wide range of places has been attempted, such
problems. The determination In recent years, manyfor
of the best location a wide range
researchers have of used
placesthehasFuzzy
been attempted,
TOPSIS method such for location sele
as solar power plants [74], logistics centers [75–77], distribution centers [78,79], warehouses [80,81],
as solar power plants problems.
[74], logistics centers [75–77], distribution centers [78,79], warehouses [80,81],
The determination of the best location for a wide range of places has been attempted,
facilities [82–84], hospitals [85], landfills [86], stations [87] and faculties [88]. The research shows that
facilities [82–84], hospitals [85],power
as solar landfills [86],[74],
plants stations [87] and
logistics faculties
centers [88].distribution
[75–77], The research shows[78,79],
centers that warehouses [80
Fuzzy TOPSIS is a useful method to select the appropriate location for different kinds of facilities
Fuzzy TOPSIS is a useful method to select the appropriate location for different kinds
facilities [82–84], hospitals [85], landfills [86], stations [87] and faculties [88]. of facilities and
The research shows
and sites.
sites. Fuzzy TOPSIS is a useful method to select the appropriate location for different kinds of facilities
4. Results sites.
4. Results
4. Results
4.1. Solution to the Problem of Location Selection by the Fuzzy TOPSIS Method
4.1. Solution to the Problem of Location Selection by the Fuzzy TOPSIS Method
While shopping malls have an increasing tendency to spread around the country, the issue of
While shopping 4.1. Solution to increasing
the Problemtendency
of LocationtoSelection by the Fuzzy TOPSIS Method
selecting their locationmalls haveprominent.
remains an Making decisions spread around
on selecting athe country,
location is athe issue of
significant
selecting their location remains
problem for MCDM. In thisWhile prominent.
study,shopping
the solution Making
malls decisions
have
to the on
an increasing
problem selecting a
tendency
in a setting location is
to spread
involving a significant
around
uncertainty the country, the iss
and
problem for MCDM. In this study,
selecting theirthe solution
location to the
remains problem
prominent.
ambiguity (fuzziness) was achieved by the fuzzy MCDM method of “Fuzzy TOPSIS”. in a setting
Making involving
decisions uncertainty
on selecting and
a location is a signif
ambiguity (fuzziness) was
The flow diagramproblem achieved by
for MCDM.
of the fuzzy the
TOPSIS Infuzzy MCDM
this study,
method method
theof
consists solution of “Fuzzy TOPSIS”.
to the problem
the following steps: in a setting involving uncertainty
The flow diagramambiguity
of the fuzzy TOPSIS method
(fuzziness) consists
was achieved byofthethefuzzy
following
MCDM steps:
method of “Fuzzy TOPSIS”.
1. Establishing a committee The offlow
decision
diagrammakers,
of the fuzzy TOPSIS method consists of the following steps:
1. Establishing a committee of decision makers,
2. Determining assessment criteria,
2. Determining assessment criteria, a committee of decision makers,
1. Establishing
3. Determining linguistic variables,
3. Determining linguistic variables,
2. Determining assessment criteria,
4. Determining the
4. Determining the total
total fuzzy
fuzzy weights
weights of of criteria
criteria (wi),
(wi),
3. Determining linguistic variables,
5. Forming the
5. Forming the fuzzy
fuzzy decision
decision matrix,
matrix,
4. Determining the total fuzzy weights of criteria (wi),
6. Forming the
6. Forming the normalized
normalized
5. Formingfuzzy decision
fuzzy decision
the fuzzymatrix,
matrix,
decision matrix,
7.
7. Forming the weighted normalized fuzzy
6. Forming the normalized decision matrix,
fuzzy decision matrix,
8.
8. Determining the values of A* and
7. Forming theA՟, ,
weighted normalized fuzzy decision matrix,
9.
9. Calculating the distance of each
8. Determining
Calculating the distance alternative
the values
of each alternative from
from A* and
of A* A՟ ,,
and A՟,
10.
10. Calculating
Calculating the
the closeness coefficient
9. Calculating
closeness ofdistance
theof
coefficient each alternative
each alternative and from A* and A՟ ,
(CCi), and
of each alternative
(CCi),
11.
11. Ranking the alternatives based on
10. Calculating
Ranking the alternatives their
based on the closeness
theircloseness coefficients.
closenesscoefficient of each alternative (CCi), and
coefficients.
11. Ranking
These steps are briefly explainedthe alternatives based on their closeness coefficients.
below:
Step 1: A committee consisting
These stepsofare
three expert
briefly decision
explained makers (D1, D2, D3) was formed for
below:
appropriate location selection.
Step 1: A committee consisting of three expert decision makers (D1, D2, D3) was forme
Step 2: The official geographical regions
appropriate location of Turkey, which consist of the Mediterranean (A1),
selection.
Southeastern Anatolia (A2),Step
Eastern Anatolia
2: The official(A3), Black Searegions
geographical (A4), Central Anatolia
of Turkey, which(A5), Marmara
consist of the Mediterranean
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3837 8 of 22

These steps are briefly explained below:

Step 1: A committee consisting of three expert decision makers (D1, D2, D3) was formed for
appropriate location selection.
Step 2: The official geographical regions of Turkey, which consist of the Mediterranean (A1),
Southeastern Anatolia (A2), Eastern Anatolia (A3), Black Sea (A4), Central Anatolia (A5), Marmara
(A6) and Aegean (A7) regions, were accepted as alternative locations for the location selection problem.
At this step, the evaluation criteria are determined. As the determination of the criteria that will
be used for evaluation of alternative locations has a direct impact on the accuracy and quality of
the results, this step is crucial [89,90]. Depending on the type of the business and the problem on
hand, facility location selection literature presents different approaches and techniques for identifying
evaluation criteria. For instance, retail location problems may require considering a different set of
criteria when compared to factory location problems [90]. In this sense, Zentes et al. [91] suggest that
the analysis of the catchment area of a retailer represents a vital element in each phase of the retail
location decision process. According to the authors, the catchment area represents the geographic zone
that contains the customers of a specific site or region for a retailer and it determines the potential
demand at a specific site and directly effects the sales and profitability of a retailer. In this framework,
considering the studies carried out by Roig-Tierno et al. [22], Lin and Juan [6], Cagri et al. [90], Yavuz
and Deveci [59], Cheng et al. [57], Önüt et al. [30], Zolfani et al. [58] and Kuo et al. [92] and the results
of the interviews conducted with experts including urban planners, academicians and managers, six
main criteria were determined for the shopping mall location selection in this study. These six criteria
are regional development (C1), economy (C2), transportation (C3), population density (C4), tourism
(C5) and socio-demographic characteristics (C6).
The regional development criterion includes the availability of human resources
and natural resources, infrastructure, level of urbanization and potential of continuous
development [6,22,43,57–59,90]. The economy criterion basically represents the total cost of initial
investment and return on investment [30,57,92]. Transportation/accessibility refers to the availability
of public transportation and proximity to the railways and major highways [30,57,58,90]. As pointed
out by Dolega et al. [93], accessibility has a direct impact on the extent of retail catchment area.
Population density is directly related to the sales potential of a shopping mall and the extent of its
catchment area [94,95]. Furthermore, nowadays shopping has been considered as one of the important
tourist activities as it constitutes an important portion of tourism expenditures [96]. Considering
the fact that tourists expect better conditions for shopping, shopping malls represent an important
determinant of tourism images of cities [97,98]. In this respect, the tourism potential was determined
as another criterion for evaluating location alternatives. Socio-demographic characteristics include
purchasing power, family structure, and spending patterns of the residents and social and cultural
environment [22,43,58,59,90,92]. Simkin [99] and Simkin et al. [100] state that since the spending
potential of the retailer’s catchment area population is one of the most important determinants of its
financial performance, the socio-demographic characteristics of the catchment area should be taken
into consideration in retail location selection.
Step 3: At this step, the appropriate linguistic variables for evaluating both criteria and
alternatives are determined, and these linguistic variables can be expressed in positive triangular
fuzzy numbers [4,101]. The linguistic variables that were used for evaluating the criteria and the
triangular fuzzy numbers that corresponded to these linguistic variables are shown in Table 1, while
the linguistic variables that were used in evaluating the alternatives and the triangular fuzzy numbers
that corresponded to these linguistic variables are reported in Table 2 [73].
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3837 9 of 22

Table 1. Linguistic variables used in evaluating the criteria and the corresponding triangular
fuzzy numbers.

Linguistic Variables Triangular Fuzzy Numbers

Very Low (VL) (0, 0, 0.1)
Low (L) (0, 0.1, 0.3)
Mid Low (ML) (0.1, 0.3, 0.5)
Medium (M) (0.3, 0.5, 0.7)
Mid High (MH) (0.5, 0.7, 0.9)
High (H) (0.7, 0.9, 1.0)
Very High (VH) (0.9, 1.0, 1.0)

Table 2. Linguistic variables used in evaluating the alternatives and the corresponding triangular
fuzzy numbers.

Linguistic Variables Triangular Fuzzy Numbers

Very Weak (VW) (0, 0, 1)
Weak (W) (0, 1, 3)
Mid Weak (MW) (1, 3, 5)
Medium (M) (3, 5, 7)
Medium Good (MG) (5, 7, 9)
Good (G) (7, 9, 10)
Very Good (VG) (9, 10, 10)

Step 4: After choosing the appropriate linguistic variables, decision makers determine the
importance weights of the criteria as shown in Table 3 and evaluate the ratings of alternative locations
with respect to each criterion. The ratings of seven alternatives under six criteria are presented in
Table 4 [4,73].

Table 3. Importance weights of criteria determined by decision makers.

Decision Makers
Criteria
D1 D2 D3
C1 VH H VH
C2 H VH H
C3 MH M MH
C4 H MH MH
C5 MH MH MH
C6 VH VH H

Table 4. Ratings of alternatives by decision makers under selected criteria.

Decision Makers
Criteria Alternatives
D1 D2 D3
A1 G VG G
A2 W MW ÇW
A3 MW W W
C1 A4 M MG MG
A5 G G MG
A6 VG VG VG
A7 G G VG
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3837 10 of 22

Table 4. Cont.

Decision Makers
Criteria Alternatives
D1 D2 D3
A1 G G G
A2 W MW W
A3 MW W W
C2 A4 M G MG
A5 MG G G
A6 VG G VG
A7 G G G
A1 G G G
A2 M W M
A3 MW W W
C3 A4 W MW MW
A5 G MG G
A6 VG G VG
A7 G G G
A1 G MG G
A2 W WG MW
A3 MW W W
C4 A4 MW M M
A5 G G G
A6 VG G VG
A7 G G G
A1 VG G VG
A2 W MW W
A3 W M M
C5 A4 M MG MG
A5 MG G G
A6 VG VG VG
A7 VG G VG
A1 G VG VG
A2 MW W MW
A3 W M M
C6 A4 M MG G
A5 G G MG
A6 VG G VG
A7 G VG G

At this step, the ratings of alternatives and weights of criteria are also aggregated. Assume that a
decision committee has K decision makers, then the aggregated ratings of alternatives and weights of
criteria can be calculated as follows, respectively:

1h 1 i
xij = xij + e
e xK
x2ij + ... + eij
K
1h 1 i
ej =
w ej + w
w eKj
e2j + ... + w
K
where e xK
ij
eKj are the rating and the importance weight of the Kth decision maker, respectively.
and w
Based on the equations above, the aggregated fuzzy weights of the criteria were calculated as in
Table 5 [4,73,102,103].
 Sustainability 2019, 11, 3837 11 of 22

Table 5. Total fuzzy weightsSustainability

of criteria. 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW

Criteria 3.5.Weights
Fuzzy TOPSIS Method
C1 Regional Development (0.833,0.967,1.000)
The TOPSIS method is an MCDM method that is based
C2 Economy (0.767,0.933,1.000)
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW of decision points to the ideal
7 of 21solution. The ideal solution is
C3 Transportation (0.433,0.633,0.833)
C4 Population Density the criterion, while
(0.567,0.767,0.933) the negative ideal solution is formed by t
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW
the processes of alternative selection, the best alternative wo
3.5. Fuzzy TOPSIS Method C5 Tourism (0.433,0.633,0.833)
C6 Cultural Structure ideal solution and the farthest from the negative ideal solutio
(0.833,0.967,1.000)
The TOPSIS method is an MCDM method 3.5. Fuzzy that is based
TOPSIS on the main principle of the proximity
Method
In the classical method of TOPSIS, the performance valu
of decision points to the ideal solution. The ideal solution is formed by the best accessible values of
This step involves The TOPSIS
constructing method is precise
an MCDM numbers.
method This
that isisalternatives
why it
based oncannot
theasmaininaccount
principlefor of
uncer
the
the criterion, whileStep the5:negative ideal solution is formed the by the fuzzyworst decision
valuesmatrixof the for ranking
criterion. During
Table of decision points to the ideal determining
solution.
6 [104,105].selection, the best alternative would be the one that is the closest to the The the weights
ideal and
solution qualitative
is formed by criteria.
the bestAs the cur
accessibl
the processes of alternative
the criterion, while the negative life ideal
situations
solution fall is
short
formed in terms
by the ofworst
modelling,
valuessubjective qua
of the criteri
ideal solution and the farthest from the negative ideal solution [70].
the processes
Table 6.ofFuzzy
alternative are
decisionselection,usually
matrix. theexpressed with linguistic
best alternative would bevariablesthe one [71].that For this
is the clor
In the classical method of TOPSIS, the performance values and the weights of criteria consist of
ideal solution and the farthestmethod from the where uncertainty
negative and ambiguity
ideal solution [70]. prevail (fuzziness
precise numbers. This Ais1 why it cannot A2 account for A3 uncertainty A4 caused by Ahuman 5 judgmentA6 in A7
In (0.33,1.67,3.67)
the classical method ofTOPSIS,
of numerical the data for decision
performance values making
and the [72]. A decision-m
weights of criteria
determining the weights and qualitative criteria. As the current practices with precise data in real-
C1 (7.67,9.33,10.00) (0.33,1.33,3.00) (4.33,6.33,8.33) (6.33,8.33,9.67) (9.00,10.00,10.00) (7.67,9.33,10.00)
C2 (7.00,9.00,10.00) precise (0.33,1.67,3.67)
(0.33,1.67,3.67) numbers. This is why makers
(5.00,7.00,8.67) evaluate
it (6.33,8.33,9.67)
cannot and
account rank alternatives
for uncertainty
(8.33,9.67,10.00) in the case
caused
(7.00,9.00,10.00) by of uncertai
human ju
life situationsCfall short in terms of(2.00,3.67,5.67)
(7.00,9.00,10.00) modelling, subjective qualities
(0.33,1.67,3.67) and the (6.33,8.33,9.67)
(0.67,2.33,4.33) weights of these qualities (7.00,9.00,10.00)
(8.33,9.67,10.00)
3 determining the weights andasqualitative
fuzzy TOPSIS.
criteria.Several
As the authors
current have proposed
practices withfuzzy TOP
precise d
are usually expressed
C4 with linguistic
(6.33,8.33,9.67) variables [71].
(0.67,2.33,4.33) For this reason,
(0.33,1.67,3.67) researchers
(3.67,5.67,7.67) developed
(7.00,9.00,10.00) a TOPSIS (7.00,9.00,10.00)
(8.33,9.67,10.00)
C5 (8.33,9.67,10.00) life situations
(0.33,1.67,3.67) fall short
(2.00,3.67,5.67) in termsTOPSIS
(4.33,6.33,8.33) method proposed
of(6.33,8.33,9.67)
modelling, subjective by [73],
qualities
(9.00,10.00,10.00) where
and the
(8.33,9.67,10.00) theweights
fuzzy positiv
of thes
method whereC6uncertainty and ambiguity
(8.33,9.67,10.00) prevail
(0.67,2.33,4.33) (fuzziness),(5.00,7.00,8.67)
(2.00,3.67,5.67) which uses linguistic variables
(6.33,8.33,9.67) instead (7.67,9.33,10.00)
(8.33,9.67,10.00)
are usually expressed with linguistic (1,1,1) and (0,0,0) respectively.
variables [71]. For this reason, researchers developed
of numerical data for decision making [72]. A decision-making process where multiple decision
method where uncertainty and ambiguity In recentprevail years, (fuzziness),
many researchers which uses havelinguistic
used thevariabFuzzy
makers evaluate and rank alternatives in the case of uncertainty based on multiple criteria is defined
Step 6: At this step, theofraw data are data
numerical normalized
for decisionin order
problems. to make
making The
[72].comparisons
determination
A decision-making across
of thecriteria.
best location
process wherefor amultip
wide r
as fuzzy TOPSIS. Several authors have proposed fuzzy TOPSIS methods. This study used the fuzzy
The normalized fuzzy decision matrix
makers is constructed
evaluate and rank asalternatives
inas
Table
solar 7 [4,105,106].
power
in the plants
case of[74], logisticsbased
uncertainty centers on[75–77],
multipledistribu
criteria
TOPSIS method proposed by [73], where the fuzzy positive and negative solutions were taken as
as fuzzy TOPSIS. Several authors facilities
have[82–84],
proposed hospitals [85], landfills
fuzzy TOPSIS methods. [86], This
stations
study[87] an
used
(1,1,1) and (0,0,0) respectively. Normalized fuzzy decision
Table 7.method
TOPSIS proposed [73],matrix.
byFuzzy TOPSIS
where the is afuzzy
usefulpositive
methodand to select
negative the appropriate
solutions wer loc
In recent years, many researchers have used the Fuzzy TOPSIS method for location selection
A1 A2 (1,1,1) and A (0,0,0) respectively. A sites. A5 A6 A7
problems. The determination of the best location for 3a wide range 4of places has been attempted, such
C1 (0.767,0.933,1.000) (0.033,0.133,0.300) In recent years,
(0.033,0.167,0.367) many researchers
(0.433,0.633,0.833) have used
(0.633,0.833,0.967) the Fuzzy
(0.900,1.000,1.000) TOPSIS method for locatio
(0.767,0.933,1.000)
as solar powerC2plants [74], logistics
(0.700,0.900,1.000) centers [75–77],
(0.033,0.167,0.367) distribution
(0.033,0.167,0.367) centers [78,79],
(0.500,0.700,0.867) warehouses
(0.633,0.833,0.967) [80,81],
(0.833,0.967,1.000)
C3 hospitals
(0.700,0.900,1.000)
problems.
(0.200,0.367,0.567)
The determination
(0.033,0.167,0.367)
4.
ofResults
(0.067,0.233,0.433)
the best location
(0.633,0.833,0.967)
for a wide (0.700,0.900,1.000)
(0.833,0.967,1.000)
range of places has been attem
facilities [82–84], [85], landfills [86], stations [87] and faculties [88]. The research shows that(0.700,0.900,1.000)
C4 as solar power plants [74], logistics centers [75–77], distribution centers [78,79], warehou
(0.633,0.833,0.967) (0.067,0.233,0.433) (0.033,0.167,0.367) (0.367,0.567,0.767) (0.700,0.900,1.000) (0.833,0.967,1.000) (0.700,0.900,1.000)
Fuzzy TOPSISC5is a(0.833,0.967,1.000)
useful method(0.033,0.167,0.367)
to select the appropriate
(0.200,0.367,0.567)location for 4.1.
different
(0.433,0.633,0.833) kinds
(0.633,0.833,0.967)
Solution of(0.900,1.000,1.000)
to the facilities
Problem ofand (0.833,0.967,1.000)
Location Selection
C6 facilities
(0.833,0.967,1.000) (0.067,0.233,0.433) [82–84], hospitals
(0.200,0.367,0.567) [85], landfills
(0.500,0.700,0.867) [86],
(0.633,0.833,0.967) stations [87]
(0.833,0.967,1.000)and faculties
(0.767,0.933,1.000) [88].byThe
the research
Fuzzy TO
sites.
Fuzzy TOPSIS is a useful method to selectshopping
While the appropriate
malls have location for different
an increasing kinds oftofa
tendency
Step 7: After the normalized sites. fuzzy decision matrixselecting their location
is constructed, since each remains prominent.
criterion has a Making decision
4. Results
different importance, the weighted normalized fuzzy decision problem for MCDM.
matrix shouldIn bethis study, theas
constructed solution
in to the proble
4. Results ambiguity (fuzziness) was achieved by the fuzzy MCDM me
4.1. Solution Table
to the 8Problem
[71,102]. of Location Selection by the Fuzzy TOPSIS Method
The flow diagram of the fuzzy TOPSIS method consists
While shopping malls have an increasing tendency
4.1. Solution to thetoProblem
spreadofaroundLocationthe country,
Selection by the Fuzzy
issue of TOPSIS Method
Table 8. Weighted normalized fuzzy decision matrix.
selecting their location remains prominent. Making decisions on selecting 1. Establishing
a location isaacommittee significantof decision makers,
WhileAshopping malls have an increasing tendency to spread A7 around the country, t
problem for MCDM. InAthis 1 study, theA2solution to the 3 problem inAa 2. involving
4 setting A5
Determining A6
assessment
uncertainty andcriteria,
C1 selecting
(0.639,0.902,1.000) (0.027,0.129,0.300) their location
(0.027,0.161,0.367) remains prominent.
(0361,0.612,0.833) Making decisions on selecting a location is a
ambiguity (fuzziness)
C2
was achieved by the fuzzy
(0.537,0.840,1.000) (0.025,0.156,0.367)
MCDM method
(0.025,0.156,0.367)
3. (0.527,0.806,0.967)
of “Fuzzy
(0.384,0.653,0.867)
TOPSIS”. (0.750,0.967,1.000)
Determining
(0.486,0.777,0.967)
(0.639,0.902,1.000)
linguistic variables,
problem for MCDM. In this study, the solution(0.639,0.902,1.000)
to the problem (0.537,0.840,1.000)
in a setting involving uncer
The flowCdiagram
3 of the fuzzy
(0.303,0.570,0.833) TOPSIS method
(0.087,0.232,0.472) consists(0.029,0.147,0.361)
(0.014,0.106,0.306) 4. (0.274,0.572,0.806)
of the following Determining
steps: the total fuzzy
(0.361,0.612,0.833) weights of criteria (wi),
(0.303,0.570,0.833)
C4 ambiguity
(0.359,0.639,0.902) (0.038,0.179,0.404) (fuzziness)
(0.019,0.128,0.342) was achieved
(0.208,0.435,0.716) by the fuzzy
(0.397,0.690,0.933) MCDM method
(0.472,0.742,0.933) of “Fuzzy TOPSIS”.
(0.397,0.690,0.933)
C5 (0.361,0.612,0.833) (0.014,0.106,0.306) (0.087,0.232,0.472) (0.187,0.401,0.694) 5. (0.274,0.527,0.806)
Forming the (0.309,0.633,0.833)
fuzzy decision matrix,
(0.361,0.612,0.833)
1. Establishing C6
a committee of decision makers,
The flow diagram of the
(0.694,0.935,1.000) (0.056,0.225,0.433) (0.167,0.355,0.567) (0.417,0.677,0.867) fuzzy TOPSIS method consists of the following steps:
6. (0.527,0.806,0.967)
Forming the (0.694,0.935,1.000)
normalized fuzzy (0.639,0.902,1.000)
decision matrix,
2. Determining assessment criteria,
1. Establishing a committee7.of decision Formingmakers, the weighted normalized fuzzy decision matri
3. Determining linguistic variables,
Step 8: At this step, the fuzzy 2. Determining
positive idealassessment
solution (A*) 8.criteria,
and Determining
the fuzzy negative the valuesidealofsolution
A* and(A՟,)
4. Determining the total fuzzy weights of criteria (wi),
are determined as shown below 3. byDetermining
using the values linguistic 9.
on thevariables, Calculating the
weighted normalized fuzzy decision distance of eachmatrix.
alternative from A* and
5. Forming the fuzzy decision matrix,
4. Determining the total fuzzy 10. weights
Calculating the closeness
of criteria (wi), coefficient of each alternative
6. Forming the normalized fuzzy decision matrix,
5. = [(1,1,1),(1,1,1),(1,1,1),(1,1,1),(1,1,1),(1,1,1)]
A* Forming the fuzzy decision 11. matrix,
Ranking the alternatives based on their closeness coeffic
7. Forming the weighted normalized fuzzy decision matrix,
6. Forming the normalized fuzzy decision matrix,
8. Determining the values of A* and A՟,= [(0,0,0),(0,0,0),(0,0,0),(0,0,0),(0,0,0),(0,0,0)] These steps are briefly explained below:
7. Forming the weighted normalized fuzzy decision matrix,
9. Calculating the distance of each alternative from A* and A՟ , Step 1: A committee consisting of three expert decisio
Step 9: The distances of8.eachDetermining location alternativethe values fromof A* and A՟,with respect to each criterion
10. Calculating the closeness coefficient of each alternative (CCi), andappropriate location selection.
are calculated as in Tables 9 and 9. 10 Calculating
[4]. the distance of each alternative from A* and A՟ ,
11. Ranking the alternatives based on their closeness coefficients. Step 2: The official geographical regions of Turkey, w
10. Calculating the closeness coefficient of each alternative (CCi), and
Southeastern Anatolia (A2), Eastern Anatolia (A3), Black Se
These steps are briefly explained below: 11. Ranking the alternatives based on their closeness coefficients.
(A6) and Aegean (A7) regions, were accepted as alternat
Step 1: A committee consisting of three expert decision makers (D1, D2, D3) was formed for
These steps are briefly explained problem.below: At this step, the evaluation criteria are determined.
appropriate location selection.
Step 1: A committee consisting will be used for evaluation
of three expert decision of alternative
makers locations
(D1, D2, has D3) awasdiref
Step 2: The official geographical regions of Turkey, which consist of the Mediterranean (A1),
appropriate location selection.
Southeastern Anatolia (A2), Eastern Anatolia (A3), Black Sea (A4), Central Anatolia (A5), Marmara
Step 2: The official geographical regions of Turkey, which consist of the Mediterra
 ers. This and
weights is why it cannot
qualitative account
criteria. As the for current
uncertainty practices caused with byprecise
humandata judgment in real- in
he weights and qualitative criteria. As A* =
the [(1,1,1),(1,1,1),(1,1,1),(1,1,1),(1,1,1),(1,1,1)]
current A* = [(1,1,1),(1,1,1),(1,1,1),(1,1,1),(1,1,1),(1,1,1)]
practices
l short in terms of modelling, subjective qualities and the weights of these qualities A*
with = [(1,1,1),(1,1,1),(1,1,1),(1,1,1),(1,1,1),(1,1,1)]
precise A*
data = in[(1,1,1),(1,1,1),(1,1,1),(1,1,1),(1,1,1),(1,1,1)]
real- A* = [(1,1,1),(1,1,1),(1,1,1),(1,1,1),(1,1,1),(1,1,1)]
A* = [(1,1,1),(1,1,1),(1,1,1),(1,1,1),(1,1,
A* = [(1,1,1),(1,1,1),(1,1,1
fall short
essed withinlinguistic
terms of variables
modelling, subjective
[71]. For this qualities and the weights
reason, researchers developed of these a TOPSIS qualities
A՟ = [(0,0,0),(0,0,0),(0,0,0),(0,0,0),(0,0,0),(0,0,0)]
A՟ = [(0,0,0),(0,0,0),(0,0,0),(0,0,0),(0,0,0),(0,0,0)]
A՟ = [(0,0,0),(0,0,0),(0,0,0),(0,0,0),(0,0,0),(0,0,0)]
A՟ = [(0,0,0),(0,0,0),(0,0,0),(0,0,0),(0,0,0),(0,0,0)]
A՟ = [(0,0,0),(0,0,0),(0,0,0),(0,0,0),(0,0,0),(0,0,0)]
A՟ = [(0,0,0),(0,0,0),(0,0,0),(0,0,0),(0,0,
A՟ = [(0,0,0),(0,0,0),(0,0,0
pressed with linguistic variables [71]. For this reason,
ncertainty and ambiguity prevail (fuzziness), which uses linguistic variables instead researchers developed a TOPSIS
etauncertainty
for decision and Step 9: The
ambiguity
making [72].distances
Step
prevail 9: The of each
distances
Steplocation
(fuzziness),
A decision-making 9: which
The of each
distances
Step
alternative
process useslocation
9: The of each
linguistic
where from
distances
Step
alternative
location
A*
9: The
and
variables
multiple of each
from
distances
Step
A՟
decisionalternative
insteadwith
location
A*
9: The
andrespect
of eachfrom
distances
Step
A՟
alternative
with
to
location
A*
9:each
The
andrespect
of criterion
each
from
distances
A՟
alternative
with
to
location
A*each
and
respect
of criterion
each
from
A՟
alternative
with
to
location
A*each
and
respect criterion
from
A՟
alterna with
to
A*e
are Sustainability
calculated areas 2019,
calculated
in 11, 3837
Table are
9 as
and
calculated
in Table
Table are
10
9 as
and
[4].
calculated
in Table
Table are
10
9 as
and
[4].
calculated
in Table
Table are
10
9 asand
[4].
calculated
in Table
Table are
10
9 asand
[4].
calculated
in Table
Table 10
9 asand
[4].in Table
Table 10
912and of 22Table 10 [4].
[4].
data for decision
and rank alternatives making
in the[72].
caseAofdecision-making
uncertainty basedprocess on multiple where multiple
criteria is defined decision
ate and rank alternatives in the case of uncertainty
. Several authors have proposed fuzzy TOPSIS methods. This study used the fuzzy based on multiple criteria is defined
Table 9. Distances Tablebetween
9. Distances Table
Ai (i =between
9.
1, Distances
2, 3, 4, Table
A5,i (i6,
=between
7)
9.
1, and
Distances
2, 3, A* 4,
Table
A5,i for
(i6,=between
each
7)
9.
1, and
Distances
2, criterion.
3, A* 4,
Table
A5,i for
(i6,=between
each
7)
9.
1, and
Distances
2, criterion.
3, A* 4,Table
A5,i for
(i6,=between
each
7)
9.
1, and
Distances
2, criterion.
3, A* 4,A5,i for
(i6,=between
each
7)
1, and
2, criterion.
3, A* 4,A5,
i for
(i6,=each
7)
1, a2
SIS. Severalby
proposed authors have proposed
[73], where the fuzzy fuzzy
Table positive TOPSIS
and methods.
9. Distances i (i = study
This
between Asolutions
negative 1, 2, 3, used
4,
were 5, 6, the
taken7) and fuzzy
asA* for each criterion.
od proposed by [73],d(A
) respectively. where
1, A*) the d(Afuzzy 12, Apositive
*) d(Aand
d(A 123,, A
A*)*negative
) d(A123solutions
d(A
d(A ,4,,A
A*)
A*)
*) d(A
d(Awere
d(A
d(A 123,4,5,A *taken
,A*)
A*)
A*)
) as
d(A
d(A
d(A
d(A
d(A123,4,5,A
6,A*)
,A*)
A*)
*A*)
) d(A
d(A
d(A
d(A
d(A
d(A
123,4,5,A
6,A*)
7,A*)
,A*)
*A*)
)A*) d(A d(A
d(A
d(A
d(A
23,45,A
6,A*)
7,A*)
,A*)
*A*)
)A*) d(A d(A
d(A
d(A
d(A34,5,6,A*)
7,A*)
,A*)
A*)
A*) d( ddd
d(A1 , A* ) d(A2 , A* ) d(A3 , A*) d(A4 , A*) d(A5 , A*) d(A6 , A*) d(A7 , A*)
0,0) respectively.
ars, many researchers
C1 have
0.216 C1used 0.216the Fuzzy
0.855 C1 TOPSIS
0.827C1method
0.216
0.855 0.216
0.855
0.827
0.442forC1location 0.216
0.855
0.827
0.442
0.296 selection
C1 0.216
0.855
0.827
0.442
0.296
0.146 C1 0.216
0.855
0.827
0.442
0.296
0.146
0.216 0.855
0.827
0.442
0.296
0.146
0.216 0.827
0.442
0.296
0.146
0.216
years, many of researchers C1 have used 0.216 0.855 0.827 for location 0.442 selection 0.296 0.146 0.216
etermination Cthe
2 best location
0.283 C2 for0.283 a the
0.829 C2Fuzzy
wide range TOPSIS
0.283
0.829
0.829 C2 method
of places has
0.283
0.829
0.829
0.416beenC2 attempted, 0.283
0.829
0.829
0.416
0.324 C2such 0.283 0.829
0.829
0.416
0.324
0.216 C2 0.283
0.829
0.829
0.416
0.324
0.216
0.283 0.829
0.829
0.416
0.324
0.216
0.283 0.829
0.416
0.324
0.216
0.283
C2 0.283 0.829 0.829 0.416 0.324 0.216 0.283
determination
lants [74], logisticsof the
C3 centers best
0.483 location
[75–77], for a wide
distribution rangecenters of places
C3 [78,79], has been
warehouses attempted, [80,81], such
C3 C 3 0.483
0.753
0.483 C3 0.483
0.753
0.867
0.753 0.483
0.753
0.867
0.832
0.867 C3 0.483
0.753
0.867
0.832
0.513
0.832 C3 0.483
0.753
0.867
0.832
0.513
0.442
0.513 C3 0.483
0.753
0.867
0.832
0.513
0.442
0.442 0.483 0.753
0.867
0.832
0.513
0.442
0.4830.483 0.867
0.832
0.513
0.442
0.483
rhospitals
plants [74],
[85],logistics
Clandfills
4 centers
C[86],
0.429 C 4 [75–77],
stations 0.429
0.807
0.429 distribution
[87]
C 4and faculties
0.429
0.807
0.848
0.807 centers
C 4 [88].[78,79],
The
0.429
0.807
0.848
0.585
0.848 C 4warehouses
research shows
0.429
0.807
0.848
0.585
0.393
0.585 C 4 [80,81],
that 0.429
0.807
0.848
0.585
0.393
0.341
0.393 C 4 0.429
0.807
0.848
0.585
0.393
0.341
0.341 0.393 0.807
0.848
0.585
0.393
0.341
0.3930.393 0.848
0.585
0.393
0.341
0.393
4
4], hospitals
a useful [85],
method C5 landfills
to select
C [86],
the
5 C5
0.442 stations
appropriate
0.442
0.887C5
0.442 [87] and
location faculties
0.887
0.753C5
0.442
0.887 for [88].
different The
0.753 kinds
0.609C5
0.442
0.887
0.753 research
of facilities
0.609
0.442
0.887
0.753
0.609
0.513 shows
C5 and that0.513
0.442
0.887
0.753
0.609
0.513
0.422 C5 0.422
0.442
0.887
0.753
0.609
0.513
0.422
0.442 0.442
0.887
0.753
0.609
0.513
0.422
0.442 0.753
0.609
0.513
0.422
0.442
is a useful methodC6 to 0.181 C6 Cthe
select 6
0.181
appropriate
0.777C6 location
0.181 0.777
0.658Cfor
0.181
0.777 0.658
6 different0.393Ckinds
0.181
0.777
0.658 6 of0.393
facilities
0.181
0.777
0.658
0.393
0.296 C6 and 0.296
0.181
0.777
0.658
0.393
0.296
0.181 C6 0.181
0.181
0.777
0.658
0.393
0.296
0.181
0.216 0.216
0.777
0.658
0.393
0.296
0.181
0.216 0.658
0.393
0.296
0.181
0.216

Distance between (i3,=4, (

Table
Table 10. 10.
Distance
Tablebetween
10. Distance
Table 1,A2,
Ai (i =between
10. 1,5,
i Distancei 2,
Table
A (i6,=3,1,4,and
2,5,
between
7)
10. 3,6,A՟
7)
Distance
4, i and
Table
A5, for Aand
(i6,=between
each
7)
10.
1, for each
2,Distance
3,
criterion.
A՟
4,
Table
A 5,
i for criterion.
(i6,=between
each
7)
10.
1, and
2,Distance
3,
criterion.
A՟
4,
Table
A5,
i for
(i6,=between
each
7)
10.
1, and
2,Distance
3,
criterion.
A՟
4,A5,
i for
(i6,=between
each
7)
1, and
2, 3,
criterion.
A՟
4,A5,
i for
(i6,= eac
7)
1, a2

e Problem of Locationd(A 1, A՟ )
Selection byd(A
d(A 1,2,A՟
d(A1Fuzzy
the A՟) )TOPSIS
d(A
d(A
d(A
d(A ,2,3A՟
12 ,Method
A՟
A՟) )) d(A
d(A
d(A
d(A
d(A13,2,3A՟
,4A՟
,A՟
A՟) ))) d(A
d(A
d(A
d(A
d(A
d(A ,2,3A՟
14 ,4A՟
,5A՟
,A՟
A՟
) ))))d(A
d(A
d(A
d(A
d(A
d(Ad(A
,2,3A՟
15 ,4A՟
,5A՟
,6A՟
,A՟
)A՟
))))d(A
)d(A
d(A
d(A
d(A
d(Ad(A
1d(A
6,2,3A՟
,4A՟
,5A՟
,6A՟
,7A՟
,)A՟
)A՟
))))d(A
)d(A
d(A
d(A
d(A
d(A
d(A
72,3,4A՟
,5A՟
,6A՟
,7A՟
,)A՟
)A՟
)))))d(A
d(A
d(A
d(A
d(A
3,4,5A՟
,6A՟
,7A՟
,A՟
A՟
))))) d(
dd
the Problem ofCLocation
1 0.861 C
Selection
C1 1 by 0.861
0.189
the
0.861 C
Fuzzy
1 0.861
0.189
0.232
TOPSIS
0.189 C Method
1 0.861
0.189
0.232
0.632
0.232 C1 0.861
0.189
0.232
0.632
0.788
0.632 C 1 0.861
0.189
0.232
0.632
0.788
0.788 0.912
C 1 0.861
0.189
0.232
0.632
0.9120.788
0.912
0.861 0.189
0.232
0.632
0.788
0.861 0.912
0.861 0.232
0.632
0.788
0.912
0.861
ping malls have an increasing C2 tendency
0.815 to spread 0.231around the 0.231country, 0.665 the issue of 0.769 0.861 0.815
opping malls have
cation remains an increasing
prominent. C3 Making tendency
decisions
0.608 to on
spread
0.308 around
selecting a0.187 the country,
location is a0.226 the issue of
significant 0.578 0.632 0.608
DM.location
In thisremains
study, prominent.
the solution
C4 Making
to the0.671 decisions
problem in on selecting
a setting
0.256 a location
involving
0.211 is
uncertaintya significant
0.498 and 0.708 0.740 0.708
MCDM.
ness) was In this study,by
achieved theC the 5solution to0.632
fuzzy MCDM the problem
method 0.187 setting0.308
inofa“Fuzzy involving uncertainty
TOPSIS”. 0.475 and0.578 0.645 0.632
zziness) was achieved C6 the fuzzy0.886
by MCDM 0.284 of “Fuzzy
method 0.398 TOPSIS”. 0.679 0.788 0.886 0.861
agram of the fuzzy TOPSIS method consists of the following steps:
diagram of the fuzzy TOPSIS method consists of the following steps:
g a committee of decision makers,
Step 10: Then, the closeness coefficient (CCi ) of each location alternative is calculated in order to
ing
g a committee
assessment of decision makers,
criteria,
determine the ranking order of each alternative as shown in Table 11 [102].
ging assessment
linguistic criteria,
variables,
ging thelinguistic
total fuzzyvariables,
weights of criteriaTable (wi),11. Calculations of the di*, di( and closeness coefficient (CC ) values.
i
eing fuzzythe decision
total fuzzy weights of criteria (wi),
matrix,
ethe fuzzy decision
normalized fuzzymatrix,
decision matrix,A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7
ethe normalized
weighted fuzzy decision
normalized dfuzzy
i*
matrix,
decision
2.033matrix, 4.889 4.781 3.277 2.334 1.748 2.033
gthe theweighted
values ofnormalized
A* and d A՟,i fuzzy decision
4.474 matrix,1.454 1.567 3.175 4.209 4.676 4.485
ing the values of A* and
d
the distance of each alternative
i * + A՟,
d i from A* and A՟ ,
6.507 6.343 6.348 6.452 6.543 6.424 6.518
ngthethe distancecoefficient
closeness CC
of each alternative 0.688
from A* and
of each alternative
i A՟ and
0.229
(CCi), , 0.247 0.492 0.643 0.728 0.688
eng the closeness
alternatives basedcoefficient
on theirof each alternative
closeness (CCi), and
coefficients.
the alternatives based on their closeness coefficients.
Step 11: Finally, based on the closeness coefficients, the ranking order of the location alternatives
are briefly explained below:
ps are briefly can
explained be determined. As shown in Table 9, based on the closeness coefficients (CCi ), the ranking order of
below:
ommittee consisting of three expert decision makers (D1, D2, D3) was formed for
Ation committee the location alternatives occurs as follows:
selection.consisting of three expert decision makers (D1, D2, D3) was formed for
cation
officialselection.
geographical regions of Turkey, which consist of the Mediterranean (A1),
A6 > A7 = A1 > A5 > A4 > A3 > A2
he
atolia (A2),geographical
official Eastern Anatolia regions (A3),of Black
Turkey, Seawhich
(A4), consist
Central of the Mediterranean
Anatolia (A5), Marmara (A1),
Anatolia
n (A7) regions,(A2), Eastern
were It Anatolia
accepted (A3),
asthat Black Sea locations
alternative (A4), Central the Anatolia (A5), Marmara
is shown the alternative A6for was thelocation best option selection
as it had the highest relative distance
ean (A7) regions,
step, the evaluation were accepted as alternative locations for the location selection
forcriteria
facilityare determined.
location As the
selection. determination
Moreover, the closed of the interval
criteria that
of [0, 1] was divided into five equal
his step, theofevaluation
evaluation alternative criteria
locations are determined.
has a direct As the on
impact determination
the accuracy ofand
thequality
criteriaof that
sub-intervals for determining the existing assessment statuses of the alternatives based on their
or evaluation of alternative locations has a direct impact on the accuracy and quality of
closeness coefficients, and linguistic variables were defined for all sub-intervals (Table 12) [102].

Table 12. Acceptance conditions.

Closeness Coefficient Assessment Status

CCi € [0,0.2] Unadvisable
CCi € [0.2,0.4] Advisable with high risk
CCi € [0.4,0.6] Advisable with low risk
CCi € [0.6,0.8] Acceptable
CCi € [0.8,1.0] Acceptable and preferable

According to Tables 11 and 12, A6 , A1 , A7 and A5 were found acceptable, A4 was found advisable
with low risk, and A3 and A2 were found advisable with high risk.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3837 13 of 22

4.2. GIS-Based Location Selection

In recent years, GIS have been successfully used for location selection problems in many fields. For
example, in the field of environment, GIS have been used to select solid waste disposal sites [107] and
landfill sites [105–110]. Some researchers have used GIS in the field of energy to select locations such
as wind farms [111–115], solar farms [116,117], hydropower plants [118] and facilities to convert forest
biomass to biofuel [18]. GIS have also been used in business for retail site location selection [11,22],
industrial site selection [119], shopping mall location selection [62,120] and supermarket location
selection [121]. There are some GIS applications in the field of health services such as hospital location
selection [122–125] and health care facility selection [126,127]. Besides these fields, GIS have been used
for location selection for public services [128]. The research shows that GIS is a useful method to select
appropriate location for different kinds of facilities and sites.
GIS are seen as a set of tools which are capable of acquiring both spatial and non-spatial data
from various sources, converting data into useful formats, storing and managing data, manipulating
the data for analysis, and finally generating the output required by a given user. The acquisition
component refers to determining and gathering the data in a digitally accessible format for use in a GIS.
The data storage and management component deals with efficient storage and retrieving data from
the database. The manipulation component refers to the need for conversion, aggregation, overlay
and interpolation. In this framework, the capability of performing an integrated analysis of spatial
and non-spatial data represents the most distinguishing attribute of a GIS. There are lots of analytical
operations available in GIS to develop useful information for a specific purpose. Finally, the data
output component of GIS enables a range of geovisualization techniques and provides the data and/or
information in the form of digital maps, graphics, figures, diagrams, etc. [61,129–131].
As mentioned earlier, GIS tools have been widely used in the field of retail location
planning [61,132,133]. The main reason behind the popularity of GIS is the information needs
of retailers with regard to the geographic, economic and social structure of their catchment areas. In this
sense, GIS serve as a valuable tool for determining and analyzing the characteristics of the catchment
area by incorporating spatial data such as streets, neighborhoods, mail codes, road numbers, buildings
and non-spatial data such as the demographic and economic profiles of the consumers [134–140].
In this study, we aim to compare and analyze the results of the fuzzy TOPSIS method and the results
of the two previous studies that applied GIS for the location selection problem of shopping malls in
Turkey [65,66]. The methodology that was employed in these studies and results is summarized below.
The studies in question discussed the location selection problem for shopping malls in Turkey in
general and by cities in Turkey based on GIS-based MCDM principles. In these studies, a database
including the geographic characteristics (criteria) of cities such as latitude/longitude, surface areas,
neighbor cities, high ways, distance to neighbor cities and socio-economic characteristics (criteria)
such as population density, wealth (deposit-money/persons), number of shopping malls in each city,
the number of shopping malls in neighbor cities, rented areas, rent prices, education, health, safety,
culture-art, quality of life was created as a first step. After that, a digital map on which each geographic
and socio-economic characteristic was located in different layers was produced. As pointed out by
Cheng et al. [19], the multi-layer layer architecture of GIS enables one to perform complex analyses.
The data were analyzed by using the following modules in the structure of Arc-Map under the
license of Arc-Info by ESRI:

• Spatial Analyst
• Spatial Statistics
• Data Management
• 3D Analyst

In evaluation, first of all, vector (polygon) databases showing city borders of Turkey and vector
(spot) databases showing city centers were created. Subsequently, fields were created for changes to
spot database and values of variables estimated for each city were entered into these fields. Finally, the
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3837 14 of 22

scores for each city for the selection of an optimal shopping mall location were calculated by using the
following formula, which was created based on experts’ views:

([Area] + [Population of the city] + (2 × [Population density]) + (4 × [Population in city

center % ]) + (10 × [Wealth] + (8 × [Number of shopping centers] + (8 × [Rented Area]) +
(7 × [Economy]) + [Education] + [Health] + [Safety] + [Urban_life] + [Culture_Art] +
[Life_Quality])/14

The selection priority of optimal shopping center location was determined as relative percentages
that were calculated based on the assumption that Istanbul is the city with the highest priority, which is
100. The relative percentages were interpolated statistically to the entire country based on cities (with
the vector-raster conversion). In this study, the overall score for each geographical region is calculated
as the sum of the scores of the cities determined by the studies explained above. The priorities of seven
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 21
official geographical regions in Turkey based on their overall scores are presented in Table 13.
Table 13. Ranking order of geographical regions.
Table 13. Ranking order of geographical regions.
Geographical Region Overall Score Ranking
Geographical Region Overall Score Ranking
Marmara 140.81 1
Marmara
Central Anatolia 140.81
70.14 2 1
Central Anatolia 70.14 2
Mediterranean
Mediterranean
48.17
48.17
3 3
Aegean
Aegean 37.87
37.87 3 3
Southeastern
Southeastern Anatolia
Anatolia 32.94
32.94 4 4
Black SeaSea
Black 27.30
27.30 5 5
Eastern Anatolia
Eastern Anatolia 26.41
26.41 6 6

The results of the analyses of only the Marmara Region are

are also
also shown
shown as
as an
an example
example (Figure
(Figure 2).
2).

Figure 2.
Figure Graphical representation
2. Graphical representation of
of the
the Marmara
Marmara region
region (2D).
(2D).

4.3. Comparison of the Results of the Fuzzy TOPSIS and GIS-Based Analysis
The location selection problem is a very important problem for an investor and decision maker
that has controversial outcomes. In decision-making processes, the database to be formed needs to
consist of multidimensional and reliable data. As these data may be real numbers, they may also be
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3837 15 of 22

4.3. Comparison of the Results of the Fuzzy TOPSIS and GIS-Based Analysis
The location selection problem is a very important problem for an investor and decision maker
that has controversial outcomes. In decision-making processes, the database to be formed needs to
consist of multidimensional and reliable data. As these data may be real numbers, they may also be
linguistic variables in the case of uncertainty. In order to make a rational decision on this reliable
database that is formed, the decision-making process should involve up-to-date scientific approaches
and technological opportunities.
According to Table 14, which compares the results of “Fuzzy TOPSIS” method and the analysis
results based on numerical data in the GIS environment, the results of both methods indicate that the
Marmara region was ranked as the best option for shopping malls in Turkey. On the other hand, there
are some similarities and differences in the remaining rankings obtained from fuzzy TOPSIS and GIS.

Table 14. Comparison table.

Option Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Southeastern
Fuzzy TOPSIS Marmara Aegean Mediterranean Central Anatolia Black Sea Eastern Anatolia
Anatolia
Southeastern
GIS Based Marmara Central Anatolia Mediterranean Aegean Black Sea Eastern Anatolia
Anatolia

5. Conclusions
The main purpose of this study is to compare the results of the fuzzy TOPSIS method and
GIS, which were applied to determine the best location for shopping malls in Turkey. The official
geographical regions of Turkey (Mediterranean, Southeastern Anatolia, Eastern Anatolia, Black Sea,
Central Anatolia, Marmara and Aegean) were accepted as alternative locations and in the process of
the implementation of the fuzzy TOPSIS method, linguistic variables such as regional development,
economy, transportation, population density, tourism and cultural structure were determined as the
decision criteria. On the other hand, for the GIS process, which utilizes a geographical database
that contains all administrative provincial boundaries, roads and all geographical information that is
needed for Turkey in its entirety, semantic data including the numbers of shopping malls in every city,
the numbers of shopping malls in neighboring cities, rent prices, quality of life, safety and population
density were uploaded for city centers.
The results of both fuzzy TOPSIS and GIS show that Marmara Region is the most optimal location
in the case of shopping malls in Turkey. One possible explanation for this result is that Marmara region
is the most developed region of Turkey and has favorable conditions in terms of the criteria taken into
consideration in the implementation of both fuzzy TOPSIS and GIS processes.
On the other hand, two methods generated different results with regard to the ranking order of
the other six regions. There are some possible explanations for these controversy results. First of all,
criteria and their importance weights that are used in TOPSIS methodology are determined based on
the experts’ opinions. Hence, the results of TOPSIS method are affected by the subjective assessments
of the individual decision makers. On the other hand, the spatial data utilized by GIS are precise and
objective since they can be measured. Furthermore, GIS allow the use of more inclusive criteria as they
can be integrated with other information systems [135].
As the solution to facility location problems requires multi-criteria, various MCDM methods have
been applied to solve these problems. Among these methods, fuzzy TOPSIS has several advantages
such as providing consistent results with criteria evaluation changes, simplified calculations and good
computational efficiency, capability of handling uncertainty through linguistic variables. Furthermore,
it also provides efficiency in dealing with tangible criteria and larger numbers of alternatives, a
meaningful performance measurement for each alternative and a clear distinction between the
alternatives [4,141–145]. Here, it should be also noted that this method suffers from several limitations.
First, fuzzy TOPSIS is not suitable for solving hierarchical problems, since a hierarchical structure
between the main criteria and sub-criteria is not taken into consideration by this method. Second, an
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3837 16 of 22

efficient procedure is required to determine the relative importance of different criteria with respect to
the objective [4,144,146].
As mentioned earlier, GIS tools have become very popular for retail location selection decisions
among both academics and practitioners. The main advantages of GIS are their ability to integrate
large quantities of spatial and non-spatial information; to generate and communicate results easily and
rapidly by means of attractive and informative digital maps; and to evaluate more alternatives than
manual systems [62,129,135,136]. Considering these advantages, Suárez-Vega et al. [11] state that GIS
provide a broader vision with regard to the possible locations and powerful assistance to the decision
makers and Cheng et al. [19] assert that GIS represent one of the most appropriate tools, especially
for shopping mall location selection. However, the lack of analytical and modelling functions to
incorporate forecasts, objectives, costs and benefits has been considered as the major weakness of the
existing systems [129,136].
In conclusion, it was shown that the opportunities provided to the decision makers in the GIS
environment had a significant share in solving location selection problems by the visualization, analysis
and production of data in the “Numerical Geographical Database” of the geographical software
platform. In this sense, a combination of MCDM techniques and GIS can provide an effective tool for
facility location selection decisions.

Author Contributions: In this paper, contributions of authors are given as follows; “conceptualization, H.E.A.;
methodology, C.E.; investigation, C.E.; data curation, C.E., writing—H.E.A. and C.E.; review and editing, H.E.A.
Funding: This research received no external funding
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Aćimović, S.; Mijušković, V. Key logistics location selection factors in retail business. Ekonomske Ideje i Praksa
2016, 22, 57–70.
2. Făgărăşan, M.; Cristea, C. Logistics center location: Selection using multicriteria decision making. Ann.
Oradea Univ. Fascicle Manag. Technol. Eng. 2015, 1, 157–162. [CrossRef]
3. Yang, J.; Lee, H. An AHP decision model for facility location selection. Facilities 1997, 15, 241–254. [CrossRef]
4. Ertuğrul, İ.; Karakaşoğlu, N. Comparison of fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods for facility location
selection. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2008, 39, 783–795. [CrossRef]
5. Devi, K.; Yadav, S.P. A multicriteria intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making for plant location selection
with ELECTRE method. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2013, 66, 1219–1229. [CrossRef]
6. Lin, C.T.; Juan, P.J. Developing a hierarchy relation with an expert decision analysis process for selecting
the optimal resort type for a Taiwanese international resort park. Expert Syst. Appl. 2009, 36, 1706–1719.
[CrossRef]
7. Wang, B.; Xiong, H.; Jiang, C. A multicriteria decision making approach based on fuzzy theory and credibility
mechanism for logistics center location selection. Sci. World J. 2014, 2014, 347619. [CrossRef]
8. Durmuş, A.; Turk, S.S. Factors influencing location selection of warehouses at the intra-urban level: Istanbul
case. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2014, 22, 268–292. [CrossRef]
9. Shukla, G.; Hota, H.S.; Sharma, A.S. Multicriteria decision making based solution to location selection for
modern agri-warehouses. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Inventive Communication and
Computational Technologies (ICICCT), Coimbatore, India, 10–11 March 2017; pp. 460–464.
10. Chen, J.; Wang, J.; Baležentis, T.; Zagurskaitė, F.; Streimikiene, D.; Makutėnienė, D. Multicriteria approach
towards the sustainable selection of a teahouse location with sensitivity analysis. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2926.
[CrossRef]
11. Suárez-Vega, R.; Santos-Peñate, D.R.; Dorta-González, P. Location models and GIS tools for retail site location.
Appl. Geogr. 2012, 35, 12–22. [CrossRef]
12. Kahraman, C.; Onar, S.C.; Oztaysi, B. Fuzzy multicriteria decision-making: A literature review. Int. J. Comput.
Intell. Syst. 2015, 8, 637–666. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3837 17 of 22

13. Karmaker, C.; Saha, M. Optimization of warehouse location through fuzzy multi-criteria decision making
methods. Decis. Sci. Lett. 2015, 4, 315–334. [CrossRef]
14. Sánchez-Lozano, J.M.; Teruel-Solano, J.; Soto-Elvira, P.L.; García-Cascales, M.S. Geographical Information
Systems (GIS) and Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods for the evaluation of solar farms
locations: Case study in south-eastern Spain. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 24, 544–556. [CrossRef]
15. Özcan, T.; Çelebi, N.; Esnaf, Ş. Comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision making methodologies and
implementation of a warehouse location selection problem. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 9773–9779. [CrossRef]
16. Sener, U.; Gokalp, E.; Eren, P.E. ClouDSS: A decision support system for cloud service selection. In Proceedings
of International Conference on the Economics of Grids, Clouds, Systems, and Services, Biarritz, France, 19–21
September 2017; Springer: Cham, Germany, 2018; pp. 249–261.
17. Kahraman, C.; Ruan, D.; Doǧan, I. Fuzzy group decision-making for facility location selection. Inf. Sci. 2003,
157, 135–153. [CrossRef]
18. Zhang, F.; Johnson, D.M.; Sutherland, J.W. A GIS-based method for identifying the optimal location for a
facility to convert forest biomass to biofuel. Biomass Bioenergy 2011, 35, 3951–3961. [CrossRef]
19. Cheng, E.W.; Li, H.; Yu, L. A GIS approach to shopping mall location selection. Build. Environ. 2007, 42,
884–892. [CrossRef]
20. Li, H.; Kong, C.W.; Pang, Y.C.; Shi, W.Z.; Yu, L. Internet-based geographical information systems system for
E-commerce application in construction material procurement. J. Const. Eng. Manag. 2003, 129, 689–697.
[CrossRef]
21. Barnett, A.P.; Okoruwa, A.A. Application of geographic information systems in site selection and location
analysis. Appr. J. 1993, 61, 245.
22. Roig-Tierno, N.; Baviera-Puig, A.; Buitrago-Vera, J.; Mas-Verdu, F. The retail site location decision process
using GIS and the analytical hierarchy process. Appl. Geogr. 2013, 40, 191–198. [CrossRef]
23. Arslan, T.V. A critical approach to shopping mall researches in Turkey: Interpretations, discussions and
critics. Uludağ Univ. J. Fac. Eng. 2009, 14, 147–158.
24. Ünlükara, T.; Berköz, L. Shopping centers’ selection criteria in Turkey: The case of Istanbul. Megaron. 2016,
11, 437–448.
25. Tabak, B.I.; Özgen, Ö.; Aykol, B. High school girls’shopping mall experiences, perceptions and expectations:
A qualitative study. Ege Acad. Rev. 2006, 6, 100–113.
26. Afacan, Y. Achieving inclusion in public spaces: A shopping mall case study. In Designing Inclusive Systems;
Springer: London, UK, 2012; pp. 58–92.
27. Dogu, U.; Erkip, F. Spatial factors affecting wayfinding and orientation: A case study in a shopping mall.
Environ. Behav. 2000, 32, 731–755. [CrossRef]
28. EVA Real Estate Appraisal Consultancy. Available online: http://www.evagyd.com/haberler/eva-
gayrimenkul-ve-akademetre-2017-2019-avm-arastirmasinin-sonuclarini-acikladi/460/ (accessed on 5 June
2019).
29. Erkip, F.; Ozuduru, B.H. Retail development in Turkey: An account after two decades of shopping malls in
the urban scene. Prog. Plan. 2015, 102, 1–33. [CrossRef]
30. Önüt, S.; Efendigil, T.; Kara, S.S. A combined fuzzy MCDM approach for selecting shopping center site:
An example from Istanbul, Turkey. Expert Syst. Appl. 2010, 37, 1973–1980. [CrossRef]
31. Erkip, F. The shopping mall as an emergent public space in Turkey. Environ. Plan. A 2003, 35, 1073–1093.
[CrossRef]
32. Ozuduru, B.H.; Guldmann, J.M. Retail location and urban resilience: Towards a new framework for retail
policy. S.A.P.I.EN. S. 2013, 6, 1620.
33. Benali-Nouani, N.; Berezowska-Azzag, E. The holistic impact assessment of shopping centres: The case of
Bab Ezzouar, Algeria. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 2014, 71, 270–291. [CrossRef]
34. Goodman, R.; Coote, M. Sustainable Urban Form and the Shopping Centre: An investigation of activity
centres in Melbourne’s growth areas. Urban Policy Res. 2007, 25, 39–61. [CrossRef]
35. AlWaer, H.; Sibley, M.; Lewis, J. Factors and priorities for assessing sustainability of regional shopping
centres in the UK. Archit. Sci. Rev. 2008, 51, 391–402. [CrossRef]
36. Govindan, K.; Garg, K.; Gupta, S.; Jha, P.C. Effect of product recovery and sustainability enhancing indicators
on the location selection of manufacturing facility. Ecol. Indicators. 2016, 67, 517–532. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3837 18 of 22

37. Erbıyık, H.; Özcan, S.; Karaboğa, K. Retail store location selection problem with multiple analytical hierarchy
process of decision making an application in Turkey. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 58, 1405–1414. [CrossRef]
38. Vandell, K.; Carter, C. Retail store location and market analysis: A review of the research. J. Real Estate Lit.
1994, 2, 13–45.
39. Craig, C.S. Models of the retail location process: A review. J. Retail. 1984, 60, 5–36.
40. Brown, S. Retail location theory: Evolution and evaluation. Int. Rev. Retail. Distrib. Consum. Res. 1993, 3,
185–229. [CrossRef]
41. Clarkson, R.M.; Clarke-Hill, C.M.; Robinson, T. UK supermarket location assessment. Int. J. Retail. Distrib.
Manag. 1996, 24, 22–33. [CrossRef]
42. Yıldız, N.; Tüysüz, F. A hybrid multi-criteria decision making approach for strategic retail location investment:
Application to Turkish food retailing. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci.. In Press.
43. Baviera-Puig, A.; Buitrago-Vera, J.; Escriba-Perez, C. Geomarketing models in supermarket location strategies.
J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 2016, 17, 1205–1221. [CrossRef]
44. Suárez-Vega, R.; Gutiérrez-Acuña, J.L.; Rodríguez-Díaz, M. Locating a supermarket using a locally calibrated
Huff model. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 2015, 29, 217–233. [CrossRef]
45. Reigadinha, T.; Godinho, P.; Dias, J. Portuguese food retailers–Exploring three classic theories of retail
location. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2017, 34, 102–116. [CrossRef]
46. Kohsaka, H. A Spatial Search-Location Model of Retail Centers. Geogr. Anal. 1989, 21, 338–349. [CrossRef]
47. Litz, R.A.; Rajaguru, G. Does small store location matter? A test of three classic theories of retail location. J.
Small Bus. Entrep. 2008, 21, 477–492. [CrossRef]
48. Carter, C.C.; Haloupek, W.J. Dispersion of stores of the same type in shopping malls: Theory and preliminary
evidence. J. Prop. Res. 2002, 19, 291–311. [CrossRef]
49. Prendergast, G.; Marr, N.; Jarratt, B. Retailers’ views of shopping centres: A comparison of tenants and
non-tenants. Int. J. Retail. Distrib. Manag. 1998, 26, 162–171. [CrossRef]
50. Ramesh, G.; Prasad, S.; Goyal, S. A pilot study of organised retail formats and their location strategy in
Mumbai: A study covering western suburbs from Bandra to Borivali. J. Retail. Leis. Prop. 2011, 9, 476–492.
[CrossRef]
51. Wu, S.S.; Kuang, H.; Lo, S.M. Modeling Shopping Center Location Choice: Shopper Preference–Based
Competitive Location Model. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2018, 145, 04018047. [CrossRef]
52. Lau, H.F.; Sin, L.Y.M.; Chan, K.K.C. Chinese cross-border shopping: An empirical study. J. Hosp. Tour. Res.
2005, 29, 110–133. [CrossRef]
53. Wee, C.H.; Pearce, M.R. Retail gravitational models: A review with implications for further research. In
Proceedings of the 1984 Academy of Marketing Science (AMS) Annual Conference, Niagara Falls, NY, USA, 9–12
May 1984; Springer: Cham, Germany; pp. 300–305.
54. Wee, C.H.; Pearce, M.R. Patronage Behavior Toward Shopping Areas: A Proposed Model Based on Huff’s
Model of Retail Gravitation. In NA—Advances in Consumer Research; Hirschman, E.C., Holbrook, M.B.,
Provo, U.T., Eds.; Association for Consumer Research: Duluth, MN, USA, 1985; Volume 12, pp. 592–597.
55. Nakanishi, M.; Cooper, L.G. Parameter estimation for a multiplicative competitive interaction model—Least
squares approach. J. Market. Res. 1974, 11, 303–311.
56. Serra, D.; Colomé, R. Consumer choice and optimal locations models: Formulations and heuristics. Papers
Reg. Sci. 2001, 80, 439–464. [CrossRef]
57. Cheng, E.W.; Li, H.; Yu, L. The analytic network process (ANP) approach to location selection: A shopping
mall illustration. Constr. Innov. 2005, 5, 83–97. [CrossRef]
58. Zolfani, S.H.; Aghdaie, M.H.; Derakhti, A.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Varzandeh, M.H.M. Decision making on
business issues with foresight perspective; an application of new hybrid MCDM model in shopping mall
locating. Expert Syst. Appl. 2013, 40, 7111–7121. [CrossRef]
59. Yavuz, S.; Deveci, M. Selection of Shopping Center Location with The Methods of Fuzzy VIKOR and Fuzzy
TOPSIS and An Application. Ege Acad. Rev. 2014, 14, 463–479.
60. Tayman, J.; Pol, L. Retail site selection and geographic information systems. J. Appl. Bus. Res. 1995, 11, 46.
[CrossRef]
61. Murray, A.T. Advances in location modeling: GIS linkages and contributions. J. Geogr. Syst. 2010, 12, 335–354.
[CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3837 19 of 22

62. ELSamen, A.A.A.; Hiyasat, R.I. Beyond the random location of shopping malls: A GIS perspective in Amman,
Jordan. J. Retail. Cons. Serv. 2017, 34, 30–37. [CrossRef]
63. Bayar, R. Location choice for shopping mall centers using GIS: Case study of Ankara. Coğrafi Bilimler Dergisi
2005, 3, 19–38.
64. Gündogdu, C.E. Suitable Location Selection Optimization for Shopping Centres and Geographical Information
System (GIS). China-USA Bus. Rev. 2011, 10, 711–718.
65. Erdin Gündoğdu, C. GIS based site selection for shopping centers in Turkey. In Selected Concepts and Best
Practice; Grzybowska, K., Ed.; Publishing House of Poznan University Technology: Poznan, Poland, 2012;
pp. 331–344.
66. Gundogdu, C.E. Determination of the most suitable sites for Shopping Centers in geographical regions with
GIS. Res. Logistics Prod. 2013, 3, 109–122.
67. Zadeh, L.A. Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 1965, 8, 338–353. [CrossRef]
68. Gu, X.; Zhu, Q. Fuzzy multi-attribute decision-making method based on eigenvector of fuzzy attribute
evaluation space. Decis. Support. Syst. 2006, 41, 400–410. [CrossRef]
69. Yang, T.; Hung, C.C. Multiple-attribute decision making methods for plant layout design problem. Robot.
Comput. Integr. Manuf. 2007, 23, 126–137. [CrossRef]
70. Tsaur, S.H.; Chang, T.Y.; Yen, C.H. The evaluation of airline service quality by fuzzy MCDM. Tour. Manag.
2002, 23, 107–115. [CrossRef]
71. Yong, D. Plant location selection based on fuzzy TOPSIS. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2006, 28, 839–844.
[CrossRef]
72. Jahanshahloo, G.R.; Hosseinzadeh, L.F.; Izadikhah, M. Extension of the TOPSIS method for decision making
problems with fuzzy data. Appl. Math. Comput. 2006, 181, 1544–1551. [CrossRef]
73. Chen, C.T. Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst.
2000, 114, 1–9. [CrossRef]
74. Kengpol, A.; Rontlaong, P.; Tuominen, M. A decision support system for selection of solar power plant
locations by applying fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS: An Empirical Study. J. Softw. Eng. Appl. 2013, 6, 470.
[CrossRef]
75. Erkayman, B.; Gundogar, E.; Akkaya, G.; Ipek, M. A fuzzy TOPSIS approach for logistics center location
selection. J. Bus. Case Stud. 2011, 7, 49–55. [CrossRef]
76. Li, Y.; Liu, X.; Chen, Y. Selection of logistics center location using Axiomatic Fuzzy Set and TOPSIS
methodology in logistics management. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 7901–7908. [CrossRef]
77. Rao, C.; Goh, M.; Zhao, Y.; Zheng, J. Location selection of city logistics centers under sustainability. Transport.
Res. Part D Trans. Environ. 2015, 36, 29–44. [CrossRef]
78. Awasthi, A.; Chauhan, S.S.; Goyal, S.K. A multi-criteria decision making approach for location planning for
urban distribution centers under uncertainty. Math. Comp. Modell. 2011, 53, 98–109. [CrossRef]
79. Kuo, M.S.; Liang, G.S. A novel hybrid decision-making model for selecting locations in a fuzzy environment.
Math. Comp. Modell. 2011, 54, 88–104. [CrossRef]
80. Ashrafzadeh, M.; Rafiei, F.M.; Isfahani, N.M.; Zare, Z. Application of fuzzy TOPSIS method for the selection
of Warehouse Location: A Case Study. Interdiscip. J. Contemp. Res. Bus. 2012, 3, 655–671.
81. Dey, B.; Bairagi, B.; Sarkar, B.; Sanyal, S.K. Warehouse location selection by fuzzy multi-criteria decision
making methodologies based on subjective and objective criteria. Int. J. Manag. Sci. Eng. Manag. 2016, 11,
262–278. [CrossRef]
82. Ertuğrul, İ. Fuzzy group decision making for the selection of facility location. Group Decis. Negot. 2011, 20,
725–740. [CrossRef]
83. Safari, H.; Faghih, A.; Fathi, M.R. Fuzzy multi-criteria decision making method for facility location selection.
Afr. J. Bus. Manag. 2012, 6, 206–212.
84. Güzel, D.; Erdal, H. A comparative assesment of facility location problem via fuzzy TOPSIS and fuzzy
VIKOR: A case study on security services. Int. J. Bus. Soc. Res. 2015, 5, 49–61.
85. Senvar, O.; Otay, I.; Bolturk, E. Hospital site selection via hesitant fuzzy TOPSIS. IFAC-PapersOnLine. 2016,
49, 1140–1145. [CrossRef]
86. Beskese, A.; Demir, H.H.; Ozcan, H.K.; Okten, H.E. Landfill site selection using fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS:
A case study for Istanbul. Environ. Earth Sci. 2015, 73, 3513–3521. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3837 20 of 22

87. Guo, S.; Zhao, H. Optimal site selection of electric vehicle charging station by using fuzzy TOPSIS based on
sustainability perspective. Appl. Energy 2015, 158, 390–402. [CrossRef]
88. Suder, A.; Kahraman, C. Minimizing environmental risks using fuzzy TOPSIS: Location selection for the ITU
Faculty of Management. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. Int. J. 2015, 21, 1326–1340. [CrossRef]
89. Franco, C.; Bojesen, M.; Hougaard, J.L.; Nielsen, K. A fuzzy approach to a multiple criteria and Geographical
Information System for decision support on suitable locations for biogas plants. Appl. Energy 2015, 140,
304–315. [CrossRef]
90. Cagri, T.A.; Tuysuz, F.; Kahraman, C. A fuzzy multi-criteria decision analysis approach for retail location
selection. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak. 2013, 12, 729–755. [CrossRef]
91. Zentes, J.; Morschett, D.; Schramm-Klein, H. Store location–trading area analysis and site selection. In
Strategic Retail Management; Gabler Verlag: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2011; pp. 203–225.
92. Kuo, R.J.; Chi, S.C.; Kao, S.S. A decision support system for selecting convenience store location through
integration of fuzzy AHP and artificial neural network. Comput. Ind. 2002, 47, 199–214. [CrossRef]
93. Dolega, L.; Pavlis, M.; Singleton, A. Estimating attractiveness, hierarchy and catchment area extents for a
national set of retail centre agglomerations. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2016, 28, 78–90. [CrossRef]
94. Morrison, P.A.; Abrahamse, A.F. Applying demographic analysis to store site selection. Popul. Res. Policy
Rev. 1996, 15, 479–489.
95. Li, Y.; Liu, L. Assessing the impact of retail location on store performance: A comparison of Wal-Mart and
Kmart stores in Cincinnati. Appl. Geogr. 2012, 32, 591–600. [CrossRef]
96. Choi, M.J.; Heo, C.Y.; Law, R. Progress in shopping tourism. J. Travel Tour. Market. 2016, 33, 1–24. [CrossRef]
97. Yurtseven, Ç. International tourism and economic development in Turkey: A vector approach. Afro Eurasian
Stud. 2012, 1, 37–50.
98. Timothy, D.J. Trends in tourism, shopping, and retailing. In A Companion to Tourism; Lew, A.A., Hall, C.M.,
Williams, A.M., Eds.; Blackwell Publishing: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014; pp. 378–388.
99. Simkin, L.P. Evaluating a store location. Int. J. Retail. Distrib. Manag. 1990, 18, 33–39. [CrossRef]
100. Simkin, L.; Doyle, P.; Saunders, J. Store location assessment. Prop. Manag. 1986, 4, 333–343. [CrossRef]
101. Zhou, S.; Zhang, Y.; Bao, X. Methodology of location selection for biofuel refinery based on fuzzy TOPSIS. In
Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Automation and Logistics (ICAL), Zhengzhou, China,
15–17 August 2012; pp. 431–436.
102. Chen, C.T.; Lin, C.T.; Huang, S.F. A fuzzy approach for supplier evaluation and selection in supply chain
management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2006, 102, 289–301. [CrossRef]
103. Junior, F.R.L.; Osiro, L.; Carpinetti, L.C.R. A comparison between Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS methods to
supplier selection. Appl. Soft Comput. 2014, 21, 194–209. [CrossRef]
104. Joshi, R.; Banwet, D.K.; Shankar, R. A Delphi-AHP-TOPSIS based benchmarking framework for performance
improvement of a cold chain. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 10170–10182. [CrossRef]
105. Patil, S.K.; Kant, R. A fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for ranking the solutions of Knowledge Management
adoption in Supply Chain to overcome its barriers. Expert Syst. Appl. 2014, 41, 679–693. [CrossRef]
106. Choudhary, D.; Shankar, R. An STEEP-fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for evaluation and selection of thermal
power plant location: A case study from India. Energy. 2012, 42, 510–521. [CrossRef]
107. Şener, Ş.; Şener, E.; Nas, B.; Karagüzel, R. Combining AHP with GIS for landfill site selection: A case study in
the Lake Beyşehir catchment area (Konya, Turkey). Waste Manag. 2010, 30, 2037–2046. [CrossRef]
108. Nas, B.; Cay, T.; Iscan, F.; Berktay, A. Selection of MSW landfill site for Konya, Turkey using GIS and
multi-criteria evaluation. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2010, 160, 491–500. [CrossRef]
109. Şener, Ş.; Sener, E.; Karagüzel, R. Solid waste disposal site selection with GIS and AHP methodology: A case
study in Senirkent–Uluborlu (Isparta) Basin, Turkey. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2011, 173, 533–554. [CrossRef]
110. Vasiljević, T.Z.; Srdjević, Z.; Bajčetić, R.; Miloradov, M.V. GIS and the analytic hierarchy process for regional
landfill site selection in transitional countries: A case study from Serbia. Environ. Manag. 2012, 49, 445–458.
[CrossRef]
111. Van Haaren, R.; Fthenakis, V. GIS-based wind farm site selection using spatial multi-criteria analysis (SMCA):
Evaluating the case for New York State. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2011, 15, 3332–3340. [CrossRef]
112. Atici, K.B.; Simsek, A.B.; Ulucan, A.; Tosun, M.U. A GIS-based Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis approach
for wind power plant site selection. Util. Policy. 2015, 37, 86–96. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3837 21 of 22

113. Latinopoulos, D.; Kechagia, K. A GIS-based multi-criteria evaluation for wind farm site selection. A regional
scale application in Greece. Renew. Energy. 2015, 78, 550–560. [CrossRef]
114. Noorollahi, Y.; Yousefi, H.; Mohammadi, M. Multi-criteria decision support system for wind farm site
selection using GIS. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2016, 13, 38–50.
115. Pamučar, D.; Gigović, L.; Bajić, Z.; Janošević, M. Location selection for wind farms using GIS multi-criteria
hybrid model: An approach based on fuzzy and rough numbers. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1315. [CrossRef]
116. Uyan, M. GIS-based solar farms site selection using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in Karapinar region,
Konya/Turkey. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 28, 11–17. [CrossRef]
117. Khan, G.; Rathi, S. (). Optimal site selection for solar PV power plant in an Indian state using Geographical
Information System (GIS). Int. J. Emerg. Eng. Res. Technol. 2014, 2, 260–266.
118. Yi, C.S.; Lee, J.H.; Shim, M.P. Site location analysis for small hydropower using geo-spatial information
system. Renew. Energy 2010, 35, 852–861. [CrossRef]
119. Rikalovic, A.; Cosic, I.; Lazarevic, D. GIS based multi-criteria analysis for industrial site selection. Procedia
Eng. 2014, 69, 1054–1063. [CrossRef]
120. Mohamad, M.Y.; Al Katheeri, F.; Salam, A. A GIS application for location selection and Customers’ preferences
for shopping malls in al Ain City; UAE. Am. J. Geogr. Inf. Syst. 2015, 4, 76–86.
121. Liu, T. Combining GIS and the Huff Model to Analyze Suitable Locations for a New Asian Supermarket in
the Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota USA. Papers Resour. Anal. 2012, 14, 7.
122. Soltani, A.; Marandi, I.Z. Hospital site selection using two-stage fuzzy multi-criteria decision making process.
J. Urban Environ. Eng. 2011, 5, 32–43. [CrossRef]
123. Sharmin, N.; Neema, M.N. A GIS-based multi-criteria analysis to site appropriate locations of hospitals in
Dhaka City. Hospital 2013, 8, 0–37.
124. Eldemir, F.; Onden, I. Geographical information systems and multicriteria decisions integration approach for
hospital location selection. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak. 2016, 15, 975–997. [CrossRef]
125. Rahimi, F.; Goli, A.; Rezaee, R. Hospital location-allocation in Shiraz using Geographical Information System
(GIS). Shiraz E-Med J. 2017, 18, e57572. [CrossRef]
126. Ye, H.; Kim, H. Locating healthcare facilities using a network-based covering location problem. GeoJournal
2016, 81, 875–890. [CrossRef]
127. Dell’Ovo, M.; Capolongo, S.; Oppio, A. Combining spatial analysis with MCDA for the siting of healthcare
facilities. Land Use Policy 2018, 76, 634–644. [CrossRef]
128. Mohammed, A.; Shalaby, A.; Miller, E.J. Development of P-TRANE: GIS-Based Model of Bus Transit Network
Evolution. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2013, 140, 04013004. [CrossRef]
129. Fischer, M.M.; Nijkamp, P. Geographic information systems and spatial analysis. Ann. Reg. Sci. 1992, 26,
3–17. [CrossRef]
130. Malczewski, J. Multiple criteria decision analysis and geographic information systems. In Trends in Multiple
Criteria Decision Analysis; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2010; pp. 369–395.
131. Congalton, R.G.; Green, K. The ABCs of GIS. J. For. 1992, 90, 13–20.
132. Church, R.L. Geographical information systems and location science. Comput. Oper. Res. 2002, 2, 541–562.
[CrossRef]
133. Benoit, D.; Clarke, G.P. Assessing GIS for retail location planning. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 1997, 4, 239–258.
[CrossRef]
134. Birkin, M.; Clarke, G. GIS, geodemographics, and spatial modeling in the UK financial service industry. J.
Hous. Res. 1998, 9, 87–111.
135. Clarke, I.; Rowley, J. A case for spatial decision-support systems in retail location planning. Int. J. Retail
Distrib. Manag. 1995, 23, 4–10. [CrossRef]
136. Mendes, A.B.; Themido, I.H. Multi-outlet retail site location assessment. Int. Trans. Oper. Res. 2004, 11, 1–18.
[CrossRef]
137. Ali, W.; Moulin, B. 2D-3D multiagent geosimulation with knowledge-based agents of customers’ shopping
behavior in a shopping mall. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Spatial Information Theory,
Ellicottville, NY, USA, 14–18 September 2005; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2005; pp. 445–458.
138. Elliott-White, M.P.; Finn, M. Growing in sophistication: The application of geographical information systems
in post-modern tourism marketing. J. Travel Tour. Market. 1997, 7, 65–84. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 3837 22 of 22

139. Brody, R. Geographic information systems: Business applications and data. J. Bus. Fin. Librariansh. 1999, 5,
3–18. [CrossRef]
140. Chen, R.J. Geographic information systems (GIS) applications in retail tourism and teaching curriculum. J.
Retail. Consum. Serv. 2007, 14, 289–295. [CrossRef]
141. Selim, H.; Yunusoglu, M.G.; Yılmaz Balaman, Ş. A dynamic maintenance planning framework based on
fuzzy TOPSIS and FMEA: Application in an international food company. Qual. Reliab. Eng. Int. 2016, 32,
795–804. [CrossRef]
142. Yeh, C.H. A problem-based selection of multi-attribute decision-making methods. Int. Trans. Oper. Res. 2002,
9, 169–181. [CrossRef]
143. Fayek, A.R.; Omar, M.N. A Fuzzy Topsis Method for Prioritized Aggregation in Multi-Criteria Decision
Making Problems. J. Multi-Criteria Decis. Anal. 2016, 23, 242–256. [CrossRef]
144. Chen, L.H.; Hung, C.C. An integrated fuzzy approach for the selection of outsourcing manufacturing
partners in pharmaceutical R&D. Int. J. Product. Res. 2010, 48, 7483–7506.
145. Badang, D.A.Q.; Sarip, C.F.; Tahud, A.P. Geographic Information System (GIS) and Multicriteria Decision
Making (MCDM) for Optimal Selection of Hydropower Location in Rogongon, Iligan City. In Proceedings
of the 2018 IEEE 10th International Conference on Humanoid, Nanotechnology, Information Technology,
Communication and Control, Environment and Management (HNICEM), Baguio City, Philippines, 29
November–1 December 2018; pp. 1–5.
146. Kahraman, C.; Büyüközkan, G.; Ateş, N.Y. A two phase multi-attribute decision-making approach for new
product introduction. Inf. Sci. 2007, 177, 1567–1582. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).