基于IT2F-BWM-MABAC方法的应急物流设施选址方案评价

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.04.0310

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

针对不确定环境下应急物流设施选址方案评价问题,提出一种基于区间二型模糊集(IT2F)-最优最劣法(BWM)-多属性边界近似区域比较法(MABAC)的应急物流设施选址方案评价方法。首先,针对应急物流设施选址方案评价过程中评价信息的模糊不确定性问题,采用IT2F处理,并利用MABAC对选址方案排序;然后,针对传统的MABAC中属性权重需要从外部获得的问题,采用基于IT2F的BWM确定属性的权重;最后,将所提方法应用于某城市应急物流设施选址方案评价研究,并验证所提选址方法的可行性和有效性。结果表明:所提方法能够解决不确定环境下应急物流设施选址问题,同时能够保证方案评价的质量。

关键词: 区间二型模糊集(IT2F), 最优最劣法(BWM), 多属性边界近似区域比较法(MABAC), 应急物流设施选址, 方案评价

Abstract:

This paper proposed an evaluation method for emergency logistics facility site selection schemes in uncertain environments based on IT2F-BWM-MABAC. Firstly, in response to the fuzzy uncertainty problem of evaluation information in the evaluation process of emergency logistics facility site selection schemes, an IT2F set was used for processing, and the site selection schemes were ranked in MABAC. In order to address the issue of obtaining attribute weights from external sources in traditional MABAC, BWM based on IT2F was adopted to determine the weights of attributes. Finally, the method proposed in this article was applied to the evaluation of emergency logistics facility location schemes in a certain city, and the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed location method were verified. The results show that the proposed method can solve the problem of emergency logistics facility location selection in uncertain environments while ensuring the quality of scheme evaluation.

Key words: interval type-2 fuzzy (IT2F), best-worst method (BWM), multi-attributive border approximation area comparison (MABAC), site selection of emergency logistics facilities, scheme evaluation

中图分类号:

X913.4安全系统工程

周青超, 叶春明, 耿秀丽. 基于IT2F-BWM-MABAC方法的应急物流设施选址方案评价[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2024, 34(4): 226-231.

ZHOU Qingchao, YE Chunming, GENG Xiuli. Evaluation of emergency logistics facility location plan based on IT2F-BWM-MABAC method[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(4): 226-231.

图/表 14

表1

表2

表3

表4

表5

表6

表7

表8

表9

表10

表11

表12

表13

表14

参考文献 13

[1]	闫森, 齐金平. 考虑需求不确定的多级应急物流设施选址研究[J]. 运筹与管理, 2022, 31(9):7-13. doi: 10.12005/orms.2022.0278
	YAN Sen, QI Jinping. Research on the location selection of multi-level emergency logistics facilities under uncertain conditions[J]. Operations Research and Management Science, 2022, 31 (9): 7-13. doi: 10.12005/orms.2022.0278
[2]	谷玲玲, 耿秀丽. IIF-ER方法在应急物流设施选址中的应用[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2018, 28(9):183-188. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2018.09.031
	GU Lingling, GENG Xiuli. Application of interval intuitionistic fuzzy and evidence reasoning in location selection of emergency logistics facilities[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2018, 28 (9): 183-188. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2018.09.031
[3]	邝雨婕, 赵佳虹. 连续时变风险下危险品储运选址-选线问题[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(4):185-191. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.04.027
	KUANG Yujie, ZHAO Jiahong. Location and routing of dangerous goods'storage and transportation under continuous time-varying risks[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32 (4): 185-191. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.04.027
[4]	ZADEH L A. Fuzzy sets[J]. Inform and Control, 1965, 8(3):338-353.
[5]	王恒, 姚艳霞, 于姗姗, 等. 基于区间二型模糊超效率SBM模型的燃煤发电企业碳减排效率评估研究[J]. 热力发电, 2022, 51(1):69-78.
	WANG Heng, YAO Yanxia, YU Shanshan, et al. Evaluation of carbon emission reduction efficiency of power plants based on IT2F super-efficiency SBM model[J]. Thermal Power Generation, 2022, 51(1):69-78.
[6]	PAN Xiaohong, WANG Yingming, HE Shifan. The evidential reasoning approach for renewable energy resources evaluation under interval type-2 fuzzy uncertainty[J]. Information Sciences, 2021, 576:432-453.
[7]	REZAEI J. Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method[J]. Omega, 2015, 53:49-57.
[8]	金腾宇, 耿秀丽, 章慧慧, 等. 基于犹豫模糊BWM与MOORA的多属性决策方法[J]. 机械设计与研究, 2021, 37(5):1-5.
	JIN Tengyu, GENG Xiuli, ZHANG Huihui, et al. Multiple attribute decision making method based on hesitant fuzzy BWM and MOORA[J]. Mechanical Design and Research, 2021, 37(5):1-5.
[9]	PAMUCAR D, CIROVIC G. The selection of transport and handling resources in logistics centers using multi-attributive border approximation area comparison (MABAC)[J]. Expert Systems with Applications, 2015, 42(6):3016-3028.
[10]	LUO Suizhi, PEDRYCZ W, XING Lining. Selection of data products: a hybrid AFSA-MABAC approach[J]. International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics, 2022, 4(13):1-19.
[11]	HASHEMIZADEH A, JU Yanbing, BAMAKAN S M H, et al. Renewable energy investment risk assessment in belt and road initiative countries under uncertainty conditions[J]. Energy, 2021, 214: DOI:10.1016/j.energy.2020.118923.
[12]	GONG Xiaomin, YANG Man, DU Puliang. Renewable energy accommodation potential evaluation of distribution network: a hybrid decision-making framework under interval type-2 fuzzy environment[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2021, 286:DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124918.
[13]	TAPAS K, MANIK C D. Selection of commercially available electric vehicle using fuzzy AHP-MABAC[J]. Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series C, 2019, 100(3):1-7.

量化值	具体说明
((0,0,1;1), (0,0,0.5;0.5))	表示属性C_i 强烈劣于属性C_j
((0,1,3;1), (0.5,1,2;0.5))	表示属性C_i 明显劣于属性C_j
((1,3,5;1), (2,3,4;0.5))	表示属性C_i 稍微劣于属性C_j
((3,5,7;1) (4,5,6;0.5))	表示属性C_i 与属性C_j同等重要
((5,7,9;1), (6,7,8;0.5))	表示属性C_i 稍微优于属性C_j
((7,9,10;1), (8,9,9.5;0.5))	表示属性C_i 明显优于属性C_j
((9,10,10;1), (9.5,10,10;0.5))	表示属性C_i 强烈优于属性C_j

语言变量	对应的IT2F
很低	((0,0,1;1),(0,0,0.5;0.5))
低	((0,1,3;1),(0.5,1,2;0.5))
稍低	((1,3,5;1),(2,3,4;0.5))
一般	((3,5,7;1)(4,5,6;0.5))
稍高	((5,7,9;1),(6,7,8;0.5))
高	((7,9,10;1),(8,9,9.5;0.5))
很高	((9,10,10;1),(9.5,10,10;0.5))

属性	属性描述
设施建筑结构坚固C₁	应急物流设施的建筑结构应该坚固可靠,能够承受灾害带来的冲击和压力
交通便利程度C₂	应急物流设施应该位于交通便利的地方,以保证物资的快速运输
基础设施C₃	应急物流设施应该有稳定的供水、供电等基础设施,以保证设施运行的连续性
面积充足C₄	应急物流设施需要充足的面积,以储存大量的物资和设备
距离灾害区域较远C₅	应急物流设施应该远离可能受到影响的灾害区域,以免设施也受到影响
周边环境安全C₆	应急物流设施周边环境应该安全稳定,以保证设施运行的安全性

C_i	最优属性C₂	最劣属性C₆
C₁	((0,1,3;1), (0.5,1,2;0.5))	((7,9,10;1), (8,9,9.5;0.5))
C₂	((3,5,7;1) (4,5,6;0.5))	((9,10,10;1), (9.5,10,10;0.5))
C₃	((1,3,5;1), (2,3,4;0.5))	((5,7,9;1), (6,7,8;0.5))
C₄	((5,7,9;1), (6,7,8;0.5))	((1,3,5;1), (2,3,4;0.5))
C₅	((7,9,10;1), (8,9,9.5;0.5))	((0,1,3;1), (0.5,1,2;0.5))
C₆	((9,10,10;1), (9.5,10,10;0.5))	((3,5,7;1) (4,5,6;0.5))

C_i	C₁	C₂	C₃	C₄	C₅	C₆
最优属性C₂	1.083	4.750	2.750	6.750	8.540	9.667
最劣属性C₆	8.540	9.667	6.750	2.750	1.083	4.750