New multi-criteria LNN WASPAS model for evaluating the work of advisors in the transport of hazardous goods


Successfully organizing the transport of hazardous materials and handling them correctly is a very important logistical task that affects both the overall flow of transport and the environment. Safety advisors for the transport of hazardous materials have a very important role to play in the proper and safe development of the transport flow for these materials; their task is primarily to use their knowledge and effort to prevent potential accidents from happening. In this research, a total of 21 safety advisors for the transport of hazardous materials in Serbia are assessed using a new model that integrates Linguistic Neutrosophic Numbers (LNN) and the WASPAS (Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment) method. In this way, two important contributions are made, namely a completely new methodology for assessing the work of advisors and the new LNN WASPAS model, which enriches the field of multi-criteria decision making. The advisors are assessed by seven experts on the basis of nine criteria. After performing a sensitivity analysis on the results, validation of the model is carried out. The results obtained by the LNN WASPAS model are validated by comparing them with the results obtained by LNN extensions of the TOPSIS (Technique for Order Performance by Similarity to Ideal Solution), LNN CODAS (COmbinative Distance-based ASsessment), LNN VIKOR (Multi-criteria Optimization and Compromise Solution) and LNN MABAC (Multi-Attributive Border Approximation area Comparison) models. The LNN CODAS, LNN VIKOR and LNN MABAC are also further developed in this study, which is an additional contribution made by the paper. After the sensitivity analysis, the SCC (Spearman Correlation Coefficient) is calculated which confirms the stability of the previously obtained results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6


  1. 1.

    Abdel-Basset M, Manogaran G, Gamal A, Smarandache F (2018) A hybrid approach of neutrosophic sets and DEMATEL method for developing supplier selection criteria. Des Autom Embed Syst 22:1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Ali M, Dat LQ, Smarandache F (2018) Interval complex neutrosophic set: formulation and applications in decision-making. Int J Fuzzy Syst 20(3):986–999

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Atanassov KT (1986) Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 20:87–96

    MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Baušys R, Juodagalvienė B (2017) Garage location selection for residential house by WASPAS-SVNS method. J Civ Eng Manag 23(3):421–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Bausys R, Zavadskas EK (2015) Multicriteria decision making approach by vikor under interval neutrosophic set environment. Econ Comput Econ Cybern Stud Res 49(4):33–48

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Bausys R, Zavadskas EK, Kaklauskas A (2015) Application of neutrosophic set to multicriteria decision making by COPRAS. Econ Comput Econ Cybern Stud Res 49(2):91–106

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Biswas P, Pramanik S, Giri CB (2016) TOPSIS method for multi-attribute group decision-making under single-valued neutrosophic environment. Neural Comput Appl 27:727–737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Bolturk E, Kahraman C (2018) A novel interval-valued neutrosophic AHP with cosine similarity measure. Soft Comput 22:1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Chen ZC, Liu PH, Pei Z (2015) An approach to multiple attribute group decision making based on linguistic intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. Int J Comput Intell Syst 8:747–760

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Directive 2008/68/EC Of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 On the inland transport of dangerous goods, 2008

  11. 11.

    Ebrahimi H, Tadic M (2018) Optimization of dangerous goods transport in urban zone. Decis Mak Appl Manag Eng 1(2):131–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    European agreement concerning the international carriage of dangerous goods by inland waterways (ADN) 2017, including the annexed regulations, Applicable as from 1 January 2017, Inland Transport Committee of the Economic Commission for Europe, 2017

  13. 13.

    Fan C, Ye J, Hu K, Fan E (2017) Bonferroni mean operators of linguistic neutrosophic numbers and their multiple attribute group decision-making methods. Information 8:107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Fang Z, Ye J (2017) Multiple attribute group decision-making method based on linguistic neutrosophic numbers. Symmetry 9:111

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Ghaderi SF, Azadeh A, Nokhandan BP, Fathi E (2012) Behavioral simulation and optimization of generation companies in electrical markets by fuzzy cognitive map. Expert Syst Appl 39:4635–4646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Graham M, Walter TS, Yawson A, Zhang H (2017) The value-added role of industry specialist advisors in M&As. J Bank Finance 81:81–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Hashemkhani Zolfani S, Aghdaie MH, Derakhti A, Zavadskas EK, Varzandeh MHM (2013) Decision making on business issues with foresight perspective; an application of new hybrid MCDM model in shopping mall locating. Expert Syst Appl 40:7111–7121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E, Verdegay L (1996) A model of consensus in group decision making under linguistic assessments. Fuzzy Sets Syst 79(1):73–87

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E (2000) Linguistic decision analysis: steps for solving decision problems under linguistic information. Fuzzy Sets Syst 115:67–82

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Huang YH, Wei GW, Wei C (2017) VIKOR method for interval neutrosophic multiple attribute group decision-making. Information 8(4):144

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Hwang CL, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Ji P, Zhang HY, Wang JQ (2018) A projection-based TODIM method under multi-valued neutrosophic environments and its application in personnel selection. Neural Comput Appl 29(1):221–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Karaşan A, Kahraman C (2017) Interval-valued neutrosophic extension of EDAS method. In: Kacprzyk J, Szmidt E, Zadrożny S, Atanassov KT, Krawczak M (eds) Advances in fuzzy logic and technology 2017, Warsaw, Poland, 13–15 September 2017. Springer, Cham, pp 343–357

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Karnik NN, Mendel JM (2001) Operations on type-2 fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 122(2):327–348

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Keshavarz Ghorabaee M, Zavadskas EK, Olfat L, Turskis Z (2015) Multi-criteria inventory classification using a new method of evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS). Informatica 26(3):435–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Kour D, Basu K (2017) Selection of transportation companies and their mode of transportation for interval valued data. Neutrosophic Sets Syst 18:67–79

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Lahtinen KD, Shipe S (2017) Readability of financial advisor disclosures. J Empir Finance 44(C):36–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Liang R, Wang J, Zhang H (2017) Evaluation of e-commerce websites: an integrated approach under a single-valued trapezoidal neutrosophic environment. Knowl Based Syst 135:44–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Liang W, Zhao G, Hong C (2018) Selecting the optimal mining method with extended multi-objective optimization by ratio analysis plus the full multiplicative form (MULTIMOORA) approach. Neural Comput Appl 3405-5:1–16

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Liang W, Zhao G, Wu H (2017) Evaluating investing risks of metallic mines using an extended TOPSIS method with linguistic neutrosophic numbers. Symmetry 9:149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Nettle R, Crawford A, Brightling P (2018) How private-sector farm advisors change their practices: an Australian case study. J Rural Stud 58:20–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Nie RX, Wang JQ, Zhang HY (2017) Solving solar-wind power station location problem using an extended weighted aggregated sum product assessment (WASPAS) technique with interval neutrosophic sets. Symmetry 9(7):106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Nunić Z (2018) Evaluation and selection of the PVC carpentry Manufacturer using the FUCOM-MABAC model. Oper Res Eng Sci Theory Appl 1(1):13–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Opricović S, Tzeng GH (2004) Compromise solution by MCDM methods: a comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur J Oper Res 156(2):445–455

    MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Otay I, Kahraman C (2017) Six sigma project selection using interval neutrosophic TOPSIS. In: Kacprzyk J, Szmidt E, Zadrożny S, Atanassov KT, Krawczak M (eds) Advances in fuzzy logic and technology 2017, Warsaw, Poland, 13–15 September 2017. Springer, Cham, pp 83–93

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Pamucar D, Bozanic D, Lukovac V, Komazec N (2018) Normalized weighted geometric bonferroni mean operator of interval rough numbers: application in interval rough DEMATEL-COPRAS. Mech Eng 16(2):171–191

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Pamučar D, Ćirović G (2015) The selection of transport and handling resources in logistics centres using multi-attributive border approximation area comparison (MABAC). Expert Syst Appl 42:3016–3028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Pamucar D, Mihajlovic M, Obradovic R, Atanaskovic P (2017) Novel approach to group multi-criteria decision making based on interval rough numbers: hybrid DEMATEL-ANP-MAIRCA model. Expert Syst Appl 88:58–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Pan K, Blankley AI, Mazzei JM, Frownfelter Lohrke C, Marshall JB, Carson CM (2018) Surveying industry advisors to select data analytics topics for all business majors. Int J Manag Educ 16(3):483–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Peng JJ, Wang JQ, Yang LJ, Qian J (2017) A novel multi-criteria group decision-making approach using simplified neutrosophic information. Int J Uncertain Quantif 7(4):355–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Peng X, Dai J (2018) Approaches to single-valued neutrosophic MADM based on MABAC, TOPSIS and new similarity measure with score function. Neural Comput Appl 29(10):939–954

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Popovic M, Kuzmanovic M, Savic G (2018) A comparative empirical study of analytic hierarchy process and conjoint analysis: literature review. Decis Mak Appl Manag Eng 1(2):153–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Radwan NM, Senousy MB, Alaa El Din MR (2016) Neutrosophic AHP multi criteria decision making method applied on the selection of learning management system. Int J Adv Comput Technol 8(5):95–105

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Regulations concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Rail (RID), Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail (COTIF) Appendix C, Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail (OTIF), 2017

  45. 45.

    Rizk-Allah RM, Hassanien AE, Elhoseny M (2018) A multi-objective transportation model under neutrosophic environment. Comput Electr Eng 69:705–719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Şahin R, Yiğider M (2014) A multi-criteria neutrosophic group decision making metod based TOPSIS for supplier selection. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.5077

  47. 47.

    Singh A, Kumar A, Appadoo SS (2017) Modified approach for optimization of real life transportation problem in neutrosophic environment. Math Probl Eng 2017:1–9

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Smarandache F (1999) A unifying field in logics. Neutrosophy: neutrosophic probability, set and logic. American Research Press, Rehoboth

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Smarandache F (2005) A generalization of the intuitionistic fuzzy set. Int J Pure Appl Math 24:287–297

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Stanujkić D, Karabašević D (2018) An extension of the WASPAS method for decision-making problems with intuitionistic fuzzy numbers: a case of website evaluation. Oper Res Eng Sci Theory Appl 1(1):29–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Stanujkic D, Zavadskas EK, Karabasevic D, Smarandache F (2016) Multiple criteria evaluation model based on the single valued neutrosophic set. Neutrosophic Sets Syst 14:3–6

    Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Stević Ž, Pamučar D, Vasiljević M, Stojić G, Korica S (2017) Novel integrated multi-criteria model for supplier selection: case study construction company. Symmetry 9(11):279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Stević Ž, Pamučar D, Kazimieras Zavadskas E, Ćirović G, Prentkovskis O (2017) The selection of wagons for the internal transport of a logistics company: a novel approach based on rough BWM and rough SAW methods. Symmetry 9(11):264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Thamaraiselvi A, Santhi R (2016) A new approach for optimization of real life transportation problem in neutrosophic environment. Math Probl Eng 2016:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    European Agreement Concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Inland Waterways (ADN) 2017, Including the Annexed Regulations, Applicable as from 1 January 2017, Inland Transport Committee of the Economic Commission for Europe, 2017

  56. 56.

    Tian ZP, Wang JQ, Zhang HY (2018) Hybrid single-valued neutrosophic MCGDM with QFD for market segment evaluation and selection. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 34(1):177–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Tian ZP, Wang J, Wang JQ, Zhang HY (2017) An improved MULTIMOORA approach for multi-criteria decision-making based on interdependent inputs of simplified neutrosophic linguistic information. Neural Comput Appl 28(1):585–597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Tian ZP, Wang J, Zhang HY, Wang JQ (2018) Multi-criteria decision-making based on generalized prioritized aggregation operators under simplified neutrosophic uncertain linguistic environment. Int J Mach Learn Cybern 9(3):523–539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Xu ZS (2006) A note on linguistic hybrid arithmetic averaging operator in multiple attribute group decision making with linguistic information. Group Decis Negot 15(6):593–604

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Xu ZS (2006) Goal programming models for multiple attribute decision making under linguistic setting. Chin J Manag Sci 9(2):9–17

    Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Ye J (2015) An extended TOPSIS method for multiple attribute group decision making based on single valued neutrosophic linguistic numbers. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 28:247–255

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8(3):338–353

    MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Zavadskas EK, Baušys R, Stanujkic D (2016) Selection of lead-zinc flotation circuit design by applying WASPAS method with single-valued neutrosophic set. Acta Montan Slovaca 21(2):85–92

    Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Zavadskas EK, Bausys R, Juodagalviene B, Garnyte-Sapranaviciene I (2017) Model for residential house element and material selection by neutrosophic MULTIMOORA method. Eng Appl Artif Intell 64:315–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Zavadskas EK, Bausys R, Lazauskas M (2015) Sustainable assessment of alternative sites for the construction of a waste incineration plant by applying WASPAS method with single valued neutrosophic set. Sustainability 7:15923–15936

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Zimmermann HJ (1996) Fuzzy set theory and its applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston

    Google Scholar 

Download references


The work reported in this paper is a part of the investigation within the research projects TR 36017 and VA-TT/4/17-19 supported by the Ministry for Science and Technology (Republic of Serbia), Ministry of Defence (Republic of Serbia) and the University of defence in Belgrade. This support is gratefully acknowledged.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dragan Pamučar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pamučar, D., Sremac, S., Stević, Ž. et al. New multi-criteria LNN WASPAS model for evaluating the work of advisors in the transport of hazardous goods. Neural Comput & Applic 31, 5045–5068 (2019).

Download citation


  • Linguistic neutrosophic numbers
  • Multi-criteria decision making
  • Hazardous goods