• Oleg I. Larichev
  • David L. Olson


The location problem has been with humans for all of their history. In the past, many rulers had the decision of locating their capital. Reasons for selecting various locations included central location, transportation benefits to foster trade, and defensibility. The development of industry involved location problems for production facilities and trade outlets. Obvious criteria for location of business facilities included profit impact. In the 19th century, there seemed to be a focus on the cost of transporting raw materials versus the cost of transporting goods to consumers. Location decisions were made considering all potential gains and expenses. Some judgment was required, because while most benefits and costs could be measured accurately, not all could be. Successful business practice depended on the sound judgment of the decision-maker in solving location problems.


Analytic Hierarchy Process Location Problem Facility Location Location Decision Facility Location Problem 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abu-Taleb, M.H. & Mareschal, B. Water resources planning in the Middle East: Application of the PROMETHEE V multicriteria method. European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 81, no. 3 1995, 500–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-Kloub, B., Al-Shemmeri, T. & Pearman, A. The Role of Weights in Multi-Criteria Decision Aid, and the Ranking of Water Projects in Jordan. European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 99 1997, 278–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Al-Shemmeri, T., Al-Kloub, B. & Pearman, A. Computer Aided Decision Support System for Water Strategic Planning in Jordan. European Journal of Operational Research, vol 102, 1997, 455–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anandalingam, G. A Multiple Criteria Decision Analytic Approach for Evaluating Acid Rain Policy Choices. European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 29, 1987, 336–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Azis, I.J. Analytic hierarchy process in the benefit-cost framework: a post-evaluation of the trans-sumatra highway project. European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 48, no. 1, 1990, 38–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barbarosoglu, G. and Pinhas, D. Capital rationing in the public sector using the analytic hierarchy process. Engineering Economist, vol. 40, no. 4, 1995,315–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barda, O.H., Dupuis, J. & Lencioni, P. Multicriteria Location of Thermal Power Plant. European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 45, 1990, 332–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Briggs, T., Kunsch, P.L. & Mareschal, B. Nuclear Waste Management: An Application of the Multicriteria PROMETHEE Methods. European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 44, no. 1, 1990, 1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown, C.A. The central Arizona water control study: A case for multiobjective planning and public involvement. Water Resources Bulletin, vol. 20, no. 3, 1984, 331–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohon, J. Multiobjective Programming and Planning, Academic Press, New York, 1978.Google Scholar
  11. Cohon, J., Revelle, C, Current, J., Eagles, T., Eberhart, R. & Church, R. Application of a multiobjective facility location model to power plant siting in a six-state region of the U.S. Computers & Operations Research, vol. 7, 1980, 107–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Current, J., Minh, H. & Schilling, D. Multiobjective analysis of facility location decisions. European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 49, 1990, 295–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Delhaye, C, Teghem, J., and Kunsch, P. Application of the ORESTE method to a nuclear waste management problem. International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 24, nos. 1,2, 1991, 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. De Montgolfier J., Bertier P. Approach multicritere des problemes de decision, Editions Hommes et Techniques, Paris (in French), 1978.Google Scholar
  15. Dey, P., Tabucanon, M.T., and Ogunlana, S.O. Planning for project control through risk analysis: A Petroleum pipeline-laying project. Internationaljournal of Project Management, vol. 12, no. 1, 1994, 23–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dey, P.K., Tabucanon, M.T., and Ogunlana, S.O. Petroleum pipeline construction planning: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Project Management, vol. 14, no. 4, 1996 , 231–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dey, P.K., Ogunlana, S.O., Gupta, S.S., and Tabucanon, M.T. A risk-based maintenance model for cross-country pipelines. Cost Engineering, vol. 40, no. 4, 1998, 24–31.Google Scholar
  18. Dyer, J.S., Edmunds, T., Butler, J.C., and Jia, J. A multiattribute utility analysis of alternatives for the disposition of surplus weapons-grade plutonium. Operations Research, vol. 46, no. 6, 1998, 749–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Easterling, D. and Kunreuther, H. The Dilemma of Siting a High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Flanders, N.E., Brown, R.V., Andreeva, Y. and Larichev, O. Justifying public decisions in Arctic oil and gas development: American and Russian approaclies. Arctic, vol. 51, no. 3, 1998, 262–279.Google Scholar
  21. Georgopoulou, E., Sarafidis, Y., and Diakoulaki, D. Design and implementation of a group DSS for sustaining renewable energies exploitation. European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 109. 1998,483–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ginsburg, S. Nuclear Waste Disposal: Gambling on Yucca Mountain, Aegean Park Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  23. Grassin, N. Constructing ‘population’ criteria for the comparison of different options for a high voltage line route. European Journal of Operational Research 26, 1986, 42–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Haastrup, P., Maniezzo, V., Mattarelli, M., Mazzeo Rinaldi, F., Mendes, I., and Paruccini, M. A decision support system for urban waste management. European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 109, 1998, 330–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hämäläinen, R.P. Computer assisted energy policy analysis in the Parliament of Finland, Interfaces 18:4, 1988, 12–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hämäläinen, R.P. A decision aid in the public debate on nuclear power, European Journal of Operational Research 48: 1, 1990, 66–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hämäläinen, R.P. Facts or values — how do parliamentarians and experts see nuclear power? Energy Policy 19:5, 1991, 464–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Inhaber, H. “How much for this dump?” Across the Board, December 1992, 33–38.Google Scholar
  29. Jones, M., Hope, C, and Hughes, R. A multi-attribute value model for the study of UK energy policy. Journal of the Operational Research Society, vol. 41, no. 10, 1990, 919–929.Google Scholar
  30. Karagiannidis, A. & Moussiopoulos, N. Application of ELECTRE HI for the Integrated Management of Municipal Solid Wastes in the Greater Athens Area. European Journal of Operational Research 97 1997, 439–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Keeney, R.L., McDaniels, T.L. and Swoveland, C. Evaluating Improvements in Electric Utility Reliability at British Columbia Hydro. Operations Research 43(6) 1995, 933–947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Keeney, R.L., von Winterfeldt, D. and Eppel, T. Eliciting public values for complex policy decisions. Management Science, vol. 36, no. 9, 1990, 1011–1030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kim, T.-Y., Kwak, S.-J., and Yoo, S.-H. Applying multi-attribute utility theory to decision making in environmental planning: A case study of the electric utility in Korea. Journal of Environmental Planning & Management, vol. 41, no. 5, 1998, 597–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kleindorfer, P.R. and Kunreuther, H.C. Insuring and Managing Hazardous Risks: From Seveso to Bhopal and Beyond, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kunreuther, H. and Easterling, D. Are risk-benefit tradeoffs possible in siting hazardous facilities? The American Economic Review, vol. 80, no. 2, Papers and Proceedings of the Hundred and Second Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association (May, 1990), 1990, 252–256.Google Scholar
  36. Kunreuther, H.C, Linnerooth, J., Lathrop, J., Atz, H., Macgill, S., Mandl, C, Schwarz, M. and Thompson, M. Risk Analysis and Decision Processes: The Siting of Liquefied Energy Gas Facilities in Four Countries, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Larichev, O. Objective Models and Subjective Decisions, Nauka Publishing House, Moscow, 1987 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  38. Larichev, O. and Moshkovich, H. Verbal Decision Analysis for Unstructured Problems, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Medvedev, Z. The Legacy of Chernobyl, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 1990.Google Scholar
  40. Mladineo, N., Margeta, J., Brans, J.P. & Mareschal, B. Multicriteria Ranking of Alternative Locations for Small Scale Hydro Plants. European Journal of Operational Research 31 1987, 215–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mladineo, N., Lozic, I., Stosic, S., Mlinaric, D., and Radica, T. An Evaluation of Multicriteria Analysis for DSS in Public Policy Decision. European Journal of Operational Research 61 (1,2) 1992, 219–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pavlov, Y., Grancharov, D. Momchev, V. Economic and ecological utility oriented analysis of the process of anaerobic digestion of waste waters. European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 88, no. 2, 1996, 251–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Powell, J.C. The evaluation of waste management options. Waste Management & Research, vol. 14, 1996, 515–526.Google Scholar
  44. Renn, O., Stegelmann, H.U., Albrecht, G., Kotte, U. and Peters, H.P. An empirical investigation of citizens’ preferences among four energy scenarios. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 26, 1984, 11–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Roy, B. and Bouyssou, D. Comparison of two decision-aid models applied to a nuclear power plant siting example. European Journal of Operational Research 25, 1986, 200–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Salminen, P., Hokkanen, J. and Lahdelma, R. Comparing multicriteria methods in the context of environmental problems. European Journal of Operational Research vol. 104, no. 3, 1998, 485–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Smith, V.K. and Desvousges, W.H. The value of avoiding a LULU: Hazardous waste disposal sites. The Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 68 no. 2, 1986, 293–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Solomon, B. & Haynes, K. A survey and critique of multiobjective power plant siting decision rules. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, vol. 18, no. 2, 1984, 71–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Srinivasa Raju, K.S., and Pillai, C.R.S. Multicriterion decision making in river basin planning and development. European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 112, no. 2, 1999a, 249–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Srinivasa Raju, K.S., and Pillai, C.R.S. Multicriterion decision making of an irrigation system. European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 112, no. 2, 1999b, 479–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Toland, R.J., Kloeber, J.M., Jr., and Jackson, J.A. A comparative analysis of hazardous waste remediation alternatives. Interfaces, vol. 28, no. 5, 1998, 70–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vuk, D., Kozelj, B. & Mladineo, N. Application of multicriterional analysis on the selection of the location for disposal of communal waste, European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 55, 1991, 211–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Walker, W.E., Abrahamse, A., Bolten, J., Kahan, J.P., van de Riet, O, Kok, M., and den Braber, M. A policy analysis of Dutch river dike improvements: Trading off safety, cost, and environmental impacts. Operations Research, vol. 42, no. 5, 1994, 823–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oleg I. Larichev
    • 1
  • David L. Olson
    • 2
  1. 1.Russian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia
  2. 2.Texas A&M UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations