sustainability

Article
Multi-Criteria Location Model of Emergency Shelters
in Humanitarian Logistics
Shaoqing Geng 1, * , Hanping Hou 1 and Shaoguang Zhang 2
1 School of Economics and Management, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing 100044, China;
hphou@bjtu.edu.cn
2 School of Artificial Intelligence, Hebei University of Technology, Tianjin 300401, China;
zhangshaoguang521@gmail.com
* Correspondence: 18113040@bjtu.edu.cn




Received: 12 January 2020; Accepted: 25 February 2020; Published: 27 February 2020


Abstract: Natural disasters can cause serious casualties and economic losses, and emergency shelters
are effective measures to reduce disaster risks and protect lives. At present, the location models of
refuge facilities often ignore the diversion of shelter from the perspective of humanitarian logistics
and the needs of victims. Such models also seldom consider the impact of the pre-storage of relief
materials on the location of shelters. In this study, on the basis of the different needs of disaster
victims, shelters are divided into two types—basic life and psychological medical service guarantees.
While considering the full coverage of shelter needs, capacities, and budget constraints, the shelter
distance, the optimized distribution of refugees, and the pre-stock quantity of goods are optimized.
The facility service quality is optimized on the basis of qualitative factors. This study proposes a
multi-standard constrained site selection model to optimize the pre-disaster shelter site-allocation
problem. The model is helpful for decision makers to influence shelter siting and victims’ allocating
process through their expertise and to obtain a solution that compromises multiple objectives. In this
study, several basic cases are generated from the actual data of certain areas in Sichuan Province,
a disaster-prone region in China, to verify the effectiveness of the model.

Keywords: fuzzy numbers; multi-standard decision optimization; shelter location; material storage;
humanitarian logistics

1. Introduction
The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies defines a disaster as a sudden,
catastrophic event that severely undermines the function of a community or society and causes human,
material, economic, or environmental damage beyond the capacity of the community or society to use
its own resources [1]. Every year, many people are made homeless by natural disasters. The mitigation
of the damage caused by these disasters requires planning and measures [2]. Humanitarian logistics
focuses on the problem of supply and demand matching following disasters [3]. The degree of supply
and demand matching affects the whole relief operation up to 80% [4]. Optimizing the location
and quantity of relief materials to meet the urgent needs of victims with the shortest time and the
least resources to reduce the vulnerability of groups is imperative. Emergency shelters, as “life
shelters,” are important infrastructures to ensure public safety. They can provide food, accommodation,
or medical care for the affected people, reduce the harm of secondary disasters, and improve the ability
to resist diseases to save lives. However, in the planned emergency measures, most cities or regions
separately consider the storage of emergency supplies and the location of shelters and only use the
existing relatively spacious and empty places as emergency shelters. Seeking shelters by diversion
according to victims’ needs is difficult. Ignoring the impact of the pre-storage of materials in certain

Sustainability 2020, 12, 1759; doi:10.3390/su12051759 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 1759 2 of 21

shelters and the distribution of surrounding facilities to meet material reserve requirements on site
selections can result in the deprivation of immediate relief following disasters.
To address the needs of affected people for different types of relief resources after disasters,
scholars have considered the impact of material supply on the location of emergency shelters [5,6].
In emergency events, relevant policy makers must be in an uncertain and dynamic environment and
develop a plan to meet multiple conflicting needs and requirements. However, many studies and
applications to solve the problem are focused on quantitative factors to achieve optimal evacuation
distance and minimize the number of emergency facilities or maximize the range of facilities [7].
Quantitative and qualitative factors in emergency facility location are seldom considered together.
Shelter location is a multi-standard site selection optimization problem, which should be classified
and optimized according to the basic living and psychological medical service guarantees provided
by the facilities. It combines with the material storage and shelter condition. This study considers
shelter location, relief supplies storage, and the distribution of disaster victims. The research method
comprehensively uses fuzzy hierarchical analysis, fuzzy TOPSIS, and multi-objective optimization.
Optimized schemes are helpful toward the pre-disaster shelter planning and can cover the refuge
necessities of all victims to realize the rapid response after disasters and improve rescue efficiency.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 briefly summarizes and reviews
relevant literature. Section 3 defines the research problem and builds a mathematical model to solve it.
Section 4 introduces the overall situation and characteristics of the case studied. Section 5 analyzes the
results of the application of the model in the case study, emphasizes the applicability of the model,
and points out the impact on the practical application. Section 6 summarizes the research conclusions
and points out possible future research areas.

2. Literature Review
Humanitarian action aims to alleviate the suffering and save the lives of those affected by disasters,
that is, to provide services by meeting the needs of victims [8]. Humanitarian logistics focuses on the
personal welfare of affected people following disasters to alleviate the suffering caused by the lack of
relief materials or services [9]. The impact of humanitarian logistics on emergency facility location is an
important part of the current research. By defining the time satisfaction function of emergency supplies,
Yu constructed the transit transportation model of emergency supplies on the basis of time satisfaction
to maximize victims’ satisfaction with the timeliness of emergency relief [10]. Zheng et al. added the
index of fairness of material distribution to optimize the site selection of emergency facilities and the
distribution of materials following earthquakes. Such an addition was based on the characteristics
of the different degrees of urgency of post-disaster victims for materials [11]. Other scholars have
obtained site selection schemes that are close to the personal welfare of victims from the perspective of
their needs and the service quality of emergency facilities [12,13].
However, most literature on the optimization of emergency facility location merely considers
certain characteristics of humanitarian logistics minimizing transportation distances or time [14,15].
Perez [16] and Jaller [17] pointed out that non-monetary costs and the sufferings of affected populations
should be considered in humanitarian assistance. Therefore, the objective functions and constraints in
the optimization model are combined with the characteristics of humanitarian logistics. The model
also covers all the needs of the victims and optimizes the quality of shelter services to ensure the
equitable distribution of the victims among different shelter facilities.
In the post-disaster response stage, two kinds of victims with different needs exist—one needs
only basic supplies, and the other needs medical or psychological help. Therefore, this study divides
shelters into two types. One type of shelter only gives basic living supplies to provide shelter function
for the affected victims; the other type not only provides basic living services but also medical or
psychological assistance. Shelters should be able to provide affected people with food, accommodation,
or medical care; reduce the risk of secondary disasters; and resist diseases in situations where the
population can have multiple needs and require different services. Emergency shelters should reserve
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1759 3 of 21

part of emergency supplies on site or store relief supplies in stores, supermarkets, and health and
medical units around the shelter facilities. This practice can guarantee the supply of emergency
supplies in the short term and ensure the supply of various materials to meet the minimum survival
needs of affected people [18,19].
Certain studies have built multi-level optimization models to support shelter location selection and
post-disaster evacuation decision making. Most of them jointly optimize the objective functions [20–22]
or rank the objectives [23]. A few scholars have focused on facility optimization at different levels. Yuan
et al. realized that the single-level emergency center has an insufficient rescue capacity. Considering
the construction of a two-level emergency center to allocate emergency service facilities for nearby
victims is necessary [24]. Ozkapici et al. conducted a joint site optimization for emergency facilities
with different functions; doing so is conducive to the rapid distribution of materials from different
countries or international relief agencies following disasters [25]. Other studies have considered coping
with the risk of disruption in distribution centers after disasters while optimizing the location of two
facilities with different reliability. These facilities include secure infrastructures and facilities that may
be disrupted to ensure the smooth distribution of post-disaster relief supplies [26]. However, the issue
of considering shelters that can provide different types of services to meet the needs of different asylum
seekers has been largely ignored [27].
Certain scholars have explored and studied the problem of shelter location according to various
types of needs. In the post-disaster response phase, the most important thing is to meet multiple
needs and ensure the transfer of victims to the shelters that provide the corresponding assistance [7].
Emphasis is placed on the rapid delivery of different items stored in warehouses to the victims for
ensuring the availability of food, water, and medical supplies in shelters [28,29]. Kılcı et al. also
considered the need to purchase materials from markets and supermarkets. Thus, in the optimization
scheme of shelter location, alternative points close to the supermarket warehouses and hospitals or
clinics are often chosen [30]. However, no study has been conducted to consider the storage and
location of shelter materials together. Hence, this aspect is discussed in the current research.
Most studies have translated influencing factors into constraints in mathematical models and
realized them, whereas a few scholars have combined them for qualitative analysis. For example,
Li constructed an evaluation index system for the adaptability of emergency shelters. The author
pointed out that, in addition to ensuring the safety of victims in shelters, the accessibility of shelters,
medical care, supplies, and other facilities should also be considered to fully improve the relief
efficiency of post-disaster shelters [31]. In view of the above analysis, in shelter location, the present
study not only combines with victims’ demand distribution but also resource allocation. Qualitative
and quantitative analyses are also conducted. Therefore, the current research optimizes the needs
distribution of disaster victims, the storage of materials, and the allocation of disaster victims. Doing
these facilitates the rapid delivery of multiple services and meets the needs of different disaster victims.

3. Problem Formulation
To fully consider the various aspects related to humanitarian logistics, two different types of needs
exist, that is, basic necessities and medical or psychological needs. Both can emerge from affected
people. On the basis of whether medical or psychological relief services are provided in addition
to basic living services, the constructed model divides shelter functions into two types. Moreover,
it simultaneously optimizes the storage of materials and the distribution of victims. This study mainly
considers tents, quilts, medical equipment, and other non-perishable relief materials. To realize
immediate post-disaster relief, this study also guarantees medical facilities and large commercial and
supermarket warehouses within the limited scope for the candidate shelters that cannot store relief
materials in advance. The methods of fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP), fuzzy technique for
order performance by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS), and multi-objective weighted optimization
are used to solve the problem of shelter location and optimize the shelter location–allocation scheme.
The proposed multi-standard location method for emergency shelters is shown in Figure 1.
Sustainability 2020,
Sustainability 2020,
Sustainability 12,
2020, 12, xx FOR
FOR PEER
12, 1759 PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 444 of
of 22
22
21

Data Model
Model Construction
Data
Data Collection
Collection Data Analysis
Analysis Construction Model
Model Application
Application

Rescue
Rescue Report Case
Report Victims’
Victims’ Fuzzy Case Evaluation
Evaluation
Demand Fuzzy AHP
AHP
Demand

Literature Performance
Performance
Literature
Research Evaluation
Evaluation of
of
Research
Candidate
Candidate Points
Points
Surrounding
Surrounding Fuzzy
Fuzzy TOPSIS
TOPSIS
Environment
Environment
Field Qualitative Sensitivity
Field Survey
Survey Qualitative Sensitivity
Analysis
Evaluation
Evaluation Analysis
Criteria
Criteria
Multi-objective
Multi-objective
Optimization Location-
Location-
Shelter
Shelter Features
Features Optimization
Shelter
Shelter Guidance
Guidance Model Allocation
Allocation
Model
Scheme
Scheme

Figure
Figure 1.
Figure 1. Multi-standard location
1. Multi-standard
Multi-standard location method
location method for
method for emergency
for emergency shelter.
emergency shelter.
shelter.

There
There are two different kinds of needs that will emerge for the victims after the disaster, namely basic
There are
are two
two different
different kinds
kinds of
of needs
needs that
that will
will emerge
emerge forfor the
the victims
victims after
after the
the disaster,
disaster, namely
namely
needs
basic for living materials and medical medical
or psychological assistance. Under theUnder limited budget, shelters are
basic needs
needs for
for living
living materials
materials andand medical or or psychological
psychological assistance.
assistance. Under the the limited
limited budget,
budget,
divided
shelters intodivided
various types depending on the different the
needs of victims: Typevictims:
I shelters provide only
shelters areare divided into
into various
various types
types depending
depending on on the different
different needs
needs ofof victims: TypeType II shelters
shelters
basic
provide living services, while Type II shelters provide life and medical assistance services. There is
provide onlyonly basic
basic living
living services,
services, while
while Type
Type IIII shelters
shelters provide
provide life
life and
and medical
medical assistance
assistance services.
services.
a continuously
There contained hierarchy in which Typewhich II shelters include two services.two Meanwhile,
There is is aa continuously
continuously contained
contained hierarchy
hierarchy in in which TypeType II II shelters
shelters include
include two services.
services.
the location
Meanwhile, of shelters and storage of materials are optimized to ensure the supply of relief materials
Meanwhile, the location of shelters and storage of materials are optimized to ensure the supply of
the location of shelters and storage of materials are optimized to ensure the supply of
immediately
relief after disasters andafterimprove the service quality of shelters. Figure 2 illustrates the portion2
relief materials
materials immediately
immediately after disasters
disasters and
and improve
improve the the service
service quality
quality of of shelters.
shelters. Figure
Figure 2
of the study question.
illustrates
illustrates the
the portion
portion ofof the
the study
study question.
question.
Relief
Relief Goods
Goods Type
Type ⅡShelter
ⅡShelter Victims
Victims Type
Type ⅠShelter
ⅠShelter Relief
Relief Goods
Goods

.
.
.
. .
. . .
.
. .
.
.
. . .
.
. .
. .
.
.
.
. .
. . .
.

Figure 2.
Figure Frame diagram
diagram of the
the research problem.
problem.
Figure 2.
2. Frame
Frame diagram of
of the research
research problem.
3.1. Criteria for Choosing Emergency Shelters
3.1.
3.1. Criteria
Criteria for
for Choosing
Choosing Emergency
Emergency Shelters
Shelters
Multiple qualitative factors must be considered when selecting emergency shelters, and candidate
sites Multiple
Multiple
should avoid qualitative
areas offactors
qualitative factors
potentialmust
must be considered
considered when
be Topography,
risks. when selecting
type,emergency
selecting
geological emergency
and slope are shelters,
shelters,
importantand
and
candidate
candidate
factors sites
sites
to be should avoid
should avoid
considered areas
when areas of potential
of potential
planning risks. Topography,
risks. Topography,
shelter location geological
geological
[7,30–33]. Shelters type, and
type,protected
are better slope
and slope are
are
from
important
secondary factors
important disasters, to
factors tosuchbe considered
be as
considered when
floods andwhen planning
planning
landslides shelter
on theshelter location
location
plain than [7,30–33].
on the[7,30–33]. Shelters
Shelterssites
hills. Candidate are better
areshould
better
protected
avoid faultfrom
protected lines,secondary
from and slopesdisasters,
secondary disasters,
should not such
such as
exceedas floods
floods and
and landslides
7%, preferably betweenon
landslides 2%the
on the
andplain
plain than on
on the the hills.
thanConcurrently,
4% [22]. hills.
Candidate
Candidate
in rainy areas,sites
sites should
theshould avoid
avoid
existence fault lines, and
fault lines,helps
of vegetation slopes
and slopes should
should
consolidate not
thenot exceed
soilexceed 7%, preferably
7%, preferably
and prevent debris flowbetween
between 2%
2%
[19,21,26].
and
and 4%
4% [22].
[22]. Concurrently,
Concurrently, in
in rainy
rainy areas,
areas, the
the existence
existence of
of vegetation
vegetation helps
helps
Electricity is an important guarantee for maintaining daily living. Many equipment and communication consolidate
consolidate the
the soil
soil and
and
prevent
cannot debris
preventoperate flow
flow [19,21,26].
debris without [19,21,26].
electricity.Electricity
Electricity
Therefore, is
is an
an important
important
shelters should guarantee
guarantee
have basic for
for maintaining
facilitiesdaily
maintaining
power daily living.
living.
[5,19,24,26].
Many
Shelters equipment
Many equipment and
must also provide communication
and communication
clean drinking cannot
cannot operate
wateroperate without
without
to maintain normalelectricity.
electricity. Therefore,
Therefore,
daily living, shelters
shelters
and sewage should
should
treatment
have
have basic
basic
facilities arepower
power
highly facilities
facilities
important[5,19,24,26].
[5,19,24,26]. Shelters
Shelters
for refugees must
must also
[19,21,22]. Onprovide
also provide
the basis clean
clean drinking water
water to
drinkingnational
of Chinese maintain
tostandards,
maintain
normal
Turkish daily
normal daily living, and
living, and
Red Crescent sewage
sewage and
standards, treatment
treatment facilities
relatedfacilities are
studies,are highly
thehighly important
important
six qualitative for refugees
for refugees
factors [19,21,22].
affecting[19,21,22].
the location On
On
the
of basis
theemergencyof Chinese
basis of Chinese
sheltersnational
national standards,
standards,
are identified, Turkish
Turkish
namely, Red Crescent
Red Crescent
topography, standards,
standards,
geological and
type,and related
related
slope, studies, the
the six
studies, power
vegetation, six
qualitative
qualitative factors
factors affecting
affecting the
the location
location of
of emergency
emergency shelters
shelters are
are identified,
identified, namely,
namely,
facilities, and sanitation system. Table 1 shows the literature sources of qualitative influencing factors. topography,
topography,
sources of qualitative influencing factors.

Table 1. Qualitative factors of shelter location.

Factor Reference
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1759 5 of 21
Topography Trivedi and Singh [7], Kılcı et al. [30], Li [31], Xu [32], Hosseini [33]
Geological type Trivedi and Singh [7], Xu et al. [32], Hosseini et al. [33]
Table 1. Qualitative factors of shelter location.
Slope Trivedi and Singh [7], GB/T 33744-2017 [19], Kılcı et al. [30]
Factor Reference
Vegetation GB/T 33744-2017 [19], Li et al. [21], Yahyaei and Bozorgi-Amiri [26]
Topography Trivedi and Singh [7], Kılcı et al. [30], Li [31], Xu [32], Hosseini [33]
Power facilitiestype
Geological Zhu et al. [5], GB/T 33744-2017
Trivedi [19],
and Singh [7],Yuan
Xu etetal.al.[24], Yahyaei and
[32], Hosseini et al.Bozorgi-Amiri
[33] [26]
Slope
Sanitation system Trivedi and Singh [7], GB/T 33744-2017 [19], Kılcı et
GB/T 33744-2017 [19], Li et al. [21], Kınay et al. [22] al. [30]
Vegetation GB/T 33744-2017 [19], Li et al. [21], Yahyaei and Bozorgi-Amiri [26]
Power facilities Zhu et al. [5], GB/T 33744-2017 [19], Yuan et al.[24], Yahyaei and Bozorgi-Amiri [26]
A committee composed of experts with experience in evaluating the selection criteria and
Sanitation system GB/T 33744-2017 [19], Li et al. [21], Kınay et al. [22]
recorded personal preferences through questionnaires is employed. Table 2 presents the
representation method of transforming language variables into numerical variables. Decision makers
who A committee
analyze composed
candidate sites of expertsexperts
include with experience in evaluating
in emergency the selection
management, criteria andplanners,
local government recorded
personal preferences
and surrounding through
residents. Inquestionnaires
this study, theisalternative
employed.sites
Table 2 presents
of shelters arethe representation
evaluated method
and ranked by
of transforming language variables into numerical variables. Decision makers who
fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS method to reduce investment and construction risks. The hierarchy ofanalyze candidate
sitesdecision-making
the include experts inprocess
emergency management,
is displayed local3.
in Figure government planners,factors
Other quantitative and surrounding
are analyzedresidents.
in the
In this study,
next stage. the alternative sites of shelters are evaluated and ranked by fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS
method to reduce investment and construction risks. The hierarchy of the decision-making process is
displayed in Figure 3. Other
Table 2.quantitative factors and
Language variables are analyzed in the
trigonometric next
fuzzy stage.
values.

Definition
Table 2. Language Fuzzy Value
variables and trigonometric fuzzy values.
Equally important
Definition (0, 1, 1)
Fuzzy Value
Quite
Equally important
important (1,(0,3,1,5)1)
Quite Very
important
important (3,(1,5,3,7)5)
Very important (3, 5, 7)
Extremely
Extremely important
important (5,(5,7,7,9)9)
Especially Important (7, 9, 9)
Especially Important (7, 9, 9)

Shelter Alternative Sites

Risk Assessment

Topography Geological Type Slope Vegetation Power Facilities Sanitation System

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6

Alternative Site#1 Alternative Site#2 Alternative Site#3 Alternative Site#n

S1 S2 S3
…… Sn

Figure 3.
Figure Hierarchy of
3. Hierarchy of shelter
shelter alternative
alternative site
site decisions.
decisions.

3.2. Fuzzy AHP for Determining Standard Weights

3.2. Fuzzy AHP for Determining Standard Weights
AHP is a decision-making method based on the combination of actual measurement and subjective
AHP is a decision-making method based on the combination of actual measurement and
preference proposed by Saaty [34]. Due to the ambiguities of qualitative criteria, fuzzy decision making
subjective preference proposed by Saaty [34]. Due to the ambiguities of qualitative criteria, fuzzy
has become a powerful tool in uncertain environments [35]. AHP’s fuzzy extension has been widely
decision making has become a powerful tool in uncertain environments [35]. AHP's fuzzy extension
used in multi-standard decision making, resource allocation and conflict resolution [36]. Fuzzy AHP
has been widely used in multi-standard decision making, resource allocation and conflict resolution
systematically combines fuzzy number theory and hierarchical structure analysis to solve the problem
[36]. Fuzzy AHP systematically combines fuzzy number theory and hierarchical structure analysis to
of hierarchical division in fuzzy multi-standard decision making [37]. In the judgment matrix, the fuzzy
numbers are compared to determine the reasonable weight of the qualitative criteria.
In this study, fuzzy triangle numbers were used for quality evaluation criteria, and used as
weights for qualitative assessment of fuzzy TOPSIS method. Therefore, let X = {x1 , x2 , . . . , xn } be a
decision set, according to the extension analysis method proposed by Veerabathiran and Srinath [38],
each standard in the set is taken, and the extension analysis was conducted for each evaluation
criterion. The m number of extended analysis value for each object can be expressed as Equation (1).
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1759 6 of 21

 
Mij ( j = 1, 2, . . . , m) in Equation (1) is triangular fuzzy number. We assume that Mijk = mLijk , mM
ijk
, m U
ijk
(i = 1, 2, . . . , m; j = 1, 2, . . . , m; k = 1, 2, . . . , h) represents the relative importance of the k-th decision
makerin judging the  i-th and j-th criteria. The triangular fuzzy number in group judgement matrix
Mij = mLij , mM
ij
, mU
ij
is from the following Equations (2)–(4).

Mi1 , Mi2 , . . . , Mim i = 1, 2, . . . , n. (1)

 
mLij = min mLijk . (2)
q
mM
ij =
k
Π k mM
ijk
. (3)
 
U U
mij = max mijk . (4)

The extension analysis steps proposed by Veerabathiran and Srinath are shown below [38].
Through Equations (5)–(8), the fuzzy number addition operation is performed on m × m analysis
values in the specific decision matrix. The inverse of the vector is solved to obtain standard initial
weight βci (i = 1, 2, . . . , m).

Pm P 
m L Pm M Pm U
j=1 Mij = j=1 mij , j=1 mij , j=1 mij , i = 1, 2, . . . , m. (5)

 
m X
X m Xm X
m X m
m X X m
m X 
Mij =  mLij , mM , m U . (6)

 ij ij 
i=1 j=1 i=1 j=1 i=1 j=1 i=1 j=1

−1
 
m X
m
X  1 1 1 
[ Mij ] =  Pm Pm , , . (7)
 
L Pm P m M Pm P m U
i=1 j=1

i=1 m
j=1 ij i=1 m
j=1 ij i=1 m
j=1 ij


m
X O Xm X
m −1
βci = Mij [ Mij ] (8)
j=1 i=1 j=1
   
Let M1 = mL1 , mM 1
, mU
1
and M2 = mL2 , mM
2
, mU
2
be two triangular fuzzy numbers, and the
membership degree of the possibility of M2 ≥ M1 can be expressed by Equation (9) where d is the
ordinate of the intersection point between the membership degrees µM1 and µM2 . βci is compared
pairwise according to Formula (9) to obtain µ(d).

mM ≥ mM



 1 2 1
mL1 ≥ mU

 0
V (M2 ≥ M1 ) = hgt(M1 ∩ M2 )= µM2 (d) = 

2 (9)
 mL −mU
 (mM −mU2)−(m
2


 M −mL other
2 2 1 1)

The possibility that a convex fuzzy number M is greater than k convex fuzzy numbers
M1 , M2 , . . . , Mk is expressed by Equation (10). Assume d(Ai ) = min V (Mi ≥ Mk ) for k = 1, 2, . . . , m;
k , i, and the overall weight is shown in Equation (11).

V (M ≥ M1 , M2 , . . . , Mk ) = V [(M ≥ M1 ) ...
S S
(M ≥ Mk )] = minV (M ≥ Mi ) i
(10)
= 1, 2, . . . , k

W 0 = (d0 (C1 ), d0 (C2 ), . . . , d0 (Cm ))T (11)

After normalizing W 0 , the standard weight vector is expressed as

W = (d(C1 ), d(C2 ), . . . , d(Cm ))T (12)

Sustainability 2020, 12, 1759 7 of 21

3.3. Analysis of Shelters by Fuzzy TOPSIS Method

The TOPSIS method was proposed by Hwang and Yoon, which is an effective method commonly
used in multi-standard decision analysis [39]. It selects the solution with the smallest distance from
the positive ideal solution and the largest distance from the negative ideal solution. This method can
be used to evaluate the impact factors, service quality, and satisfaction [40,41]. As a continuation of
fuzzy AHP, fuzzy TOPSIS method is appropriate for solving group decision-making problems in fuzzy
environments [42]. In many problems, it is difficult for decision makers to provide accurate numerical
judgments about the probability and consequences of each event. Therefore, fuzzy linguistic variables
and their term sets were used to assess the quality of service at the shelter candidate. It is beneficial to
include ambiguity and uncertainty in the decision-making process of shelter location.
In Section 3.2, decision makers used importance level of standards ratings to reach conclusions
about their decisions. Based on six criteria (C1 , C2 , . . . , C6 ), decision makers evaluated the results
of shelter alternatives  1 , S2 , . . . , Sn ). The collected information was further transformed into the
 (S
decision matrix D = dij shown in Equation (13). This step is to transform qualitative variables into
n×m
quantitative variables as output parameters. The element dij of the matrix D represented by triangular
fuzzy numbers in Table 3 refers to the performance rating of the i-th candidate shelter relative to the
j-th standard.
C1 C2 . . . Cm
S1
d d . . . d1m
 
 11 12 
S2  d21 d22 . . . d
 
D= 2m 
(13)
..  .
.  .
.. .
.. .. .. 
. .
Sn
 
 
dn1 dn2 . . . dnm

Table 3. Evaluation level language terminology.

Definition Fuzzy Value

Very low (0, 1, 3)
Low (1, 3, 5)
General (3, 5, 7)
High (5, 7, 9)
Very high (7, 9, 9)

Under the overall fuzzy language criterion, the term sets determined for alternative shelters
evaluation are different and given in Table 3. Zadeh proposed combinational inference rules and
applied them to derive conclusions from the fuzzy rule sets [43]. In order to unify the conclusions of
experts, this study uses the best-known maximum–minimum compositional rule approach to establish
a fuzzy decision matrix.
Then, the normalized ratings were calculated using Equation (14), which was used for vector
normalization and computing aij . The weighted normalized value bij was calculated by bij = w j × aij
where i = 1, 2, . . . , n; j = 1, 2, . . . m. w j represents the weight of the j-th standard. The positive ideal
fuzzy solution B+ and the negative ideal fuzzy solution B− were determined by Equation (15) in terms
of weighted normalized values.

dij
aij = qP i = 1, 2, . . . , n; j = 1, 2, . . . m (14)
n 2
i=1 dij

n   o n o
B+ = maxBij i ∈ I  j = 1, 2, . . . , m = b1+ , b2+ , . . . , bm
+
,
n   o n o (15)
B = minBij i ∈ I  j = 1, 2, . . . , m = b1 , b2 , . . . , bm .
−  − − −
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1759 8 of 21

Separation measures were calculated in next step. The distance between the candidate point to
the positive ideal solution and the negative ideal solution was calculated by Euclidean distance. The
separation of each candidate point from the positive ideal solution B+ was determined by Equation
(16), and the separation from the negative ideal solution B− is calculated by Equation (17).
v
n 
u
tX 2
+
di = bij − b+
j
i = 1, 2, .., n (16)
j=1

v
n 
u
tX 2
−
di = bij − b−j i = 1, 2, .., n (17)
j=1

Equation (18) can calculate the relative closeness Fi of each solution and the ideal solution and
sort them. In this study, the greater the degree of closeness, the higher the evaluation of the candidate
points, that is, the closer to the positive ideal solution, the farther from the negative ideal solution.

d−
i
Fi = i = 1, 2, .., n (18)
di+ + d−
i

3.4. Multi-Objective Optimization Model Construction

Finally, this section combines the performance evaluation results obtained by fuzzy TOPSIS
with a multi-objective optimization model to maximize the weight function and improve the quality
of shelter services on the basis of the relative weight of candidate points obtained from subjective
evaluation. Simultaneously, the distance from the affected families to the shelters is minimized, and
the number of shelters opened is optimized. These goals are achieved while considering the victims’
needs, rescue budgets, facility capacity, and coverage boundary constraints. Models are constructed
with the avoidance of hazardous areas to ensure the safety of selected shelters.
In this study, the multi-layer coverage idea proposed by Berman and Krass is used to construct
the boundary coverage function [44]. As the distance between evacuation facility i and disaster point j
increases, the proportion of evacuation demand allocated to point i by point j decreases. Given the
distance relationship 0 < d1 < d2 < . . . < dk , dk is the maximum evacuation distance set by the local
government. The evacuation demand at point j is D j , and pk represents the proportion of demand
that can be covered by facilities with a distance from disaster point j in the interval (dk−1 , dk ). The total
demand that can be covered by disaster point j is pk D j , where 1 > p1 > p2 > . . . > pk > 0. The specific
situation of the boundary cover function is shown in Figure 4. The effective coverage can be divided
into three levels. The demand of disaster point 1 is D1 , and the requirements of facilities P1 and P2 in

the first and second overlay layers that can cover disaster point 1 at most are min p1 D1 + p2 D1 , D1 .
The demand for another point 2 is D2 . The demand for the facility P5 in the first level, the facility
P4 in the second level, and the facilities P1 and P3 in the third level can cover at most disaster site

2 min p1 D2 + p2 D2 + p3 D2 , D2 . The maximum demand that can be covered at a certain level is only
related to the size of the demand and has nothing to do with the number of facilities selected.
For example, the third coverage layer of demand point 2 contains two facilities, namely, P2 and
P3. Whether both are available or only one is available, the upper limit of demand that can be covered
is p3 D2 .
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1759 9 of 21
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 22

P5
1 P2 P4
2
P1

P3

Disaster point Shelters

Figure 4. Boundary covering function.

Figure 4.

The
The details
details and
and symbols
symbols ofof the
the multi-objective
multi-objective optimization
optimization model
model areare as
as follows:
follows:
Sets
Sets
• I Set of affected area, i ∈ I
• I Set of affected area, 𝑖 ∈ 𝐼
• S Set of emergency shelter candidates, s ∈ S
• S Set of emergency shelter candidates, 𝑠 ∈ 𝑆
• F Set of types of evacuation services, f = 1 means basic living services, f = 2 represents medical
• F Set of types of evacuation services, 𝑓 = 1 means basic living services, 𝑓 = 2 represents
and psychological services
medical and psychological services
•• M
M Set Setofofdifferent
differenttypes
typesofofrelief supplies,m𝑚==L Lrepresents
reliefsupplies, life
represents supplies
life suppliestoto
implement
implement service 1,
service
whereas
1, whereasm =𝑚P =signifies medical
P signifies supplies
medical to implement
supplies service
to implement 2 2
service
•• T Set of shelter types, t =
T Set of shelter types, t = I provides victims with service Type 1, whereas
I provides victims with service Type 1, whereastt == II
II provides
provides victims
victims
with
with service
service Types
Types11and
and2.2.
Parameters

•• F𝐹s Result
Resultofofthe
thesubjective
subjectiveevaluation
evaluationofofthe theshelter
sheltercandidate points ∈𝑠 S∈ 𝑆
candidatepoint
•• W𝑊g G-thG-thobjective
objectivefunction
functionweight
weight
•• 𝐷 Number of households
Di Number of households in affected in areai ∈𝑖 ∈
affectedarea I 𝐼
•• α𝛼
if
Proportionofofvictims
Proportion victimsinindisaster areai ∈𝑖 ∈
disasterarea 𝐼whoneed
I who needrefuge servicef ∈𝑓 F∈ 𝐹
refugeservice
• 𝐴f Amount of relief materials 𝑚 ∈ 𝑀 needed by disaster victim who need refuge service 𝑓 ∈
• Am Amount of relief materials m ∈ M needed by disaster victim who need refuge service f ∈ F
𝐹
• Cs Maximum material storage for candidate refuge s ∈ S
• 𝐶 Maximum material storage for candidate refuge 𝑠 ∈ 𝑆
• Ps Maximum victim capacity for candidate shelter s ∈ S
• 𝑃 Maximum victim capacity for candidate shelter 𝑠 ∈ 𝑆
•• FC Fixed construction
𝐹𝐶s Fixed construction costcost ofof opening
opening aa shelter
shelter at at candidate point s𝑠∈∈S𝑆
candidate point
•• VC Unit cost of purchasing relief materials
𝑉𝐶 m Unit cost of purchasing relief materials 𝑚 ∈ 𝑀 m ∈ M
•• f
𝑂𝐶
OC Variable
Variableconstruction
constructioncost costper additional
per additional capacity of service
capacity f ∈ F𝑓 for
of service ∈ 𝐹each
for candidate point
each candidate
• B Total available rescue budget
point
•• θBk Radius of k-th coverage
Total available level from a disaster point
rescue budget
•• d𝜃is Distance
Radius of k-th coverage
between affectedlevel
areafrom
i ∈ Iaand
disaster pointshelter s ∈ S
candidate
•• d𝑑hs Distance
Distancebetween
betweencandidate
affected area 𝑖 ∈ s𝐼 ∈and
shelter candidate
S and shelter
the nearest 𝑠∈𝑆
hospital
•• 𝑑 Distance between candidate shelter 𝑠 ∈ 𝑆 and the
dws Distance between candidate shelter s ∈ S and the nearest commercial andnearest hospital
• 𝑑 Distance
supermarket between candidate shelter 𝑠 ∈ 𝑆 and the nearest commercial and supermarket
warehouses
• warehouses
dh Distance restriction between the shelter and the nearest hospital
•• d𝑑w Distance
Distance restriction
restrictionbetween
betweenthe shelter
the and the nearest
shelter and hospital
the nearest commercial and
• 𝑑 Distance
supermarket restriction between the shelter and the nearest commercial and supermarket
warehouses
warehouses
• pk Proportion of demand covered by shelters in the interval (dk−1 , dk ) from the affected area
• 𝑝 Proportion of demand covered by shelters in the interval (𝑑 , 𝑑 ) from the affected area
• γ Proportion of Type 1 services available in Type II shelters
• γ Proportion of Type 1 services available in Type II shelters
• N A large positive number
• N A large positive number
Decision
Decision variables
variables
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1759 10 of 21

• yts The establishment of a type t ∈ T shelter at candidate point s ∈ S has a value of 1, otherwise it
is 0
f
• xis Number of victims from sheltered area i ∈ I to shelter s ∈ S that require shelter service f ∈ F
• βm
s Number of supplies m ∈ M stored in shelter s ∈ S
X X  
min Z1 = x1is + x2is dis (19)
i∈I s∈S
XX
maxZ2 = yt Fs (20)
s∈S s
t∈T
XX
minZ3 = yt (21)
s∈S s
t∈T

Subject to: X
x1 ≤ Ps yIs + γ Ps yII
s (22)
i∈I is
X
x2 ≤ (1 − γ )Ps yII
s (23)
i∈I is
X
βm≤ Cs (24)
m∈M s
X
f f
βms ≥ Am x (25)
i∈I is
X
f
x ≥ Di αi f (26)
s∈S is
X
yt ≤ 1 (27)
t∈T s
X  
x1is ≤ yIs + yII s N (28)
i∈I
X
x2 ≤ yII sN (29)
i∈I is
X
dhs yts ≤ dh (30)
t∈T

dws yts ≤ dw (31)

X X
f
x ≤ pk Di (32)
f ∈F s|θk−1 <dis <θk is
X X XX X X X
f
FCs yts + OC f xis + VCm m
s βs ≤ B (33)
t∈T s∈S s∈S i∈I m∈M s∈S
f ∈F

f
xis , βm +
s ∈ Z ∀i ∈ I, s ∈ S, m ∈ M, f ∈ F (34)

yts ∈ {0, 1} ∀ s ∈ S, t ∈ T (35)

Objective function (19) minimizes the distance between the victims and the shelters under the
limited rescue budget. Objective function (20) maximizes the subjective evaluation performance
of the shelters on the basis of qualitative factors. Objective function (21) optimizes the number of
open shelters. Constraints (22) and (23) stipulate that the number of households allocated to each
refuge center cannot exceed the capacity of the facility. Among them, in natural disasters with high
destructiveness and casualties, victims who need psychological or medical assistance must receive
considerable concern. Therefore, γ should take the small value. Constraint (24) restricts the number
of refuges that can store rescue supplies not exceeding their maximum storage capacity. Constraint
(25) guarantees that the amount of materials stored in shelters or surrounding facilities must meet
the demand. Constraint (26) restricts disaster victims of different needs can receive it. Constraint
(27) ensures that each shelter can be associated with only one type. Constraints (28) and (29) ensure
that only selected shelters can provide services for the victims. Constraints (30) and (31) indicate that
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1759 11 of 21

for candidate shelters, if no medical facilities and commercial supermarket warehouses are available
within the prescribed threshold, then they cannot be selected. Constraint (32) is a boundary cover
function that limits the number of victims who can be allocated to shelters in the k-th coverage level of
affected area i. Constraint (33) limits shelter costs to existing budgets, including fixed construction,
variable, and material procurement costs. Constraints (34) and (35) define decision variables.
This study uses weight W g to deal with the multi-objective shelter location model and defines
the relative importance of objective functions Z1 and Z2 . Decision makers can assign specific values,
as shown in Equation (36). Among them, Z∗1 (x), Z∗2 (x), and Z∗3 (x) are the optimal values for
single-objective optimization.

 w1 Z∗1 (x) w2 Z∗2 (x)  w3 Z∗3 (x)

max Z = 2 − )+ + 2− ) (36)
Z1 (x) Z2 (x) Z3 (x)

4. Case Study: Wenchuan Earthquake in Sichuan Province, China

This section first briefly reviews the earthquakes that occurred in Wenchuan, China in 2008. Then,
the characteristics of the study area and the acquisition of model parameters are introduced.

4.1. The Earthquake of May 2008 in Wenchuan

The risk of natural disasters, such as earthquakes, floods, and landslides in southwestern China,
is high, and the local population and infrastructure are vulnerable to devastating effects. Chengdu,
Sichuan Province is located at 30.38 ◦ N, 104.03 ◦ E and is one of provincial capitals in China. It is famous
for its history and tourist attractions and belongs to the middle of the Sichuan Basin that is relatively
flat. The total area of Chengdu is 14,605 km2 , and it is the most populous city in Sichuan Province,
with approximately 16.33 million inhabitants (statistics for 2019). The geographical location is shown
in Figure 5 left half. Chengdu faces an extremely high risk of natural disasters. The Longquanshan
fault zone passes through Chengdu. Since 1967, a total of 20 earthquakes of 4.0 magnitude or more
have occurred in it. The worst was an 8.0 magnitude earthquake in Sichuan Province on 12 May 2008,
and successive aftershocks and secondary disasters caused thousands of families to be homeless. In
addition, many people suffered varying degrees of physical and psychological harm. For example,
certain hospitals in Chengdu, the capital of Sichuan Province, were severely damaged. Many families
did not receive immediate medical assistance following the disaster, and a large number of families
were transferred to hospitals in other regions for treatment. The disaster had a massive impact, among
which the Sichuan government took certain actions. In response to the lack of emergency shelters,
facilities, and open spaces in cities, special urban plans were formulated. Prior to destructive disasters,
strategic infrastructure and services are planned strategically.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1759 12 of 21
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 22

Wuhou District

Chengdu
Sichuan Province

Jinjiang District

100km

Figure 5. The areas in question.

Next,
Next, Section 4.2 discusses
Section 4.2 the detailed
discusses the information of
detailed information of Wuhou
Wuhou District
District and
and Jinjiang
Jinjiang District
District of
of
Chengdu City, Sichuan Province, and explains the characteristics of the different research areas.
Chengdu City, Sichuan Province, and explains the characteristics of the different research areas.
4.2. Characteristics of the Geographic Zone and Parameter Defining
4.2. Characteristics of the Geographic Zone and Parameter Defining
By analyzing Wuhou District and Jinjiang District of Chengdu, Sichuan Province, the model
By analyzing Wuhou District and Jinjiang District of Chengdu, Sichuan Province, the model
construction process defined in Section 3 is explained. The location of study area is shown in Figure 5.
construction process defined in Section 3 is explained. The location of study area is shown in Figure
Families and house characteristics in the study area are obtained from the National Bureau of Statistics
5. Families and house characteristics in the study area are obtained from the National Bureau of
database, geospatial data cloud, and field surveys. Shelters can meet basic living needs and provide
Statistics database, geospatial data cloud, and field surveys. Shelters can meet basic living needs and
psychological or medical services before ample relief supplies arrive. According to the standards of
provide psychological or medical services before ample relief supplies arrive. According to the
emergency shelter operations and supporting facilities formulated, candidate emergency shelters must
standards of emergency shelter operations and supporting facilities formulated, candidate
avoid natural disaster-prone areas and are located on flat terrains, which can facilitate post-disaster
emergency shelters must avoid natural disaster-prone areas and are located on flat terrains, which
evacuation and material transportation [18,19].
can facilitate post-disaster evacuation and material transportation [18, 19].
Wuhou District is the most populous county in Chengdu. As of the end of 2018, the resident
Wuhou District is the most populous county in Chengdu. As of the end of 2018, the resident
population was 1.087 million, with a GDP of 109.14 billion RMB. With the rapid economic development,
population was 1.087 million, with a GDP of 109.14 billion RMB. With the rapid economic
the area is facing a high risk of earthquake disaster. The special layout plan of Chengdu makes full
development, the area is facing a high risk of earthquake disaster. The special layout plan of Chengdu
use of existing large open spaces, such as parks, green spaces, squares, school playgrounds, stadiums,
makes full use of existing large open spaces, such as parks, green spaces, squares, school
and other places to plan and construct emergency shelters. To combine the facility’s own advantages,
playgrounds, stadiums, and other places to plan and construct emergency shelters. To combine the
warehouses are also considered, and 15 locations eligible for evaluation as candidate shelters are
facility’s own advantages, warehouses are also considered, and 15 locations eligible for evaluation as
identified, among which the indoor facilities are S12, S13, S14, and S15. Figure 6 shows the distribution
candidate shelters are identified, among which the indoor facilities are S12, S13, S14, and S15. Figure
of candidate points in this area. Given the different services provided by the shelters, additional spaces
6 shows the distribution of candidate points in this area. Given the different services provided by the
and resources are needed for the protection of psychological medical services. Thus, the ability to
shelters, additional spaces and resources are needed for the protection of psychological medical
provide psychological medical services is lower than basic living services.
services. Thus, the ability to provide psychological medical services is lower than basic living
For the loss function, after considering the disaster warning, victims must reach the evacuation
services.
facility within half an hour and divide the refuge center into three coverage levels. The coverage
radius of each open facility includes 1000, 2000, and 3000 meters, assuming p1 = 100%, p2 = 75%,
and p3 = 50%, respectively. The emergency rescue life and medical supplies are packaged according
to standards. The assumed demand for the supplies L and P for the victims who need basic living
services is assumed to be 1 and 0.5. The assumed demand for the supplies L and P for the victims who
require medical or psychological assistance is assumed to be 1 and 1. For shelters that are unsuitable
for storing materials and providing psychological medical assistance, the study assumes distance to
the surrounding material storage facilities, such as supermarkets and warehouses, is less than 1000
meters to increase rescue speed. Moreover, its distance from medical facilities should be less than
1000 meters. The study area includes 50 sites with asylum needs. The number of victims in need of
psychological or medical assistance depends on two situations. The first is based on the number of
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1759 13 of 21

children under the age of nine and the elderly over the age of 70. The second is the proportion of
disabled persons at various demand points [45,46]. Considering the great impact of the earthquake
disaster, γ = 30% is set, the proportion of basic living services provided by Type II shelters is 30%. All
cost parameters
Sustainability used
2020, 12, inPEER
x FOR the following
REVIEW experiments are shown in Table 4. 13 of 22

Distribution of candidate points in the study area.

Figure 6. Distribution

Table 4. Cost parameters in the experiment.

For the loss function, after considering the disaster warning, victims must reach the evacuation
facility within half an hour and divide the Costrefuge center into three coverage levels. The coverage Value
radius of each open facility includes 1000, 2000, and 3000
Fixed construction costs for open shelters meters, assuming 𝑝 = 100%, 𝑝 = 75%,
$10,000
and 𝑝 = 50%, respectively. The emergency
Variable construction costs perrescue
unit of life and
living medical
service supplies are packaged according
provided $50
toVariable construction
standards. cost per demand
The assumed additionalforcapacity of medical
the supplies L or
andpsychological assistance
P for the victims provided
who need basic$100living
services is assumed to be 1Purchasing
and 0.5. The expenses
assumed for daily supplies
demand for the supplies L and P for the victims $30
Procurement costs of medical supplies $50
who require medical or psychological assistance is assumed to be 1 and 1. For shelters that are
unsuitable for storing materials and providing psychological medical assistance, the study assumes
To estimate
distance the priorities
to the surrounding of the criteria
material storage for the selection
facilities, such asofsupermarkets
emergency shelters, a questionnaire
and warehouses, is less
is distributed to 10 experts with extensive field and research experience
than 1000 meters to increase rescue speed. Moreover, its distance from medical facilities in emergency management.
should be
The selected
less than 1000experts
meters.possess
The studyan average of 10 years
area includes of experience
50 sites with asylum in needs.
disaster relief
The and management.
number of victims in
After careful consideration, the selection of experts can pass the consistency
need of psychological or medical assistance depends on two situations. The first is based test, and theyonhavethe
consensus
number ofon the priority
children underof the
indicators. Through
age of nine and the the aggregation
elderly overofthethe age
priorities,
of 70. aThe
standard
secondpriority
is the
vector is calculated.
proportion Candidate
of disabled persons sites must be
at various evaluated
demand pointsby [45,46].
the rescue agency staff
Considering thewho
greatunderstand
impact of the
earthquake disaster, γ = 30% is set, the proportion of basic living services provided by Typeoperations
local situation. Therefore, a group of seven professionals who have participated in rescue II shelters
in 30%.
is Sichuan evaluate
All cost alternatives
parameters used inbythe
using fuzzy language
following experiments termare
sets and indicator
shown in Table 4. priorities. Table 5
displays the final weighted results of the candidate points.
Table 4. Cost parameters in the experiment.
Table 5. Candidate point weights.
Cost Value
Candidate Point Weight
Fixed construction costs for open shelters $10,000
S1 0.1636
Variable construction costs
S2 per unit of living0.1608
service provided $50
S3
Variable construction cost per additional capacity of medical or0.1673
psychological assistance provided $100
S4 0.1350
Purchasing expenses
S5 for daily supplies
0.1522 $30
. . . ...
Procurement costs of medical supplies $50
S14 0.1456
S15 0.1314
To estimate the priorities of the criteria for the selection of emergency shelters, a questionnaire
is distributed to 10 experts with extensive field and research experience in emergency management.
The selected experts possess an average of 10 years of experience in disaster relief and management.
After careful consideration, the selection of experts can pass the consistency test, and they have
consensus on the priority of indicators. Through the aggregation of the priorities, a standard priority
vector is calculated. Candidate sites must be evaluated by the rescue agency staff who understand
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1759 14 of 21

To further prove the robustness of the model, this study also takes another severely affected area
during the Wenchuan earthquake as an example. Jinjiang District is the smallest area in Chengdu and
its surface area is 61.12 square kilometers. In 2018, Jinjiang District had a GDP of 103.477 billion RMB
and a population of approximately 566,400 (2017 Census). According to the layout plan of emergency
shelters in the central urban area of the local government, nine sites are selected as candidate shelters,
among which the indoor venues are S7, S8, and S9. The distance from the residential area to the
evacuation facility is estimated from geographic coordinates.

5. Results and Analysis

Using the relative weights of candidate points as model input parameters, MATLAB2018b is
employed to solve a mixed integer multi-objective optimization model on a PC with a 3.60-GHz Intel
Core i7-4790 CPU and 8 GB of RAM, running Windows®10 OS.

5.1. Results for the Case Study

In the case study of Wuhou District, the model is run by considering each target individually to
determine the optimal value for the target. In addition, when a single target is given the same weight,
the results of the evacuation site selection are shown in Table 6.

Table 6. Location and allocation of different types of shelters.

Location S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 S14 S15

Type I 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Type II 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0
Allocation 1 4795 3862 6238 0 6082 0 0 4176 6248 0 0 1360 3530 1537 0
Allocation 2 4487 3748 4607 0 0 0 0 2969 0 0 0 767 1513 1029 0
Living Materials 9282 7610 10845 0 6082 0 0 7145 6248 0 0 2126 5043 2566 0
Medical Materials 6885 5680 7730 0 3041 0 0 5057 3124 0 0 1446 3280 1800 0

Table 6 shows that two of the 15 candidate points (S5 and S9) are selected as Type I shelters,
and seven are chosen as Type II shelters. The third line refers to the number of victims who need service
1 to be allocated to open shelters (Allocation 1). Similarly, the fourth line shows the number of victims
who need service 2 to be allocated to open shelters (Allocation 2). S5 and S9 are only Type I shelters,
so assigning victims who need mental health services to these locations is impossible. The last two lines
indicate the amounts of living and medical materials stored in indoor shelters or surrounding facilities.
The difference between the achieved target and the single target optimal value is presented in
Table 7. Given that the Objective (19) function value for optimizing the evacuation distance is in the
order of magnitude, the original value is rounded down to log base e. It can be seen from Table 7 that the
evacuation distance obtained from the optimization solution is 25.95 instead of 25.15. The evacuation
distance optimization result is the best among the three target values, which is slightly different from
the ideal value. The optimal number of refuge centers is nine, one more than the minimum number of
shelters. The result of the subjective weight optimization finally deviates greatly from the optimal
target value. When the subjective weight is as important as the other two target values, it is difficult to
achieve better results. Considering that the parameter W g in the model may affect the optimization
result, different values are used to reflect the influence on the solution. The results of the optimization
under the other five different weights are shown in Table 8.

Table 7. Deviations between target and optimal values.

Objective Target Value Single Objective Optimal Value Deviation (%)

Distance to shelters 25.95 25.15 3.18%
Subjective weight 1.19 1.81 23%
Number of shelters 9 8 12.5%
 Sustainability 2020, 12, 1759 15 of 21

Table 8. Effect of different weights on the compromise.

Number Objective Weight Distance to Shelters Subjective Weight Number of Shelters

1 (0.1, 0.65, 0.25) 5.57% 5.52% 37.5%
2 (0.15, 0.05, 0.8) 4.77% 21.84% 0%
3 (0.3, 0.15, 0.55) 3.18% 16.71% 25%
4 (0.33, 0.33, 0.33) 3.18% 23% 12.5%
5 (0.5, 0.35, 0.15) 0% 2.37% 37.5%
6 (0.7, 0.15, 0.15) 0% 8.99% 37.5%

The radar chart in Figure 7 illustrates the effect of changes in target weights on target
deviation. Radar charts indicate that the total objective function is sensitive to changes in subjective
weights. The process of shelter selection and the importance of qualitative factors are considered.
The combination of qualitative and quantitative factors makes the site selection decision reasonable.
This illustrates the importance of combining qualitative dimensions with quantifiable factors,
while locations with poor service quality are unlikely to be selected as open shelters. The optimization
results are also sensitive to changes in the number of shelters. It can be seen that the model is very
sensitive to the site of the shelter while considering the number of open shelters. When the number of
shelters is taken seriously, deviations can even be eliminated. The rational planning of the number of
shelters
Sustainability 2020,has
12, xan important
FOR impact on site selection results, and the results are least sensitive
PEER REVIEW 16 to
of changes
22
in shelter distances.

1
0.40
0.30
6 0.20 2
0.10
0.00

Number of shelters
5 3
Subjective value
Evacuation distance
4

Figure Figure
7. Deviation of target
7. Deviation ofvalues under different
target values weights.
under different weights.

It can
It can also bealso
seenbe seenTable
from from8 Table 8 thatthe
that when when the deviation
deviation of theof
of the number number
sheltersofdecreases,
shelters decreases,
the
the deviations
deviations of the evacuation
of the evacuation distance distance and subjective
and subjective weight increase.
weight increase. However, However,
when thewhen the deviation
deviation
of the of the number
number of shelters
of shelters increases,
increases, deviation
deviation of the of the remaining
remaining two objective
two objective functionfunction
valuesvalues
can becan be
reduced.
reduced. Therefore,
Therefore, increasing
increasing the number
the number of open ofshelters
open shelters is beneficial
is beneficial for optimizing
for optimizing the distance
the distance
and quality of
and quality of shelters.shelters.
To further
To further evaluate
evaluate the impact
the impact of rescue
of rescue budgetbudget
and and coverage
coverage ratioratio on rescue
on rescue effectiveness,
effectiveness, wewe set
set thethe budgetamount
budget amounttotovary vary from
from 7,500,000 to to8,500,000,
8,500,000,different
differentcoverage
coverage distances
distances (θ)(θ)
andand
coverage
1 2 1 = 100%, 75%, 50%;
coverage ratios ( 𝑝 ): θ = 1000 𝑚, 2000 𝑚, 3000 𝑚 ; θ = 750 𝑚, 1500 𝑚, 3000 𝑚 ; 𝑝 =
ratios (p): θ = 1000 m, 2000 m, 3000 m; θ = 750 m, 1500 m, 3000 m; p
2 = 100%, 65%, 45%. The experimental results are shown in Tables 9–12 below.
100%,p75%, 50%; 𝑝 = 100%, 65%, 45%. The experimental results are shown in Tables 9–12 below.
By comparing the results in Tables 9–12, we can conclude that when the budget amount
Table
increases, the deviation of the 9. Deviations
subjective of goal
weights optimization
slightly results
decreases. under
This θ1 and pmay
condition
1.
signify that
additional funds can
Budget be used to open other
Distance to Shelters shelters with improved
Subjective Weight subjective
Number ofevaluation
Shelters
performance, thereby increasing the overall quality of service. Similarly, the distance between victims
7,500,000 3.18% 34.03% 12.5%
and shelters is close to the optimal value
8,000,000 in the case of single goals.
0.08% 30.91%Although there is a large
12.5%deviation
between the number of
8,500,000 open shelters and
0.44% the case of single-objective
23% optimization, the
25%increase in
rescue budget is an effective method to improve the rescue effect when the number of alternative
shelters is sufficient.
Tables 9 and 10 present that changing the coverage rate of different distance levels of the shelters
can increase the subjective weight of the shelters, although the deviation of the shelters increases. In
this way, life and psychological medical services are well provided to the victims. The same distance
and reduced coverage ratio have a great impact on the evacuation distance. In the case of multi-
objective optimization, the evacuation distance is even without deviation from the single-objective
solution. The same conclusion can also be drawn from Tables 11 and 12.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1759 16 of 21

Table 10. Deviations of goal optimization results under θ1 and p2 .

Budget Distance to Shelters Subjective Weight Number of Shelters

7,500,000 0.44% 32.27% 11.11%
8,000,000 0% 27.78% 22.22%
8,500,000 0% 25.91% 22.22%

Table 11. Deviations of goal optimization results under θ2 and p1 .

Budget Distance to Shelters Subjective Weight Number of Shelters

7,500,000 3.5% 30.15% 25%
8,000,000 0% 24.65% 25%
8,500,000 0% 17.9% 37.5%

Table 12. Deviations of goal optimization results under θ2 and p2 .

Budget Distance to Shelters Subjective Weight Number of Shelters

7,500,000 3.01% 27.34% 22.22%
8,000,000 0% 24.72% 22.22%
8,500,000 0% 14.69% 25%

By comparing the results in Tables 9–12, we can conclude that when the budget amount increases,
the deviation of the subjective weights slightly decreases. This condition may signify that additional
funds can be used to open other shelters with improved subjective evaluation performance, thereby
increasing the overall quality of service. Similarly, the distance between victims and shelters is close to
the optimal value in the case of single goals. Although there is a large deviation between the number of
open shelters and the case of single-objective optimization, the increase in rescue budget is an effective
method to improve the rescue effect when the number of alternative shelters is sufficient.
Tables 9 and 10 present that changing the coverage rate of different distance levels of the shelters
can increase the subjective weight of the shelters, although the deviation of the shelters increases. In this
way, life and psychological medical services are well provided to the victims. The same distance and
reduced coverage ratio have a great impact on the evacuation distance. In the case of multi-objective
optimization, the evacuation distance is even without deviation from the single-objective solution. The
same conclusion can also be drawn from Tables 11 and 12.
Observing Tables 9 and 11, we can find that the distance between victims and shelters is further
restricted when coverage ratios are constant. With the limited rescue budget, the effect is not obvious,
and the evacuation distance deviation has increased. When funds are sufficient, the deviation of the
distance to the shelters are significantly improved. The reason is that excess funds are available to
open additional shelter facilities, which is reflected in the increased deviation of the number of open
shelters. By reducing the distance covered by shelters, the overall quality of shelter services has also
improved. Similar observations can also be made by Tables 10 and 12. Setting stricter shelter coverage
is beneficial to improve rescue results.
In the Jinjiang District case study, the model is calculated by assigning the same priority to the three
targets to obtain a compromised result. The results of the most preferred sites and allocations are shown
in Table 13. One of the nine candidate points (S7) is selected as a Type I shelter, and four are chosen as
Type II shelters. Table 14 shows the optimal values of achieved and single goals. The deviation of
the evacuation distance target value is small, and the number of open shelters is optimal. The largest
deviation is the distance from the victims to shelters. The deviation of different target weights in
Table 8 is illustrated in Figure 8.
 Sustainability 2020, 12, 1759 17 of 21

Table 13. Location and allocation of different types of shelters.

Location S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9
Type I 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Type II 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Allocation 1 5877 2592 5193 3064 0 0 3783 0 0
Allocation 2 2697 1480 3151 1464 0 0 0 0 0
Living Materials 8574 4072 8344 4528 0 0 3785 0 0
Medical Materials 5635 2776 5748 2995 0 0 1893 0 0

Table 14. Deviations between target and optimal values.

Objective Target Value Single Objective Optimal Value Deviation (%)

Distance to shelters 17.78 16.57 7.29%
Sustainability Subjective
2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 0.92
weight 1.32 18 of 22
30.19%
Number of shelters 5 5 0%

1
0.40
0.30
6 0.20 2

0.10
0.00

5 3
Number of shelters
Subjective value
4
Evacuation distance

Figure
Figure 8. Deviation
8. Deviation of target
of target values
values underunder different
different weights.
weights.

Similarly,
Similarly, to clarify
to clarify onceonce again
again the impact
the impact of rescue
of rescue budget
budget and and shelter
shelter coverage
coverage ratioratio on the
on the
overall rescue effect, the budget amount is set to vary from 4,500,000 to 5,500,000, and
overall rescue effect, the budget amount is set to vary from 4,500,000 to 5,500,000, and differentdifferent coverage
distances
coverage (θ) and (coverage
distances θ ) and ratios (p): θ1 =
coverage 1000 m,
ratios ): θm,=3000
( 𝑝 2000
2
1000m;𝑚,θ2000= 750 m, 1500
𝑚, 3000 𝑚 ; m,θ 3000
= m;
1 2
750 p𝑚, = 100%,
1500 75%, 𝑚;
𝑚, 3000 50%;𝑝 p= = 100%,
100%, 65%,
75%, 45%.𝑝The
50%; experimental
= 100%, results
65%, 45%. Theareexperimental
shown in Tables 15–18are
results below.
shown in Tables 15–18 below.
Table 15. Deviations of goal optimization results under θ1 and p1 .

BudgetTable 15.Distance
Deviations of goal optimization
to Shelters Subjective under θ and 𝑝
results Weight .
Number of Shelters
4,500,000
Budget Distance 7.29%
to Shelters 30.19% Number of Shelters 0%
Subjective Weight
5,000,000 5.75% 28.64% 0%
4,500,000
5,500,000 7.29%
0.94% 30.19% 15.33% 0% 20%
5,000,000 5.75% 28.64% 0%
Deviations of goal optimization
5,500,000 Table 16.0.94% 15.33% θ1 and p2 .
results under20%

Budget Distance to Shelters Subjective Weight Number of Shelters

Table 16. Deviations of goal optimization results under θ and 𝑝 .
4,500,000 5.72% 34.73% 0%
5,000,000 3.93% 25.67% 20%
Budget Distance to Shelters Subjective Weight Number of Shelters
5,500,000 0.3% 10.09% 20%
4,500,000 5.72% 34.73% 0%
Deviations of goal optimization
5,000,000 Table 17.3.93% 25.67% θ2 and p1 .
results under20%

5,500,000
Budget 0.3%
Distance to Shelters 10.09%
Subjective Weight 20% Number of Shelters

4,500,000 6.73% 36.8% 0%

Table 17. Deviations
5,000,000 29.23%under θ and 𝑝 .
4.21%of goal optimization results 20%
5,500,000 0.74% 18.7% 20%
Budget Distance to Shelters Subjective Weight Number of Shelters
4,500,000 6.73% 36.8% 0%
5,000,000 4.21% 29.23% 20%
5,500,000 0.74% 18.7% 20%

Table 18. Deviations of goal optimization results under θ and 𝑝 .

Sustainability 2020, 12, 1759 18 of 21

Table 18. Deviations of goal optimization results under θ2 and p2 .

Budget Distance to Shelters Subjective Weight Number of Shelters

4,500,000 5.01% 27.73% 0%
5,000,000 3.87% 23.17% 20%
5,500,000 0.66% 18.55% 20%

5.2. Guidelines for Using Optimization Models

In real life, victims often randomly choose an evacuation site nearby after a disaster. However,
these unplanned locations cannot immediately meet their needs. Authorities have difficulty using the
scarce rescue resources to provide emergency relief, and in the long run, they cannot conveniently
live for a while. No plan was implemented for the migration of affected people after the Wenchuan
earthquake. Most shelters were spontaneously selected without considering the different needs of
victims. Therefore, since 2008, planning and construction of emergency shelters has received increasing
attention throughout the country. By solving the results of these two cases, the effectiveness and
importance of the model in selecting opened shelters, allocating victims, and relocating supplies
are emphasized.
The proposed multi-criteria decision-making model considers all the important influencing factors
necessary for people’s lives and medical processes after the disaster. The model also aims to be a
planning tool for improving the decision-making ability of disaster managers in location and allocation.
Existing high subjective evaluation warehouses are included in the candidate points set, and an attempt
is made to find a suitable facility location in the requisition and use of emergency humanitarian
logistics [28,47].
The model has optimized three different goals at the same time. The first goal attempts to take
into account the victims’ relocation to the nearest shelter. The model also ensures that victims are
placed in the most appropriate shelters selected based on qualitative criteria. The final goal is to
keep the number of open shelters to a minimum for better management in costs and logistics. The
model performs single-objective optimization to propose specific target values for different targets,
and reduces deviations to finally determine an effective solution. Therefore, it may be beneficial to
address the evacuation of people and the attention to victims at shelters.
In different disaster-prone areas, the relative importance of different targets can change. In some
cases, convenient logistics is the most important factor, while in other cases, evacuation nearby is more
popular than others. Therefore, the constructed model can satisfy decision makers to set weights for
each objective function and specify preferences to determine the best evacuation location and personnel
and material allocation plan. By performing a sensitivity analysis on the model, the available rescue
budget and coverage of different refuge levels are identified as key parameters. By observing the effect
of parameter value changes on the optimization results of the objective function, determining and
selecting “important” shelters are suggested. Therefore, the proposed evacuation site selection model
is helpful for reasonable planning and immediate rescue after disasters.

6. Conclusions and Future Work

In recent years, various natural disasters have occurred frequently. In such emergencies, authorities
must use existing living and medical resources to provide emergency assistance for strengthening their
disaster response capabilities. Therefore, in this study, we have considered the full coverage of the
needs of victims and determined the location of shelters and the allocation of affected people to use
certain facilities in large-scale emergencies for distributing supplies. The obtained solution can meet
the different needs of victims to the greatest extent with limited rescue funds.
In this study, we have solved the problem of the location of temporary shelters and the allocation
of victims after disaster. We have also determined the amount of materials stored. The inclusion of
available warehouses in the available candidate set can help effectively arrange rescue resources to meet
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1759 19 of 21

demands in case of large-scale emergencies. Such an arrangement is more important than accurately
determine how to allocate supplies among facilities. The relevant literature has been reviewed,
and qualitative factors have been taken as important factors to construct a mathematical model, which
reflects the rationality of multi-criteria decision and group decision making in the optimization of
evacuation sites. Fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods involve vagueness with the subjective
judgment of decision makers. It also helps decision makers to benefit from the comprehensive expertise
of multiple decision-making experts, using their knowledge to optimize shelter locations and allocation
processes. Finally, a comprehensive consideration of qualitative and quantitative factors is used to
solve the problem of site selection and relocation of the victims. The analysis has identified multiple
site selection criteria and three objectives to select the best shelter location from a set of candidate
points. The model has matched the different needs of victims with nearby shelters, considering the
level of refuge and limited relief funds. The model has also been tested and sensitively analyzed using
data from parts of Chengdu during the Wenchuan earthquake. The established model has obtained
the optimal solution after a compromise, and the results have significantly changed as important
parameters change.
In this work, the model is limited to single-cycle post-disaster location-allocation decisions
and does not involve the subsequent displacement of victims. Future studies will establish a
multi-stage optimization model, combining the impact and uncertainty of secondary disasters,
to provide optimization solutions in different periods. Future research should also consider mitigation
strategies from the perspective of different stakeholders in natural disaster risk management [48,49].
Similarly, reducing damage from disasters through retrofitting and purchasing insurance is an important
measure [50].

Author Contributions: S.G. designed and revised this paper; S.G. and S.Z. collected and analyzed the data and
wrote the paper; H.H. provided valuable research insights into the analysis and investigation. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, grant
number 2019YJS061.
Acknowledgments: Thanks to the anonymous peer reviewers and the editors for their critical comments, which
helped to improve significantly the quality of this paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. IFRC. What is a Disaster? Available online: http://www.ifrc.org/en/what-we-do/disaster-management/about-
disasters/what-is-a-disaster/ (accessed on 12 September 2019).
2. Trivedi, A.; Singh, A.; Chauhan, A. Analysis of key factors for waste management in humanitarian response:
An interpretive structural modelling approach. Int. J. Disaster Risk Red. 2015, 14, 527–535. [CrossRef]
3. Day, J.M.; Melnyk, S.A.; Larson, P.D.; Davis, E.W.; Whybark, D.C. Humanitarian and disaster relief supply
chains: A matter of life and death. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2012, 48, 21–36. [CrossRef]
4. Duque, P.A.M.; Dolinskaya, I.S.; Sörensen, K. Network repair crew scheduling and routing for emergency
relief distribution problem. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2016, 248, 272–285. [CrossRef]
5. Zhu, L.; Ding, J.; Ma, Z. Collaborative Optimization of heterogeneous transportation problems under
emergency. Chin. J. Manag. Sci. 2018, 15, 309–316. [CrossRef]
6. Gu, J.; Zhou, Y.; Das, A.; Moon, I.; Lee, G.M. Medical relief shelter location problem with patient severity
under a limited relief budget. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2018, 125, 720–728. [CrossRef]
7. Trivedi, A.; Singh, A. A hybrid multi-objective decision model for emergency shelter location-relocation
projects using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and goal programming approach. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017,
35, 827–840. [CrossRef]
8. Blecken, A. Logistics in the Context of Humanitarian Operations. In International Heinz Nixdorf Symposium;
Springer: Heidelberg, Berlin, 2010; pp. 85–93. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1759 20 of 21

9. Holguín-Veras, J.; Jaller, M.; Van, W.L.N.; Perez, N.; Wachtendorf, T. On the unique features of post-disaster
humanitarian logistics. J. Oper. Manag. 2012, 30, 494–506. [CrossRef]
10. Yu, W. Transshipment model for emergency materials based on time satisfaction criterion. J. Syst. Manag.
2013, 22, 882–887. [CrossRef]
11. Zheng, B.; Ma, Z.; Zhou, Y. Bi-level model for dynamic location-transportation problem for post-earthquake
relief distribution. J. Syst. Manag. 2017, 26, 326–337.
12. Zhang, M.; Zhang, L. System of evaluation indices of emergency facility location and model based on facility
failure scenarios. Chin. J. Manag. Sci. 2017, 24, 129–136. [CrossRef]
13. Yu, D.; Gao, L.; Zhao, S. Location-allocation optimization model for emergency facilities and algorithm with
maximum time satisfaction. Syst. Eng. 2018, 36, 95–102.
14. Perez, R.N. Inventory Allocation Models for Post-Disaster Humanitarian Logistics with Explicit Consideration
of Deprivation Costs. PhD Thesis, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, MA, USA, 2011.
15. Martelo, M.A.J. Resource Allocation Problems during Disasters: Points of Distribution Planning and Material
Convergence Control. PhD Thesis, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, MA, USA, 2011.
16. Holguín-Veras, J.; Pérez, N.; Jaller, M.; Van, W.L.N.; Aros-Vera, F. On the appropriate objective function for
post-disaster humanitarian logistics models. J. Oper. Manag. 2013, 31, 262–280. [CrossRef]
17. Holguín-Veras, J.; Jaller, M.; Wachtendorf, T. Comparative performance of alternative humanitarian logistic
structures after the Port-au-Prince earthquake: ACEs, PIEs, and CANs. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2012,
46, 1623–1640. [CrossRef]
18. GB 21734-2008. Emergency Shelter for Earthquake Disasters-Site and its Facilities; China National Standardizing
Committee: Beijing, China, 2008.
19. GB/T 33744-2017. Emergency Shelter for Earthquake Disasters-Guidelines on the Operation and Management; China
National Standardizing Committee: Beijing, China, 2017.
20. Wang, H.; Du, L.; Hu, D.; Wang, J. Location-routing problem for relief distribution in emergency logistics
under uncertainties. J. Syst. Manag. 2015, 24, 828–834.
21. Li, A.C.Y.; Nozick, L.; Xu, N.; Davidson, R. Shelter location and transportation planning under hurricane
conditions. Transp. Res. Part E 2012, 48, 715–729. [CrossRef]
22. Kınay, Ö.B.; Saldanha-da-Gama, F.; Kara, B.Y. On multi-criteria chance-constrained capacitated single-source
discrete facility location problems. Omega 2019, 83, 107–122. [CrossRef]
23. Wu, F.; Cheng, T. Dynamic decision support for emergency response under uncertain environment. Sof. Sci.
2014, 28, 26, 29+34. [CrossRef]
24. Yuan, W.; Peng, Y.; Yang, F. Two-level emergency centers location model based on the hazardous chemicals‘
accidents. Syst. Eng. Theory Pract. 2015, 35, 728–735.
25. Ozkapici, D.B.; Ertem, M.A.; Aygüneş, H. Intermodal humanitarian logistics model based on maritime
transportation in Istanbul. Nat. Hazards 2016, 83, 345–364. [CrossRef]
26. Yahyaei, M.; Bozorgi-Amiri, A. Robust reliable humanitarian relief network design: An integration of shelter
and supply facility location. Ann. Oper. Res. 2019, 283, 897–916. [CrossRef]
27. Amideo, A.E.; Scaparra, M.P.; Kotiadis, K. Optimising shelter location and evacuation routing operations:
The critical issues. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2019, 279, 279–295. [CrossRef]
28. Boonmee, C.; Arimura, M.; Asada, T. Facility location optimization model for emergency humanitarian
logistics. Int. J. Disaster Risk Red. 2017, 24, 485–498. [CrossRef]
29. Zhao, X.; Ma, Y.; Liang, P.; Qin, L.; Zhou, H.; Yuan, Y.; Xu, W. Analysis of earthquake emergency shelter
location selection based on particle swarm optimization algorithm: Wenping of Ludian in Yunnan Province
as a case. J. Beijing Norm. Univ (Nat. Sci.) 2018, 54, 217–223. [CrossRef]
30. Kılcı, F.; Kara, B.Y.; Bozkaya, B. Locating temporary shelter areas after an earthquake: A case for Turkey.
Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2015, 243, 323–332. [CrossRef]
31. Li, J. Research on Strategic Decision Models of Service Areas and Method for Optimize Addressing of the
Urban Shelters. PhD Thesis, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China, 2011.
32. Xu, J.; Yin, X.; Chen, D.; An, J.; Nie, G. Multi-criteria location model of earthquake evacuation shelters to aid
in urban planning. Int. J. Disaster Risk Red. 2016, 20, 51–62. [CrossRef]
33. Hosseini, S.M.A.; Fuente, A.; Pons, O. Multicriteria decision-making method for sustainable site location of
post-disaster temporary housing in urban areas. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2016, 142, 04016036. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 1759 21 of 21

34. Saaty, T.L. How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1990, 48, 9–26.
[CrossRef]
35. 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]
36. Li, C.Z.; Hong, J.; Xue, F.; Shen, G.Q.; Xu, X.; Mok, M.K. Schedule risks in prefabrication housing production
in Hong Kong: A social network analysis. J. Clean Prod. 2016, 134, 482–494. [CrossRef]
37. Wang, J.W.; Cheng, C.H.; Huang, K.C. Fuzzy hierarchical TOPSIS for supplier selection. Appl. Sof. Comput.
2009, 9, 377–386. [CrossRef]
38. Veerabathiran, R.; Srinath, K.A. Application of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. Int. J. Eng.
Sci. Technol. 2012, 4, 3472–3480. [CrossRef]
39. Hwang, C.; Yoon, K. A State of the Art Survey. In Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications;
Sprinnger-Verlag: New York, NY, USA, 1981.
40. Awasthi, A.; Chauhan, S.S.; Omrani, H.; Panahi, A. A hybrid approach based on SERVQUAL and fuzzy
TOPSIS for evaluating transportation service quality. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2011, 61, 637–646. [CrossRef]
41. Yadav, S.P.; Kumar, S.A. Multi-Criteria Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Group Decision Making for
Supplier Selection with TOPSIS Method. In Proceedings of the Rough Sets, Fuzzy Sets, Data Mining and
Granular Computing, 12th International Conference (RSFDGrC 2009), Delhi, India, 15–18 December 2009.
42. Taylan, O.; Bafail, A.O.; Abdulaal, R.M.S.; Kabli, M.R. Construction projects selection and risk assessment by
fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methodologies. Appl. Sof. Comput. 2014, 17, 105–116. [CrossRef]
43. Zadeh, L.A. Learning Systems and Intelligent Robots. In The Concepts of a Linguistic Variable and Its Application
to Approximate Reasoning; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1975.
44. Berman, O.; Krass, D. The generalized maximal covering location problem. Comput. Oper. Res. 2002, 29,
563–581. [CrossRef]
45. Pérez-Galarce, F.; Canales, L.J.; Vergara, C.; Candia-Vejar, A. An optimization model for the location of
disaster refuges. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 2017, 59, 56–66. [CrossRef]
46. Zhao, L.; Li, H.; Sun, Y.; Huang, R.; Hu, Q.; Wang, J.; Gao, F. Planning emergency shelters for urban disaster
resilience: An integrated location-allocation modeling approach. Sustainability 2017, 9, 2098. [CrossRef]
47. Ma, Y.; Xu, W.; Qin, L.; Zhao, X. Site Selection Models in Natural Disaster Shelters: A Review. Sustainability
2019, 11, 399. [CrossRef]
48. Shan, X.; Peng, J.; Kesete, Y.; Gao, Y.; Kruse, J.; Davidson, R.A.; Nozick, L.K. Market insurance and
self-insurance through retrofit: Analysis of hurricane risk in north carolina. ASCE-ASMEJ RiskUncertain Eng.
Syst. Part A Civ. Eng. 2016, 3. [CrossRef]
49. Peng, J.; Shan, X.G.; Gao, Y.; Kesete, Y.; Davidson, R.A.; Nozick, L.K.; Kruse, J. Modeling the integrated roles
of insurance and retrofit in managing natural disaster risk: A multi-stakeholder perspective. Nat. Hazards
2014, 74, 1043–1068. [CrossRef]
50. Shan, X.; Felder, F.A.; Coit, D.W. Game-theoretic models for electric distribution resiliency/reliability from a
multiple stakeholder perspective. IISE Trans. 2017, 49, 159–177. [CrossRef]

© 2020 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/).