A multiobjective model for locating undesirable facilities
- 191 Downloads
- 38 Citations
Abstract
In this paper, we develop a multiobjective model to depict the tradeoffs involved when locating one or more undesirable facilities to service a region. We assume that the region requires a certain capacity of service, and that this capacity can be met by building a combination of different-sized facilities. Examples could include sanitary landfills, incinerators, and power-generating stations. Our objectives are to minimize the total cost of the facilities located, the total opposition to the facilities, and the maximum disutility imposed on any individual. Opposition and disutility are assumed to be nonlinearly decreasing functions of distance, and increasing functions of facility size. We formulate our model as a multiobjective mixed-integer program, and generate the set of efficient solutions using an enumeration algorithm. Our code can solve realistically sized problems on a microcomputer. We give an example to illustrate the tradeoffs between the three objectives, which are inevitable in such a location problem.
Keywords
Transport Cost Efficient Solution Transportation Problem Population Center Candidate SitePreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- [1]R.L. Church and T.L. Bell, Incorporating preferences in location-allocation models, Geograph. Persp. 48(1981)22–34.Google Scholar
- [2]J.L. Cohon, C. ReVelle, J. Current, T. Eagles, R. Eberhart and R. Church, Application of a multiobjective facility location model to power plant siting in a six-state region of the US, Comput. Oper. Res. (1980)107–123.Google Scholar
- [3]R. Dutton, G. Hinman and C.B. Millham, The optimal location of nuclear-power facilities in the Pacific Northwest, Oper. Res. 22(1974)478–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [4]E. Erkut and S. Neuman, A survey of analytical models for locating undesirable facilities, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 40(1989)275–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [5]E. Erkut, The discretep-dispersion problem, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 46(1990)48–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [6]E. Erkut and M. Tarimcilar, On sensitivity analysis in the analytic hierarchy process, IMA J. Math. Appl. Bus. Ind. 3(1991)61–83.Google Scholar
- [7]R. Gopalan, K.S. Kolluri, R. Batta and M.H. Karwan, Modeling equity of risk in the transportation of hazardous materials, Oper. Res. 38(1990)961–973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [8]J. Halpern and O. Maimon, Accord and conflict among several objectives in locational decisions on tree networks, in:Locational Analysis of Public Facilities, ed. J.-F. Thisse and H.G. Zoller (North-Holland, 1983), pp. 301–314.Google Scholar
- [9]R.L. Keeney,Siting Energy Facilities (Academic Press, New York, 1980).Google Scholar
- [10]G. List and P. Mirchandani, An integrated network/planar multiobjective model for routing and siting hazardous materials and wastes, Transp. Sci. 25(1991)146–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [11]Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management, Bureau of Solid Waste Disposal, Hazardous waste management in Massachusetts (1983).Google Scholar
- [12]D. Morell, Siting and the politics of equity, Hazardous Waste 1(1984)555–571.Google Scholar
- [13]K.E. Portney,Siting Hazardous Waste Treatment Facilities: The NIMBY Syndrome (Auburn House, Westport, CT, 1991).Google Scholar
- [14]S.J. Ratick and A.L. White, A risk-sharing model for locating noxious facilities, Environ. Planning B: Planning and Design 15(1988)165–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [15]R.E. Steuer,Multiple Criteria Optimisation: Theory, Computation and Applications (Wiley, New York, 1986).Google Scholar
- [16]A.L. White and S.J. Ratick, Risk, compensation and regional equity in locating hazardous facilities, Papers Regional Sci. Assoc. 67(1989)29–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar