Multi-Criteria Approach in Selecting Optimal Retail Store Locations Using Integration of LODECI and ERVD Methods

Setiawansyah Setiawansyah; Ajeng Savitri Puspaningrum

doi:10.58602/chain.v4i2.250

Setiawansyah Setiawansyah Universitas Teknokrat Indonesia
Ajeng Savitri Puspaningrum Universitas Teknokrat Indonesia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.58602/chain.v4i2.250

Keywords: Retail location selection, Multi-criteria decision making, LODECI method, ERVD method, Decision support system

Abstract

Selecting an optimal retail store location is a complex multi-criteria decision-making problem involving conflicting factors such as cost, accessibility, demographics, competition, and market potential. This study proposes an integrated approach combining the LODECI (Logarithmic Decomposition of Criteria Importance) method and the ERVD (Election based on Relative Value Distances) method to improve the objectivity, accuracy, and stability of decision results. LODECI is applied to determine criterion weights based on data distribution characteristics using logarithmic decomposition, reducing subjectivity in the weighting process. Subsequently, ERVD is utilized to evaluate and rank alternatives based on their relative distances to ideal and non-ideal solutions, enabling a more comprehensive assessment of each location. The research results show that the proposed integration effectively produces consistent and discriminative rankings, with Location F having a value of 0.9759 identified as the best alternative, followed by Location E with a value of 0.8461 and Location C with a value of 0.7882. Overall, the integration of LODECI and ERVD provides a robust decision-making framework that enhances reliability in selecting optimal retail store locations in complex and heterogeneous environments.

References

V. Pajić, M. Andrejić, M. Jolović, and M. Kilibarda, “Strategic Warehouse Location Selection in Business Logistics: A Novel Approach Using IMF SWARA–MARCOS—A Case Study of a Serbian Logistics Service Provider,” Mathematics, vol. 12, no. 5. 2024. doi: 10.3390/math12050776.

A. Keshtpour and R. K. Chakrabortty, “The selection of saltwater desalination technology using new measurement alternatives by a combination of angle and distance (MACAD) method: a case study,” Environ. Syst. Decis., vol. 45, no. 3, p. 41, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s10669-025-10034-1.

B. Efe, B. Yelbey, and L. Efe, “Unmanned aerial vehicle selection using interval valued q rung orthopair fuzzy number based MAIRCA method TT - Aralık değerli q seviyeli bulanık sayı temelli MAIRCA yöntemiyle insansız hava aracı seçimi,” Pamukkale Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilim. Derg., vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 37–46, 2025, [Online]. Available: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/pajes/issue/90500/1644156

P. Sathya, Nivetha Martin, and Florentine Smarandache, “Plithogenic Forest Hypersoft Sets in Plithogenic Contradiction Based Multi-Criteria Decision Making,” Neutrosophic Sets Syst., vol. 73 SE-A, pp. 668–693, Sep. 2024, [Online]. Available: https://fs.unm.edu/nss8/index.php/111/article/view/5118

D. Tešić, M. Radovanović, D. Božanić, D. Pamucar, A. Milić, and A. Puška, “Modification of the DIBR and MABAC Methods by Applying Rough Numbers and Its Application in Making Decisions,” Information, vol. 13, no. 8, p. 353, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.3390/info13080353.

P. Rani, A. R. Mishra, D. Pamucar, A. M. Alshamrani, and A. F. Alrasheedi, “Assessment of digital transformation indicators to prioritize sustainable financial services using q-rung orthopair fuzzy rough decision-making model,” Appl. Soft Comput., vol. 170, p. 112715, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2025.112715.

A. Saputra and A. T. Priandika, “Combination of Logarithmic Least Square Weighting and MAUT Method for Best Employee Selection in Retail Companies,” Paradig. - J. Komput. dan Inform., vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 37–47, 2025, doi: 10.31294/mf9wad40.

S. Dündar, “Prioritizing the Regional Preferences of Turkish Investors Regarding Foreign Direct Investment by ARLON Method,” Konya J. Eng. Sci., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 927–946, 2025, doi: 10.36306/konjes.1648279.

C. Malandri, L. Mantecchini, F. P. N. Costa, and V. Rizzello, “Logistics facilities location choice modeling: Effects of environmental constraints,” J. Transp. Geogr., vol. 131, p. 104529, 2026, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2025.104529.

Y. P. Suprapto, H. Haerudin, and A. Danuwidodo, “Decision Support System for Employee Performance Assessment Using Analytical Hierarchy Process and Simple Additive Weighting Methods,” J. Inf. Syst. Informatics, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 766–780, 2024, doi: 10.51519/journalisi.v6i2.721.

O. Pala, “Assessment of the social progress on European Union by logarithmic decomposition of criteria importance,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 238, p. 121846, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.121846.

A. Çilek and O. Şeyranlıoğlu, “Measuring the Financial Performance of Reinsurance Companies in Türkiye with LODECI, CRADIS and AROMAN MCDM Methods TT - LODECI, CRADIS ve AROMAN,” Int. J. Bus. Econ. Stud., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–18, 2025, doi: 10.54821/uiecd.1587675.

G. C. Yalçın, K. Kara, and T. Senapati, “A hybrid spherical fuzzy logarithmic decomposition of criteria importance and alternative ranking technique based on Adaptive Standardized Intervals model with application,” Decis. Anal. J., vol. 11, p. 100441, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dajour.2024.100441.

A. Shekhovtsov, B. Kizielewicz, and W. Sałabun, “The universal library for solving multi-criteria decision-making problems,” SoftwareX, vol. 24, p. 101519, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.softx.2023.101519.

S. Boujelben and M. Souissi, “Comparison of a novel single reference point multi-attribute decision making method with EDAS method,” Int. J. Oper. Res., vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 360–381, 2025, doi: 10.1504/IJOR.2025.144672.