Systematic review compares data envelopment analysis, topsis, and esmvere algorithms for location science applications, suggesting optimal strategies.
The objective of the present paper is to compare three location science methods. Two of the solutions discussed are practical real-world case studies, while the other method is used to reveal the approximation factor of an algorithm. We conduct an in-depth analysis of the originality, similarities, and differences of the three methods to unravel clarity on the conditions where each method may be applied, or where one method might be preferred over another. (1) The Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA)-Technique for Order Performance (preference) by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) technique is usable in many other areas of management science besides location analysis, however it is used in this case to guide the decision of selecting the best locations among alternatives. Hierarchical groups DEA super-efficiency and group TOPSIS technique is applied on mobile money agents’ locations in Harare Zimbabwe. (2) The ESMVERE algorithms introduce novel reformulations of the Uncapacitated Facility Location (UFL) and k-median problems which replace traditional distance matrices with Global Position System (GPS) based Euclidean Distance calculations. They are platform dependent solutions based on the CPLEX Optimization programming language (Opl). The solutions are used to solve a real-world problem which involve the near optimal siting of Hazardous Waste, Used Lead Acid Battery (ULAB), collection facilities in the Republic of Mauritius. (3) The Dual fitting with factor-revealing Linear Program (LP) technique is a location science approximation algorithm solution, used to analyze greedy algorithms that select facilities and connect the clients based on the dual solution information. The thrust of this review is to analyze the complexity, compare, contrast, and discuss the three location science techniques so as to classify them based on their purpose and area of application. Hence this review analyzes three papers and summarizes the main contributions of the three papers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Emmanuel Mvere (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: