Skip to main content
Log in

A weighted centroids approach based trapezoidal interval type-2 fuzzy TOPSIS method for evaluating agricultural risk management tools

  • Soft computing in decision making and in modeling in economics
  • Published:
Soft Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study proposes a trapezoidal interval type-2 fuzzy TOPSIS method to evaluate agricultural risk management tools. The weighted centroids based on AHP is used in the proposed method to defuzzify the fuzzy weighted ratings of each alternative versus each criterion. By this way, this method considers all centroid values of the upper and lower membership functions and uses the weight as a parameter to consider the relative importance of controid values of the upper and lower membership functions. Additionally, the left and the right upper membership function and lower membership function of the multiplication of two positive trapezoidal IT2FNs can be developed based on the α-cuts. The proposed method is applied to help farmers compare agricultural risk management tools and select the most suitable one. This is the first study using fuzzy decision-making methods to help farmers evaluate agricultural risk management tools. To show the proposed method’s feasibility, a numerical example is displayed. Finally, some comparisons are made to show the advantages of the proposed method, and an experiment is conducted to show the robustness of the proposed method.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Enquiries about data availability should be directed to the authors.

References

  • Akram M, Adeel A (2019) TOPSIS approach for MAGDM based on interval-valued hesitant fuzzy N-soft environment. Int J Fuzzy Syst 21(3):993–1009

    Google Scholar 

  • Akram M, Shumaiza, Arshad M (2020) Bipolar fuzzy TOPSIS and bipolar fuzzy ELECTRE-I methods to diagnosis. Comput Appl Math 39:7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40314-019-0980-8

  • Akram M, Dudek WA, Ilyas F (2019) Group decision-making based on pythagorean fuzzy TOPSIS method. Int J Intell Syst 34(7):1455–1475

    Google Scholar 

  • Akram M, Garg H, Zahid K (2020) Extensions of ELECTRE-I and TOPSIS methods for group decision-making under complex pythagorean fuzzy environment. Iran J Fuzzy Syst 17(5):147–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Akram M, Kahraman C, Zahid K (2021a) Extension of TOPSIS model to the decision-making under complex spherical fuzzy information. Soft Comput 25(16):10771–10795

    Google Scholar 

  • Akram M, Luqman A, Alcantud JCR (2021b) Risk evaluation in failure modes and effects analysis: hybrid TOPSIS and ELECTRE I solutions with pythagorean fuzzy information. Neural Comput Appl 33(11):5675–5703

    Google Scholar 

  • Aktan HE, Samut PK (2013) Agricultural performance evaluation by integrating fuzzy AHP and VIKOR methods. Int J Appl Decis Sci 6(4):324–344

    Google Scholar 

  • Antón J (2008) Agricultural policies and risk management: a holistic approach. In: 108th EAAE seminar ‘income stabilisation in a changing agricultural world: policy and tools’, Warsaw, Poland

  • Banihabib ME, Shabestari MH (2016) Fuzzy hybrid MCDM model for ranking the agricultural water demand management strategies in arid areas. Water Resour Manage 31(1):495–513

    Google Scholar 

  • Baykasoğlu A, Gölcük İ (2017) Development of an interval type-2 fuzzy sets based hierarchical MADM model by combining DEMATEL and TOPSIS. Expert Syst Appl 70:37–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Bera AK, Jana DK, Banerjee D, Nandy T (2020) Supplier selection using extended IT2 fuzzy TOPSIS and IT2 fuzzy MOORA considering subjective and objective factors. Soft Comput 24(12):8899–8915

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Bielza M, Garrido A, Sumpsi JM (2007) Finding optimal price risk management instruments: the case of the Spanish potato sector. Agric Econ 36(1):67–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Breen B, Hennessy T, Donnellan T, Hanrahan K (2013) Tools and polices for agricultural risk management. In: Agricultural economics society AES 87th annual conference, April 8–10, 2013. Warwick University, Coventry, vol 84, pp 487–492

  • Büyüközkan G, Parlak IB, Tolga AC (2016) Evaluation of knowledge management tools by using an interval type-2 fuzzy TOPSIS method. Int J Comput Intell Syst 9(5):812–826

    Google Scholar 

  • Celik E, Akyuz E (2018) An interval type-2 fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS methods for decision-making problems in maritime transportation engineering: the case of ship loader. Ocean Eng 155(7):371–381

    Google Scholar 

  • Celik E, Gul M, Aydin N, Gumus AT, Guneri AF (2015) A comprehensive review of multi criteria decision making approaches based on interval type-2 fuzzy sets. Knowl-Based Syst 85:329–341

    Google Scholar 

  • Chatterjee K, Kar S (2016) Multi-criteria analysis of supply chain risk management using interval valued fuzzy TOPSIS. Ops—Sopus-Scimago 53(3):474–499

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Chen TY (2013) A signed-distance-based approach to importance assessment and multi-criteria group decision analysis based on interval type-2 fuzzy set. Knowl Inf Syst 35(1):193–231

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Chen SJ, Chen SM (2007) Fuzzy risk analysis based on the ranking of generalized trapezoidal fuzzy numbers. Appl Intell 26(1):1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen SM, Lee LW (2010a) Fuzzy multiple attributes group decision-making based on the ranking values and the arithmetic operations of interval type-2 fuzzy sets. Expert Syst Appl 37(1):824–833

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen SM, Lee LW (2010b) Fuzzy multiple attributes group decision-making based on the interval type-2 TOPSIS method. Expert Syst Appl 37(4):2790–2798

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen CT, Lin CT, Huang SF (2006) A fuzzy approach for supplier evaluation and selection in supply chain management. Int J Prod Econ 102(2):289–301

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng CH (1998) A new approach for ranking fuzzy numbers by distance method. Fuzzy Sets Syst 95(3):307–317

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng RC, Kang B, Zhang J (2022) A novel method to rank fuzzy numbers using the developed golden rule representative value. Appl Intell. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-021-02965-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi HTX, Yu VF (2018) Ranking generalized fuzzy numbers based on centroid and rank index. Appl Soft Comput J 68:283–292

    Google Scholar 

  • Chu TC, Le THP (2022) Evaluating and selecting agricultural insurance packages through an AHP-based fuzzy TOPSIS method. Soft Comput. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-022-06964-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chu TC, Yeh WC (2018) Fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making via an inverse function-based total utility approach. Soft Comput 22(22):7423–7433

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • De A, Kundu P, Das S, Kar S (2020) A ranking method based on interval type-2 fuzzy sets for multiple attribute group decision making. Soft Comput 24:131–154

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Demeke M, Kiermeier M, Sow M (2016) Antonaci L (2016) Agriculture and food insecurity risk management in Africa. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Deveci M, Demirel NÇ, Ahmetoğlu E (2017) Airline new route selection based on interval type-2 fuzzy MCDM: a case study of new route between Turkey-North American region destinations. J Air Transp Manag 59(3):83–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Deveci M, Canıtez F, Gökaşar I (2018) WASPAS and TOPSIS based interval type-2 fuzzy MCDM method for a selection of a car sharing station. Sustain Cities Soc 41(2):777–791

    Google Scholar 

  • Dymova L, Sevastjanov P, Tikhonenko A (2015) An interval type-2 fuzzy extension of the TOPSIS method using alpha cuts. Knowl-Based Syst 83(1):116–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Limón JA, Arriaza M, Riesgo L (2003) An MCDM analysis of agricultural risk aversion. Eur J Oper Res 151(3):569–585

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Hart CE, Babcock BA (2001) Rankings of risk management strategies combining crop insurance products and marketing positions. CARD Working Papers, 294

  • Hwang CL, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications : a state-of-the-art survey. Springer, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann A, Gupta MM (1985) Introduction to fuzzy arithmetic: theory and application. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kisaka-Lwayo M, Obi A (2012) Risk perceptions and management strategies by smallholder farmers in KwaZulu-Natal Province, South Africa. Int J Agric Manag 01(3):28–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Liang C, Wu J, Zhang J (2006) Ranking indices and rules for fuzzy numbers based on gravity center point. Proc World Congr Intell Control Autom (WCICA) 1:3159–3163

    Google Scholar 

  • Liao TW (2015) Two interval type 2 fuzzy TOPSIS material selection methods. Mater Des 88:1088–1099

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu P, Jin F (2012) A multi-attribute group decision-making method based on weighted geometric aggregation operators of interval-valued trapezoidal fuzzy numbers. Appl Math Model 36(6):2498–2509

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Mei Y, Xie K (2017) An improved TOPSIS method for metro station evacuation strategy selection in interval type-2 fuzzy environment. Clust Comput 22:2781–2792

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendel JM, John RIB (2002) Type-2 fuzzy sets made simple. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 10(2):117–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendel JM, John RI, Liu F (2006) Interval type-2 fuzzy logic systems made simple. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 14(6):808–821

    Google Scholar 

  • Meuwissen MPM, Huirne RBM, Hardaker JB (2001) Risk and risk management: an empirical analysis of Dutch livestock farmers. Livest Prod Sci 69(1):43–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Morales C, Garrido A, Pálinkás P (2008) Risks perceptions and risk management instruments in the European Union: Do farmers have a clear idea of what they need ? In: 12th Congress of the European Association of Agricultural Economists, pp 1–8

  • Mousakhani S, Nazari-Shirkouhi S, Bozorgi-Amiri A (2017) A novel interval type-2 fuzzy evaluation model based group decision analysis for green supplier selection problems: a case study of battery industry. J Clean Prod 168:205–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Murakami S, Maeda H, Imamura S (1984) Fuzzy decision analysis in the development of centralized regional energy control systems. Energy Dev Jpn 6(4):379–396

    Google Scholar 

  • Orojloo M, Shahdany SMH, Roozbahani A (2018) Developing an integrated risk management framework for agricultural water conveyance and distribution systems within fuzzy decision making approaches. Sci Total Environ 627:1363–1376

    Google Scholar 

  • Park JH, Park IY, Kwun YC, Tan X (2011) Extension of the TOPSIS method for decision making problems under interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Appl Math Model 35(5):2544–2556

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Rohde UL, Jain GC, Poddar AK, Ghosh AK (2012) Introduction to integral calculus. Wiley

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Saqib S, Ahmad MM, Panezai S, Ali U (2016) Factors influencing farmers’ adoption of agricultural credit as a risk management strategy: the case of Pakistan. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 17:67–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharaf IM (2019) An interval type-2 fuzzy TOPSIS using the extended vertex method for MAGDM. SN Appl Sci 2:87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-019-1825-1

  • Toledo R, Engler A, Ahumada V (2011) Evaluation of risk factors in agriculture: an application of the analytical hierarchical process (AHP) methodology. Chil J Agric Res 71(1):114–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Topaloglu M, Yarkin F, Kaya T (2018) Solid waste collection system selection for smart cities based on a type-2 fuzzy multi-criteria decision technique. Soft Comput 22(15):4879–4890

    Google Scholar 

  • Tudor K, Spaulding A, Roy KD, Winter R (2014) An analysis of risk management tools utilized by Illinois farmers. Agric Financ Rev 74(1):69–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Velandia M, Rejesus RM, Knight TO, Sherrick BJ (2009) Factors affecting farmers’ utilization of agricultural risk management tools: the case of crop insurance, forward contracting, and spreading sales. J Agric Appl Econ 41(1):107–123

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang YJ, Lee HS (2008) The revised method of ranking fuzzy numbers with an area between the centroid and original points. Comput Math Appl 55(9):2033–2042

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Wang YM, Yang JB, Xu DL, Chin KS (2006) On the centroids of fuzzy numbers. Fuzzy Sets Syst 157(7):919–926

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Yager RR (1978) Ranking fuzzy subsets over the unit interval. In: 1978 IEEE conference on decision and control including the 17th symposium on adaptive processes, pp 1435–1437

  • Yang YY, Liu XW, Liu F (2020) Trapezoidal interval type-2 fuzzy TOPSIS using alpha-cuts. Int J Fuzzy Syst 22(1):293–309

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu VF, Van LH, Dat LQ, Chi HTX, Chou SY, Duong TTT (2017) Analyzing the ranking method for fuzzy numbers in fuzzy decision making based on the magnitude concepts. Int J Fuzzy Syst 19:1279–1289

    Google Scholar 

  • Yucesan M, Mete S, Serin F, Celik E, Gul M (2019) An integrated best-worst and interval type-2 fuzzy TOPSIS methodology for green supplier selection. Mathematics 7:182

    Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh LA (1975) The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning-I. Inf Sci 8(3):199–249

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the two anonymous referees and the Academic Editor for providing helpful comments. Their insights and suggestions led to a better presentation of the ideas expressed in this paper. This paper was partially supported by the National Science and Technology Council, Taiwan, under Grant MOST 111-2410-H-218-004.

Funding

The funding was partially provided by the National Science and Technology Council, Taiwan (Grant No. MOST 111-2410-H-218-004).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ta-Chung Chu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix A

Theorem

Let \(q\) and \(w\) be two trapezoidal IT2FNs, \(q,w \in R^{ + } , \, and\)\({\text{ q}} = ((a_{1}^{{\text{U}}} ,a_{2}^{{\text{U}}} ,a_{3}^{{\text{U}}} ,a_{4}^{{\text{U}}} ;H_{q}^{{\text{U}}} ), \, (a_{1}^{{\text{L}}} ,a_{2}^{{\text{L}}} ,a_{3}^{{\text{L}}} ,a_{4}^{{\text{L}}} ;H_{q}^{{\text{L}}} ))\), \(w = ((b_{1}^{{\text{U}}} ,b_{2}^{{\text{U}}} ,b_{3}^{{\text{U}}} ,b_{4}^{{\text{U}}} ;H_{w}^{{\text{U}}} ),(b_{1}^{{\text{L}}} ,b_{2}^{{\text{L}}} ,b_{3}^{{\text{L}}} ,b_{4}^{{\text{L}}} ;H_{w}^{{\text{L}}} ))\). The multiplication of \(q\) and \(w\) is defined by the upper membership function \(\overline{f}_{q \otimes w}^{{}} (x)\), including left upper membership function \(\overline{f}_{q \otimes w}^{L} (x)\) and the right upper membership function \(\overline{f}_{q \otimes w}^{R} (x)\), and lower membership functions \(\underline {f}_{q \otimes w} (x)\), including left lower membership function \(\underline {f}_{q \otimes w}^{L} (x)\) and the right lower membership function \(\underline {f}_{q \otimes w}^{R} (x)\), as follows.

$$ \overline{f}_{q \otimes w} (x) = \left\{ \begin{gathered} \overline{f}_{q \otimes w}^{L} (x) = \frac{{ - F_{1} { + }\sqrt {F_{1}^{2} - 4E_{1} (G_{1} - x)} }}{{2E_{1} }}, \, G_{1} \le x < G_{2} , \hfill \\ H_{q \otimes w}^{{\text{U}}} , \, G_{2} \le x \le G_{3} , \hfill \\ \overline{f}_{q \otimes w}^{R} (x) = \frac{{ - F_{2} - \sqrt {F_{2}^{2} - 4E_{2} (G_{4} - x)} }}{{2E_{2} }},G_{3} < x \le G_{4} ; \hfill \\ \end{gathered} \right. $$

and

$$ \underline {f}_{q \otimes w} (x) = \left\{ \begin{gathered} \underline {f}_{q \otimes w}^{L} (x) = \frac{{ - F_{3} + \sqrt {F_{3}^{2} - 4E_{3} (Q_{1} - x)} }}{{2E_{3} }}, \, Q_{1} \le x < Q_{2} , \hfill \\ H_{q \otimes w}^{{\text{L}}} , \, Q_{2} \le x \le Q_{3} , \hfill \\ \underline {f}_{q \otimes w}^{R} (x) = \frac{{ - F_{4} - \sqrt {F_{4}^{2} - 4E_{4} (Q_{4} - x)} }}{{2E_{4} }},Q_{3} < x \le Q_{4} . \hfill \\ \end{gathered} \right. $$

where \(E_{1} = (a_{2}^{{\text{U}}} - a_{1}^{{\text{U}}} )(b_{2}^{{\text{U}}} - b_{1}^{{\text{U}}} )\), \(F_{1} = a_{1}^{{\text{U}}} ((b_{2}^{{\text{U}}} - b_{1}^{{\text{U}}} ) + b_{1}^{{\text{U}}} (a_{2}^{{\text{U}}} - a_{1}^{{\text{U}}} )\), \(E_{2} = (a_{3}^{{\text{U}}} - a_{4}^{{\text{U}}} {)}(b_{3}^{{\text{U}}} - b_{4}^{{\text{U}}} )\),\(F_{2} = a_{4}^{{\text{U}}} (b_{3}^{{\text{U}}} - b_{4}^{{\text{U}}} ) + b_{4}^{{\text{U}}} (a_{3}^{{\text{U}}} - a_{4}^{{\text{U}}} {)}\), \(G_{1} = a_{1}^{{\text{U}}} b_{1}^{{\text{U}}}\), \(G_{2} = a_{2}^{{\text{U}}} b_{2}^{{\text{U}}}\), \(G_{3} = a_{3}^{{\text{U}}} b_{3}^{{\text{U}}}\), \(G_{4} = a_{4}^{{\text{U}}} b_{4}^{{\text{U}}}\), \(H_{q \otimes w}^{{\text{U}}} = \min (H_{q}^{{\text{U}}} ,H_{w}^{{\text{U}}} )\); \(E_{3} = (a_{2}^{{\text{L}}} - a_{1}^{{\text{L}}} )(b_{2}^{{\text{L}}} - b_{1}^{{\text{L}}} )\), \(F_{3} = a_{1}^{{\text{L}}} (b_{2}^{{\text{L}}} - b_{1}^{{\text{L}}} ) + b_{1}^{{\text{L}}} (a_{2}^{{\text{L}}} - a_{1}^{{\text{L}}} )\), \(E_{4} = (a_{3}^{{\text{L}}} - a_{4}^{{\text{L}}} )(b_{3}^{{\text{L}}} - b_{4}^{{\text{L}}} )\),\(F_{4} = a_{4}^{{\text{L}}} (b_{3}^{{\text{L}}} - b_{4}^{{\text{L}}} ) + b_{4}^{{\text{L}}} (a_{3}^{{\text{L}}} - a_{4}^{{\text{L}}} )\), \(Q_{1} = a_{1}^{{\text{L}}} b_{1}^{{\text{L}}}\), \(Q_{2} = a_{2}^{{\text{L}}} b_{2}^{{\text{L}}}\), \(Q_{3} = a_{3}^{{\text{L}}} b_{3}^{{\text{L}}}\), \(Q_{4} = a_{4}^{{\text{L}}} b_{4}^{{\text{L}}}\), \(H_{q \otimes w}^{{\text{L}}} = \min (H_{q}^{{\text{L}}} ,H_{w}^{{\text{L}}} )\).

Proof

By using Eq. (3) and Eqs. (14)–(22) based on \(\alpha {\text{ - cuts}}\) and interval arithemetic operations of fuzzy numbers, the upper membership function \(\overline{f}_{q \otimes w}^{{}} (x)\), including \(\overline{f}_{{v_{ij} }}^{L} (x)\) and \(\overline{f}_{{v_{ij} }}^{R} (x)\), and lower membership functions \(\underline {f}_{q \otimes w} (x)\), including \(\underline {f}_{{v_{ij} }}^{L} (x)\) and \(\underline {f}_{{v_{ij} }}^{R} (x)\), can be developed as shown in the theorem; in which \(\overline{f}_{q \otimes w}^{L} (x) = \frac{{ - F_{1} - \sqrt {F_{1}^{2} - 4E_{1} (G_{1} - x)} }}{{2E_{1} }}\) and \(\underline {f}_{q \otimes w}^{L} (x) = \frac{{ - F_{3} - \sqrt {F_{3}^{2} - 4E_{3} (Q_{1} - x)} }}{{2E_{3} }}\) are not allowed because negative grades are not allowed.where \(E_{1} = (a_{2}^{{\text{U}}} - a_{1}^{{\text{U}}} )(b_{2}^{{\text{U}}} - b_{1}^{{\text{U}}} )\), \(F_{1} = a_{1}^{{\text{U}}} ((b_{2}^{{\text{U}}} - b_{1}^{{\text{U}}} ) + b_{1}^{{\text{U}}} (a_{2}^{{\text{U}}} - a_{1}^{{\text{U}}} )\), \(E_{2} = (a_{3}^{{\text{U}}} - a_{4}^{{\text{U}}} {)}(b_{3}^{{\text{U}}} - b_{4}^{{\text{U}}} )\),\(F_{2} = a_{4}^{{\text{U}}} (b_{3}^{{\text{U}}} - b_{4}^{{\text{U}}} ) + b_{4}^{{\text{U}}} (a_{3}^{{\text{U}}} - a_{4}^{{\text{U}}} {)}\), \(G_{1} = a_{1}^{{\text{U}}} b_{1}^{{\text{U}}}\), \(G_{2} = a_{2}^{{\text{U}}} b_{2}^{{\text{U}}}\), \(G_{3} = a_{3}^{{\text{U}}} b_{3}^{{\text{U}}}\), \(G_{4} = a_{4}^{{\text{U}}} b_{4}^{{\text{U}}}\), \(H_{q \otimes w}^{{\text{U}}} = \min (H_{q}^{{\text{U}}} ,H_{w}^{{\text{U}}} )\); \(E_{3} = (a_{2}^{{\text{L}}} - a_{1}^{{\text{L}}} )(b_{2}^{{\text{L}}} - b_{1}^{{\text{L}}} )\), \(F_{3} = a_{1}^{{\text{L}}} (b_{2}^{{\text{L}}} - b_{1}^{{\text{L}}} ) + b_{1}^{{\text{L}}} (a_{2}^{{\text{L}}} - a_{1}^{{\text{L}}} )\), \(E_{4} = (a_{3}^{{\text{L}}} - a_{4}^{{\text{L}}} )(b_{3}^{{\text{L}}} - b_{4}^{{\text{L}}} )\),\(F_{4} = a_{4}^{{\text{L}}} (b_{3}^{{\text{L}}} - b_{4}^{{\text{L}}} ) + b_{4}^{{\text{L}}} (a_{3}^{{\text{L}}} - a_{4}^{{\text{L}}} )\), \(Q_{1} = a_{1}^{{\text{L}}} b_{1}^{{\text{L}}}\), \(Q_{2} = a_{2}^{{\text{L}}} b_{2}^{{\text{L}}}\), \(Q_{3} = a_{3}^{{\text{L}}} b_{3}^{{\text{L}}}\), \(Q_{4} = a_{4}^{{\text{L}}} b_{4}^{{\text{L}}}\), \(H_{q \otimes w}^{{\text{L}}} = \min (H_{q}^{{\text{L}}} ,H_{w}^{{\text{L}}} )\).

Moreover, \(\overline{f}_{q \otimes w}^{R} (x) = \frac{{ - F_{2} + \sqrt {F_{2}^{2} - 4E_{2} (G_{4} - x)} }}{{2E_{2} }}\) and \(\underline {f}_{q \otimes w}^{R} (x) = \frac{{ - F_{4} + \sqrt {F_{4}^{2} - 4E_{4} (Q_{4} - x)} }}{{2E_{4} }}\) are not allowed because their grades are not zero when applying \(x = G_{4}\) and \(x = Q_{4}\), respectively.□

Appendix B

Corollary 1

\(\overline{f}_{q \otimes w}^{L} (x) = 0\) if \(x = G_{1}\) and \(\underline {f}_{q \otimes w}^{L} (x) = 0\) if \(x = Q_{1}\).

Proof

Apply \(x = G_{1}\) to \(\overline{f}_{q \otimes w}^{L} (x) = \frac{{ - F_{1} { + }\sqrt {F_{1}^{2} - 4E_{1} (G_{1} - x)} }}{{2E_{1} }}\) to obtain.

$$ \overline{f}_{q \otimes w}^{L} (x) = \frac{{ - F_{1} { + }\sqrt {F_{1}^{2} - 4E_{1} (G_{1} - G_{1} )} }}{{2E_{1} }} = \frac{{ - F_{1} { + }F_{1} }}{{2E_{1} }} = 0 $$

Similarly, \(\underline {f}_{q \otimes w}^{L} (x)\) = 0 if \(x = Q_{1}\).□

Corollary 2

\(\overline{f}_{q \otimes w}^{R} (x) = 0\) if \(x = G_{4}\) and \(\underline {f}_{q \otimes w}^{R} (x) = 0\) if \(x = Q_{4}\).

Proof

Apply \(x = G_{4}\) to \(\overline{f}_{q \otimes w}^{R} (x) = \frac{{ - F_{2} - \sqrt {F_{2}^{2} - 4E_{2} (G_{4} - x)} }}{{2E_{2} }}\) to obtain.

$$ \overline{f}_{q \otimes w}^{R} (x) = \frac{{ - F_{2} - \sqrt {F_{2}^{2} - 4E_{2} (G_{4} - G_{4} )} }}{{2E_{2} }} = \frac{{ - F_{2} - \left( { - F_{2} } \right)}}{{2E_{2} }} = 0 $$

Similarly, \(\underline {f}_{q \otimes w}^{R} (x) = 0\) if \(x = Q_{4}\). □

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Le, T.H.P., Chu, TC. A weighted centroids approach based trapezoidal interval type-2 fuzzy TOPSIS method for evaluating agricultural risk management tools. Soft Comput 27, 17153–17173 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-023-08953-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-023-08953-9

Keywords

Navigation