Model development for coffee processing plant location selection by using AHP method: Case of Guji Zone, Ethiopia

Figures & data

Figure 1. Coffee production report for eight main countries: 2013–2017 (ICO, 2014)

Table 1.: Site selection model summarized information

No.	Model	Adapted country	Steps (Stage) to complete decision	Goal of developed model (Decision)
1	Brando and Milo, (2010)	German	Five steps	Potential industry location selection
2	Pongpanich, (2000)	Sweden, UK	Five Steps	Relocation production plant
3	Veerayuth and Lu (2006)	Sweden	Six steps	Suitable production location selection
4	Weber and Moses Model, (2006)	Indonesia, California	Three main stages	Optimum processing plant location selection
5	Checherenkova (2008)	Malardalem (Sweden)	Five steps	Production location selection
6	Thai et al., (2005)	Vietnam	Three steps	Specific site selection
7	Eldin and Sui (2003)	Arabian	Two Main phases	Industry site selection

Figure 2. Location selection model according to (Weber and Moses, 2006)

Figure 3. Optimal location selection model (Eldin and Sui, 2003)

Figure 4. Framework of research

Figure 5. Methods of data collection by framework developed by (Kumar, 2005)

Table 2. Five-point scale Likert’s criterion response

No	Mean range	Response Option
1	[1.00–1.80)	Strongly (SDA)
2	[1.80–2.60)	Disagree (DA)
3	[2.60–3.40)	Moderate (M)
4	[3.40–4.20)	Agree (A)
5	[4.20–5.00)	Strongly Agree (SA)

Table 3. Analytic hierarchy process scale values (Alexander, 2012)

AHP scale of importance for comparison pair (aij)	Numerical rating	Reciprocal (decimal)
Extreme Importance	9	1/9 (0.111)
Very strong to extremely	8	1/8 (0.125)
Very strong importance	7	1/7 (0.143)
Strongly to very strong	6	1/6 (0.167)
Strong Importance	5	1/5 (0.200)
Moderately to strong	4	1/4 (0.250)
Moderate Importance	3	1/3 (0.333)
Equally to Moderately	2	1/2 (0.5)
Equal Importance	1	1 (1.000)

Table 4. Multi-collinearity test

Model	Β	Collinearity Statistics
		Tolerance	VIF
(Constant)	0.164
Average of coffee production potential question mean value	.292	.899	1.112
Average of water questions mean value	.315	.913	1.096
Average of land availability question mean value	.207	.823	1.215
Average of distance question mean value	.188	.948	1.055
Average of infrastructure question mean value	.216	.701	1.427
Average of market question mean value	.495	.659	1.517
Average of transportation question mean value	.233	.952	1.051
Average of environment question mean value	.310	.887	1.127
Average of question of labor availability mean value	.302	.873	1.145

Table 5. Linear multiple regression model (Model of Fitness)

Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate
1	.962^a	.925	.914	.03596

Figure 6. Dry and wet-processed coffee report (Guji Zone, 2013)

Figure 7. Current trend conceptual framework (field survey)

Figure 8. Alternative locations and location factors

Table 6. Eight location criteria’s and their abbreviations

No.	Name of location Criteria	Abbreviation of Criteria’s
1	Potential of coffee production	C1
2	Water supply availability	C2
3	Land availability	C3
4	Distance	C4
5	Infrastructures	C5
6	Labor availability	C6
7	Market proximity	C7
8	Environmental condition	C8

Table 7. Pair-wise comparison matrix of the criteria or location factors

Criteria	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	C6	C7	C8
C1	1	5	4	7	6	8	3	5
C2	1/5	1	5	6	4	2	1/5	½
C3	¼	1/5	1	3	2	¼	1/5	6
C4	1/7	1/6	1/3	1	8	5	7	1/5
C5	1/6	¼	½	1/8	1	3	7	½
C6	1/8	½	4	1/5	1/3	1	4	¼
C7	1/3	5	5	1/7	1/7	¼	1	1/5
C8	1/5	2	1/6	5	2	4	5	1
Total	2.4178	14.1166	20.00	22.4678	23.4761	23.500	27.400	13.650

Table 8. Normalized location criteria

0.41	0.354	0.2	0.3115	0.255	0.34	0.109	0.366
0.083	0.0708	0.25	0.267	0.17	0.085	0.0073	0.037
0.103	0.0142	0.05	0.1335	0.085	0.0106	0.073	0.44
0.059	0.0118	0.0166	0.0445	0.341	0.212	0.255	0.0147
0.0689	0.0177	0.025	0.00556	0.0425	0.1276	0.255	0.037
0.0518	0.035	0.2	0.0089	0.014	0.04255	0.159	0.0183
0.1378	0.354	0.25	0.0089	0.0061	0.0106	0.0365	0.015
0.0827	0.142	0.00833	0.2225	0.085	0.1712	0.183	0.0733

Table 9. Priority vectors after normalized comparisons

criteria’s	Priority		criteria’s	Priority
C1	P1	0.293	C5	P5	0.072
C2	P2	0.121	C6	P6	0.066
C3	P3	0.105	C7	P7	0.102
C4	P4	0.119	C8	P8	0.121

Table 10. Potential of coffee production

Coffee Production Potential	A1	A2	A3	A4	Priority Vector
A1	1	1/6	¼	2	0.092
A2	6	1	2	8	0.528
A3	4	½	1	7	0.33
A4	1/2	1/8	1/7	1	0.053

Table 11. Water priority value with respect to alternatives

Water Availability	A1	A2	A3	A4	Priority Vector
A1	1	5	9	7	0.66
A2	1/5	1	4	2	0.182
A3	1/9	¼	1	2	0.087
A4	1/7	½	½	1	0.073

Table 12. Land Priority Value With Respect to Alternatives

Land Availability	A1	A2	A3	A4	Priority Vector
A1	1	½	3	¼	0.150
A2	2	1	5	½	0.280
A3	1/3	1/5	1	1/7	0.059
A4	4	2	7	1	0.510

Table 13. Distance priority value with respect to alternatives

Distance	A1	A2	A3	A4	Priority Vector
A1	1	1/3	¼	3	0.134
A2	3	1	2	6	0.450
A3	4	½	1	7	0.360
A4	1/3	1/6	1/7	1	0.055

Table 14. Infrastructure priority value with respect to alternatives

Infrastructures	A1	A2	A3	A4	Priority Vector
A1	1	1/8	1/3	1/5	0.050
A2	8	1	5	6	0.630
A3	3	1/5	1	2	0.170
A4	5	1/6	½	1	0.150

Table 15. Labor availability priority value with respect to alternatives

Labor Availability	A1	A2	A3	A4	Priority Vector
A1	1	1/6	¼	1/8	0.123
A2	6	1	2	1/3	0.251
A3	4	½	1	¼	0.151
A4	8	3	4	1	0.477

Table 16. Market proximity priority value with respect to alternatives

Market Proximity	A1	A2	A3	A4	Priority Vector
A1	1	1/3	3	1/5	0.1303
A2	3	1	4	½	0.288
A3	1/3	¼	1	1/6	0.0667
A4	5	2	6	1	0.5164

Table 17. Environmental priority value with respect to alternatives

Environmental Condition	A1	A2	A3	A4	Priority Vector
A1	1	1	1/3	½	0.1712
A2	3	1	5	3	0.485
A3	1/2	1/5	1	1/5	0.0716
A4	2	1/3	5	1	0.2733

Table 18. Calculation of priority vector for the entire alternative location and location factors

Alternative Locations/Priority Vectors	Location Factors
	Coffee production	Land availability	Water availability	Distance	Infrastructures	Labor availability	Market Proximity	Env, Condition	Priority vector for the entireGoal
	0.2932	0.1213	0.1055	0.1193	0.072	0.0662	0.1024	0.1212
Sawana (A1)	0.091	0.660	0.150	0.1340	0.05	0.123	0.1303	0.1712	0.230
Bantikorbo (A2)	0.530	0.182	0.300	0.450	0.63	0.251	0.288	0.485	0.413
Taro (A3)	0.330	0.087	0.060	0.360	0.17	0.151	0.0667	0.0716	0.218
Diba Bate (A4)	0.053	0.073	0.510	0.055	0.15	0.477	0.5164	0.2733	0.213

Table 19. Ranking of alternative locations (source: AHP output)

Alternative Locations	Priority Vector Values	Ranking of Locations
Bantikorbo (A2)	0.413	1
Sawana(A1)	0.230	2
Taro (A3)	0.218	3
Diba Bate (A4)	0.213	4

Figure 9. Proposed model for coffee processing plant location selection

ICO. (2014). International coffee organization, and world coffee trade, a review of the markets, challenges and opportunities facing the sector, 1963 –2013.

 Google Scholar

Branko, R., & Miloš, S. (2010). Marketing sites to better attract resources. Marketing, 41(4), 213–20.

 Google Scholar

Pongpanich, C. (2000). Manufacturing location decisions: choosing the right location for international manufacturing facilities, University of Cambridge Institute of Manufacturing.

 Google Scholar

Veerayuth, T., & Lu, H. (2006). Models and factors used for production location decisions: A review and categorizing framework, Master Thesis Work, Innovative Production, Mälardalen University.

 Google Scholar

Weber and Moses. (2006). Production location selection model, ecosystem aware global supply chain management,

 Google Scholar

Checherenkova, S. (2008). Pre-study of the important factors for the factory start-up abroad. MSc. Mälardalen University.

 Google Scholar

Thai, V., Tukka, K., & Grewal, D. (2005). Selecting the location of distribution center in logistics operations. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 17(3): 3-24.

 Google Scholar

Eldin, N., & Sui, D. (2003). A COM- based spatial decision support system for industrial site selection. Journal of Geographic Information and Decision Analysis, 7(2), 72–92.

 Google Scholar

Kumar, R. (2005). Research methodology step-by-step guide for beginners and 2nd ed. sage publications ltd.

 Google Scholar

Alexander, M. (2012). Decision making using analytical hierarchy process (AHP). SAS/IML.

 Google Scholar

Guji Zone (2013). Eastern Guji Zone administration offices: Coffee and tea authority office, investment office and rural land management office, 2010–2012.

 Google Scholar