Fig 1.
Decision flow chart.
Table 1.
Translation between linguistic variables and Saaty’s 1–9 scale.
Table 2.
Fig 2.
Decision hierarchy structure.
Table 3.
The detailed description of criteria.
Table 4.
The individual decision matrix of D1.
Table 5.
The individual decision matrix of D2.
Table 6.
The individual decision matrix of D3.
Table 7.
The individual decision matrix of D4.
Table 8.
The criterion evaluation matrix.
Table 9.
The criteria weights matrix.
Table 10.
The individual weighted numerical decision matrix of D1.
Table 11.
The individual weighted numerical decision matrix of D2.
Table 12.
The individual weighted numerical decision matrix of D3.
Table 13.
The individual weighted numerical decision matrix of D4.
Table 14.
The hesitant fuzzy group decision matrix.
Table 15.
The normalized hesitant fuzzy group decision matrix.
Table 16.
The PHF group decision matrix.
Table 17.
The ideal alternative A*.
Table 18.
The calculation result of correlation coefficient.
Table 19.
Ranking results for different criteria weights.
Fig 3.
Ranking results for different criteria weights.
Table 20.
Decision matrix after adding new alternative A6.
Table 21.
Decision matrix after adding new alternative A6+.
Table 22.
Decision results after adding A6 and A6+.
Table 23.
The decision matrix.
Table 24.
The ideal alternative A*.
Table 25.
The calculation result of correlation coefficient.
Fig 4.
Comparison of results between our method and Wang and Li [53]’s method.
Table 26.
The decision matrix.
Table 27.
The ideal alternative A*.
Table 28.
The calculation result of correlation coefficient.
Fig 5.
Comparison of results between our method and Liu and Guan [55]’s method.
Table 29.
The decision matrix.
Table 30.
The ideal alternative A*.
Table 31.
The calculation result of correlation coefficient.
Fig 6.
Comparison of results between our method and Chen et al. [45]’s method.