[1. Brons, M., Givoni, M., and Rietveld, P. (2009) Access to railway stations and its potential in increasing rail use. Transportation Research Part A, 43, pp. 136-149.10.1016/j.tra.2008.08.002]Search in Google Scholar
[2. Chen, C.T. (2000) Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy sets and systems, 114(1), pp. 1-9.10.1016/S0165-0114(97)00377-1]Search in Google Scholar
[3. Daamen, W. (2002) A quantitative assessment on the design of a railway station. WIT Transactions on the Built Environment, 61.]Search in Google Scholar
[4. Debnath, A., Roy, J., Kar, S., Zavadskas, E.K. and Antucheviciene, J. (2017) A Hybrid MCDM Approach for Strategic Project Portfolio Selection of Agro By-Products. Sustainability, 9(8), pp. 1302.10.3390/su9081302]Search in Google Scholar
[5. Givoni, M. and Rietveld, P. (2007) The access journey to the railway station and its role in passengers’ satisfaction with rail travel, Transport Policy 14, pp. 357-365.10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.04.004]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[6. Givoni, M. and Rietveld, P. (2014) Do cities deserve more railway stations? The choice of a departure railway station in a multiple-station region, Journal of Transport Geography, 36, pp. 89-97.10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.03.004]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[7. Hennig, C., Meila, M., Murtagh, F. and Rocci, R. (2015) Handbook of cluster analysis. CRC Press.10.1201/b19706]Search in Google Scholar
[8. Kaakai, F., Hayat, S. and Moudni, A. E. (2007) A hybrid Petri nets-based simulation model for evaluating the design of railway transit stations. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 15, pp. 935-969.10.1016/j.simpat.2007.05.003]Search in Google Scholar
[9. Khoo, L.P. and Zhai, L.Y. (2001) A prototype genetic algorithm-enhanced rough set-based rule induction system. Computers in Industry, 46(1), pp. 95-106.10.1016/S0166-3615(01)00117-8]Search in Google Scholar
[10. Lai, W.T. and Chen, C. F. (2011) Behavioral intentions of public transit passengers-The roles of service quality, perceived value, satisfaction and involvement. Transport Policy, 18, pp. 318-325.10.1016/j.tranpol.2010.09.003]Search in Google Scholar
[11. Liang, H., Ren, J., Gao, Z., Gao, S., Luo, X., Dong, L. and Scipioni, A. (2016) Identification of critical success factors for sustainable development of biofuel industry in China based on grey decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL). Journal of Cleaner Production, 131, pp. 500-508.10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.151]Search in Google Scholar
[12. Martínez, L., Liu, J., Ruan, D. and Yang, J.B. (2007) Dealing with decision-making information in engineering evaluation processes. Information Sciences, 177(7), pp. 1533-1542.10.1016/j.ins.2006.07.005]Search in Google Scholar
[13. Mateus, R., Ferreira, J. A. and Carreira, J. (2008) Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA): Central Porto high-speed railway station. European Journal of Operational Research, 187, pp. 1-18.10.1016/j.ejor.2007.04.006]Search in Google Scholar
[14. Mohajeri, N. and Amin, G. R. (2010) Railway station site selection using analytical hierarchy process and data envelopment analysis. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 59, pp. 107-114.10.1016/j.cie.2010.03.006]Search in Google Scholar
[15. Pamučar, D. and Ćirović, G. (2015) The selection of transport and handling resources in logistics centers using Multi-Attributive Border Approximation Area Comparison (MABAC). Expert Systems with Applications, 42(6), pp. 3016-3028.10.1016/j.eswa.2014.11.057]Search in Google Scholar
[16. Pamučar, D., Petrovic, I. and Ćirović, G. (2018) Modification of the Best-Worst and MABAC methods: A novel approach based on interval-valued fuzzy-rough numbers, Expert Systems with Applications, 91, pp. 89-106.]Search in Google Scholar
[17. Pawlak, Z. (1982) Rough sets. International Journal of Parallel Programming, 11(5), pp. 341-356.Zh10.1007/BF01001956]Search in Google Scholar
[18. Pawlak, Z. (1991) Rough Sets. Theoretical aspects of reasoning about data. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.10.1007/978-94-011-3534-4_7]Search in Google Scholar
[19. Qazi, K.I., Lam, H.K., Xiao, B., Ouyang, G. and Yin, X. (2016) Classification of epilepsy using computational intelligence techniques. CAAI Transactions on Intelligence Technology, 1(2), pp. 137-149.10.1016/j.trit.2016.08.001]Search in Google Scholar
[20. Rietveld, P. (2000). The accessibility of railway stations: the role of the bicycle in The Netherlands, Transportation Research Part D, 5, pp. 71-75.]Search in Google Scholar
[21. Roy, J., Adhikary, K. and Kar, S. (2016a) Credibilistic TOPSIS Model for Evaluation and Selection of Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Method. ArXiv preprint, URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1607.01254.]Search in Google Scholar
[22. Roy, J., Chatterjee, K., Bandyopadhyay, A. and Kar, S. (2018) Evaluation and selection of medical tourism sites: A rough analytic hierarchy process based multi‐attributive border approximation area comparison approach. Expert Systems, 35(1), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/exsy.1223210.1111/exsy.12232]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[23. Roy, J., Ranjan, A., Debnath, A. and Kar. S. (2016b) An extended MABAC for multi-attribute decision making using trapezoidal interval type-2 fuzzy numbers. ArXiv preprint, URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1607.01254]Search in Google Scholar
[24. Saaty, T.L. and Vargas, L.G. (2012) Models, methods, concepts & applications of the analytic hierarchy process (Vol. 175). Springer Science & Business Media.10.1007/978-1-4614-3597-6]Search in Google Scholar
[25. Song, W., Ming, X. and Wu, Z. (2013) An integrated rough number-based approach to design concept evaluation under subjective environments. Journal of Engineering Design, 24(5), pp. 320-341.10.1080/09544828.2012.732994]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[26. Wang, H., Yang, B. and Chen, W. (2016) Unknown constrained mechanisms operation based on dynamic interactive control. CAAI Transactions on Intelligence Technology, 1(3), pp. 259-271.10.1016/j.trit.2016.10.004]Search in Google Scholar
[27. Zheng, P., Xu, X. and Xie, S.Q. (2016) A weighted interval rough number based method to determine relative importance ratings of customer requirements in QFD product planning. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, pp. 1-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-016-1224-z10.1007/s10845-016-1224-z]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[28. Xue, Y.X., You, J.X., Lai, X.D. and Liu, H.C. (2016) An interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy MABAC approach for material selection with incomplete weight information. Applied Soft Computing, 38, pp. 703-713.10.1016/j.asoc.2015.10.010]Search in Google Scholar
[29. Zemp, S., Stauffacher, M., Lang, D.J. and Scholz, R.W. (2011) Classifying railway stations for strategic transport and land use planning: Context matters. Journal of Transport Geography, 19, pp. 670-679.10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2010.08.008]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[30. Zhai, L.Y., Khoo, L.P. and Zhong, Z.W. (2008) A rough set enhanced fuzzy approach to quality function deployment. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 37(5-6), pp. 613-624.10.1007/s00170-007-0989-9]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[31. Zhai, L.Y., Khoo, L.P. and Zhong, Z.W. (2009) A rough set based QFD approach to the management of imprecise design information in product development. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 23(2), pp. 222-228.10.1016/j.aei.2008.10.010]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[32. Zhai, L.Y., Khoo, L.P. and Zhong, Z.W. (2010) Towards a QFD-based expert system: A novel extension to fuzzy QFD methodology using rough set theory. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(12), 8888-8896.10.1016/j.eswa.2010.06.007]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[33. Zhu, G. N., Hu, J., Qi, J., Gu, C.C. and Peng, Y.H. (2015) An integrated AHP and VIKOR for design concept evaluation based on rough number. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 29(3), pp. 408-418.10.1016/j.aei.2015.01.010]Search in Google Scholar