Journal of Environmental Management 328 (2023) 116892

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Research article

A sustainable-circular citrus closed-loop supply chain configuration:

Pareto-based algorithms
Fariba Goodarzian a, *, Peiman Ghasemi b, Ernesto DR. Santibanez Gonzalez c,
Erfan Babaee Tirkolaee d
a
Organization Engineering Group, School of Engineering, University of Seville, Camino de Los Descubrimientos s/n, 41092, Seville, Spain
b
University of Vienna, Department of Business Decisions and Analytics, Kolingasse 14-16, 1090, Vienna, Austria
c
Universidad de Talca, Facultad de Ingeniería, 1 Poniente, 1141, Talca, Chile
d
Department of Industrial Engineering, Istinye University, 34396, Istanbul, Turkey

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Configuration of sustainable supply chains for agricultural products has been a well-known research field
Citrus supply chain recently which is continuing to evolve and grow. It is a complex network design problem, and despite the
Closed-loop supply chain network abundant literature in the field, there are still few models offered to integrate social impacts and environmental
Sustainability
effects to support network design decision-making to support the configuration of the citrus supply chain. In this
Circularity
Mixed-integer linear programming
work, the citrus supply chain design problem is investigated by integrating the production, distribution, in­
Meta-heuristic algorithms ventory control, recycling and locational decisions in which the triple bottom lines of sustainability, as well as
circularity strategy, are addressed. Accordingly, a novel multi-objective Mixed-Integer Linear Programming
(MILP) model is proposed to formulate a multi-period multi-echelon problem to design the sustainable citrus
Closed-Loop Supply Chain (CLSC) network. To solve the developed model, the ε-constraint approach is employed
in small-sized problems. Furthermore, Strength Pareto Evolutionary Algorithm II (SPEA-II) and Pareto Envelope-
based Selection Algorithm II (PESA-II) algorithms are used in medium- and large-sized problems. Taguchi design
technique is then utilized to adjust the parameters of the algorithms efficiently. Three well-known assessment
metrics and convergence analysis are regarded to test the efficiency of the suggested algorithms. The numerical
results demonstrate that the SPEA-II algorithm has a superior efficiency over PESA-II. Moreover, to validate the
applicability of the developed methodology, a real case study in Mazandaran/Iran is investigated with the help of
a set of sensitivity analyses.

1. Introduction
Supply chains have been conspicuous in both academic and indus­
trial environments over the last few years. Originally, environmental
issues and waste management concept were not addressed in supply
chains, but after enacting some relevant strict rules and regulations by
governments, Reverse Logistics (RL) has turned into the most significant
topic to be addressed in supply chains (Dalhammar, 2016; Mardani
et al., 2020; Taddei et al., 2022). Meanwhile, Closed-Loop Supply Chains
(CLSCs) have emerged, which concurrently take into account both
reverse and forward logistics. Given the network of CLSCs, all the pro­
cesses and activities from suppliers to recyclers are regarded (Cher­
aghalipour et al., 2019); hence, the main aim could be the minimization
of total cost or maximization of total profit. As the most important dif­
ference, traditional supply chains (forward logistics networks) have
been utilized to satisfy the demand of customers as much as possible, but
RL networks aim at addressing the waste management issue. Eventually,
establishing perfect and efficient CLSC networks can recover/recycle
waste materials, and employ eco-friendly production and distribution
systems in conjunction with an efficient waste management system
(Yaashikaa et al., 2020).
On the flip side, sustainability or sustainable development concept,
as another striking and disputable issue in CLSC is brought up (D’Adamo
et al., 2021). Sustainable development stands for strategic business op­
erations in order to concurrently minimize economic, environmental
and social sustainability risks and its challenges require the whole

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Faribagoodarzian@us.es, faribagoodarzian7070@gmail.com (F. Goodarzian), peiman.ghasemi@univie.ac.at (P. Ghasemi), santibanez.ernesto@
gmail.com (E.DR. Santibanez Gonzalez), erfan.babaee@istinye.edu.tr (E.B. Tirkolaee).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116892
Received 27 June 2022; Received in revised form 22 November 2022; Accepted 25 November 2022
Available online 16 December 2022
0301-4797/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
F. Goodarzian et al.
Fig. 1. Global fruit production by selected variety in 2019 (in million metric tons).
Fig. 2. Total citrus production in the top 10 countries worldwide.
network to drive changes and innovations (Canales-Bustos et al., 2017;
Santibanez Gonzalez et al., 2018; Sarkis et al., 2019). The agricultural
sector is of specific interest in the context of sustainable development; as
the second-biggest generator of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
(Motevalli-Taher et al., 2020). This sector has adversely affected the
environment while also constituting a remarkable and necessary source
of food, employment and income, particularly for the world’s rural
population (Santibanez Gonzalez et al., 2019).
Formerly, most companies were just attempting to increase their
financial benefits. Nowadays, relevant environmental organizations and
governments force companies to stick to sustainability factors by means
of strict environmental laws. Accordingly, sustainable CLSCs have
recently had widespread applications in different sectors such as agri­
culture to provide food and fruits (Carvajal et al., 2019; Chavez et al.,
2020; Salehi-Amiri et al., 2021). Moreover, circularity must be
addressed more attentively due to the increasing demand for agricul­
tural products worldwide which will lead to a significant expansion of
global food production. As the most negative point, these items are lost
2
Journal of Environmental Management 328 (2023) 116892
and wasted throughout the world whilst undernutrition proliferates in
developing countries (Lemaire and Limbourg, 2019). More specifically,
citrus is known as one of the most important tropical and subtropical
fruits worldwide.
Every year, significant amounts of citrus fruits become useless and
inedible due to the decay in production facilities (gardens), sorting
centers, Distribution Centers (DCs), and also fruit markets (citrus shops),
which lead to large losses for the main players of citrus supply chains
including producers, distributors and customers. The well-organized use
of citrus waste and by-products is taken into account as pivotal for a
circularity and sustainability strategy that can be also regarded as part of
the bio-economy strategy which necessarily alters waste materials to
provide value-added products. Accordingly, citrus waste management
stands for an important issue for citrus processors. The amount of citrus
globally processed is about 31.2 million tons per year, 50–60% of which
is waste (Raimondo et al., 2018). As can be seen in Fig. 1, citrus fruits
constitute a major part of global fruit production and also almost 50% of
citrus fruit production is related to Asian countries (FAO, 2019). Fig. 2
represents the quotas of the top 10 countries in supplying citrus fruits
worldwide where China is the most important country (Atlas Big, 2020).
The specific cause of loss in the citrus sector is the distance travelled
(Lemaire and Limbourg, 2019). Therefore, the most important cost el­
ements in citrus supply chains are transportation costs, and human re­
sources costs related to harvesting, processing, sorting, crating and
storage which can be different from one country to another country. Due
to these huge amounts of costs, the need for designing an optimal cir­
cular closed-loop RL network within citrus supply chains is unavoidable.
On the flip side, agriculture is the most significant part of the food supply
that had an impact on the environment. Increasing emissions of CO2
through transportation systems and the establishment of required fa­
cilities worldwide have caused negative consequences for the environ­
ment in various regions (Sahebjamnia et al., 2020). Duly, these
requirements are investigated in this study.
Due to the above-mentioned issues and after surveying the literature,
the current work seeks to develop a novel multi-objective MILP model in
order to configure a sustainable CLSC network for citrus fruits taking
F. Goodarzian et al.
into account the circularity strategy. Sustainability is addressed
throughout the network by optimizing three objective functions of
economic, environmental and social factors in the problem. Within the
suggested network, the decisions related to production, distribution,
inventory, recycling and location activities are addressed with respect to
sustainability issues. The problem is then tackled through the
ε-constraint technique and multi-objective meta-heuristic algorithms
under different scales. Finally, a real case study problem is investigate to
validate the effectiveness of the offered methodology.
All in all, the contributions of this study are listed below:
i. Developing a novel tri-objective MILP model in order to make the
main decisions optimally within a citrus CLSC network design
problem,
ii. Designing two efficient meta-heuristic methods of Strength Par­
eto Evolutionary Algorithm II (SPEA-II) and Pareto Envelope-
based Selection Algorithm II (PESA-II) to tackle the problem,
iii. Applying the Taguchi design technique to tune the parameters of
the algorithms optimally,
iv. Evaluating the efficiency of the algorithms in terms of three
metrics of Maximum Spread (MS), Mean Ideal Distance (MID),
and Number of Pareto Solutions (NPS).
The remaining sections of the manuscript are structured as follows:
Section 2 conducts the state-of-the-art literature review of CLSCs in the
agriculture sector. Section 3 presents the problem and developed
mathematical model as well as the suggested solution techniques. The
numerical results for the problem instances and case study problem are
given in Section 4. Section 5 discussed the practical implications of the
results. Eventually, Section 6 represents the concluding remarks as well
as the outlook of the research.
2. Literature survey
The most relevant studies related to the agricultural and food Supply
Chain Network (SCN) design are reviewed in this section.
In spite of several research works that have been reported before
2009, there are only two important early studies in agricultural supply
chains carried out by Ahumada and Villalobos (2009) and Audsley and
Sandars (2009). In the meantime, there are several studies that
addressed the problem with respect to economic perspectives. For
example, Tsao (2013) suggested a nonlinear programming model to
design a fresh food SCN aiming at total profit maximization. Borodin
et al. (2016) conducted a comprehensive review of previous studies
addressing uncertainty and recent advances in Operations Research
(OR) methods in agricultural supply chains. A multi-objective possibil­
istic programming method was employed by Mohammed and Wang
(2017) to treat a meat SCN design problem. They also applied the
TOPSIS method to identify the best Pareto solution while optimizing the
three contradictory objectives. The objectives were to simultaneously
minimize the total cost, number of used vehicles and delivery time.
Cheraghalipour et al. (2019) offered a bi-level MILP model to design a
rice supply chain using evolutionary algorithms. They utilized a group of
classic and hybrid algorithms based on Genetic Algorithm (GA) and
Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) algorithm to tackle a case study
problem in Iran.
Mosallanezhad et al. (2021) addressed the shrimp CLSC network
configuration in order to minimize the total cost using GA, SA and
Keshtel Algorithm (KA). They considered shrimp processing factories,
distributors, wholesalers, customers, shrimp waste powder factories and
shrimp waste powder markets in the proposed network. Finally, some
test problems were provided and investigated in order to assess the
performance of the algorithms. They could also achieve significant cost
savings. A CLSC network design problem was investigated by Sale­
hi-Amiri et al. (2021) for the walnut industry. Four algorithms of Social
Engineering Optimizer (SEO) algorithm, KA, hybrid KA-SA (HKSA) and
3
Journal of Environmental Management 328 (2023) 116892
hybrid KA-SEO (HKSEO) were executed aiming at total cost minimiza­
tion in a case study problem. Finally, it was revealed that the proposed
methods are capable of tackling the complexity of the problem.
As of 2018, researchers have been trying to incorporate other sus­
tainability aspects along with the economic viewpoint. Cheraghalipour
et al. (2018) applied a bi-objective MILP model to design a citrus CLSC
aiming at concurrent total cost minimization and responsiveness maxi­
mization at the same time. They used three meta-heuristics of
Multi-Objective Simulated Annealing (MOSA), Non-Dominated Sorting
Genetic Algorithm II (NSGA-II), Multi-Objective Keshtel Algorithm
(MOKA), Non-Dominated Ranking Genetic Algorithm (NRGA) to tackle
the problem. The results demonstrated that these algorithms can yield
high-quality solutions to a case study problem. Another multi-objective
MILP model was offered by Roghanian and Cheraghalipour (2019) to
design a citrus CLSC wherein the objectives were to minimize the total
cost, maximize responsiveness to customers’ demands and minimize
total CO2 emission. They employed a group of Pareto-based algorithms
including MOSA, NRGA, MOKA, NSGA-II and Multi-Objective Tree
Growth Algorithm to treat the problem and attain Pareto fronts. Carvajal
et al. (2019) implemented a stochastic optimization model to design a
sugarcane SCN under uncertainty. They addressed the decisions of
sowing, growing and harvesting operations in the problem with the aim
of maximizing the net present worth of expected profits which is not
related to sustainability.
A simulation tool and multi-objective MILP model were employed by
Motevalli-Taher et al. (2020) to forecast the demand and design a sus­
tainable wheat SCN, respectively. The aims were to minimize the total
cost, minimize total water consumption and maximize the number of job
opportunities simultaneously. A meta-goal programming approach was
implemented for providing an optimal solution for a case study problem
in Iran. Liao et al. (2020) suggested a six-level MILP model to design a
CLSC network for citrus fruits concerning economic and environmental
issues. The goals were to minimize the total cost and air pollution
simultaneously. They employed meta-heuristic methods of GA, Simu­
lated Annealing (SA) and two other hybrid algorithms to treat the
problem. Chavez et al. (2020) employed a multi-objective stochastic
optimization model to address the scheduling of upstream operations in
a sustainable sugarcane supply chain. They investigated the impact of
uncertainty on resource allocation and harvest scheduling in a case
study. Moreover, the effects of harvesting and transport decisions on
sustainability were examined through sensitivity analysis.
To the best of our knowledge, the literature is in need of conducting
fruitful research works to address the circularity and sustainability of
citrus fruit supply chains which is addressed by this research work.
3. Problem description
In this study, a multi-objective optimization model is offered to
design a sustainable-circular citrus logistics system as the main body of
its supply chain. The period of planting and keeping citrus, especially
oranges in Iran, starts in spring and continues until November. In this
month, the harvested products will continue until March and will be sent
to the market for sale. Therefore, the proposed model is based on mul­
tiple periods and the suggested CLSC network consists of three echelons
in the forward direction including gardens, DCs, and shops, and two
echelons in the reverse direction containing recycling centers and
compost customers. In the proposed network, oranges are transported
from gardens to DCs. Moreover, it is possible for gardens to send oranges
directly to shops. Since the planting and keeping period is 8 months, in
the forward chain, the processing time period at gardens is two 4-month
periods (planting in the 1st period and keeping in the 2nd period).
Furthermore, because the orange distribution period is 4 months, in this
study, a four-month time horizon is considered for harvesting and
distribution.
Waste in each center is sent directly to recycling centers. In fact, the
waste in the gardens is sent directly to recycling centers. Waste in DCs
F. Goodarzian et al. Journal of Environmental Management 328 (2023) 116892

Fig. 3. Structure of the sustainable citrus CLSC network.

that is caused by corruption or other reasons is also sent directly to
recycling centers. Finally, the waste generated in citrus centers is sent to
recycling centers. Gardens and compost shops are the two main cus­
tomers of recycling centers. Recycling centers can send waste as fertil­
izer to gardens. Recycling centers can also send waste to compost shops
and compost shops send waste to gardens after converting it to compost.
Therefore, the main task of recycling centers is to convert waste into
organic fertilizer and send them to gardens and compost shops.
In the forward direction, the location of DCs is performed and this
location is discrete. Then, the optimal location is selected from potential
locations. In the reverse supply chain, collected products from shops are
sent to recycling centers. The location of recycling centers is also one of
the other decisions performed in this research. In these centers, waste is
converted into compost and fertilizer and transported to compost cus­
tomers and gardens. Fig. 3 illustrates the formation of the sustainable
citrus CLSC network in this research.
3.1. Assumptions
The main assumptions of the proposed model are expressed below:
I. Multiple periods and multiple echelons are regarded to develop the
multi-objective model where the first, second and third objective func­
tions address the economic, environmental and social aspects of the
problem, respectively.
II. Demand for citrus (orange) and composts is limited and constant
in each period.
III. Amount of waste converted to compost is defined based on the
conversion rate.
IV. New recycling centers and DCs to be established are just selected
among the candidate points. Furthermore, citrus storage capacity in DCs
is limited and constant in each period.
V. Maximum duration of harvesting operations by gardens and
maximum demand period are 3 (t = 4) and 8 (T = 8), respectively.
′

The main contributions of the mathematical model are as follows:

i. Providing a multi-objective, multi-level, multi-period closed-loop
network for citrus logistic management,
ii. Taking into account the three-pillar of sustainability including
economic, social, and environmental effects in the proposed
3.2. Mathematical model
The mathematical notations are described in the supplementary
material S1 and the developed mathematical model is given below:
′

network simultaneously, ∑ ∑ ∑
B M A ∑
B ∑
t B ∑
∑ D
′
minimize F1 = ecb ub + ec m fm + tgab yabt +
iii. Investigating inventory, distribution, location, and citrus flow b=1 m=M a=1 b=1 t=1 b=1 d=1
decisions simultaneously, ′ ′
∑
T A ∑
∑ D ∑
t A ∑
∑ M ∑
t B ∑
∑ M
iv. Simultaneous attention to the stages of planting, keeping, and × tdbd gbdt + tmad zadt + tvam qamt +
harvesting citrus and considering different time periods in the t=1 a=1 d=1 t=1 a=1 m=1 t=1 b=1 m=1

mathematical model for each stage. ∑

T D ∑
∑ M ∑
T A ∑
∑ R ∑
T A ∑
∑ B

One of the decisions taken into consideration in the model is the × trbm vbmt + tsdm hdmt + tfmr nmrt +
inventory control of DCs. In addition, the flows of transported or­
t=1 d=1 m=1 t=1 a=1 r=1 t=1 a=1 b=1
′
anges between the centers and location of distribution and recycling ∑ ∑
T m ∑
R ∑
T A ∑
∑ t B ∑
∑ T
′
× yabt pcbt + nmrt rcmt + sat pc at + xbt hcbt
centers are considered. One of the most important aims of the pro­ t=1 m=1 r=1 t=1 a=1 t=1 b=1 t=1
posed sustainable citrus CLSC network is to minimize supply chain (1)
costs including location, transportation, packaging, recycling, pro­
duction, and holding costs. Another aim of this study is to minimize
the amount of released CO2 by citrus transportation and the estab­
lishment of centers. Ultimately, the last aim is to establish centers in
areas with a smaller population. This will increase the level of social
satisfaction and fewer people will be involved in the pollution caused
by the establishment of the centers.

4
F. Goodarzian et al. Journal of Environmental Management 328 (2023) 116892

Fig. 4. Research framework.

′ ′
A ∑
∑ B ∑
t A ∑
∑ D ∑
t B ∑
∑ D
∑
B ∑
A
(11)
′
minimize F2 = crabt yabt + cr adt zadt + gbdt + zadt ≤ dedt ∀d, t,
a=1 b=1 t=1 a=1 d=1 t=1 b=1 d=1 b=1 a=1
∑
T D ∑
∑ M ∑
T B ∑
∑ M ∑
T
′
∑
A
× cr′′ bdt gbdt + cedmt hdmt + ce bmt vbmt + ∑
M
t=1 d=1 m=1 t=1 b=1 m=1 t=1 a=1 hdmt ≤ wsdt dedt ∀d, t, (12)
′ m=1
∑
M ∑
t ∑
A ∑
R ∑
T ∑
A ∑
T ∑
B
× ce′′ amt qamt + ccmrt nmrt + coat zat + esb ub
m=1 t=1 a=1 r=1 t=1 a=1 t=1 b=1 ∑
M
(13)
′
nmrt ≤ de rt ∀r, t,
∑
M
′ m=1
+ es m fm
m=1
∑
M
(2) qamt ≤ wgat sat ∀a, t ≤ t ,
′
(14)
m=1
∑
B ∑
M
(3)
′ ′
minimize F3 = pob epb ub + po m ep m fm ∑
D ∑
B
(15)
′
b=1 m=1
sat (1 − wgat ) = zadt + yabt ∀a, t ≤ t ,
d=1 b=1
subject to
∑
M
(16)
′
A ∑
∑ t
vbmt ≤ wdbt xb(t− 1) ∀b, t,
qamt ≤ BM fm ∀m, (4) m=1
a=1 t=1
( )
∑
A ∑
B ∑
D ∑
R
(17)
′
∑
A ∑
t qamt + vbmt + hdmt α= nmrt ∀m, t,
yabt ≤ BM ub ∀b, (5) a=1 b=1 d=1 r=1
a=1 t=1

∑
A ∑
D ∑
M
∑
B ∑
T xb(t− 1) + yabt = xbt + gbdt + vbmt ∀b, t, (18)
vbmt ≤ BM fm ∀m, (6) a=1 d=1 m=1
b=1 t=1

yabt , zadt , gbdt , hdmt , vbmt , qamt , xbt , sat , nmrt ≥ 0∀b, a, m, d, r, t, (19)
∑
D ∑
T
hdmt ≤ BM fm ∀m, (7)
d=1 t=1
fm , ub ∈ {0, 1}∀b, m. (20)
Objective Function (1) indicates the minimization of the supply
xbt ≤ cahbt ∀b, t, (8)
chain costs. These costs are divided into several parts. The first part
includes the establishment costs of DCs and recovery centers. The second
∑
R
nmrt ≤ carmt ∀m, t, (9) part includes transportation costs between existing and established
r=1 centers on the return route. The third part includes packaging costs,
recycling costs, production costs, and holding costs. Objective Function
(10) (2) shows to minimize environmental impacts. These effects include the
′
sat ≤ capat ∀a, t ≤ t ,

5
F. Goodarzian et al.
Fig. 5. Flowchart of the PESA-II algorithm.
volume of released CO2 through citrus transport between centers, citrus
production, and the establishment of new centers. Objective Function
(3) is related to social responsibility which seeks to establish distribution
and recycling centers in areas with smaller population sizes as much as
possible. This will make people less involved in the pollution caused by
the establishment of the center and the activities that result from it.
Constraint (4) states that gardens can only send returned citrus to
recycling centers if that center is established. Constraint (5) indicates
that citrus can only be received from gardens if a DC has been already
established. Constraint (6) illustrates DCs can only send returned citrus
to recycling centers if that center is established. Constraint (7) examines
that citrus shops can only send returned citrus to recycling centers if that
center is established. Additionally, the holding capacity of citrus in DCs,
6
Journal of Environmental Management 328 (2023) 116892
the capacity of recycling centers, and the production capacity in the
gardens respectively are shown in Constraints (8)–(10). The demand of
shops in each period is larger than or equal to the amount of sent citrus
from DCs and gardens to shops, which is expressed in Constraint (11).
Constraint (12) indicates that the amount of returned citrus from shops
to recycling centers is less than or equal to the rate of shop waste.
Constraint (13) represents that customer demand in each period is larger
and equal to the amount of sent compost to customers from recycling
centers. Therefore, the amount of returned citrus from gardens to
recycling centers is less than or equal to the rate of garden waste, which
is denoted by Constraint (14). Constraint (15) demonstrates the amount
of produced citrus in the gardens. Citrus products from gardens are sent
to DCs and shops. Constraint (16) expresses that the amount of returned
F. Goodarzian et al.
Fig. 6. Pseudo-code of the PESA-II.
citrus from DCs to recycling centers is less than or equal to the waste rate
of DCs. Constraint (17) depicts that all returned products from gardens,
DCs, and shops must be converted to compost based on conversion rate.
Constraint (18) ensures balance in DCs. In this constraint, the amount of
inventory of DCs in the previous period plus the amount of sent citrus
from gardens to DCs is equal to the total amount of inventory of DCs in
the current period and the amount of sent citrus to shops and recycling
centers. Constraints (19)–(20) also determine the type of decision
variables.
3.3. Solution methodology
Since it has been demonstrated that SCN design problems are NP-
hard, exact solution approaches are not effective to solve them in a
reasonable computational time (Fakhrzad and Goodarzian, 2021;
Sahebjamnia et al., 2020). In this regard, the ε-constraint method,
Strength Pareto Evolutionary Algorithm II (SPEA-II), and Pareto
Envelope-based Selection Algorithm II (PESA-II) are employed to solve
the suggested problem in different scales. It should be noted that the
suggested algorithms are implemented since they (i) can handle cost
functions with high computational complexity, (ii) are easy and flexible
to implement, (iii) have a fast convergence rate and short computational
time, and (v) are very robust and can be combined with other algo­
rithms. As shown in Fig. 4, the developed methodology of the research
comprises 5 steps.
In the 1st step, research works and expert opinions are reviewed for
extracting the research gaps. In the 2nd step, production, distribution,
inventory, recycling and locational decisions are incorporated into and
addressed by the mathematical model. In the 3rd step, the problem is
treated using the exact solution method in small and medium scales. In
the 4th step, the problem complexity is tackled using meta-heuristic
algorithms for the case study. Finally, in the 5th step, the impacts of
changing the parameters on variables and objective functions are
investigated through sensitivity analyses.
3.3.1. ε-constraint technique
The ε-constraint technique was first suggested by Haimes (1971) to
deal with the multi-objectiveness of optimization models and generate
Pareto solutions. It is one of the best-known techniques to treat
multi-objective problems and has been utilized by many scholars
7
Journal of Environmental Management 328 (2023) 116892
(Ghasemi et al., 2020). According to the ε-constraint, one of the objec­
tive functions should be set as the main objective function and the other
objective functions should be regarded as constraints. The generic
formulation of this method is displayed by Model (21):
minimizef = f1 (x)
x∈X
f2 (x) ≤ ε2 fn (x) ≤ εn (21)
The implementation steps of the ε-constraint technique are as
follows:
Step 1. One of the three objective functions is optionally chosen.
Step 2. Solve the problem each time with an objective function and
report the optimal solution
Step 3. Divide the interval between the sub-objective functions into a
predetermined number and obtain values for ε2 , …, εn .
Step 4. Solve the problem with any of the values ε2 , …, εn calculated
for the main objective function
Step 5. Report calculated Pareto points.
Step 6. Obtain the solutions of the mathematical model by changing
the constraint’s right-hand side (εi ).
3.3.2. PESA-II
The second variant of the Pareto envelope-based selection algorithm
(PESA) is known as one of the efficient multi-objective algorithms,
which employs GA operators to produce new solutions. The initial
variant of this algorithm was introduced by Corne et al. (2000) with
some weaknesses in the selection method. Due to this, Corne et al.
(2001) presented a supplemental variant of this algorithm called PESA-II
to enhance the performance of the previous variant. In Fig. 5, the
implementation steps of this algorithm are displayed. Furthermore, its
pseudo-code is given in Fig. 6. To see more details of the implementation
of the PESA-II algorithm, interested scholars can refer to Cotne et al.
(2001).
3.3.3. SPEA-II
In this sub-section, SPEA and SPEA-II algorithms are both
F. Goodarzian et al. Journal of Environmental Management 328 (2023) 116892

Fig. 7. Flowchart of the SPEA-II algorithm.

performance algorithms that employ an external archive to store the non-dominant solutions.
non-dominant solutions found during the algorithm search. There were Hence, Zitzler et al. (2001) provided a second variant of this algo­
weaknesses in the SPEA algorithm in calculating the values of strength rithm that addressed these mentioned weaknesses. The flowchart of the
and fitness. It also did not include a secondary criterion for comparing SPEA-II is depicted in Fig. 7 as well as the pseudo-code of the SPEA-II

8
F. Goodarzian et al.
Fig. 8. Pseudo-code of the SPEA-II.
Fig. 9. Annual trend of citrus production in Iran between 2010 and 2019.
algorithm is displayed in Fig. 8.
4. Numerical results
The suggested solution methods are first evaluated through three
assessment metrics in this section. These metrics are to assess the quality
of non-dominated solutions of the algorithms. Then, the convergence
speed of the proposed algorithms is investigated and the Taguchi design
technique is used to control and tune of algorithm’s parameters. It is
noted that the relevant codes were implemented in MATLAB 2020b and
CPLEX solver/GAMS 24.1 software. Details for the comparative analyses
are given in the supplementary material S2. Since there are no bench­
marks in the literature related to the problem, an approach is pursued to
generate two categories of small- and medium-sized problem instances.
Next, a real case study problem with a set of sensitivity analyses is
investigated to validate the methodology and provide managerial de­
cision aids.
4.1. Case study
Iran is among the first 10 important countries for global citrus pro­
duction (see Fig. 2). As can be seen in Fig. 2, Iran’s production in 2020
was 3,744,745 tons. On the other hand, Fig. 9 shows the production of
citrus fruits per ton in different years in Iran. As can be seen, in 2019,
citrus production in Iran was 4.07 million tons (Knoema, 2019). Citrus
production in Iran increased from 299,700 tons in 1970 to 4.07 million
tons in 2019 growing at an average annual rate of 6.19%.
The area under citrus cultivation in Iran in 2020 is equal to 290,000
ha and the harvest is 4,700,000 tons. The per capita production of citrus
in Iran is 56 kg. Among these, Mazandaran, Golestan, and Gilan prov­
inces are responsible for 80% of the country’s citrus production. These
provinces have 312,000 ha of citrus gardens, of which 240,000 ha are
fertile. Furthermore, out of the total citrus gardens, 150,000 ha are
under cultivation of different varieties of oranges, 30,000 ha are
different cultivars of mandarins and the rest are under cultivation of
9
Journal of Environmental Management 328 (2023) 116892
crops such as sour oranges and lemons. Fig. 10 illustrates the orange
distribution map within the case study problem. As can be seen, there
are 8 gardens in the northern provinces in green color. There are also 13
potential DCs and 21 shops across the country that are displayed in red
and blue colors respectively. Waste is also picked up from shops and sent
to 12 recycling centers shown in yellow. Finally, composts are sent to
compost customers, which are shown in purple.
The data used in this study were collected in the period from January
2019 to January 2020 and are given in the supplementary material S3.
Moreover, transportation costs are calculated based on the distances.
According to experts, each kilometer (km) has worth $0.1. In addition,
to calculate the amount of CO2 released, each 1 km is equivalent to
0.001 kg of CO2. Other data and parameters are taken from the report of
the Ministry of Agriculture of Iran.
4.1.1. Results of the case study problem
By treating the case study problem, the average of the objective
functions is $486571.8, 3518.9 kg, and 57,600 units, respectively.
Furthermore, the numbers of established distribution and recycling
centers are equal to 10 and 9 centers, respectively. In order to report the
decision variables, according to the significance of the first objective
function compared to other objective functions, the point that had the
lowest cost was selected from the Pareto points. Table 1 shows the
amount of produced citrus in gardens in periods by ton. For example, the
amount of produced citrus in garden 1 in periods 1 and 2 is 3735 and
4230 tons, respectively. Table 2 illustrates the inventory of DCs in the
first period. For instance, the inventory of the first DC in the first period
is equal to 3735 tons. Table 3 reports the quantities of sent compost to
customers from recycling centers in two periods 1 per ton. For example,
the amount of sent compost from the first center to the third customer in
the first period is equal to 1747 tons.
4.2. Sensitivity analysis
In this section, the impacts of the key parameters on the behavior of
the objective functions are examined. On this subject, the demand
parameter is considered to fluctuate between − 30% and +30%. Hence,
different change intervals are investigated based on the SPEA-II algo­
rithm as the best algorithm.
Fig. 11 represents the changes in costs in terms of changes in demand
over different periods. Accordingly, 2 periods are related to planting and
keeping time and 4 periods are related to harvesting and selling. As can
be observed, supply chain costs rise in all periods as demand grows.
Supply chain costs in Periods 3 and 4 (harvest) are much higher than in
other periods. Moreover, supply chain costs in harvesting and selling
periods are much higher than in planting and keeping periods.
Fig. 12 displays the environmental changes in terms of changes in
demand over different periods. It is clear that environmental impact
increases with increasing demand. The number of environmental im­
pacts in periods 3 and 4 (harvest) is higher than in other periods. It
occurs because of the increase in transportation during these periods due
to the demand increase. Furthermore, the environmental effects in the
first period (planting and keeping) are more than in the second period
because of the greater environmental impact due to the warm-up period
and commissioning of devices in the first period.
Fig. 13 illustrates the changes in social effects in terms of increasing
demand. As demand increases, so does social impact as a function of the
third objective. For instance, with a 30% increase in demand, this
amount increases to 72,000 units. Furthermore, a 10% decrease in de­
mand reduces this amount to 43,600 units.
Therefore, the changes in costs in terms of changes in transportation
costs over different periods are shown in Fig. 14. Two periods are related
to planting time and 4 periods are related to harvesting and selling. As
observed with increasing transportation costs, the total supply chain
costs rise in all periods. The increase in costs due to the increase in traffic
in Periods 3 and 4 (harvest) is more than the rest of the periods.
F. Goodarzian et al. Journal of Environmental Management 328 (2023) 116892

Fig. 10. Map of the proposed case study problem.

Table 1
Amount of production by gardens (ton).
Period 1

Garden 1 Garden 2 Garden 3 Garden 4 Garden 5 Garden 6 Garden 7 Garden 8

3735 2460 4634 3853 4734 3205 4360 2710

Period 2

Garden 1 Garden 2 Garden 3 Garden 4 Garden 5 Garden 6 Garden 7 Garden 8

4230 2678 5310 4150 4690 3644 5025 2816

environmental impacts for period 4 (harvest) is more than in other pe­

Table 2 riods. Most changes in environmental effects are related to period 1
Inventory level at DCs. (planting and keeping).
DC DC 1 DC 2 DC 3 DC 4 DC 5 After that, the changes in social aspects in terms of increased trans­
Amount of inventory 3735 2460 4634 3853 4734 portation costs are demonstrated in Fig. 16 As transportation costs in­
DC DC 6 DC 7 DC 8 DC 9 DC 10 crease, so does the social impact as a function of the third objective. For
Amount of inventory 4230 2678 5310 4150 4690 instance, with a 30% increase in transportation costs, this amount in­
creases to 84,500 units. Moreover, a 10% reduction in demand di­
minishes this amount to 49,000 units.
Furthermore, the slope of the chart is higher for these reasons in these
Fig. 17displays the changes in the number of established distribution
periods.
and recycling centers with changes in demand. As it is known, the
Additionally, the environmental changes in terms of changes in
number of established centers increases with increasing demand. In the
transportation costs over different periods are depicted in Fig. 15. It is
case study, the number of established distribution and recycling centers
evident that with increasing transportation costs, the environmental
is equal to 10 and 9 centers, respectively. With a 30% increase in de­
impact increases with a very slight slope. In addition, the amount of
mand, the number of established distribution and recycling centers will

10
F. Goodarzian et al. Journal of Environmental Management 328 (2023) 116892

Table 3
Amount of compost transported from recycling center to customer (ton).
Recycling center/Customer Center 1 Center 2 Center 3 Center 4 Center 5 Center 6 Center 7 Center 8 Center 9

Customer 1 2097 2824 2448 - - 3905 - - 2415

Customer 2 952 2908 2896 1578 2798 1463 2296 1124 1632
Customer 3 1747 1842 3408 2337 1944 1862 3468 2191 -
Customer 4 3255 991 - 2222 - - 2008 3265 1127
Customer 5 1640 2942 1281 2490 3124 930 1897 2280 923
Customer 6 1097 2837 1756 - 2630 1261 2051 964 1044
Customer 7 - 4242 1480 1330 1466 2300 2687 1705 2990
Customer 8 - 3174 1329 - - - 3400 1406 -
Customer 9 3098 1669 - - - - - 2227 2038
Customer 10 2880 1664 3428 2834 - 2565 1356 991 -
Customer 11 4791 2050 3829 2789 2140 - - - -

Fig. 11. Sensitivity analysis of the first objective function against demand parameter.

Fig. 13. Sensitivity analysis of the third objective function against demand
parameter. Then, some sensitivity analyses on the transportation costs are
Fig. 12. Sensitivity analysis of the second objective function against de­
performed based on fluctuation between − 30% and +30%. The description of
mand parameter.
the analyses is illustrated in Figs. 14–17.

increase to 13 and 12, respectively. Moreover, with a 30% decrease in

decisions, which can help supply chain members, decision-makers, and
demand, the number of established distribution and recycling centers
gardeners reduce disruption as well as guarantee economic, environ­
will be reduced to 6 and 7 centers, respectively.
mental, and social impacts. In the following, the managerial insights of
this paper are discussed.
5. Management insights
This study introduces production, distribution, inventory holding,
recycling, and location problems for perishable products for the six-
This study develops a new sustainable citrus CLSC network for pro­
echelon citrus CLSC. With the help of the model, supply chain
duction, distribution, inventory holding, recycling, and location

11
F. Goodarzian et al.
Fig. 14. Sensitivity analysis of the first objective function against trans­
portation cost.
Fig. 15. Sensitivity analysis of the second objective function against trans­
portation cost.
Fig. 16. Sensitivity analysis of the third objective function against trans­
portation cost.
managers can design their facility locations to meet the maximum de­
mand for citrus among the supply chain members. Inventory manage­
ment is a very crucial thing for perishable products. The developed
model comprises holding inventory cost, transportation cost, establish­
ing cost, packing cost, production cost, and recycling cost; it ensures the
effective and efficient usage of inventory. Thereby, total supply chain
12
Journal of Environmental Management 328 (2023) 116892
Fig. 17. Sensitivity analysis of the number of established centers against
transportation cost.
cost is minimized through the model and supply chain members will
gain more profit from this production, distribution, inventory holding,
recycling, and location decisions. Consequently, this study will help
supply chain members to achieve economic sustainability in their
businesses.
For perishable products, product wastage is inevitable due to the
uncertain nature of operations in the supply chain, which has negative
environmental impacts. Moreover, to achieve environmental sustain­
ability in the citrus CLSC network, product waste should be minimized.
In this study, the model incorporates product wastage as a decision
parameter that will help industry managers to avoid such a kind of loss.
Besides, this model helps supply chain members to utilize their
maximum capacities, which will ensure minimum product wastage.
Moreover, supply chain managers can utilize this model to ensure the
proper flow of products among the citrus CLSC members along with
minimizing the amount of the released CO2 emission through trans­
portation systems.
Therefore, the designed sustainable-circular citrus CLSC network can
be extended to other agri-food products such as lemons, vegetables and
potatoes. However, there is a difference between the period times of
planting to harvest. Accordingly, gardeners can utilize the decision
support system provided by this work for other products. In the exam­
ined papers, compost centers were in charge of disposing waste prod­
ucts. On the other hand, in this study, waste products were converted to
worms by compost centers such that these worms act as fertilizers which
are useful for soil. Hence, this strategy can be recommended to gar­
deners, farmers, and supply chain managers to address sustainable
development and circular economy concepts. Furthermore, the signifi­
cance of these concepts as future drivers can be taken into account to
teach eco-design to students to grow their mindsets accordingly
(Spreafico and Landi, 2022).
6. Conclusion and future works
Large expenses of production, transportation and storage of agri­
cultural products have been always the main concerns of managers to
design efficient supply chains. As the supreme agricultural products,
citrus fruits are of high attention. Citrus waste and by-products are
attaining renewed significance since they could be taken into account as
part of an efficient bio-economy strategy by transforming waste mate­
rials into value-added products. This study addressed a sustainable cit­
rus CLSC network design problem by developing a novel multi-objective
MILP model considering the circularity strategy. The proposed model
aims to minimize the total cost, minimize environmental negative
impact and maximize social responsibility within the network. In order
to treat the problem efficiently, the ε-constraint method and two meta-
heuristic approaches of SPEA-II and PESA-II were implemented for
F. Goodarzian et al.
small- and large-sized problems, respectively. Moreover, the Taguchi
design technique was utilized to tune the parameters of the algorithms
efficiently. As for the computational results, the proposed solution
techniques were compared in terms of three metrics on different nu­
merical examples. Then, a real case study was scrutinized to validate the
performance of the suggested methodology of the research in which a set
of sensitivity analyses were carried out as useful managerial tools.
The main limitations of this study are summarized as follows:
i. As there was no systematic database for some parts of transportation
cost elements, these estimated data were provided through drivers,
ii. Due to the lack of accessibility to traffic data, urban traffic was not
addressed in the model.
To address these limitations and draw a useful outlook, the following
recommendations are given as future research directions:
i. Analyzing the impact of uncertainty in the problem through
applying well-known techniques, such as fuzzy programming,
robust optimization and stochastic programming,
ii. Implementing other well-known meta-heuristic algorithms (e.g.,
NSGA-II) to be compared to our proposed algorithms,
iii. Considering other objective functions in the problem (e.g., reli­
ability maximization) to make the model closer to the real-world
situation,
iv. Investigating the application of the Internet of Things (IoT) in the
problem by equipping transportation vehicles (Liu et al., 2020).
Author contribution statement
Dr. Fariba Goodarzian & Dr. Peiman Ghasemi: Conceptualization,
Methodology, Software, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Formal
analysis, Validation. Prof. Ernesto DR Santibanez Gonzalez: Supervision,
Conceptualization. Dr. Erfan Babaee Tirkolaee: Conceptualization,
Methodology, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116892.
References
Ahumada, O., Villalobos, J.R., 2009. Application of planning models in the agri-food
supply chain: a review. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 196 (1), 1–20.
Audsley, E., Sandars, D.L., 2009. A review of the practice and achievements from 50
years of applying OR to agricultural systems in Britain. Insight 22 (1), 2–18.
Big, Atlas, 2020. Maps and Statistics of the World and Regions accessed in July 2021.
https://www.atlasbig.com/en-us/countries-total-citrus-production.
Borodin, V., Bourtembourg, J., Hnaien, F., Labadie, N., 2016. Handling uncertainty in
agricultural supply chain management: a state of the art. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 254 (2),
348–359.
Canales-Bustos, L., Santibañez-González, E., Candia Véjar, A., 2017. A multi-objective
optimization model for the design of an effective decarbonized supply chain in
mining. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 193, 449–464.
Carvajal, J., Sarache, W., Costa, Y., 2019. Addressing a robust decision in the sugarcane
supply chain: introduction of a new agricultural investment project in Colombia.
Comput. Electron. Agric. 157, 77–89.
13
Journal of Environmental Management 328 (2023) 116892
Chavez, M.M.M., Sarache, W., Costa, Y., Soto, J., 2020. Multiobjective stochastic
scheduling of upstream operations in a sustainable sugarcane supply chain. J. Clean.
Prod. 276, 123305.
Cheraghalipour, A., Paydar, M.M., Hajiaghaei-Keshteli, M., 2018. A bi-objective
optimization for citrus closed-loop supply chain using Pareto-based algorithms.
Appl. Soft Comput. 69, 33–59.
Cheraghalipour, A., Paydar, M.M., Hajiaghaei-Keshteli, M., 2019. Designing and solving
a bi-level model for rice supply chain using the evolutionary algorithms. Comput.
Electron. Agric. 162, 651–668.
Corne, D.W., Knowles, J.D., Oates, M.J., 2000. The Pareto envelope-based selection
algorithm for multi-objective optimization. In: International Conference on Parallel
Problem Solving from Nature. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 839–848.
Corne, D.W., Jerram, N.R., Knowles, J.D., Oates, M.J., 2001. PESA-II: region-based
selection in evolutionary multi-objective optimization. In: Proceedings of the 3rd
Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, pp. 283–290.
Dalhammar, C., 2016. Industry attitudes towards ecodesign standards for improved
resource efficiency. J. Clean. Prod. 123, 155–166.
D’Adamo, I., Gastaldi, M., Morone, P., Rosa, P., Sassanelli, C., Settembre-Blundo, D.,
Shen, Y., 2021. Bioeconomy of sustainability: drivers, opportunities and policy
implications. Sustainability 14 (1), 200.
Fakhrzad, M.B., Goodarzian, F., 2021. A new multi-objective mathematical model for a
citrus supply chain network design: metaheuristic algorithms. Journal of
Optimization in Industrial Engineering 14 (2), 127–144.
FAO, 2019. accessed in July 2021. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en.
Ghasemi, P., Khalili-Damghani, K., Hafezalkotob, A., Raissi, S., 2020. Stochastic
optimization model for distribution and evacuation planning (A case study of Tehran
earthquake). Soc. Econ. Plann. Sci. 71, 100745.
Gonzalez, Santibanez, Ernesto, D.R., Zhu, Joe, Zanoni, Simone, Maculan, Nelson, 2018.
Trends in operational research approaches for sustainability. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 269
(1), 1–4.
Haimes, Y., 1971. On a bicriterion formulation of the problems of integrated system
identification and system optimization. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics 1 (3), 296–297.
Knoema, 2019. accessed in July 2021. https://knoema.com/atlas/Iran/topics/Agricultur
e/Crops-Production-Quantity-tonnes/Citrus-fruit-production.
Lemaire, A., Limbourg, S., 2019. How can food loss and waste management achieve
sustainable development goals? J. Clean. Prod. 234, 1221–1234.
Liao, Y., Kaviyani-Charati, M., Hajiaghaei-Keshteli, M., Diabat, A., 2020. Designing a
closed-loop supply chain network for citrus fruits crates considering environmental
and economic issues. J. Manuf. Syst. 55, 199–220.
Liu, P., Long, Y., Song, H.C., He, Y.D., 2020. Investment decision and coordination of
green agri-food supply chain considering information service based on blockchain
and big data. J. Clean. Prod. 277, 123646.
Mardani, A., Kannan, D., Hooker, R.E., Ozkul, S., Alrasheedi, M., Tirkolaee, E.B., 2020.
Evaluation of green and sustainable supply chain management using structural
equation modelling: a systematic review of the state of the art literature and
recommendations for future research. J. Clean. Prod. 249, 119383.
Mohammed, A., Wang, Q., 2017. Developing a meat supply chain network design using a
multi-objective possibilistic programming approach. Br. Food J. 119 (3), 690–706.
Mosallanezhad, B., Hajiaghaei-Keshteli, M., Triki, C., 2021. Shrimp closed-loop supply
chain network design. Soft Comput. 25 (11), 7399–7422.
Motevalli-Taher, F., Paydar, M.M., Emami, S., 2020. Wheat sustainable supply chain
network design with forecasted demand by simulation. Comput. Electron. Agric.
178, 105763.
Raimondo, M., Caracciolo, F., Cembalo, L., Chinnici, G., Pecorino, B., D’Amico, M., 2018.
Making virtue out of necessity: managing the citrus waste supply chain for
bioeconomy applications. Sustainability 10 (12), 4821.
Roghanian, E., Cheraghalipour, A., 2019. Addressing a set of meta-heuristics to solve a
multi-objective model for closed-loop citrus supply chain considering CO2 emissions.
J. Clean. Prod. 239 (1), 118081.
Sahebjamnia, N., Goodarzian, F., Hajiaghaei-Keshteli, M., 2020. Optimization of multi-
period three-echelon citrus supply chain problem. Journal of Optimization in
Industrial Engineering 13 (1), 39–53.
Salehi-Amiri, A., Zahedi, A., Akbapour, N., Hajiaghaei-Keshteli, M., 2021. Designing a
sustainable closed-loop supply chain network for walnut industry. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 141, 110821.
Santibanez Gonzalez, E.D.R., Koh, L., Leung, J., 2019. Towards a circular economy
production system: trends and challenges for operations management. Int. J. Prod.
Res. 57 (23), 7209–7218.
Sarkis, J., Gonzalez, E.D.S., Koh, S.L., 2019. Effective multi-tier supply chain
management for sustainability. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 217, 1–10.
Spreafico, C., Landi, D., 2022. Investigating students’ eco-misperceptions in applying
eco-design methods. J. Clean. Prod. 342, 130866.
Taddei, E., Sassanelli, C., Rosa, P., Terzi, S., 2022. Circular Supply Chains in the Era of
Industry 4.0: A Systematic Literature Review. Computers & Industrial Engineering,
108268.
Tsao, Y.C., 2013. Designing a fresh food supply chain network: an application of
nonlinear programming. J. Appl. Math. 1–8, 2013.
Yaashikaa, P.R., Kumar, P.S., Saravanan, A., Varjani, S., Ramamurthy, R., 2020.
Bioconversion of municipal solid waste into bio-based products: a review on
valorisation and sustainable approach for circular bioeconomy. Sci. Total Environ.
748, 141312.
Zitzler, E., Laumanns, M., Thiele, L., 2001. SPEA2: Improving the Strength Pareto
Evolutionary Algorithm. TIK-report, p. 103.