LİMAN SEÇİM PROBLEMİ İÇİN ENTEGRE BULANIK ÇOK KRİTERLİ KARAR VERME YAKLAŞIMI ÖNERİSİ

Year 2023, Volume: 15 Issue: 1, 1 - 34, 30.06.2023

Ömer Faruk Görçün Hande Küçükönder

https://doi.org/10.18613/deudfd.915166

Abstract

Liman seçimi denizcilik işletmelerinin yanı sıra, tedarik zincirlerinin performansı açısından son derece önemli kararlardan birisidir. Ancak liman alternatiflerinin değerlendirilebilmesi için her zaman net veri mevcut olmayabilir ve karar vericiler eksik bilgiler ile belirsizlik ortamında karar vermek zorunda kalabilir. Bu kapsamda mevcut çalışmada en uygun limanların seçilebilmesi için belirsizlikleri dikkate alabilen bulanık SWARA ve bulanık MARCOS yöntemlerinden oluşan entegre bir karar verme yaklaşımı önerilmektedir. Önerilen yaklaşım uygulandıktan sonra 70 farklı senaryo oluşturularak kapsamlı bir doğrulama testi gerçekleştirilmiştir. Elde edilen sonuçlara göre bazı alternatiflerin sıralama skorlarında genel sonucu değiştirmeyen küçük farklılıklar görülmekle birlikte A1 alternatifi bütün senaryolar için en iyi alternatif olarak kalmıştır. Sonuç olarak, analizin sonuçları önerilen modelin karar verme problemlerini çözmek için uygulanabilir bir model olduğunu kanıtlamaktadır.

Keywords

Liman Seçimi, karar verme, bulanık SWARA, Bulanık MARCOS

INTEGRATED FUZZY MULTI CRITERIA DECISON MAKING APPROACH FOR SEAPORT SELECTION

Abstract

Sea port selection is one of the extremely crucial decisions in aspects of supply chains' performances in addition to maritime companies. However, crisp values may not be available at all times for evaluating the seaport alternatives and decision-makers may have to decide with insufficient information and in uncertain environment. In this context, in the current paper an integrated fuzzy model, which considers ambiguties, consisting of the fuzzy SWARA and fuzzy MARCOS techniques is proposed to select the most approritate seaports.After this model was applied, a comprehensive validation test was performed by forming different 70 scenarios. Although there are slight changes which did not change the overall results in the ranking performances of some alternatives, A1 has remained the best option for all scenarios. As a results, the results of the analysis prove that the proposed integrated fuzzy approach is an applicable model for solving these kinds of decision-making problems.

Keywords

Seaport selection, Decision Making, Fuzzy SWARA, Fuzzy MARCOS

References

• Referans1 Agarwal, S., Kant, R. ve Shankar, R. (2020). Evaluating Solutions to Overcome Humanitarian Supply Chain Management Barriers: A Hybrid Fuzzy SWARA – Fuzzy WASPAS Approach, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 51, 101838.
• Referans2 Akkaya, G., Turanoglu, B., Oztas, S. (2015). An integrated fuzzy ahp and fuzzy MOORA approach to the problem of industrial engineering sector choosing, Expert Systems with Applications, 42, 9565-9573.
• Referans3 Akyurt, İ. Z., ve Kabadayi, N. (2020). Bulanık AHP ve Bulanık Gri İlişkiler Analizi Yöntemleri ile Kargo Uçak Tipi Seçimi Bir Türk Havayolu Firmasında Uygulama. Journal of Yaşar University, 15 (57), 38–55.
• Referans4 Bakır, M. And Atalık, Ö. (2021). Application of Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy MARCOS Approach for the Evaluation of E-Service Quality in the Airline Industry. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 4(1), 127-152.
• Referans5 Blagojević, A.; Kasalica, S.; Stević, Ž.; Trićković, G.; Pavelkić, V. (2021). Evaluation of Safety Degree at Railway Crossings in Order to Achieve Sustainable Traffic Management: A Novel Integrated Fuzzy MCDM Model. Sustainability, 2021, 13, 832.
• Referans6 Blonigen, B.A. ve Wilson, W.W. (2006). International Trade, Transportation Networks and Port Choice Manuscript.
• Referans7 Bozanic, D., Tesic, D., Kocic, J. (2019). Multi-criteria FUCOM-Fuzzy MABAC Model For The Selection of Location for Construction of Singlespan Bailey Bridge, Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 2(1), 132-146.
• Referans8 Branch, A.E. (2008). Elements of Shipping, London and New York, Rutledge Taylor and Francis Group.
• Referans9 Brooks, M. (1984). An Alternative Theoretical Approach to The Evaluation of Liner Shipping: Part 1, Situation Factors, Maritime Policy and Management, 11 (1), 35-43.
• Referans10 Chou, C. C. (2007). A Fuzzy MCDM Method for Solving Marine Transshipment Container Port Selection Problems. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 186, 435-444.
• Referans11 Deveci, M., Özcan, E., John, R., Covrig, C.-F., Pamucar, D. (2020). A Study on Offshore Wind Farm Siting Criteria Using A Novel Interval-Valued Fuzzy-Rough Based Delphi Method. Journal of Environmental Management, 270, 110916.
• Referans12 Ding, J. F. ve Chou, C. C. (2011). A Fuzzy MCDM Model of Service Performance for Container Ports, Scientific Research and Essays, 6 (3), 559-566.
• Referans13 Ecer, F. ve Pamucar, D. (2020). Sustainable Supplier Selection: A Novel Integrated Fuzzy Best Worst Method (F-BWM) and Fuzzy CoCoSo with Bonferroni (CoCoSo'B) multicriteria model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 266, 121981.
• Referans14 Foster, T. A. (1979). What’s Important in A Port, Distribution World Wide, 78 (1), 33-36.
• Referans15 Fouladgar, M.M. Yazdani, A. and Zavadskas, E. (2012). Risk evaluation of Tunneling Projects, Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, 12, 1-12.
• Referans16 Gong, X., Yang, M. and Du, P. (2021). Renewable Energy Accommodation Potential Evaluation of Distribution Network: A Hybrid Decision-Making Framework under Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Environment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 286, 124918.
• Referans17 Gök, A. C. ve Perçin, S. (2017). Bütünleşik Bulanık DEMATEL – Bulanık VIKOR Yaklaşımının Makine Seçimi Problemine Uygulanması. Journal of Yasar University, 12/48, 249-256.
• Referans18 Grosso, M. ve Monteiro, F. (2008). Relevant Strategic Criteria When Choosing A Container Port: The case of the Port of Genoa,” Association for European Transport and Contributors, 1-21.
• Referans19 Juang, Y. C. ve Roe, M. (2010). A Study on Success Factors of Development Strategies for Intermodal Freight Transport Systems. Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, 8, 722-732.
• Referans20 Kaya, S. K. and Erginel, N. (2020). Futuristic airport: A Sustainable Airport Design by İntegrating Hesitant Fuzzy SWARA and Hesitant Fuzzy Sustainable Quality Function Deployment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 275, 123880.
• Referans21 Kersuliene, V., Zavadskas, E. ve Turskis, Z. (2010). Selection of Rational Dispute Resolution Method by Applying New Step-Wise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis (SWARA). Journal of Business Economics and Management, 11, 243-258.
• Referans22 Lassing, N. H., Rijsenbrij, D. B. B. ve van Vliet, J. C. (1998). A View on Components, Proceedings Ninth International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications (Cat. No.98EX130), Vienna, Austria, 768-777.
• Referans23 Malchow, M.B. ve Kanafani, A. (2004). A Disaggregate Analysis of Port Selection. Transportation Research Part E, 40, 317-337.
• Referans24 Manzano, J. I. C., Castro-Nuño, M., Laxe, F. G., López-Valpuesta, L. M. ve Arévalo-Quijada, T. (2009). Low-Cost Port Competitiveness Index: Implementation in The Spanish Port System. Marine Policy, 33 (4), 591-598.
• Referans25 Mardani, A., Zavadskas, E., Khalifah, Z., Zakuan, N., Jusoh, A., Nor, K. ve Khoshnoudi, M. (2017). A Review of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Applications to Solve Energy Management Problems: Two Decades From 1995 to 2015. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 1-41.
• Referans26 Mavi, R.K., Goh, M. ve Zarbakhshnia, N. (2017). Sustainable third-party reverse logistic provider selection with fuzzy SWARA and fuzzy MOORA in plastic industry. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 91, 2401-2418.
• Referans27 McCalla R. J. (1994). Canadian Container Ports: How Have They Fared? How Will They Do?, Maritime Policy & Management, 21 (3), 207-217.
• Referans28 Murphy, P., Daley, J. ve Dalenberg, D. (1992). Port Selection Criteria: An Application of a Transportation Research Framework. Logistics and Transportation Review, 28 (3), 237-255.
• Referans29 Pak, J. Y., Thai, V. H. ve Yeo, G. T. (2015). Fuzzy MCDM Approach for Evaluating Intangible Resources Affecting Port Service Quality. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 31 (4), 459-468.
• Referans30 Pamucar, D., Ecer, F. (2020). Prioritizing the Weights of The Evaluation Criteria Under Fuzziness: The Fuzzy Full Consistency Method – FUCOM-F. Facta Universitatis, series: Mechanical Engineering, 18 (3), 419-437.
• Referans31 Pearson, R. (1980). Container Line Performance and Service Quality, University of Liverpool.
• Referans32 Perçin, S. (2018). Evaluating Airline Service Quality Using A Combined Fuzzy Decision-Making Approach. Journal of Air Transport Management, 68, 48-60.
• Referans33 Perçin, S. (2019). An integrated fuzzy SWARA and fuzzy AD approach for outsourcing provider Selection. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, vol.30, no.2, pp.531-552, 2019
• Referans34 Peters, H. (1990). Structural Changes in International Trade and Transport Markets: The Importance of Markets, 2nd KMI International Symposium, Seoul, 58-75.
• Referans35 Petrovic, G., Mihajlovic, J., Cojbasic, Z., Madic, M., Marinkovic, D. (2019). Comparison of Three Fuzzy MCDM Methods for Solving the Supplier Selection Problem. Facta Universitatis, Series: Mechanical Engineering, 17 (3), 455-469.
• Referans36 Saeed, N. (2009). An Analysis of Carriers' Selection Criteria When Choosing Container Terminals in Pakistan. Maritime Economic and Logistics, 11(3), 270-288.
• Referans37 Sayareh, J., and Alizminia H. R. (2014). Hybrid Decision-Making Model for Selecting Container Seaport in the Persian Gulf. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 30 (1), 75-95.
• Referans38 Sengul, D. and Cagil, G. (2020). Bulanık SWARA ve Bulanık Analitik Hiyerarşi Prosesi Yöntemi ile Iş Değerlemesi, DUJE, 11 (3), 965-976.
• Referans39 Slack, B. (1985). Containerization, Inter-Port Competition and Port Selection. Maritime Policy & Management, 12 (4), 293-303.
• Referans40 Stankovic, M., Stevic, Ž., Das, D. K., Subotic, M. ve Pamucar, D. (2020). A New Fuzzy MARCOS Method for Road Traffic Risk Analysis. Mathematics, 2020, 8, 457, 1-18.
• Referans41 Starr, J. (1994), The Mid-Atlantic Load Centre: Baltimore Or Hampton Road?, Maritime Policy & Management, 21 (3), 219-227.
• Referans42 Stević, Ž., Pamučar, D., Puškac, A. ve Chatterjee, P. (2020). Sustainable Supplier Selection in Healthcare Industries Using A New MCDM method: Measurement of Alternatives and Ranking According to Compromise Solution (MARCOS), Computers & Industrial Engineering, 140, 106231.
• Referans43 Sumrit, D. (2020). Supplier Selection for Vendor-Managed Inventory in Healthcare Using Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach. Decision Science Letters, 9, 233-256.
• Referans44 Tadic, S. Zecevic, S. Krstic, M. (2018). Assessment of the political city logistics initiatives sustainability. Transportation Research Procedia, 30, 285-294.
• Referans45 Tiwari, P., Itoh, H. ve Doi, M. (2003). Containerized Cargo Shipper’s Behavior in China: A Discrete Choice Analysis. Journal of Transportation and Statistics, 6 (1), 71-86.
• Referans46 Tongzon, J. (2001). Efficiency Measurement of Selected Australian and Other International Ports Using Data Envelopment Analysis. Transportation Research Part A, 35, 107-122.
• Referans47 Tongzon, J. (2002). Port Choice Determinants in A Competitive Environment, Proceedings of Annual Conference and Meeting of the International Association of Maritime Economists – IAME, Panama.
• Referans48 Tongzon, J. (2009). Port Choice and Freight Forwarders. Transportation Research Part E, 45, 186-195.
• Referans49 Torfi, F., Zanjirani F., Rezapour, S. (2010). Fuzzy AHP to determine the relative weights of evaluation criteria and Fuzzy TOPSIS to rank the alternatives. Applied Soft Computing, 10, 520-528.
• Referans50 Tovar, B., Jara-Díaz, S. and Trujillo, L. (2007). Econometric Estimation of Scale and Scope Economies within the Port Sector: A Review, Maritime Policy & Management, 34 (3), 203-223.
• Referans51 Ulutas, A. Karakus, C. B. Topal, A. (2020). Location Selection for Logistics Center with Fuzzy SWARA and CoCoSo Methods. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 38, 4693-4709.
• Referans52 Valentine, V.F. ve Gray, R. (2001). The Measurement of Port Efficiency Using Data Envelopment Analysis, Proceedings of the 9th World Conference on Transport Research, 2001.
• Referans53 Vesković, S., Stević, Željko, Stojić, G., Vasiljević, M., & Milinković, S. (2018). Evaluation Of The Railway Management Model by Using a New Integrated Model DELPHI-SWARA-MABAC. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 1 (2), 34-50.
• Referans54 Wang, T-F., Song, D-W. and Cullinane, K. (2003). Container Port Production Efficiency: A Comparative Study of DEA and FDH Approaches. Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, 5, 698-713.
• Referans55 Willingale, M. C. (1981). The Port Routing Behavior of Short-Sea Operators; Theory and Practice, Maritime Policy & Management, 8 (2), 109-120.
• Referans56 Wu, J., Yan, H. andLiu, J. (2009). Groups in DEA Based Cross-Evaluation: An Application to Asian Container Ports. Maritime Policy & Management, 36 (6), 545-558.
• Referans57 Yeo, G.T., Roe, M. ve Dinwoodie J. (2008). Evaluating the Competitiveness of Container Ports in Korea and China. Transportation Research Part A, 42, 910-921.
• Referans58 Zadeh, L.A. (1965). Fuzzy Sets. Information and Control, 8(3), 338-353.
• Referans59 Zarbakhshnia, N. Soleimani, H. Ghaderi, H. (2018). Sustainable Third-Party Reverse Logistics Provider Evaluation and Selection Using Fuzzy SWARA and Developed Fuzzy COPRAS in the Presence of Risk Criteria. Applied Soft Computing, 65, 307-319.
• Referans60 Zolfani, S.H. ve Saparauskas, J. (2013). New Application of SWARA Method in Prioritizing Sustainability Assessment Indicators of Energy System. Engineering Economics, 24(5), 408-414.