TY  - JOUR
T1  - AN ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS APPLICATION: DETERMINING THE MOST IMPORTANT BOARD TYPE OF TURKEY REGARDING EXPORTATION IN RECENT YEARS
AU  - Bayram, Bahadır Çağrı
AU  - Ersen, Nadir
AU  - Akyüz, İlker
AU  - Üçüncü, Tutku
AU  - Akyüz, Kadri Cemil
PY  - 2018
DA  - December
JF  - Uluslararası Çevresel Eğilimler Dergisi
JO  - IJENT
PB  - Muhammed Kamil ÖDEN
WT  - DergiPark
SN  - 2602-4160
SP  - 53
EP  - 58
VL  - 2
IS  - 2
LA  - en
AB  - In this paper, the board industryof Turkey which occupies an important place in Turkish forest product industrywas accepted as the research subject. Turkey exports various forest productsand the boards have a great importance among them. Therefore, regarding export:determining the most important of these products in recent years was aimed. So,the purpose of the study was turned into a decision-making problem, for thedecision-making analyses, criteria are needed. Thus, some criteria were derivedfrom different export related data. Accordingto the conducted research, the latest and most up to date statistical data werefound at The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United NationsStatistical Database (FAOSTAT) and which are from 2015. So, the data were takenfrom FAOSTAT. For solving this decision-making problem, one of themulti-criteria decision-making methods: Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) wasused.  The chosenboard types are fibreboard (hardboard, MDF and HDF), particle board (particle boardand OSB) and plywood. These products were selected because of their wide rangeof industrial uses, market share and the ease of finding statistical data abouttheir production amount, export amount and export value. The results of the AHPanalysis are as follows: Fibreboard is the most important product among theboards while particle board takes second place and the plywood is the last one.At the discussion part, the possible causes of this results were discussed andsome suggestions were made.
KW  - Export
KW  - Turkey
KW  - Board
KW  - AHP
KW  - Decision-making
CR  - Bertolini, M., Braglia, M., & Carmignani, G. (2006). Application of the AHP methodology in making a proposal for a public work contract. International Journal of Project Management, 24(5), 422–430. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.01.005
CR  - Russo, R. D. F. S. M., & Camanho, R. (2015). Criteria in AHP: A Systematic Review of Literature. Procedia Computer Science, 55, 1123–1132. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2015.07.081
CR  - Ho, W., & Ma, X. (2018). The state-of-the-art integrations and applications of the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 267(2), 399–414. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2017.09.007
CR  - Ossadnik, W., & Lange, O. (1999). AHP-based evaluation of AHP-Software. European Journal of Operational Research, 118(3), 578–588. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(98)00321-X
CR  - Vargas, L. G., & Dougherty, J. J. (1982). The Analytic Hierarchy Process and Multicriterion Decision Making. American Journal of Mathematical and Management Sciences, 2(1), 59–92. doi:10.1080/01966324.1982.10737086
CR  - Wind, Y., & Saaty, T. L. (1980). Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Management Science, 26(7), 641–658. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2630699
UR  - https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ijent/issue//418540
L1  - https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/593473
ER  -