Çevresel ve Operasyonel Değerlendirmelere Dayalı İdeal Düşük Karbonlu Havalimanı Yer Hizmetleri Ekipmanının Seçilmesi: ORESTE Tabanlı Çok Kriterli Bir Karar Verme Çerçevesi

Öz

Bu makalede, havalimanı yer hizmetleri operasyonları için düşük karbonlu en uygun ekipman teknolojisinin belirlenmesi amacıyla çevresel ve operasyonel kriterleri bütünleştiren ORESTE tabanlı bir karar destek çerçevesi önerilmektedir. Literatürdeki çalışmaların büyük bölümü tek bir teknolojiye ya da sınırlı sayıda performans göstergesine odaklanırken, bu çalışmada altı farklı alternatif birlikte değerlendirilmiştir. Bu alternatifler dizel, hibrit, tam elektrikli bataryalı, hidrojen yakıt hücreli, HVO uyumlu ve otonom-elektrikli yer hizmetleri ekipmanlarından oluşmaktadır. Alternatifler, emisyon azaltımı, yerel hava kirletici azaltımı, gürültü azaltımı, yatırım ve işletme maliyetleri, bakım gereksinimi, altyapı uyumluluğu, operasyonel güvenilirlik, teknolojik olgunluk, ölçeklenebilirlik, enerji ikmali veya şarj süresi uygunluğu ile emniyet-risk düzeyi olmak üzere on iki kriter altında değerlendirilmiştir. ORESTE sonuçları, tam elektrikli bataryalı yer hizmetleri ekipmanının en güçlü alternatif olduğunu göstermiştir. Hibrit sistemler güçlü bir geçiş alternatifi olarak öne çıkarken, hidrojen yakıt hücreli sistemlerin mevcut karar yapısı içinde daha zayıf kaldığı belirlenmiştir. ORESTE ile elde edilen bulgular ayrıca TOPSIS, ELECTRE ve VIKOR yöntemleriyle karşılaştırılmıştır. Karşılaştırmalı analiz, temel sonuç yapısının farklı ÇKKV yöntemleri altında da büyük ölçüde korunduğunu göstermiştir. Özellikle tam elektrikli bataryalı alternatifin çoğu yöntemde güçlü konumunu sürdürdüğü görülmüştür. Bulgular, düşük karbonlu GSE seçiminin yalnızca emisyonların azaltılmasına indirgenemeyeceğini, bunun aynı zamanda operasyonel uygulanabilirlik, altyapı planlaması, ekonomik sürdürülebilirlik ve risk yönetimi ile ele alınması gereken stratejik bir karar problemi olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Sonuç olarak çalışma, havalimanı yöneticileri, planlamacılar ve politika yapıcılar için uygulanabilir, sistematik ve stratejik değeri yüksek bir karar destek yaklaşımı sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Havalimanı Sürdürülebilirliği
• Yer Hizmetleri Ekipmanları
• Düşük Karbonlu Dönüşüm
• ORESTE
• Çok Kriterli Karar Verme
• Havalimanı Karbonsuzlaştırma

Selecting the Ideal Low-Carbon Airport Ground Support Equipment Based on Environmental and Operational Assessment: An Oreste-Based Multi-Criteria Decision Framework

Öz

This study proposes an ORESTE-based decision support framework that integrates environmental and operational criteria to identify the most appropriate low-carbon ground support equipment technology for airport ground handling operations. While most studies in the literature focus on a single technology or a limited number of performance indicators, this study evaluates six different alternatives within a unified decision framework. These alternatives include diesel, hybrid, battery-electric, hydrogen fuel cell, HVO-compatible, and autonomous-electric ground support equipment. The alternatives are evaluated based on twelve criteria, namely carbon emission reduction, local air pollutant reduction, noise reduction, investment cost, operating cost, maintenance requirements, infrastructure compatibility, operational reliability, technological maturity, scalability, suitability of refuelling or charging time, and safety-risk level. The ORESTE results indicate that battery-electric ground support equipment is the strongest alternative. Hybrid systems emerge as a strong transitional option, whereas hydrogen fuel cell systems perform relatively poorly within the current decision framework. The findings obtained using the ORESTE method are also compared with those produced by the TOPSIS, ELECTRE, and VIKOR methods. The comparative analysis demonstrates that the overall ranking structure is largely preserved across different multi-criteria decision-making methods. In particular, the battery-electric alternative maintains its strong position in most of the methods. The findings indicate that the selection of low-carbon GSE should not be based solely on emission reduction but should also consider operational feasibility, infrastructure planning, economic sustainability, and risk management. Overall, the proposed framework provides a practical, systematic, and strategically valuable decision support approach for airport managers, planners, and policymakers.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Airport Sustainability
• Ground Handling Equipment
• Low-Carbon Transition
• ORESTE
• Multi-Criteria Decision Making
• Airport De-carbonization

Kaynakça

1. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Airport Ground Support Equipment (GSE): Emission Reduction Strategies, Inventory, and Tutorial. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
2. Stettler, M. E. J., Eastham, S., & Barrett, S. R. H. (2011). Air quality and public health impacts of UK airports. Part I: Emissions. Atmospheric environment, 45(31), 5415-5424.
3. Riley, K., Cook, R., Carr, E., & Manning, B. (2021). A systematic review of the impact of commercial aircraft activity on air quality near airports. City and environment interactions, 11, 100066.
4. Sznajderman, L., Coppa, M., Martiarena, J. F., & Olariaga, O. D. (2022). Quantification model of airport ground support equipment emissions. Aviation, 26(4), 195-208.
5. Zhou, P., Shen, Y., Zheng, Y., Zheng, Y., Guo, B., & Du, Y. (2025). A comprehensive review of ground support equipment scheduling for aircraft ground handling services. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 203, 104341.
6. He, Y., Kelly, K., Jeffers, M., Vercellino, R., Ge, Y., & Lunacek, M. (2026). Energy, power, and infrastructure demands from electrifying airport ground support equipment at United States airports. Nature Communications.
7. Timmermans, K., Roling, P., Mouli, G. R. C., & Atasoy, B. (2025). The impact of transitioning to electric Ground Support Equipment on the fleet capacity and energy demand at airports. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 21, 101498.
8. Alruwaili, M., & Cipcigan, L. (2022). Airport electrified ground support equipment for providing ancillary services to the grid. Electric Power Systems Research, 211, 108242.

9. Bao, D. W., Zhou, J. Y., Zhang, Z. Q., Chen, Z., & Kang, D. (2023). Mixed fleet scheduling method for airport ground service vehicles under the trend of electrification. Journal of Air Transport Management, 108, 102379.
10. Wang, F., Zhou, M., Xing, Y., Wang, H. W., Peng, Y., & Chen, Z. (2025). A Deep Reinforcement Learning Framework for Multi-Fleet Scheduling and Optimization of Hybrid Ground Support Equipment Vehicles in Airport Operations. Applied Sciences, 15(17), 9777.
11. Mizrak, F., & Şahin, D. R. (2025). Investment strategies for renewable energy technologies and harvesting systems in airport operations using spherical fuzzy MCDM models. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 24075.
12. Jin, Z., Ng, K. K., Wang, H., Wang, S., & Zhang, C. (2025). Electric airport ferry vehicle scheduling problem for sustainable operation. Journal of Air Transport Management, 123, 102711.
13. Zhang, Y., Li, S., Blythe, P., & Edwards, S. (2025). Accelerating Airport Decarbonisation: Qualitative investigation of stakeholders’ perceptions and requirements towards hydrogen-powered ground support equipment. Journal of the Air Transport Research Society, 100097.
14. Marques, G. I., Oliveira, A. C., and Rodrigues, W. R. T. (2025). Hydrogen Fuel Cells in Airport Ground Support Equipment: Significant Reduction in Fuel Consumption and CO₂ Emissions. ChemRxiv.
15. Kuroda, Y., Hanaoka, S., Sato, S., & Horiguchi, R. (2025). Traffic Simulation of Automated-Driving Ground Support Equipment at Tokyo International Airport. Aerospace, 12(10), 896.
16. Kuroda, Y., Sato, S., & Hanaoka, S. (2024). Measurement of driving conditions of aircraft ground support equipment at Tokyo International Airport. Aerospace, 11(11), 873.
17. Zhang, T., Zhang, Z., and Zhu, X. (2023). Detection and control framework for unpiloted ground support equipment within the aircraft stand. Sensors, 24(1), 205.
18. Yuan, D., Zhong, Y., Zhu, X., Chen, Y., Jin, Y., Du, X., ... & Huang, T. (2024). Trajectory Planning for Unmanned Vehicles on Airport Apron Under Aircraft–Vehicle–Airfield Collaboration. Sensors, 25(1), 71.
19. Sennaroglu, B., and Celebi, G. V. (2018). A military airport location selection by AHP integrated PROMETHEE and VIKOR methods. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 59, 160-173.
20. Çolak, H. E., Memişoğlu Baykal, T., & Genç, N. (2023). Multicriteria decision and sensitivity analysis support for optimal airport site locations in Ordu Province, Turkey. Annals of GIS, 29(3), 441-468.
21. Lakhouit, A., Abdalla, G. M. T., Elsadig, E. H. O., Al-Rashed, W. S., Abdel-Magid, I., Ben Messaoud, A., Yassin, A. H. A., Sayed, O. A., Elsawy, M. B., and Hayder, G. (2025). Sustainable Airport Planning Using a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach with Fuzzy Logic and GIS Integration. Buildings, 15(10), 1749.
22. Menou, A., Lahdelma, R., & Salminen, P. (2022). Multicriteria decision aiding for planning renewable power production at moroccan airports. Energies, 15(14), 5271.
23. Durmaz, V., Yazgan, E., Delice, E. K., & Çelem, B. P. (2024). Evaluating airports’ Sustainable Development Goals by using multi-criteria decision making methodologies. Work, 77(3), 851-864.
24. Zenginoğlu, A., & Yüksel, F. Ş. (2026). Integrated life cycle assessment and multicriteria decision making framework for evaluating renewable energy technologies at Istanbul airport. Scientific Reports.
25. Sari, M., & Octaviani, R. D. (2023). Decision to use electric vehicle at airport operation in Jakarta. In Analytic Hierarchy Process-Models, Methods, Concepts, and Applications. IntechOpen.
26. Brans, J. P., Vincke, P., & Mareschal, B. (1986). How to select and how to rank projects: The PROMETHEE method. European Journal of Operational Research, 24(2), 228-238.
27. Zhang, C., Wu, X., Wu, D., Liao, H., Luo, L., & Herrera-Viedma, E. (2018). An intuitionistic multiplicative ORESTE method for patients’ prioritization of hospitalization. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(4), 777.
28. Yerlikaya, M. A., Yildiz, K., & Keskin, B. N. (2023). Solution proposal for completed preference structure in ORESTE method. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 4754.
29. Guo, J., Zhu, X., & Li, H. (2024). A novel ORESTE approach for MAGDM incorporating probabilistic interval-valued linguistic information: case studies in higher education quality and the energy industry. International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics, 15(10), 4845-4866.
30. Chen, T. Y. (2025). ORESTE methodology within a circular intuitionistic fuzzy framework for preferential outranking in hybrid cloud service selection. Applied Soft Computing, 113864.
31. Ballard Power Systems Inc., & BAE Systems Inc. (2012). Hybrid fuel cell electric airport ground support equipment. Fraser Basin Council / BC CLEAR. https://share.google/CE7yVbVMTRYuA8TCE Accessed: 29.06.2026.
32. World Economic Forum. (2025). Decarbonizing Aviation Ground Operations: Alternative Bus Technologies. World Economic Forum. https://share.google/IPyXnnGb6YBZFiAbh Accessed: 29.06.2026.
33. European Alternative Fuels Observatory. (2025). Electric ground support equipment at airports. European Alternative Fuels Observatory. https://alternative-fuels-observatory.ec.europa.eu/transport-mode/aviation/electric-ground-support-equipment Accessed: 29.06.2026.
34. Hamburg Airport, & BSR HyAirport. (2020). Feasibility study on the general use of gaseous hydrogen at airports. https://share.google/7CaO7yq7ralndqCva Accessed: 29.06.2026.
35. Airport Industry News. (2024). London Gatwick Airport powers vehicles with HVO. https://airportindustry-news.com/london-gatwick-airport-powers-vehicles-with-hvo/ Accessed: 29.06.2026.
36. Kuroda, Y., Sato, S., & Hanaoka, S. (2024). Measurement of driving conditions of aircraft ground support equipment at Tokyo International Airport. Aerospace, 11(11), 873.
37. Sznajderman, L., Coppa, M., Martiarena, J. F., & Olariaga, O. D. (2022). Quantification model of airport ground support equipment emissions. Aviation, 26(4), 195-208.
38. Stephens, D. W. (2004). A comparative study of life cycle costs for selected electric powered ground support equipment and internal combustion engine powered ground support equipment. Oklahoma State University.
39. Rahman, E. Z. U., and Akbar, F. (2023). Aircraft ground support equipment: A framework for maintenance strategies. Modern Applied Science, 17(2), 13.
40. International Air Transport Association. (2025). Concept of operations of battery and hydrogen-powered aircraft at aerodromes. IATA. https://www.iata.org/en/publications/economics/sustainability-library/
41. Tucci, H. N. P., & Facchini, F. (2026). Ground support equipment and flight delays: a multivariate analysis in different locations: HNP Tucci and F. Facchini. CEAS Aeronautical Journal, 17(2), 869-887.
42. Zhou, P., Shen, Y., Zheng, Y., Zheng, Y., Guo, B., & Du, Y. (2025). A comprehensive review of ground support equipment scheduling for aircraft ground handling services. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 203, 104341.
43. Semchukova, Veronika, Kevin Topolski, and Zainul Abdin. 2025. Hydrogen Applications for Energy Transition in Port and Airport Operations at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-5400-91674. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy25osti/91674.pdf.
44. UL Standards & Engagement. (2022). Improving safety for airport ground support vehicles. UL Standards & Engagement. https://ulse.org/insight/ul-standards-engagement-aviation-safety-improving-safety-airport-ground-support-vehicles/ . Accessed: 29.06.2026.
45. Roubens, M. (1980). Analyse et agrégation des préférences: modélisation, ajustement et résume de données relationnelles: Tutorial paper II. JORBEL-Belgian Journal of Operations Research, Statistics, and Computer Science, 20(2), 36-67.
46. Roubens, M. (1982). Preference relations on actions and criteria in multicriteria decision making. European Journal of Operational Research, 10(1), 51-55.
47. Wang, X., Gou, X., & Xu, Z. (2020). Assessment of traffic congestion with ORESTE method under double hierarchy hesitant fuzzy linguistic environment. Applied Soft Computing, 86, 105864.
48. Luo, S., Liang, W., & Zhao, G. (2020). Likelihood-based hybrid ORESTE method for evaluating the thermal comfort in underground mines. Applied Soft Computing, 87, 105983.
49. Long, Y., & Liao, H. (2021). A social participatory allocation network method with partial relations of alternatives and its application in sustainable food supply chain selection. Applied Soft Computing, 109, 107550.
50. Akman, G., Pamuk, K. C., and Karabıçak, Ç. (2021). Yeni ürün geliştirme sürecinde bulanık AHP & ORESTE bütünleşik yöntemi ile tedarikçi seçimi: savunma sanayisinde bir uygulama. Bilecik Şeyh Edebali Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 8(2), 788-807.
51. Yerlikaya, M. A. (2022). Bulanık karar verme problemlerinde ORESTE yöntemi ve bir çözüm önerisi. Journal of Optimization and Decision Making, 1(2), 123-133.
52. Pan, X. H., Wang, Y. M., He, S. F., Labella, Á., & Martínez, L. (2023). An interval type-2 fuzzy ORESTE method for waste-to-energy plant site selection: a case study in China. Applied Soft Computing, 136, 110092.
53. Gou, X., Xu, X., Deng, F., Zhou, W., & Herrera-Viedma, E. (2024). Medical health resources allocation evaluation in public health emergencies by an improved ORESTE method with linguistic preference orderings. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, 23(1), 1-27.
54. Wan, X., Cen, L., Yue, W., Xie, Y., Chen, X., & Gui, W. (2024). Failure mode and effect analysis with ORESTE method under large group probabilistic free double hierarchy hesitant linguistic environment. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 59, 102353.
55. Mehmet Akif Yerlikaya (2020). ORESTE yöntemi ile lojistik merkez yer seçimi. Mehmet Kabak & Yetkin Çınar. (Ed). Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri: MS Excel® Çözümlü Uygulamalar içinde (1. Baskı, ss. 263-274). Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
56. Pastijn, H., & Leysen, J. (1989). Constructing an outranking relation with ORESTE. In Models and methods in multiple criteria decision making (pp. 1255-1268). Pergamon.
57. Bouraghi, H., Mohammadpour, A., Maamaki, A., & Karamiyan, P. (2025). Ranking and selecting hospital information systems: A multi-criteria decision making approach using TOPSIS in Hamadan, Iran. PLOS Digital Health, 4(9), e0001016.
58. Chen, J., Wang, J., Baležentis, T., Zagurskaitė, F., Streimikiene, D., & Makutėnienė, D. (2018). Multicriteria approach towards the sustainable selection of a teahouse location with sensitivity analysis. Sustainability, 10(8), 2926.
59. Sun, C., Li, S., & Deng, Y. (2020). Determining weights in multi-criteria decision making based on negation of probability distribution under uncertain environment. Mathematics, 8(2), 191.
60. Hu, J., & Bao, F. (2023). Airport Operational Efficiency Evaluation Based on Combined Weighting-TOPSIS Model. Journal of System Simulation, 35(12), 2570-2581.
61. Chen, Z., Shen, D., Ren, Y., Yu, F., & Yuan, X. (2022). Airspace operation effectiveness evaluation based on q-rung orthopair probabilistic hesitant fuzzy GRA and TOPSIS. Symmetry, 14(2), 242.
62. Naser, F. K., & Khaleel, T. A. (2024). Optimal Airport Selection for Iraq's Infrastructure Development: A TOPSIS Analysis. Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research, 14(4), 15570-15574.
63. Kalan, O., Işık, M., & Yüksel, F. Ş. (2024). An application using ELECTRE and MOORA methods in the selection of international airport transfer center (hub) in Türkiye. Applied Sciences, 14(17), 7678.
64. Norese, M. F., & Carbone, V. (2014). An application of ELECTRE Tri to support innovation. Journal of Multi‐Criteria Decision Analysis, 21(1-2), 77-93.
65. Guedan‐Pecker, F., & Ramirez‐Atencia, C. (2024). Airport take‐off and landing optimization through genetic algorithms. Expert Systems, 41(8), e13565.
66. Shojaei, P., Haeri, S. A. S., & Mohammadi, S. (2018). Airports evaluation and ranking model using Taguchi loss function, best-worst method and VIKOR technique. Journal of Air Transport Management, 68, 4-13.
67. Armağan, İ. Ü., & Dağlı, D. (2025). Financial Performance Analysis of TAV Airports Listed in Borsa Istanbul with Entropy Based VIKOR Method. Journal of Aviation, 9(2), 417-427.
68. Mizrak, F., Mizrak, K. C., & Karakaya, T. (2025). Optimizing net-zero energy strategies in airports through a hybrid multi-method framework. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 27732.