A SURVEY on MCDM APPROACHES for MARITIME PROBLEMS

Öz

The maritime industry is a worldwide area of work where critical decisions are made in critical situations. The fact that decision-making is based on a scientific and mathematical basis has been in academic authorities' attendance area for the last five decades. In this study, a literature review has been conducted on the use of decision-making techniques in maritime practices. In the literature survey, Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) methods have been examined, studies in Turkey and the International area carded; weights, distributions, usage reasons, advantages, and disadvantages of methods determined based on studies have been comparatively studied. The main aim of this paper is to statistically compare the quality and quantity of the papers published on the decision-making techniques used in maritime in Turkey and the International area. In addition to MCDM techniques, other mathematical methods used in shipping are also included in the study. The evaluation of other mathematical methods and their comparison with the commonly used methods have been made under a subtitle in this paper.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• MCDM
• MADM
• Fuzzy
• Maritime Decision-Making
• Mathematical Decision-Making Methods

Kaynakça

1. Acer, A. and Yangınlar, G. (2017). The Determination of Turkish Container Ports Performance with Topsis Multiple Criteria Decision-Making Method. Journal of Management Marketing and Logistics 4(2): 67-75. doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2017.452.
2. Adenso-Díaz, B., Álvarez, N. G., and Alba, J. A. L. (2019). A Fuzzy AHP Classification of Container Terminals. Maritime Economics and Logistics 22(2): 218-238. doi:10.1057/s41278-019-00144-4. Agarwal, A. and Chand, V. K. (2018). Selection of It Tools in Shipping.” Industrial Engineering Journal 11. doi: 10.26488/IEJ.11.2.1037.
3. Aikhuele, D. O., Sorooshian, S., Ansah, R. H. and Mohd Turan, F. (2017). Application of Intuitionistic Fuzzy Topsis Model for Troubleshooting an Offshore Patrol Boat Engine. Polish Maritime Research 24(2): 68-76. doi: 10.1515/pomr-2017-0051.
4. Aikhuele, D. O., Mohd Turan, F., Odofin, S. and Ansah, R.H. (2017). Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy TOPSIS-Based Model for Troubleshooting Marine Diesel Engine Auxiliary System. Trans. R. Instit. Nav. Arch. Part A: Int. J. Marit. Eng 159: 107-114. doi: 10.3940/rina.ijme.2016.al.402.
5. Alyami, H., Yang, Z., Riahi, R., Bonsall, S. and Wang, J. (2019). Advanced Uncertainty Modelling for Container Port Risk Analysis. Accident Analysis and Prevention 123: 411-421. doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2016.08.007.
6. Animah, I., Addy Lamptey, A., Korsah, F. and Sackey, J. S. (2018). Compliance with MARPOL Annex VI regulation 14 by ships in the Gulf of Guinea sub-region: Issues, challenges and opportunities. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 62: 441-455. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2018.03.020.
7. Animah, I. and Shafiee, M. (2019). Maintenance Strategy Selection for Critical Shipboard Machinery Systems Using A Hybrid AHP-PROMETHEE and Cost Benefit Analysis: A Case Study. Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology 1-12. doi: 10.1080/20464177.2019.1572705.
8. Arof, A.Md. (2018). Decision Making Model for Ro-Ro Short Sea Shipping Operations in Archipelagic Southeast Asia. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics 34(1): 33-42. doi: 10.1016/j.ajsl.2018.03.005.

9. Arslan, H. M., Ozcan, S. and Abdellahi A. (2019). Çok Kriterli Karar Analizi Yöntemleri ile Balıkçılık İşletmeleri için En Uygun Tesis Yeri Seçimi. Dicle Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 22: 403-413.
10. Badurina Tomic, P., Dundovic, C. and Grubisic, N. (2016). Selection of Suitable Locations for Nautical Tourism Ports in The Ličko-Senjska County. Journal of Maritime & Transportation Science 52(1): 133-149. doi: 10.18048/2016.52.11.
11. Bakalar, G. and Beatriz Baggini, M. (2016). Automatic Communication System Ship to Shipping Terminal, for Reporting Potential Malfunctions of A Ballast Water Treatment System Operation. In: 2016 39th International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics (MIPRO). IEEE 725-729. doi: 10.1109/MIPRO.2016.7522236.
12. Balbas, O. and Turan. E. (2019). Application of Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS Methods in Selection of Ship Type to be Built in Shipyards. Gmo Shipmar 25(215): 93-111.
13. Bellsolà Olba, X., Daamen, W., Vellinga, T. and Hoogendoorn, S. P. (2019). Multi-Criteria Evaluation of Vessel Traffic for Port Assessment: A Case Study of The Port of Rotterdam. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 7(4): 871-881. doi: 10.1016/j.cstp.2019.07.005.
14. Besikci, E.B., Kececi, T., Arslan, O. and Turan, O. (2016). An Application of Fuzzy-AHP to Ship Operational Energy Efficiency Measures. Ocean Engineering 121: 392-402. doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2016.05.031.
15. Cakıroglu, G., Sener, B. and Balin, A. (2018). Applying a fuzzy-AHP for The Selection of a Suitable Tugboat Based on Propulsion System Type. Brodogradnja: Teorija i Praksa Brodogradnje i Pomorske Tehnike 69(4): 1-13. doi: 10.21278/brod69401.
16. Cao, X. and Lam, J. S. L. (2019) A Fast Reaction-Based Port Vulnerability Assessment: Case of Tianjin Port Explosion. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 128: 11-33. doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2019.05.019.
17. Celik, E. and Akyuz, E. (2018). An interval type-2 fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS Methods for Decision-Making Problems in Maritime Transportation Engineering: The Case of Ship Loader. Ocean Engineering 155: 371-381. doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2018.01.039.
18. Chen, A. and Zheng, P. (2018). A New Ship-Targeting Model for Ship Supervision Based on AHP-DEA Method. In: 2018 7th International Conference on Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development (ICEESD 2018) doi: 10.2991/iceesd-18.2018.167.
19. Chen, J., Bian, W., Wan, Z., Yang, Z., Zheng, H. and Wang, P. (2019). Identifying Factors Influencing Total-Loss Marine Accidents in The World: Analysis and Evaluation Based on Ship Types and Sea Regions. Ocean Engineering 191: 106495. doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2019.106495.
20. Choquet, G. (1954). Theory of Capacities. In: Annales de l'institut Fourier 5: 131-295.
21. Chou, C. (2018). Application of ANP to the Selection of Shipping Registry: The Case of Taiwanese Maritime Industry. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 67: 89-97. doi: 10.1016/j.ergon.2018.04.009.
22. De-Girolamo, P., Di Risio, M., Beltrami, G. M., Bellotti, G. and Pasquali, D. (2017). The Use of Wave Forecasts for Maritime Activities Safety Assessment. Applied Ocean Research 62: 18-26. doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2016.11.006. Ding, J.F., Kuo, J. F. and Tai, W.H. (2019). A Fuzzy Evaluation Model of Choosing A Middle Manager for An International Shipping Service Provider. Brodogradnja: Teorija I
23. Praksa Brodogradnje I Pomorske Tehnike 70(1): 93-107. doi.org/10.21278/brod70107. Ding, J.F., Kuo, J.F. and Tai, W.H. (2019). Using Fuzzy AHP Method to Evaluate Key Competency and Capabilities of Selecting Middle Managers for Global Shipping Logistics Service Providers. Pomorstvo 33(1): 3-10.doi: 10.31217/p.33.1.1.
24. Du, J., Jiang, Y., Wang, K., Song, G., Wu, J., Song, L., Wu, J., Tian, J. and Ma, Z. (2017). Evaluation of Pilotage Dispatching Operation for Dalian Port in China based on FCE–AHP Method. Journal of International Maritime Safety, Environmental Affairs, and Shipping 1(1): 11-18. doi: 10.1080/25725084.2017.1419786.
25. Efe, B. and Kurt, M. (2018). Bir Liman Işletmesinde Personel Seçimi Uygulaması. Karaelmas Science and Engineering Journal 8(2): 417-427. http://dx.doi.org/10.7212%2Fzkufbd.v8i2.750.
26. Fan, S., Zhang, J., Blanco-Davis, E., Yang, Z. and Yan, X. (2020). Maritime Accident Prevention Strategy Formulation from A Human Factor Perspective Using Bayesian Networks and TOPSIS. Ocean Engineering 210: 1-12. doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.107544.
27. Gagatsi, E., Giannopoulos, G., Aifantopoulou, G. and Charalampous, G. (2017). Stakeholders-Based Multi-Criteria Policy Analysis İn Maritime Transport: from Theory to Practice. Transportation Research Procedia 22: 655-664. doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.03.062.
28. Gao, T., Na, S., Dang, X. and Zhang, Y. (2018). Study of the Competitiveness of Quanzhou Port on the Belt and Road in China Based on a Fuzzy-AHP and ELECTRE III Model. Sustainability 10(4) :1253. doi: 10.3390/su10041253.
29. Goncalves, W., Freitas, R. R. D., Chiquieri, J., Jr. Rigo, L.O., Mattos, A.L. and Zatta, F.N. (2019). Regional Development and Organization of Space: An Approach to the Dry Port location using the Hybrid Method Fuzzy-AHP. International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Science (IJAERS) 6(5): 521-530. doi: 10.22161/ijaers.6.5.68.
30. Gul, M. (2019). A Fuzzy-Based Occupational Health and Safety Risk Assessment Framework and A Case Study in An International Port Authority. Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology 1-15. doi: 10.1080/20464177.2019.1670994.
31. Ha, M. H., Yang, Z. and Heo, M.W. (2017). A New Hybrid Decision Making Framework for Prioritising Port Performance Improvement Strategies. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics 33(3): 105-116. doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2017.09.001.
32. Hemalatha, S., Dumpala, L. and Balakrishna, B. (2018). Service Quality Evaluation and Ranking of Container Terminal Operators Through Hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics 34(2): 137-144. doi: 10.1016/j.ajsl.2018.06.010.
33. Hervás-Peralta, M., Poveda-Reyes, S., Molero, G., Santarremigia, F. and Pastor-Ferrando, J. P. (2019). Improving the Performance of Dry and Maritime Ports by Increasing Knowledge about the Most Relevant Functionalities of the Terminal Operating System (TOS). Sustainability 11(6): 1648. doi: 10.3390/su11061648.
34. Hozairi, H., Buhari, B., Lumaksono, H. and Tukan, M. (2019). Selection of Marine Security Policy using Fuzzy-AHP TOPSIS Hybrid Approach. Knowledge Engineering and Data Science 2(1): 19-30. doi: 10.17977/um018v2i12019p19-30.
35. Hsu, W. K. K., Lian, S.-J. and Huang, S. H. S. (2020). An Assessment Model Based on A Hybrid MCDM Approach for The Port Choice of Liner Carriers. Research in Transportation Business and Management 34: 100426. doi: 10.1016/j.rtbm.2019.100426.
36. Icaza, R. R. D. and Parnell, G. S. (2018). Container Port Selection in West Africa: A Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. Engineering Management Research 7(1): 68-87. doi: 10.5539/emr.v7n1p68.
37. Inan, T. and Baba, A. F. (2020). Gemi Çarpışmalarının Önlenmesi için Hibrit Algoritma Tabanlı Bir Karar Destek Sisteminin Oluşturulması. Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University 35(3): 1213-1230. doi: 10.17341/gazimmfd.603464.
38. Jiang, D., Wu, B., Yang, X. and Van Gelder, P. H. A. J. M. (2019). A Fuzzy Evidential Reasoning-Based Approach for Submarine Power Cable Routing Selection for Offshore Wind Farms. Ocean Engineering 193:106616. doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2019.106616.
39. Jugović, A., Cukrov, M. and Poletan Jugović, T. (2017). Multi-criteria Optimization of Motorways of the Sea in the Function of the Environment Protection: Case Study of Croatia. Promet-Trafficand Transportation 29(4): 463-468. doi: 10.7307/ptt.v29i4.2416.
40. Karahalios, H. (2017). The Application of the AHP-TOPSIS for Evaluating Ballast Water Treatment Systems by Ship Operators. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 52: 172-184. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2017.03.001.
41. Kawan, B., Wang, H., Li, G. and Chhantyal, K. (2017). Data-Driven Modeling of Ship Motion Prediction Based on Support Vector Regression. Proceedings of the 58th Conference on Simulation and Modelling (SIMS 58) Reykjavik, Iceland, September 25th – 27th 138(46): 350-354. doi: 10.3384/ecp17138350.
42. Kaya, A.Y., Asyalı, E. and Ozdagoglu, A. (2018). Career Decision Making in The Maritime Industry: Research of Merchant Marine Officers Using Fuzzy AHP And Fuzzy TOPSIS Methods. Zeszyty Naukowe Akademii Morskiejw Szczecinie doi: 10.17402/306.
43. Kim, A. R. (2016). A Study on Competitiveness Analysis of Ports in Korea and China by Entropy Weight TOPSIS. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics 3(4): 187-194. doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2016.12.001.
44. Kim, A. R. and Lu, J. (2016). A Study on the Evaluation of Port Competitiveness in Busan Port and Shanghai Port. Open Access Library Journal 3(4): 1-8. doi: 10.4236/oalib.1102623.
45. Koksalan, M., Wallenius, J. and Zionts, S. (2011). Multiple Criteria Decision Making: From Early History to the 21st Century. World Scientific 212. doi.org/10.1142/8042. Kovacic, M. and Mrvica, A. (2017). Selecting the size and Type of a Vessel for the Purpose of Maritime Connection of Mainland and Islands and Between the Islands in Croatia. In: Simpozijum O Operacionim Istraživanjima SYM-OP-IS 2017.
46. Longaray, A. A., Gomes, C. F. S., Gomes, S., Elacoste, T., Maria, C. and Machado, S. (2019). Efficiency Indicators to Evaluate Services in Port Services: A Proposal Using Fuzzy-AHP Approach. Pesquisa Operacional 39(3): 437-456. doi: 10.1590/0101-7438.2019.039.03.0437.
47. Lu, W., Seo, J. and Yeo, G. (2019). Location Selection of an LNG Bunkering Port in Korea. Journal of Korea Trade 23(2): 59-75. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3424501. Min, H. and Park, B.I. (2019). A Two-Dimensional Approach to Assessing the Impact of Port Selection Factors on Port Competitiveness using the Kano Model. Maritime Economics and Logistics 22(2): 1-30. doi: 10.1057/s41278-019-00117-7.
48. Mladineo, N., Mladineo, M. and Knezic, S. (2016). Web MCA-based Decision Support System for Incident Situations in Maritime Traffic: Case Study of Adriatic Sea. The Journal of Navigation 70(6): 1312-1334. doi: 10.1017/S0373463317000388.
49. Nguyen, L. C. and Notteboom, T. (2016). A Multi-Criteria Approach to Dry Port Location in Developing Economies with Application to Vietnam. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics 32(1): 23-32. doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2016.03.003.
50. Othman, M. K., Abdul Rahman, N.S.F., Md-Arof, A., Ismail, A. and Sanusi, I. A. (2019). Evaluation of Delay Factors on Dry Bulk Cargo Operation in Malaysia: A Case Study of Kemaman Port. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics 35(3): 127-137. doi: 10.1016/j.ajsl.2019.09.001.
51. Othman, M. K. Abdul Rahman, N.S.F., Ismail, A. and Saharuddin, A.H. (2020). Factors Contributing to the Imbalances of Cargo Flows in Malaysia Large-Scale Minor Ports Using a Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (FAHP) Approach. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics 36(3). doi: 10.1016/j.ajsl.2019.12.012.
52. Ozdemir, U., Ece, N.J. and Gedik, N. (2017). Türkiye’de Denizcilik Eğitiminin Geleceğine Yönelik Nicel Bir Çalışma Örneği. Journal of Eta Maritime Science 5(2): 154-170. doi.org/10.5505/jems.2017.83703.
53. Ozdemir, U. and Guneroglu, A. (2018). Cargo Type Selection Procedure Using Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS Techniques: 'The Case of Dry Bulk Cargo Ships'. International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics 10(3): 259-280. doi: 10.1504/IJSTL.2018.091673.
54. Ozdemir, U. (2018). Gemiadamlarının İdari Ceza Almalarnı Gerektiren Mesleki Hata ve Uygunsuzlukların Bahp Yöntemi İle Değerlendirilmesi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Denizcilik Fakültesi Dergisi 10(1): 19-39. doi.org/10.18613/deudfd.428155.
55. Ozdemir, U. (2016). Bulanık DEMATEL ve Bulanık TOPSIS Yöntemleri Kullanılarak Limanlarda Yaşanan İş Kazalarının İncelenmesi. Journal of ETA Maritime Science 4(3): 235-247. doi: 10.5505/jems.2016.74936.
56. Ozturkoglu, Y. and Calıskan, A. (2016). Deniz Taşımacılığında Broker Seçimi Kararını Etkileyen Kriter Skorlarının Belirlenmesi Ve Alternatiflerin Değerlendirilmesi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Denizcilik Fakültesi Dergisi 8(1): 31-61. doi: 10.18613/deudfd.97173.
57. Pekkaya, M. and Bucak, U. (2018). Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleriyle Bölgesel Liman Kuruluş Yeri Seçimi: Batı Karadeniz’de Bir Uygulama. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi 253-268. doi.org/10.18092/ulikidince.353653.
58. Pham, Y. and Yeo, G. T. (2019). Evaluation of Transshipment Container Terminals’ Service Quality in Vietnam: From the Shipping Companies’ Perspective. Sustainability 11(5): 1503. doi: 10.3390/su11051503.
59. Polat, C. and Merdivenci, F. (2019). Evaluation of Line Selection Criteria of Freight Forwarders in Container Transportation. Türk Denizcilik ve Deniz Bilimleri Dergisi 5(2): 112-126. https://www.researchgate.net/deref/https%3A%2F%2Forcid.org%2F0000-0003-1031-1593.
60. Rezaei, J., van Wulfften Palthe, L., Tavasszy, L., Wiegmans, B. and van der Laan, F. (2018). Port Performance Measurement in the Context of Port Choice: an MCDA Approach. Management Decision 57(2). Doi: 10.1108/MD-04-2018-0482.
61. Roy, B. (1968). Classement Et Choix En Présence De Points De Vue Multiples. Revue Française D'informatique et de Recherche Opérationnelle 2(8): 57-75. doi.org/10.1051/ro/196802V100571.
62. Saaty, T. L. (1972). An Eigenvalue Allocation Model for Prioritization and Planning. Energy Management and Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania 28-31.
63. Sahin, B. and Yip, T. L. (2017). Shipping Technology Selection for Dynamic Capability Based on Improved Gaussian Fuzzy AHP Model. Ocean Engineering 136: 233-242. doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2017.03.032.
64. Sahin, B., Yip, T. L., Tseng, P., Soylu, A. and Kabak, M. (2020). An Application of a Fuzzy TOPSIS Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Algorithm for Dry Bulk Carrier Selection. Information 11(5): 251. doi: 10.3390/info11050251.
65. Senel, M., Senel, B. and Havle, C.A. (2018). Risk Analysis of Ports in Maritime Industry in Turkey using FMEA Based Intuitionistic Fuzzy TOPSIS Approach. ITM Web of Conferences 22(8): 01018. doi: 10.1051/itmconf/20182201018.
66. Sener, Z. (2016). Evaluating Ship Selection Criteria for Maritime Transportation. Journal of Advanced Management Science 4(4): 325-328. doi: 10.12720/joams.4.4.325-328.
67. Seo, Y. J., Ha, M. H., Yang, Z. and Bhattacharya, S. (2018). The Ship Management Firm Selection: The Case of South Korea. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics 34(3): 258–268. doi: 10.1016/j.ajsl.2018.09.008.
68. Soner, O., Celik, E. and Akyuz, E. (2017). Application of AHP and VIKOR Methods Under Interval Type 2 Fuzzy Environment in Maritime Transportation. Ocean Engineering 129: 107-116. doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2016.11.010.
69. Song, C., Xu, Z., Zhang, Y. and Wang, X. (2020). Dynamic Hesitant Fuzzy Bayesian Network and Its Application in The Optimal Investment Port Decision Making Problem of “Twenty-First Century Maritime
70. Silk Road. Applied Intelligence 50(2): 1846-1858. doi: 10.1007/s10489-020-01647-x.
71. Stavroulakis, P. J. and Papadimitriou, S. (2017). Situation Analysis Forecasting: The Case of European Maritime Clusters. Maritime Policy and Management 44(6): 779-789. doi: 10.1080/03088839.2017.1330560.
72. Suharjo, B. and Suharyo, O. S. (2019). The Naval Harbours Priority Development using Zero-One Matrix Decision Variable (Zomdv) and Fuzzy MCDM Methods; A Case Study. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET) 10(2): 623-634. http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp.
73. Sumner, M. and Rudan, I. (2018). A Hybrid MCDM Approach to Transshipment Port Selection. Pomorstvo 32(2): 258-267. doi: 10.31217/p.32.2.11. Tavacioglu, L., Gokmen, N., Eski, O., Sarı, V. and Yılmaz, A. C. (2018). A Research as Mobbing Examination in Maritime Sector. Bilge International Journal of Science and Technology Research 2: 32-39. doi: 10.30516/bilgesci.489095.
74. Temiz, I., Ozdemir, U. and Ece, N. J. (2018). Efficiency Analysis of Samsun Port Which Is Located on the Europe-Caucasia-Asia Transportation Corridor. Turkish Journal of Maritime and Marine Sciences 4(2).
75. Tsai, J. Y., Ding, J. F., Liang, G. S. and Ye, K. D. (2018). Use of a hybrid MCDM Method to Evaluate Key Solutions Influencing Service Quality at A Port Logistics Center in Taiwan. Brodogradnja: Teorija i praksa brodogradnje i pomorske tehnike 69(1): 89-105. doi.org/10.21278/brod69106.
76. Uzun, S. and Kazan, H. (2016). Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemlerinden AHP TOPSIS ve PROMETHEE Karşılaştırılması: Gemi İnşada Ana Makine Seçimi Uygulaması. Journal of Transportation and Logistics 1(1): 99-113. doi.org/10.22532/jtl.237889.
77. Uzun, S. and Yıldırım, B. F. (2016). Equipment Selection in Ship Building Process: TOPSIS, MOORA, VIKOR Application. Eurasian Academy of Sciences Eurasian Business and Economics Journal 2: 113-124. doi: 10.17740/eas.econ.2016-MSEMP-57. Vilke, S., Bricic, D. and Kos, S. (2017). Northern and Southern European Traffic Flow Land Segment Analysis as Part of the Redirection Justification. TransNav, the International Journal on MarineNavigation and Safety of Sea Transportation 11(4): 673-679. doi: 10.12716/1001.11.04.14.
78. Wang, R., Wen, B. and Huang, W. (2018). A Support Vector Regression-Based Method for Target Direction of Arrival Estimation from HF Radar Data. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters 15(5): 674–678. doi: 10.1109/LGRS.2018.2807405. Wang, Y. and Yeo, G. T. (2018). Intermodal Route Selection for Cargo Transportation from Korea to Central Asia by Adopting Fuzzy Delphi and Fuzzy ELECTRE I Methods. Maritime Policy and Management 45(1): 3-18. doi: 10.1080/03088839.2017.1319581. Wang, Y. and Yeo, G. T. (2019). Transshipment Hub Port Selection for Shipping Carriers in a Dual Hub-Port System. Maritime Policy and Management 46(6): 701-714. doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2019.1627012.
79. Weng, J., Yang, D., Qian, T. and Huang, Z. (2018). Combining Zero-Inflated Negative Binomial Regression with MLRT Techniques: An approach to evaluating shipping accident casualties. Ocean Engineering 166: 135-144. doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2018.08.011.
80. Wu, B., Yan, X., Wang, Y. and Guedes Soares, C. (2016). Selection of Maritime Safety Control Options for NUC Ships using a Hybrid Group Decision-Making Approach. Safety Science 88: 108-122. doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.04.026.
81. Wu, B., Zong, L., Yan, X. and Guedes, S. C. (2018). Incorporating Evidential Reasoning and TOPSIS into Group Decision-Making Under Uncertainty for Handling Ship without Command. Ocean Engineering 164: 590-603. doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2018.06.054.
82. Xiao, Z., Ponnambalam, L., Fu, X. and Zhang, W. (2017). Maritime Traffic Probabilistic Forecasting Based on Vessels’ Waterway Patterns and Motion Behaviors. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 18(11): 3122-3134. doi: 10.1109/TITS.2017.2681810.
83. Xue, J., Van Gelder, P. H. A. J. M., Reniers, G., Papadimitriou, E. and Wu, C. (2019). Multi-Attribute Decision-Making Method for Prioritizing Maritime Traffic Safety Influencing Factors of Autonomous Ships’ Maneuvering Decisions using Grey and Fuzzy Theories. Safety Science 120: 323-340. doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.07.019.
84. Yami, H. A., Yang, Z., Riahi, R., Bonsall, S., Wang, J., Wan, C. and Qu, Z. (2017). Analytical Strategic Safety Management in Container Ports. In: 2017 4th International Conference on Transportation Information and Safety (ICTIS). 184-191. doi: 10.1109/ICTIS.2017.8047764.
85. Yang, Y. C. and Chen, S. L. (2016). Determinants of Global Logistics Hub Ports: Comparison of the Port Development Policies of Taiwan, Korea, And Japan. Transport Policy 45: 179-189. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2015.10.005.
86. Yazir, D., Sahin, B. and Yip, T. L. (2020). Selection of New Design Gas Carriers by Using Fuzzy EVAMIX Method. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics 37(1): 91-104. doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2020.10.001.
87. Yildiz, S., Uğurlu, O., Wang, J. and Loughney, S. (2020). Application of the HFACS-PV approach for identification of human and organizational factors (HOFs) influencing marine accidents. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 208: 1-13. doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2020.107395.
88. Zabihi, A., Gharakhani, M. and Afshinfar, A. (2016). A Multi Criteria Decision-Making Model for Selecting Hub Port for Iranian Marine Industry. Uncertain Supply Chain Management 4(3): 195-206. doi: 10.5267/j.uscm.2016.2.001.
89. Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and control 8(3): 338-353. doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X.
90. Zafirakou, A., Themeli, S., Tsami, E. and Aretoulis, G. (2018). Multi-Criteria Analysis of Different Approaches to Protect the Marine and Coastal Environment from Oil Spills. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 6(4): 125. doi: 10.3390/jmse6040125.
91. Zionts, S. (1979). MCDM-If Not a Roman Numeral, Then What? Interfaces 9(4): 94-101. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25059779