LİMAN REKABETÇİLİĞİNİ ETKİLEYEN FAKTÖRLER: EGE BÖLGESİ KONTEYNER TERMİNALLERİ KULLANICILARINA YÖNELİK BİR VZAHP UYGULAMASI

Yıl 2016, , 1 - 23, 27.10.2016

Cemile Solak Fışkın Ersin Fırat Akgül Çimen Karataş Çetin

https://doi.org/10.18613/deudfd.43668

Öz

Konteyner
terminallerinin rekabetçiliklerini etkileyen faktörlerin, değişen dış çevre
koşulları ve dalgalı talep yapısı nedeniyle,  dikkatli bir şekilde analiz edilmesi
gerekmektedir. Ulusal ölçekte yeterli çalışmanın olmadığı gözlenen liman
rekabetçiliği, bu çalışmada farklı bir yöntem ile incelenmiştir. Belirlenen
faktörlerin, liman kullanıcıları açısından önem derecelerinin ve
alternatiflerin seçimine yönelik etkilerinin belirlenebilmesi için Analitik
Hiyerarşi Prosesi (AHP) kapsamındaki soru formları, Ege Bölgesi’ndeki konteyner
terminallerini kullanan taşıma işleri komisyoncuları ile düzenli hat denizyolu
taşımacılığı yapan işletmelerin acenteleri tarafından yanıtlanmıştır. Analiz
aşamasındaki ağırlık hesaplamasında hibrit bir yöntem olan Veri Zarflama
Analitik Hiyerarşi Prosesi (VZAHP) yöntemi ile en uygun karar belirlenmeye
çalışılmıştır. AHP yönteminin, az sayıda “Karar Verme Birimi (KVB)”den oluşan
matrislerde yeterli iken, KVB sayısının artması halinde ise VZAHP yönteminin de
uygulanması gerekliliği bu çalışma kapsamında desteklenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

liman kullanıcıları

Kaynakça

• Acosta, M., Coronado, D. ve Cerban M. (2007). Port competitiveness in container traffic from an internal point of view: The experience of the port Algeciras Bay. Maritime Policy & Management, 34(5), 501-520.
• Akgül, E.F., Solak Fışkın, C., Düzalan, B., Erdoğan, T. ve Karataş Çetin, Ç. (2015). Port competitiveness and efficiency: An analysis of Turkish container ports. European Conference on Shipping, Intermodalism and Ports (Econship)Bildiri Kitabı, Sakız Adası, Yunanistan.
• Aroenietis, R., Van de Voorde, E. ve Vanelslander, T. (2010). Port competitiveness determinants of selected European ports in the containerized cargo market. In: Proceedings of Annual Conference of the International Association of Maritime Economists, Lizbon, Portekiz.
• Chang, Y.T., Lee, S.Y. ve Tongzon, J.L. (2008). Port selection factors by shipping lines: Different perspectives between trunk liners and feeder service providers. Marine Policy, 32(6), 877-885.
• Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W. ve Rhodes, E. (1978), Measuring the efficiency of decision making units, European Journal of Operation Research, 2 (6), 429-444.
• Cullinane, K., Teng, Y. ve Wang T.F. (2005). Port competition between Shanghai and Ningbo. Maritime Policy & Management, 32(4), 331-346.
• Çağlar, V. (2013). Türk Özel Limanlarında Etkinlik ve Verimlilik Analizi. İzmir: Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Yayınları.
• Da Cruz, M.R.P., Ferreira, J.J. ve Azevedo, S.G. (2013). Key factors of seaport competitiveness based on the stakeholder perspective: An analytic hierarchy process (AHP) model. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 15(4), 416-443.
• De Langen, P.W. (2007). Port competition and selection in contestable hinterlands: The case of Austria. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 7 (1), 1-14.
• De Langen, P.W. ve Pallis, A.A. (2006). Analysis of the benefits of intra-port competition. International Journal of Transport Economics, 33(1), 69-85.
• De Martino, M. ve Morvillo, A. (2008). Activities, resources and inter-organizational relationships: Key factors in port competitiveness. Maritime Policy & Management, 35(6), 571-589.
• Eroğlu, E. ve Lorcu, F. (2007). Veri zarflama analitik hiyerarşi prosesi (VZAHP) ile sayısal karar verme. İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi İşletme Dergisi, 36(2), 30-53.
• Falsini, D., Fondi, F. ve Schiraldi, M. (2012). A logistics provider evaluation and selection methodology based on AHP, DEA and linear programming integration. International Journal of Production Research, 50(17), 4822-4829.
• Farrell, M.J. (1957) The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 120(3): 253-290.
• Frankel, E.G. (1992). Hierarchical logic in shipping policy and decision-making. Maritime Policy & Management, 19 (3), 211–221.
• Guy, E. ve Urli, B. (2006). Port selection and multicriteria analysis: an application to the Montreal-New York alternative. Maritime Economics & Logistics. 8, 169-186.
• Ha, M.S. (2003). A comparison of service quality at major container ports: Implications for Korean ports. Journal of Transport Geography, 11(2), 131-137.
• Hoshino, H. (2010). Competition and collaboration among container ports. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 26(1), 31-48.
• Hosseinpour, S., Pourmahmoud, J. ve Masrouri, N. (2013). Using cross efficiency with symmetric weights for the method DEAHP. Journal of Educational and Management Studies, 3(4), 384-389.
• Kamvysi, K., Gotzamani, K., Georgiou, A. ve Andronikidis, A. (2010). Integrating DEAHP and DEANP into the quality function deployment. The TQM Journal, 22(3), 293-316.
• Kasap, Y. ve Kiriş, Ş. (2013). An AHP-DEA approach for evaluating electricity generation firms of OECD countries. Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy, 8(2), 200-208.
• Koçak, E. ve Kişi, H. (2015). Liman özelleştirmeleri: Mersin Limanı için beklentiler ve gerçekleşmeler. International Journal of Economic and Administrative Studies, 15, 279-296.
• Lai, P., Potter, A., Beynon, M. ve Beresford, A.K.C. (2015). Evaluating the efficiency performance of airports using an integrated AHP/DEA-AR technique. Transport Policy, 42, 75-85.
• Lirn, TC., Thanopoulou H.A. ve Beresford, A.K.C. (2003). Transhipment port selection and decision-making behaviour: Analysing the Taiwanese case. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 6(4), 229-244.
• Lirn, TC., Thanopoulou H.A., Beynon, M.J. ve Beresford, A.K.C. (2004). An application of AHP on transhipment port selection: A global perspective. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 6(1), 70-91.
• Liu , C. Hsu , H., Wang, S. ve Lee, H. (2005). A performance evaluation model based on AHP and DEA. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Industrial Engineers, 22(3), 243-251.
• Malchow, M. ve Kanafani, A. (2001). A disaggregate analysis of factors influencing port selection. Maritime Policy & Management, 28(3), 265-277.
• Mangan, J., Lalwani, C. ve Gardner, B. (2002). Modelling port/ferry choice in ro-ro freight transportation. International Journal of Transport Management, 1(1), 15-28.
• Meersman, H., Pauwels, T., Van de Voorde, E. ve Vanelslander, T. (2008). The relation between port competition and hinterland connections: the case of the 'Iron Rhine' and the 'Betuweroute'. In: Proceedings of the International Forum on Shipping, Ports and Airports (IFSPA), Hong Kong.
• Murphy, P.R., Dalenberg, D. ve Daley, J.M. (1988). A contemporary perspective of international port operations. Transportation Journal, 28(2), 23-32.
• Murphy, P.R., Daley, J.M. ve Dalenberg, D. (1991). Selecting links and nodes in international transportation: An intermediary's perspective. Transportation Journal, 31(2), 33-40.
• Murphy, P.R. ve Daley, J.M. (1994). A comparative analysis of port selection factors. Transportation Journal, 34(1), 15-21.
• Nir, AS., Lin, K. ve Liang, GS. (2003). Port choice behaviour from the perspective of the shipper. Maritime Policy & Management, 30(2), 165-173.
• Oğuztimur, S. ve Tuzkaya, U.R. (2009). An efficiency of Turkish container ports using the analytic network process. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Prospects for Research in Transport and Logistics on a Regional-Global Perspective. İstanbul, Türkiye.
• Onut, S., Tuzkaya, U.R. ve Torun, E. (2011). Selecting container port via a fuzzy ANP-based approach: A case study in the Marmara Region, Turkey. Transport Policy, 18(1), 182-193.
• Ramanathan, R. (2006). Data envelopment analysis for weight derivation and aggregation in the analytic hierarchy process. Computers & Operations Research, 33(5), 1289-1307.
• Ramanathan, R. ve Ramanathan, U. (2010). A qualitative perspective to deriving weights from pairwise comparison matrices. Omega, 38(3-4), 228-232.
• Rodrigue, J.P., Comtois, C. ve Slack B. (2009). The Geography of Transport System. Oxfordshire: Routledge.
• Saaty, T.L. (1980). The Analytical Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Saaty, T.L. (1990). How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48 (1), 9–26.
• Saaty, T.L. ve Vargas, L. (2012). Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York: Springer.
• Sezer, H., Esmer, S., Tuna, O. ve Yaralıoğlu, K. (2005). An application of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) on East Mediterranean port selection: A perspective for Turkey. In: Proceedings of Logistics Research Network Annual Conference. Plymouth, United Kingdom.
• Slack, B. (1985). Containerization, inter-port competition, and port selection. Maritime Policy & Management, 12(4), 293-303.
• Song, D.W. ve Yeo, K. (2004). A competitive analysis of Chinese container ports using the analytic hierarchy process. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 6, 34-52.
• Şevkli, M., Lenny Koh, S., Zaim, S., Demirbag, M. ve Tatoglu, E. (2007). An application of data envelopment analytic hierarchy process for supplier selection: A case study of BEKO in Turkey. International Journal of Production Research, 45(9), 1973-2003.
• Talley, W.K. (2009). Port Economics. New York: Routledge.
• Tongzon, J. ve Sawant, L. (2007). Port choice in a competitive environment: From the shipping lines' perspective. Applied Economics, 39(4), 477-492.
• Tongzon, J.L. (2009). Port choice and freight forwarders. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 45(1), 186–195.
• Ugboma, C. Ugboma, O. ve Ogwute, I. (2006). An analytical hierarchy process approach to port selection decisions: Empirical evidence from Nigerian ports. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 8, 251-266.
• UNCTAD (2014). Review of Maritime Transport. New York: UNCTAD Publications.
• Varan, S. ve Cerit, A.G. (2014). Concentration and competition of container ports in Turkey: A statistical analysis. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Denizcilik Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(1), 91-109.
• Wang, TF. ve Song, D.W. (2003). Container port production efficiency: A comparative study of DEA and FDH approaches. Journal of Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, 5, 698-713.
• Wang, Y., Chin, K. ve Leung, J. (2009). A note on “The application of the data envelopment analytic hierarchy process for supplier selection”. International Journal of Production Research, 47(11), 3121-3138.
• Wang, Y. ve Luo, Y. (2012). A note on “A new approach for weight derivation using data envelopment analysis in the analytic hierarchy process”. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 56 (3-4), 49-55.
• Wiegmans, B., Hoest, A. ve Notteboom, T. (2008). Port and terminal selection by deep-sea container operators. Maritime Policy & Management, 35(6), 517-534.
• Wong J.K. ve Li H. (2007). Application of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in multi-criteria analysis of the selection of intelligent building systems. Building and Environment, 43(1), 108-125.
• Yeo, G. ve Song, D. (2006). An application of the hierarchical fuzzy process to container port competition: Policy and strategic implications. Transportation, 33(4), 409-422.
• Yuen, C., Zhang, A. ve Cheung, W. (2012). Port competitiveness from the users' perspective: An analysis of major container ports in China and its neighboring countries. Research in Transportation Economics, 35(1), 34-40.
• Zhang, H., Li, X. ve Liu, W. (2006). An AHP/DEA Methodology for 3PL Vendor Selection in 4PL, W. Shen, K. Chao, Z. Lin, J. Barthes ve A. James (Eds.), Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design II (s.646-655), Berlin: Springer.
• Zhang, X., Lee, C. ve Chen, S. (2012). Supplier evaluation and selection: A hybrid model based on DEAHP and ABC. International Journal of Production Research, 50(7),1877-1889.