Determining Optimal Routes for Marble Transport Between Turkey and France Using the Multi-Criteria Decision Making

Abstract

In order to respond to increasing demand in line with the effects of globalization and the consumers’ preferences, the transportation sector has needed to focus on constantly improving itself and its efficiency. Currently, operating transportation operations through optimal transport routes have become critical. This study attempts to determine the optimal transportation route for exporting marble from Turkey to France using multi- criteria decision-making methods. The study first reviews the literature to determine the 6 main and 18 sub-criteria that have been mentioned the most. The study submitted these criteria to groups made up of logistics company managers, operation executives, and scholars in order to get expert opinions. The study uses the program Super Decisions to create a hierarchy structure for the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and to calculate the criterion weights.
The study collected information from companies providing service between Afyon and Lyon regarding the costs and transit times of the five different transportation routes that are currently used. The study then analyzed the emissions for each of these five routes using the tools from the emissions calculator software EcoTransIT. By using the criterion weights found using the AHP method, the five transportation routes were analyzed in terms of the same group using the technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) method to determine which route is the most appropriate. After the analysis, the study compared the various routes and selected the seaway + inland waterway intermodal transportation route as the optimal one due to its low cost and minimal transit time and emission values.

Keywords

• Transportation
• Mode choice
• Optimal route

Türkiye-Fransa Mermer Taşımacılığında Optimal Rotanın Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemi ile Belirlenmesi

Abstract

Küreselleşmenin etkisi ve tüketicilerin tercihleri doğrultusunda artan talebe karşılık vermek amacıyla taşımacılık sektörü sürekli kendini geliştirmeye ve verimliliğini arttırmaya odaklanması gerekmektedir. Günümüzde optimal taşıma rotaları üzerinden taşımacılık operasyonlarını gerçekleştirmek bu yüzden kritik öneme sahiptir. Bu çalışmada, Türkiye-Fransa mermer taşımacılığında optimal rota çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleriyle belirlenmeye çalışılmıştır. Öncelikli olarak literatür taranarak rota seçimini etkileyen kriterlerden en çok üzerinde durulan 6 ana ve 18 alt olmak üzere 24 kriter belirlenmiştir. Belirlenen kriterler lojistik sektöründe taşımacılık hizmeti sağlayan şirket yöneticileri, operasyon uzmanları ve alanında uzman akademisyenlerin oluşturduğu gruba sunulmuş ve kriterler son haline getirilmiştir. Super Decision programı kullanılarak AHP yönteminin temeli olan hiyerarşik yapı oluşturulmuş ve kriter ağırlıkları elde edilmiştir.
Sektörde Afyon-Lyon noktaları arasında taşımacılık hizmeti sağlayan işletmelerden günümüzde kullanılan 5 farklı rotanın maliyet ve transit süre bilgileri elde edilmiştir. EcoTransIT emisyon hesaplama aracıyla rotaların emisyon analizi yapılmıştır. TOPSIS yöntemiyle aynı lojistik uzmanlarınca değerlendirilen 5 rota AHP yöntemiyle elde edilen kriter ağırlıklarıyla beraber analiz edilmiş ve söz konusu iki nokta arasında optimal taşıma rotası belirlenmiştir. Analizler sonucunda denizyolu+iç suyolu intermodal taşımacılık rotası diğer alternatiflere göre sahip olduğu düşük maliyetin yanı sıra kısmen transit süre ve düşük emisyon değerleri avantajıyla Afyon-Lyon plaka mermer taşınmasında optimal rota olarak belirlenmiştir.

Keywords

• Taşımacılık
• Mode Seçimi
• Optimal Rota

References

1. Arslanhan, H. ve Tosun, Ö. (2021). “Ulaştırma modu seçimi probleminin bütünleşik en iyi-en kötü ve waspas yöntemleriyle çözülmesi”. Pamukkale Universitesi Muhendislij Bilim Dergisi, 27(1), 13-23.
2. Bazaras, D., Batarliene, N., Palsaitis, R. ve Petraska, A. (2013). “Optimal road route selection crıterıa system for oversıze goods transportation”. The Baltic Journal of Road and Bridge Engineering, 8(1), 19-24.
3. Boardman, B. S., Malstrom, E. M.; Butler, D. P.; Cole, M. H. (1997). “Computer assisted routing of ıntermodal shipments”. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 33(1-2), 311-314.
4. Bookbinder, H. J. ve Fox, S. N (1998). “Intermodal routing of canada–mexico shipments under Nafta”.
5. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 34(4), 289-303.
6. Brooks, R. M., Puckett, M. S., Hensher, A. D. ve Sammons, A. (2012). “Understanding mode choice decisions: a study of australian freight shippers”. Maritime Economic Logistics, 14(3), 274–299. https:// doi.org/10.1057/mel.2012.8
7. Banamyong, R. (2001). “Modelling freight logistics: the vientiane–singapore corridor”. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Integrated Logistics (ICIL), August 21-24, Nanyang Technological University & Carnegie Mellon University, Singapore, 441-446.
8. Banamyong, R. (2001). “Modelling freight logistics: the vientiane–singapore corridor”. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Integrated Logistics (ICIL), August 21-24, Nanyang Technological University & Carnegie Mellon University, Singapore, 441-446.

9. Cho, H. J., Kim, S. Hy ve Choi, R. H. (2010). “An ıntermodal transport network planning algorithm using dynamic programming—a case study: from busan to rotterdam in ıntermodal freight routing”. Applied Intelligent, 36(3), 529-541. https://doi.org/1 0.1007/s10489-010-0223-6
10. Çetinkaya, V. ve Deveci, D. A. (2020). “Optimal sürdürülebilir rota tespiti için gerekli göstergelerin bir çok kriterli karar verme yöntemi ile önem düzeyi tespiti”. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Denizcilik Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(1), 25-46.
11. De jong, G. ve Worterboer, P. (2004). New Values Of Time And Reliability in Freight Transport İn The Netherlands. Erişim: 23.03.2022 https://significance.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/2004-GDJ-New- values-of-time-and-reliability-in-freight-transport-in-the-Netherlands.pdf
12. Demir, E., Burgholzer; W., Hrusovsky, M., Arıkan E., Jammernegg, W. ve Woensel T. (2015). “A green ıntermodal service network design problem with travel time uncertainty”, Transportation Research Part B, 4, 1-19.
13. Ergin, H. ve Çekerol, S. G. (2008). “Intermodal yük tasımacılığı ve türkiye hızlı tüketim malları dağıtımı için uygulama denemesi”. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 22.
14. Gani, A. (2017). “The logistic performance effect in ınternational trade”. Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 33(4), 279-288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2017.12.012
15. Gosling, J., Purvis ve L. And Mohammed, N. (2010). “Supply chain flexibility as a determinant of supplier selection”. International Journal of Production Economics, 128(1), 11-21.
16. Ishfaq, R. (2012). “Resilience through flexibility in transportation operations”. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications: A Leading Journal of Supply Chain Management, 15(4), 215-229. https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2012.709835
17. Jung, H., Kim, J. ve Shin, K. (2019). “Importance analysis of decision making factors for selecting ınternational freight transportation mode”. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 35(1), 55-62. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2019.03.008
18. Hao, C ve Yue, Y. (2016). “Optimization on combination of transport routes and modes on dynamic programming for a container multimodal transport”. Procedia Engineering, 137, 382-390. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.01.272
19. Kaewfak, K., Ammarapala, V. ve Huynh, Van-Nam (2021). “Multi-objective optimization of freight route choices in multimodal transportation”. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems, 14(1), 794–807. https://doi.org/10.2991/ijcis.d.210126.001
20. Kasilingam, Raja G. (2012). Logistics and Transportation: Design and planning. Almanya: Springer.
21. Kengpol, A., Meethom, W. ve Tuominen, M. (2012). “the development of a decision support system in multimodal transportation routing within greater mekongsub-regioncountries”. International. Journal of Production Economics, 140(2), 691-701.
22. Kim, H.J ve Chang, Y.T (2014). “Analysis of an ıntermodal transportation network in korea from an environmental perspective”. Transportation Journal, 53(1), 79-106.
23. Koçak, D. ve Çoğurcu, E. Y. (2015). “Network modeli ile ağ analizi için çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleriyle karşılaştırmalı çözüm”. Gazi İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 1(1), 1-42.
24. Khooban, Z., Farahani, Z. R. ve Rezapour, Shabnam (2011). Transportation. Logistics Operations And Management: Concepts And Models. London: Elsevier.
25. Konstantinus, A. ve Zuidgeest, M. (2019). “An ınvestigation into the factors ınfluencing ınter-urban freight mode choice decisions in the southern african development community region”. Journal of Transport and Supply Chain Management, 13, 1-11.
26. Macharis, C., Meers, D., ve Lier, V.T. (2015). “Modal choice in freight transport: combining multi-criteria decision analysis and geographic ınformation systems”. International Journal of Multicriteria Decision Making, 5(4), 355-372.
27. Meixell, J. M. ve Norbis, M. (2008). “A review of the transportation mode choice and carrier selection literatüre”. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 19(2), 183-211. https://doi. org/10.1108/09574090810895951
28. Navarro, M. (2014). “Environmental factors and ıntermodal freight transportation: analysis of the decision bases in the case of spanish motorways of the sea”. Sustainability, 6(3), 1544-1566. https://doi. org/10.3390/su6031544
29. Ömürbek, N. ve Şimşek, A. (2014). “Analitik hiyerarşi süreci ve analitik ağ süreci yöntemleri ile online alışveriş site seçimi”. Yönetim ve Ekonomi Araştırma Dergisi, 12(22), 306-327. https://doi.org/10.11611/ JMER214
30. Petro, F. ve Konency, V. (2017). “Calculation of emissions from transport services and their use for the internalisation of external costs in road transport”. Procedia Engineering, 192(4), 677-682. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.06.117
31. Reniers, G. ve Dullaert, W. (2013). “A method to assess multi-modal hazmat transport security vulnerabilities: hazmat transport sva”. Transport Policy, 28, 103-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.05.002
32. Ruijgrok, C. (2008). “Europeran Transport: Insight and Challanges”. Handbook of Logistics and Supply- Chain Management, 2, 29-46. https://doi.org/10.1108/9780080435930-003
33. Sambracos, E. ve Ramfou, I. (2014). “Freight transport time savings and organizational performance: a systemic approach”. International Journal of Economic Sciences and Applied Research, 6(1), 19-40
34. Seo, J. Y., Chen, F. ve Roh Y. S. (2017). “Multimodal transportation: the case of laptop from chongqing in China to Rotterdam in Europe”. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 33(3), 155-165. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2017.09.005
35. Shih, H., Shyur, J. H. ve Lee, E. S. (2007). “An extension of TOPSIS for group decision making”. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 45(7–8), 801-813
36. Stefanov, M. (2018). “Logistics interpretation of product characteristics of liquefied and compressed natural
37. gas”. Research in Logistics&Production, 8(1), 39–52.
38. Stoilova, S. (2018). An Approach For Choosing The Optimal Route And Type Of Transport For Freight
39. Carriage Using Compromise Programming. MATEC Web of Conferences 234:06002 (2018).
40. Tuzkaya, R. U. (2009). “Evaluating the environmental effects of transportation modes using an integrated methodology and an application”. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 6(2), 277-290. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03327632
41. Yang, X., Low, M.W.J ve Tang, C. L. (2011). “Analysis of ıntermodal freight from china to ındian ocean: a goal programming approach”. Journal Transport of Geography. 19(4), 515-527.