Performance Evaluation of Turkish Ports: Integrated Fuzzy Entropy- Fuzzy MARCOS Analysis

Öz

Purpose: The aim of this study is to propose the Fuzzy Entropy based Fuzzy MARCOS method to solve the Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) problem, which involves analyzing the performance of Turkish ports according to quantitative evaluation criteria. Methodology: The uncertainty of quantitative criteria is based on the different values they take at different time periods. To overcome this problem, in this study, the importance levels of the criteria were determined by the Fuzzy Entropy method. Then, 11 port alternatives with a share of over 1% in transportation in Turkish ports were ranked according to their performance using the Fuzzy Measurement of Alternatives and Ranking to Compromise Solution (MARCOS) method. Findings: According to the analysis results, the most important evaluation criterion used in the performance evaluation of container ports, that is, the criterion with the highest weight, is the “port area” criterion. The port with the highest performance value among the ports is Kocaeli port. This method can provide a more accurate evaluation of the performance level of ports and its use in the planning and effective use of port investments. Originality: This research fills the gap in the literature in three ways: (1) Evaluatee the application of triangular fuzzy numbers to the panel data, which will provide effective inferences about the performanse level of the selected ports, (2) Evaluated a weighting approach using Entropy method that takes into account the distances of triangular fuzzy numbers consisting of real numbers instead of linguistic expressions, (3) An Entropy-based MARCOS method is proposed for solving the Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) problem involving the performanse analysis of Turkish ports.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ports
• Maritime Transport
• Fuzzy ENTROPY
• Fuzzy MARCOS

Türk Limanlarının Performanslarının Değerlendirmesi: Entegre Bulanık Entropi-Bulanık MARCOS Analizi

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, Türk limanlarının nicel değerlendirme kriterlerine göre performanslarının analiz edilmesini içeren Çok Kriterli Karar Verme (ÇKKV) probleminin çözümü için Bulanık Entropi tabanlı Bulanık MARCOS yöntemini önermektir. Yöntem: Nicel kriterlerin belirsizliği, farklı zaman dilimlerinde aldıkları farklı değerlere dayanmaktadır. Bu sorunu aşmak için, bu çalışmada, kriterlerin önem seviyeleri Bulanık Entropi yöntemi ile belirlenmiştir. Daha sonra, Türk limanlarında taşımacılıkta %1'in üzerinde paya sahip 11 liman alternatifi, Alternatiflerin Bulanık Ölçümü ve Uzlaşmaya Göre Sıralama (MARCOS) yöntemi kullanılarak performanslarına göre sıralanmıştır. Bulgular: Analiz sonuçlarına göre, konteyner limanlarının performans değerlendirmesinde kullanılan değerlendirme kriterlerinden en önemlisi yani en yüksek ağırlığa sahip olan kriter liman alanı kriteridir. Limanlar arasında en yüksek performans değerine sahip liman limanın Kocaeli limanıdır. Bu yöntem limanların performans düzeyinin daha doğru değerlendirilmesini ve liman yatırımlarının planlanmasında ve etkin kullanımında kullanılmasını sağlayabilir. Özgünlük: Bu araştırma literatürdeki boşluğu üç açıdan doldurmaktadır: (1) Seçilen limanların verimlilik düzeyi hakkında etkili çıkarımlar sağlayacak olan üçgen bulanık sayıların panel verilerine uygulanması değerlendirilmiş, (2) Dilsel ifadeler yerine gerçek sayılardan oluşan üçgen bulanık sayıların uzaklıklarını hesaba katan Entropi yöntemini kullanan bir ağırlıklandırma yaklaşımını değerlendirilmiş, (3) Türk limanlarının performans analizini içeren Çok Kriterli Karar Verme (ÇKKV) problemini çözmek için Entropi tabanlı bir MARCOS yöntemi önerilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Limanlar
• Denizyolu Taşımacılığı
• Bulanık ENTROPİ
• Bulanık MARCOS

Kaynakça

1. Akgül, E.F. (2018), “Cruise Ports in Türkiye: Analysis of Market Structure and Competitiveness”, Turkish Journal of Maritime and Marine Sciences, 4(2), 167-179
2. Akyürek, E. (2017), “Türkiye Karadeniz Limanları Verimlilik Analizi”, Verimlilik Dergisi, 4, 29-45.
3. Ali, J. (2022). “A q-Rung Orthopair Fuzzy MARCOS Method Using Novel Score Function and Its Application to Solid Waste Management”, Applied Intelligence, 52, 8770-8792
4. Andriotti R.F., Vieira, G.B.B., Sander, N.E.I., Campagnolo, R.R. and Neto, F.J.K. (2021). “Ort Pricing: A Case Study of the Rio de Janeiro Port Authority and Comparison with Others Brazilian Ports”, Case Studies on Transport Policy, 9, 870-878.
5. Ateş, A. and Esmer S., (2014),” Farklı Yöntemler İle Türk Konteyner Limanlarının Verimliliği”, Verimlilik Dergisi1, 61-76
6. Ateş, A., Esmer S., Çakır E. and Balcı K. (2013), “Karadeniz Konteyner Terminallerinin Göreceli Etkinlik Analizi”, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Denizcilik Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(1), 1-22.
7. Balık, İ (2023), “Antalya Limanı’nın Türkiye’de Elleçlenen Yük İçerisindeki Payı ve Yakın Çevresindeki Limanlar ile Karşılaştırmalı Yük Analizi”, Kent Akademisi, 16(3), 1437-1456. https://doi.org/10.35674/kent.1272994
8. Baysal, M.E., Uygur, M. and Toklu B. (2004), “A Study of the Relative Efficiency of TCDD Ports, Using Data Envelopment Analysis”, Journal of Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University, 19(4), 437-442

9. Boztepe, H. (2023), Lojistik Performans Endeksi 2023 (LPI 2023), https://tiud.org.tr/2023/07/17/lojistik-performans-endeksi-2023-lpi-2023/#:~:text=T%C3%BCrkiye%20bir%20%C3%B6nceki%20endeks%20olan,te%2042.%20S%C4%B1rada%20yer%20 alm%C4%B1%C5%9Ft%C4%B1r, (Accessed: 01.05.2024).
10. Büyükozkan, G., Havle C.A. and Feyzioglu, O. (2021), “An Integrated SWOT based fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy MARCOS Methodology for Digital Transformation Strategy Analysis in Airline Industry”, Journal of Air Transport Management, 97, 102142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2021.102142
11. Cabral, A.M.R. and F. De Sousa Ramos. 2014. “Cluster Analysis of the Competitiveness of Container Ports in Brazil”, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 69, 423–431
12. Cavallaro, F., Zavadskas, E. and Raslanas, S. (2016), “Evaluation of Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Systems Using Fuzzy Shannon Entropy and Fuzzy TOPSIS”, Sustainability, 8(6), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8060556
13. Chang, Y.T., and Talley, W.K. (2019). “Port Competitiveness, Efficiency, and Supply Chains: A Literature Review”, Transportation Journal, 58(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.5325/transportationj.58.1.0001
14. Clark, X., Dollar, D., and Micco, A. (2004), “Port Efficiency, Maritime Transport Costs, and Bilateral Trade”, Journal of Development Economics, 75, 417-450.
15. Coğrafyaharita (CH) (2024). http://cografyaharita.com/turkiye_ulasim_haritalari.html, (Accessed: 07.04.2024).
16. Ding, J.F., Kuo, J.F., Shyu, W.H. and Chou, C.C. (2019). “Evaluating Determinants of Attractiveness and Their CauseEffect Relationships for Container Ports in Taiwan: Users’ Perspectives”, Maritime Policy & Management, 46(4), 466-490. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2018.1562245
17. Dubois, D., Prade, H. (1978). “Operation on Fuzzy Numbers”, The International Journal of Systems Sciences, 9(6), 613-626.
18. Feng, M. (2011). Evaluation of Port Performance: Port Shareholders’ Views. In Proceedings of the International Association for Business and Society, 22, 437-448).
19. Ferrari, C., Percoco, M. and Tedeschi, A. (2010). “Ports and Local Development: Evidence from Italy”, International Journal of Transport Economics, 37(1), 9-30.
20. Gamassa, P.K.P. and Chen, Y. (2017). “Comparison of Port Efficiency between Eastern and Western African Ports Using DEA Window Analysis", 2017 International Conference on Service Systems and Service Management, Dalian, China, 1-6.
21. Garcia-Alonso, L., Monios, J. and Vallejo-Pinto, J. Á. (2019), “Port Competition Through Hinterland Accessibility: The Case of Spain”, Maritime Economics and Logistics, 21, 258-277. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-017-0085-5
22. Gonzalez, M.M. and Trujillo, L. (2009), “Efficiency Measurement in the Port Industry: A Survey of the Empirical Evidence”, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 43(2), 157-191.
23. Kadaifci, C., Umut, A., Seyda, S. and Umut, A. (2019).” A New Rule-Based Integrated Decision Making Approach to Container Transshipment Terminal Selection”, Maritime Policy & Management, 46 (2), 237-256. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2018.1489149
24. Li, Z., Xing, Y. and Dong, P. (2024), “A Novel q-Rung Orthopair Fuzzy Best-Worst Method, Shannon Entropy and MARCOS Method for Mobile Medical APP service Quality Evaluation”, Applied Soft Computing Journal, 155, 111417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2024.111417
25. Lorencic, V., Twrdy, E. and Lep, M. (2022), “Cruise Port Performance Evaluation in the Context of Port Authority: An MCDA Approach”, Sustainability, 14, 4181. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14074181
26. Lotfi, H.F., Fallahnejad, R. (2010). “Imprecise Shannon’s Entropy and Multi Attribute Decision Making”. Entropy, 12, 53–62.
27. Nemzer L.R. (2017), “Shannon Information Entropy in the Canonical Genetic Code”, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 26, 158-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2016.12.010
28. Onut, S., Tuzkaya, U.R. and Torun, E. (2011), “Selecting Container Port via A Fuzzy ANP-Based Approach: A Case Study in the Marmara Region, Türkiye”, Transport Policy,18 (2011) 182-193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2010.08.001
29. Özgüven, E.D. and Güngör Ş. (2023), “Blokzinciri Teknolojisi ve Deniz Yolu Taşımacılığı: Türkiye’deki Limanlar Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme”, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Denizcilik Fakültesi Dergisi, 107,139.
30. Öztemiz, H.H. and Vatansever, K. (2023), “Türkiye Küresel Konteyner Liman Projeleri: 2035 Yılı Konteyner Trafik Hacmi ve Dış Ticaret Projeksiyonu”, Anadolu Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 24(3), 261-298.
31. Pamucar, D., Ecer, F. and Deveci, M. (2021). “Assessment of Alternative Fuel Vehicles for Sustainable Road Transportation of United States Using Integrated Fuzzy FUCOM and Neutrosophic Fuzzy MARCOS Methodology”, Science of The Total Environment, 788, 147763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147763
32. Poitras, G., Tongzon, J. and Li, H. (1996). “Measuring Port Efficiency: An Application of Data Envelopment Analysis”, Working paper, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
33. Rani, P., Chen S-M., Mishra A.R. (2024). “Multi-Attribute Decision-Making Based on Similarity Measure between Picture Fuzzy Sets and the MARCOS Method”, Information Sciences, 658, 119990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2023.119990
34. Rudjanakanoknas, J. and Suksirivoraboot, W. (2012), “Comparison of Trade Facilitation at Four International Ports in Thailand”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 48, 215-221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.1002
35. Shannon, C.E. (1948). “A Mathematical Theory of Communication”, The Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3),379-423
36. Şişlioğlu, H.M. (2021). “Liman Altyapı Yatırım Kararlarında Kullanılabilecek Analitik Performans Değerlendirme Yöntemi Önerisi”, Uluslararası Stratejik Boyut Dergisi, 1(2), 143-168.
37. Stanković, M., Stević, Z., Das, D.K., Subotić, M. and Pamucar, D. (2020), “A New Fuzzy MARCOS Method for Road Traffic Risk Analysis”, Mathematics, 8(3), 457. https://doi.org/10.3390/math8030457
38. Stević, Z., Pamucar D., Puška, A., Chatterjee P. (2020), “Sustainable Supplier Selection in Healthcare Industries Using A New MCDM Method: Measurement of Alternatives and Ranking According to Compromise Solution (MARCOS)”, Computers & Industrial Engineering, 140, 106231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.106231
39. TLID (Port Operators Association of Türkiye). (2023). Turkısh Port Sector 2023 Report, Sustainable Ports.https://www.turklim.org/en/sector-statistics/. (Accessed: 09.03.2024).
40. TLID (Port Operators Association of Türkiye). (2024). https://www.turklim.org/en/sector-statistics/. (Accessed: 15.03.2024).
41. UAB (Türkiye Ulaştırma ve Altyapı Bakanlığı). (2024). https://denizcilikistatistikleri.uab.gov.tr/, (Accessed: 21.04.2024).
42. UTİKAD (International Transportation and Logistics Service Providers Association. (2022). “Lojistik Sektör Raporu 2022”, https://www.utikad.org.tr/UTIKAD-Raporlari, (Accessed: 15.03.2024).
43. Wagenknecht, M., Hampel, R. and Schneider, V. (2001). “Computational Aspects off Fuzzy Arithmetics Based on Archimedean t-Norms”, Fuzzy Sets and Systems,123, 49-62.
44. Wang, W., Han, X., Ding, W., Wu, Q., Chen, X. and Deveci, M. (2023), “A Fermatean fuzzy Fine-Kinney for occupational risk evaluation using extensible MARCOS with prospect theory”, Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 117, 105518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2022.105518
45. Wang, Y.a Wang, W., Wang Z., Deveci, M., Roy, S.K., Kadry, S. (2024), “Selection of Sustainable Food Suppliers Using the Pythagorean Fuzzy CRITIC-MARCOS Method”, Information Sciences, 664, 120326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2024.120326
46. Wang, Y-J. (2014). “The Evaluation of Financial Performance for Taiwan Containershipping Companies by Fuzzy TOPSIS”, Applied Soft Computing, 22, 28-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2014.03.021
47. World Bank (WB) (2024), LPI, https://lpi.worldbank.org/international/global, (Accessed: 10.03.2024).
48. Zadeh, A.L. (1965). “Fuzzy Sets”, Information and Control, 8, 338-353.
49. Zimmermann, H.J. (2001). “Fuzzy Set Theory-and Its Applications”, Fourth Edition, Springer, New York.