Yıl: 2023 Cilt: 15 Sayı: 1 Sayfa Aralığı: 1 - 34 Metin Dili: Türkçe DOI: 10.18613/deudfd.915166 İndeks Tarihi: 06-07-2023

LİMAN SEÇİM PROBLEMİ İÇİN ENTEGRE BULANIK ÇOK KRİTERLİ KARAR VERME YAKLAŞIMI ÖNERİSİ

Öz:
Liman seçimi denizcilik işletmelerinin yanı sıra, tedarik zincirlerinin performansı açısından son derece önemli kararlardan birisidir. Ancak liman alternatiflerinin değerlendirilebilmesi için her zaman net veri mevcut olmayabilir ve karar vericiler eksik bilgiler ile belirsizlik ortamında karar vermek zorunda kalabilir. Bu kapsamda mevcut çalışmada en uygun limanların seçilebilmesi için belirsizlikleri dikkate alabilen bulanık SWARA ve bulanık MARCOS yöntemlerinden oluşan entegre bir karar verme yaklaşımı önerilmektedir. Önerilen yaklaşım uygulandıktan sonra 70 farklı senaryo oluşturularak kapsamlı bir doğrulama testi gerçekleştirilmiştir. Elde edilen sonuçlara göre bazı alternatiflerin sıralama skorlarında genel sonucu değiştirmeyen küçük farklılıklar görülmekle birlikte Al alternatifi bütün senaryolar için en iyi alternatif olarak kalmıştır. Sonuç olarak, analizin sonuçları önerilen yaklaşımın karar verme problemlerini çözmek için uygulanabilir bir model olduğunu kanıtlamaktadır.
Anahtar Kelime: Liman Seçimi karar verme bulanık SWARA Bulanık MARCOS

INTEGRATED FUZZY MULTI CRITERIA DECISON MAKING APPROACH FOR SEAPORT SELECTION

Öz:
Sea port selection is one of the extremely crucial decisions in aspects of supply chains' performances in addition to maritime companies. However, crisp values may not be available at all times for evaluating the seaport alternatives and decision-makers may have to decide with insufficient information and in uncertain environment. In this context, in the current paper an integrated fuzzy model, which considers ambiguties, consisting of the fuzzy SWARA and fuzzy MARCOS techniques is proposed to select the most approritate seaports.After this model was applied, a comprehensive validation test was performed by forming different 70 scenarios. Although there are slight changes which did not change the overall results in the ranking performances of some alternatives, A1 has remained the best option for all scenarios. As a results, the results of the analysis prove that the proposed integrated fuzzy approach is an applicable model for solving these kinds of decision-making problems.
Anahtar Kelime: Seaport selection Decision Making Fuzzy SWARA Fuzzy MARCOS

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
0
0
0
  • Agarwal, S., Kant, R. ve Shankar, R. (2020). Evaluating solutions to overcome humanitarian supply chain management barriers: A hybrid fuzzy SW ARA - fuzzy W ASP AS approach. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 51, 101838.
  • Akkaya, G., Turanoglu, B. ve Oztas, S. (2015). An integrated fuzzy alıp and fuzzy MOORA approach to the problem of industrial engineering sector choosing. Expert Systems with Applications, 42, 9565-9573.
  • Akyurt, İ.Z. ve Kabadayi, N. (2020). Bulanık AHP ve bulanık gri ilişkiler analizi yöntemleri ile kargo uçak tipi seçimi bir Türk havayolu firmasında uygulama. Journal of Yaşar University, 15 (57), 38-55.
  • Bakır, M. ve Atalık, Ö. (2021). Application of fuzzy AHP and fuzzy MARCOS approach for the evaluation of e-service quality in the airline industry. Decision Making Applications in Management and Engineering, 4 (1), 127-152.
  • Barzilai, J. ve Golany, B. (1994) Alıp rank reversal, normalization and aggregation rules. INFOR: Information Systems and Operational Research, 32, 2, 57-64.
  • Bathrinath, S., Saravana K.P., Venkadesh, S., Suprriyan, S.S., Koppiahraj, K ve Bhalaji, R.K.A. (2021 ). A fuzzy COPRAS approach far analysing the factors affecting sustainability in ship ports. Materials Today: Proceedings, 50, 1017-1021.
  • Belton, V. ve Gear T. (1983). On a short-coming of Saaty's method of analytic hierarchies. Omega, 11 (3), 228-230.
  • Blagojevic, A., Kasalica, S., Stevic, Z., Trickovic, G. ve Pavelkic, V. (2021 ). Evaluation of safety degree at railway crossings in order to achieve sustainable traffic management: A novel ıntegrated fuzzy MCDM model. Sustainability, 13 (2), 832.
  • Blonigen, B.A. ve Wilson, W.W. (2006). Intemational Trade, Transportation Networks and Port Choice Manuscript. University of Oregon, Eugene.
  • Bozanic, D., Tesic, D. ve Kocic, J. (2019). Multi-criteria FUCOM-Fuzzy MABAC model far the selection of location far construction of singlespan bailey bridge. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 2 (I), 132-146.
  • Branch, A.E. (2008). Elements of Shipping. Landon and New York: Routledge.
  • Brooks, M. (1984). An altemative theoretical approach to the evaluation of liner shipping: Part 1, Situation factors. Maritime Policy and Management, 11 (1), 35-43.
  • Chang D.Y. (1996) Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. EuropeanJournal ofOperational Research, 95 (3), 649--655.
  • Chang, Y.-T., Tongzon, J., Luo, M., Lee, P. (2012). Estimation of optimal handling capacity of a container port: An economic approach. Transport Reviews, 32, 241-258.
  • Chiu, R.-H. (1996). Logistics Performance of Liner Shipping in Taiwan.Cardiff: University of Wales.
  • Chou, C.C. (2007). A fuzzy MCDM method far solving marine transshipment container port selection problems. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 186, 435-444.
  • Collison, F.M. (1984). North to Alaska: Marketing in the Pacifıc Northwest-Central Alaska linear trade. Maritime Policy Management, 11 (2), 99-112.
  • Deveci, M., Özcan, E., John, R., Covrig, C.-F. ve Pamucar, D. (2020). A study on offshore wind farın siting criteria using a novel interval-valued fuzzy-rough based Delphi method. Journal of Environmental Management, 270, 110916.
  • Ding, J.F. ve Chou, C.C. (2011). A fuzzy MCDM model of service perfarmance far container ports, Scientific Research and Essays, 6 (3), 559-566.
  • Dyer, J.S. (1990). A clarifıcation of remarks on the analytic hierarchy process. Management Science, 36, 274-275
  • Ecer, F. ve Pamucar, D. (2020). Sustainable supplier selection: A novel ıntegrated fuzzy best worst method (F-BWM) and fuzzy CoCoSo with Bonferroni (CoCoSo'B) multicriteria model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 266, 121981.
  • Ecer, F. (2020). Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Geçmişten Günümüze Kapsamlı Bir Yaklaşım. İstanbul: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Poster, T.A. (1979). What's important in aport. Distribution World Wide, 78 (1), 33-36.
  • Fouladgar, M.M., Yazdani, A. ve Zavadskas, E. (2012). Risk evaluation of tunneling projects. Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, 12, 1-12.
  • Gang, X., Yang, M. ve Du, P. (2021). Renewable energy accommodation potential evaluation of distribution network: A hybrid decision-making framework under interval type-2 fuzzy environment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 286, 124918.
  • Gök, A.C. ve Perçin, S. (2017). Bütünleşik bulanık DEMATEL- Bulanık VIKOR yaklaşımının makine seçimi problemine uygulanması. Journal of Yasar University, 12 (48), 249-256.
  • Gök-Kısa, A.C., Çelik, P. ve Peker, İ. (2021). Performance evaluation of privatized ports by entropy based TOPSIS and ARAS approach. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 29 (1), 1463-5771.
  • Görçün, Ö.F. ve Küçükönder, H. (2021). An integrated MCDM approach for evaluating the Ro-Ro marine port selection process: A case study in Black Sea region. Australian Journal of Maritime & Ocean Ajfairs, 13 (3), 203-223.
  • Görçün, Ö.F. (2021). Effıciency analysis of Black Sea container seaports: application of an integrated MCDM approach. Maritime Policy & Management, 48 (5), 672-699.
  • Grosso, M. ve Monteiro, F. (2008). Relevant strategic criteria when choosing a container port: The case of the Port of Genoa. Association far European Transport and Contributors, 1-21.
  • Kaya, S.K. ve Ergine!, N. (2020). Futuristic airport: A sustainable airport design by integrating hesitant fuzzy SW ARA and hesitant fuzzy sustainable quality function deployment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 275, 123880.
  • Kersuliene, V., Zavadskas, E. ve Turskis, Z. (2010). Selection of rational dispute resolution method by applying new step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SW ARA). Journal of Business Economics and Management, 11, 243-258.
  • Liu, D.C., Ding, J.F., Liang, G.S. ve Ye, K.D. (2020). Use of the fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS method to select the most attractıve container port. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 28 (2) , 92-104.
  • Majidi, A., Mirzapour, A.S.M.J. ve Hashemkhani, Z.S. (2021). Sustainability ranking of the Iranian major ports by using MCDM methods. Mathematics, 9 (19), 2451.
  • Malchow, M.B. ve Kanafani, A. (2004). A disaggregate analysis of port selection. Transportation Research Part E, 40, 317-337.
  • Manzano, J.I.C., Castro, N.M., Laxe, F.G., L6pez, V.L.M. ve Arevalo, Q.T. (2009). Low-cost port competitiveness ındex: Implementation in the Spanish port system. Marine Policy, 33 (4), 591-598.
  • Mardani, A., Zavadskas, E., Khalifah, Z., Zakuan, N., Jusoh, A., Nor, K. ve Khoshnoudi, M. (2017). A review of multi-criteria decision-making applications to solve energy management problems: Two decades from 1995 to 2015. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 1-41.
  • Mavi, R.K., Goh, M. ve Zarbakhshnia, N. (2017). Sustainable third-party reverse logistic provider selection with fuzzy SW ARA and fuzzy MOORA in plastic industry. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 91, 2401-2418.
  • McCalla R.J. ( 1994 ). Canadian container ports: How have they fared? How will they do? Maritime Policy & Management, 21 (3), 207-217.
  • Murphy, P., Daley, J. ve Dalenberg, D. (1992). Port selection criteria: An application of a transportation research framework. Logistics and Transportation Review, 28 (3), 237-255.
  • Nur, F., Marufuzzaman, M., Puryear, S.M., Wall, E.S. ve Burch, R. (2021 ). Inland waterway ports selection and evaluation using stochastic analytical hierarchy process. International Journal of Systems Science: Operations & Logistics, 8 (3), 217-237.
  • Özdağoğlu A., Keleş M.K. ve Işıldak B. (2021). Bulanık SWARA ve bulanık MARCOS yöntemleriyle sivil havacılıkta kabin memuru seçimi. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Elektronik Dergisi, 12 (2), 284-302.
  • Pak, J.Y., Thai, V.H. ve Yeo, G.T. (2015). Fuzzy MCDM approach for evaluating intangible resources affecting port service quality. The Asian Journal ofShipping andLogistics, 31 (4), 459-468.
  • Pamucar, D. ve Ecer, F. (2020). Prioritizing the weights of the evaluation criteria under fuzziness: The fuzzy full consistency method- FUCOM-F. Facta Universitatis, series: Mechanical Engineering, 18 (3), 419-437.
  • Pearson, R. (1980). Container Line Performance and Service Quality, University of Liverpool, Marine Transport Center, Liverpool. Perçin, S. (2019). An integrated fuzzy SW ARA and fuzzy AD approach for outsourcing provider selection. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 30 (2), 531-552.
  • Peters, H. (1990). Structural changes in intemational trade and transport markets: The importance of markets. In: 2nd KMI International Symposium, 58-75. Seoul, South Korea.
  • Petrovic, G., Mihajlovic, J., Cojbasic, Z., Madic, M. ve Marinkovic, D. (2019). Comparison of three fuzzy MCDM methods far solving the supplier selection problem. Facta Universitatis, Series: Mechanical Engineering, l 7 (3), 455-469.
  • Puska, A., Stojanovic, 1., Maksimovic, A. ve Osmanovic, N. (2020). Evaluation software of project management used measurement of altematives and ranking according to compromise solution (MARCOS) method. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 3 (1), 89-102.
  • Rani, P., Mishra, A.R., Krishankumar, R., Mardani, A., Cavallaro, F., Soundarapandian, R.K. ve Balasubramanian, K. (2020). Hesitant fuzzy SW ARA-Complex proportional assessment approach far sustainable supplier selection (HF-SWARA-COPRAS). Symmetry, 12 (7), 1152.
  • Rijsenbrij, J.C. (1998). Multi-trailer systems - A Contribution to cost effective transportation (Niet Eerder Opgenomen). Port Technology International, 7, 75-78.
  • Saeed, N. (2009). An analysis of carriers' selection criteria when choosing container terminals in Pakistan. Maritime Economic and Logistics, 11(3), 270-288.
  • Sayareh, J. ve Alizminia H.R. (2014). Hybrid decision-making model far selecting container seaport in the Persian Gulf. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 30 (1), 75-95.
  • Sengul, D. ve Cagil, G. (2020). Bulanık SW ARA ve bulanık analitik hiyerarşi prosesi yöntemi ile ış değerlemesi, DUJE, l 1 (3), 965-976.
  • Slack, B. (1985). Containerization, inter-port competition and port selection. Maritime Policy & Management, 12 (4), 293-303.
  • Socorro, G.C.M., Teresa, L.M. (2012). On rank reversal and TOPSIS method. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 56 (5-6), 123-132.
  • Stankovic, J.J., Maıjanovic, 1., Papathanasiou, J. ve Drezgic, S. (2021). Social, economic and environmental sustainability of port regions: MCDM approach in composite ındex creation. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 9 (1), 74.
  • Stankovic, M., Stevic, Z., Das, D.K., Subotic, M. ve Pamucar, D. (2020). A new fuzzy MARCOS method far road traffic risk analysis. Mathematics,2020, 8,457.
  • Starr, J. (1994), The Mid-Atlantic load centre: Baltimore or Hampton road? Maritime Policy & Management, 21 (3), 219-227.
  • Stevic, Z., Pamucar, D., Puskac, A. ve Chatterjee, P. (2020). Sustainable supplier selection in healthcare ındustries using a new MCDM method: Measurement of Altematives and ranking according to compromise solution (MARCOS). Computers & Industrial Engineering, 140, 106231.
  • Sumrit, D. (2020). Supplier selection for vendor-managed inventory in healthcare using fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making approach. Decision Science Letters, 9, 233-256.
  • Tadi'c, S., Krsti'c, M., Roso, V. ve Bmjac, N. (2020). Nikolina dry port terminal location selection by applying the hybrid grey MCDM Model. Sustainability, 12 (17), 6983.
  • Tadic, S. Zecevic, S. ve Krstic, M. (2018). Assessment ofthe political city logistics initiatives sustainability. Transportation Research Procedia, 30, 285-294.
  • Tiwari, P., Itoh, H. ve Doi, M. (2003). Containerized cargo shipper's behavior in China: A discrete choice analysis. Journal of Transportation and Statistics, 6 (1), 71-86.
  • Tongzon, J. (2001). Effıciency measurement of selected Australian and other ıntemational ports using <lata envelopment analysis. Transportation Research Part A, 35, 107-122.
  • Tongzon, J. (2002). Port choice determinants in a competitive environment. In: Proceedings of Annual Conference and Meeting of the International Association of Maritime Economists - IAME. Panama.
  • Tongzon, J. (2009). Port choice and freight forwarders. Transportation Research Part E, 45, 186-195.
  • Tongzon, J. (1995), Determinants of port performance and effıciency. Transportation Research Part A, 29 (3), 245-252.
  • Torfi, F., Zanjirani F. ve Rezapour, S. (2010). Fuzzy AHP to determine the relative weights of evaluation criteria and fuzzy TOPSIS to rank the altematives. Applied Sofi Computing, 1 O, 520-528.
  • Türklim (2021). TÜRKLİM limancılık sektörü 2021 raporu, İstanbul.
  • Ulutas, A., Karakus, C.B. ve Topal, A. (2020). Location selection for logistics center with fuzzy SW ARA and CoCoSo methods. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 38, 4693-4709.
  • Veskovic, S., Stevic, Z., Stojic, G., Vasiljevic, M. ve Milinkovic, S. (2018). Evaluation of the railway management model by using a new ıntegrated model DELPHI-SW ARA-MABAC. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 1 (2), 34-50.
  • Willingale, M.C. (1981 ). The port routing behavior of short-sea operators: Theory and practice. Maritime Policy & Management, 8 (2), 109-120.
  • Yeo, G.T., Roe, M. ve Dinwoodie J. (2008). Evaluating the competitiveness of container ports in Korea and China. Transportation Research Part A, 42, 910-921.
  • Zadeh, L.A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8 (3), 338-353.
  • Zarbakhshnia, N., Soleimani, H. ve Ghaderi, H. (2018). Sustainable third­party reverse logistics provider evaluation and selection using fuzzy SW ARA and developed fuzzy COPRAS in the presence of risk criteria. Applied Sofi Computing, 65, 307-319.
  • Zolfani, S.H. ve Saparauskas, J. (2013). New application of SWARA method in prioritizing sustainability assessment indicators of energy system. Engineering Economics, 24 (5), 408-414.
APA Görçün Ö, KÜÇÜKÖNDER H (2023). LİMAN SEÇİM PROBLEMİ İÇİN ENTEGRE BULANIK ÇOK KRİTERLİ KARAR VERME YAKLAŞIMI ÖNERİSİ. , 1 - 34. 10.18613/deudfd.915166
Chicago Görçün Ömer Faruk,KÜÇÜKÖNDER Hande LİMAN SEÇİM PROBLEMİ İÇİN ENTEGRE BULANIK ÇOK KRİTERLİ KARAR VERME YAKLAŞIMI ÖNERİSİ. (2023): 1 - 34. 10.18613/deudfd.915166
MLA Görçün Ömer Faruk,KÜÇÜKÖNDER Hande LİMAN SEÇİM PROBLEMİ İÇİN ENTEGRE BULANIK ÇOK KRİTERLİ KARAR VERME YAKLAŞIMI ÖNERİSİ. , 2023, ss.1 - 34. 10.18613/deudfd.915166
AMA Görçün Ö,KÜÇÜKÖNDER H LİMAN SEÇİM PROBLEMİ İÇİN ENTEGRE BULANIK ÇOK KRİTERLİ KARAR VERME YAKLAŞIMI ÖNERİSİ. . 2023; 1 - 34. 10.18613/deudfd.915166
Vancouver Görçün Ö,KÜÇÜKÖNDER H LİMAN SEÇİM PROBLEMİ İÇİN ENTEGRE BULANIK ÇOK KRİTERLİ KARAR VERME YAKLAŞIMI ÖNERİSİ. . 2023; 1 - 34. 10.18613/deudfd.915166
IEEE Görçün Ö,KÜÇÜKÖNDER H "LİMAN SEÇİM PROBLEMİ İÇİN ENTEGRE BULANIK ÇOK KRİTERLİ KARAR VERME YAKLAŞIMI ÖNERİSİ." , ss.1 - 34, 2023. 10.18613/deudfd.915166
ISNAD Görçün, Ömer Faruk - KÜÇÜKÖNDER, Hande. "LİMAN SEÇİM PROBLEMİ İÇİN ENTEGRE BULANIK ÇOK KRİTERLİ KARAR VERME YAKLAŞIMI ÖNERİSİ". (2023), 1-34. https://doi.org/10.18613/deudfd.915166
APA Görçün Ö, KÜÇÜKÖNDER H (2023). LİMAN SEÇİM PROBLEMİ İÇİN ENTEGRE BULANIK ÇOK KRİTERLİ KARAR VERME YAKLAŞIMI ÖNERİSİ. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Denizcilik Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(1), 1 - 34. 10.18613/deudfd.915166
Chicago Görçün Ömer Faruk,KÜÇÜKÖNDER Hande LİMAN SEÇİM PROBLEMİ İÇİN ENTEGRE BULANIK ÇOK KRİTERLİ KARAR VERME YAKLAŞIMI ÖNERİSİ. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Denizcilik Fakültesi Dergisi 15, no.1 (2023): 1 - 34. 10.18613/deudfd.915166
MLA Görçün Ömer Faruk,KÜÇÜKÖNDER Hande LİMAN SEÇİM PROBLEMİ İÇİN ENTEGRE BULANIK ÇOK KRİTERLİ KARAR VERME YAKLAŞIMI ÖNERİSİ. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Denizcilik Fakültesi Dergisi, vol.15, no.1, 2023, ss.1 - 34. 10.18613/deudfd.915166
AMA Görçün Ö,KÜÇÜKÖNDER H LİMAN SEÇİM PROBLEMİ İÇİN ENTEGRE BULANIK ÇOK KRİTERLİ KARAR VERME YAKLAŞIMI ÖNERİSİ. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Denizcilik Fakültesi Dergisi. 2023; 15(1): 1 - 34. 10.18613/deudfd.915166
Vancouver Görçün Ö,KÜÇÜKÖNDER H LİMAN SEÇİM PROBLEMİ İÇİN ENTEGRE BULANIK ÇOK KRİTERLİ KARAR VERME YAKLAŞIMI ÖNERİSİ. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Denizcilik Fakültesi Dergisi. 2023; 15(1): 1 - 34. 10.18613/deudfd.915166
IEEE Görçün Ö,KÜÇÜKÖNDER H "LİMAN SEÇİM PROBLEMİ İÇİN ENTEGRE BULANIK ÇOK KRİTERLİ KARAR VERME YAKLAŞIMI ÖNERİSİ." Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Denizcilik Fakültesi Dergisi, 15, ss.1 - 34, 2023. 10.18613/deudfd.915166
ISNAD Görçün, Ömer Faruk - KÜÇÜKÖNDER, Hande. "LİMAN SEÇİM PROBLEMİ İÇİN ENTEGRE BULANIK ÇOK KRİTERLİ KARAR VERME YAKLAŞIMI ÖNERİSİ". Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Denizcilik Fakültesi Dergisi 15/1 (2023), 1-34. https://doi.org/10.18613/deudfd.915166