Please wait a minute...
 首页  期刊列表 期刊订阅 开放获取 关于我们
English
在线预览  |  当期目录  |  过刊浏览  |  热点文章  |  下载排行
Frontiers of Engineering Management    2019, Vol. 6 Issue (3) : 368-383     https://doi.org/10.1007/s42524-019-0004-9
RESEARCH ARTICLE
A model for the evaluation of environmental impact indicators for a sustainable maritime transportation systems
Lizzette PÉREZ LESPIER1, Suzanna LONG2(), Tom SHOBERG3, Steven CORNS2
1. Department of Analytics, Information Systems & Supply Chain, University of North Carolina Wilmington, 601 S College Rd, Wilmington, NC 28402, USA
2. Department of Engineering Management and Systems Engineering, Missouri University of Science and Technology, 223 600 W, 14th Street, Rolla, MO 65401, USA
3. U.S. Geological Survey, Center of Excellence for Geospatial Information Science, Rolla, MO 65401, USA
全文: PDF(255 KB)   HTML
导出: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract：

Maritime shipping is considered the most efficient, low-cost means for transporting large quantities of freight over significant distances. However, this process also causes negative environmental and societal impacts. Therefore, environmental sustainability is a pressing issue for maritime shipping management, given the interest in addressing important issues that affect the safety, security, and air and water quality as part of the efficient movement of freight throughout the coasts and waterways and associated port facilities worldwide. In-depth studies of maritime transportation systems (MTS) can be used to identify key environmental impact indicators within the transportation system. This paper develops a tool for decision making in complex environments; this tool will quantify and rank preferred environmental impact indicators within a MTS. Such a model will help decision-makers to achieve the goals of improved environmental sustainability. The model will also provide environmental policy-makers in the shipping industry with an analytical tool that can evaluate tradeoffs within the system and identify possible alternatives to mitigate detrimental effects on the environment.
Keywords environmental sustainability      maritime transportation system      environmental impact indicators      fuzzy analytic hierarchy process      fuzzy TOPSIS      decision-making tool     
在线预览日期:    发布日期: 2019-09-04
服务
推荐给朋友
免费邮件订阅
RSS订阅
作者相关文章
Lizzette PÉREZ LESPIER
Suzanna LONG
Tom SHOBERG
Steven CORNS
引用本文:   
Lizzette PÉREZ LESPIER,Suzanna LONG,Tom SHOBERG, et al. A model for the evaluation of environmental impact indicators for a sustainable maritime transportation systems[J]. Front. Eng, 2019, 6(3): 368-383.
网址:  
https://journal.hep.com.cn/fem/EN/10.1007/s42524-019-0004-9     OR     https://journal.hep.com.cn/fem/EN/Y2019/V6/I3/368
Fig.1  Function of a TFN A
Expert Source(s)
E1 Duru et al. (2012)
E2 Gudmundsson (2001)
E3 Lai et al. (2011)
E4 Peris-Mora et al. (2005)
E5 Jeon & Amekudzi (2005), Rodrigue et al. (2013)
E6 Lister (2015), Lun et al. (2016)
Tab.1  Select heavily cited expert literature used for the evaluation of criteria and alternatives
Notations Environmental Performance Criteria
C1 Use of green design in ships, engines and machinery
C2 Use of clean technologies such as, low sulfur fuel and option to alternate energy (fuel type)
C3 Reuse and recycle of resources used in shipping
C4 Ballast water treatment and residue/waste/spill control
C5 Logistic and scheduling efficiency for such as reduction of idle and waiting times
C6 Use of environmentally friendly shipping equipment and facilities
Tab.2  Criteria from the FAHP that are most connected to improved environmental performance of MTS
Notations Environmental Performance Alternatives
A1 Reduction of release of substances as defined by MARPOL Annex 1-6
A2 Management of water ballast violations
A3 Contained spill of hazardous materials
A4 Reduction of environmental deficiencies
Tab.3  Environmental performance alternatives determined by FTOPSIS for environmentally sustainable MTS
Fig.2  DMCE model framework
Linguistic Variables Triangular Fuzzy Numbers Reciprocal Triangular Fuzzy Numbers
Absolute (A) (7/2, 4, 9/2) (2/9, 1/4, 2/7)
Very Strong (VS) (5/2, 3, 7/2) (2/7, 1/3, 2/5)
Fairly Strong (FS) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3)
Weak (W) (2/3, 1, 3/2) (2/3, 1, 3/2)
Equal (E) (1, 1, 1) (1, 1, 1)
Tab.4  Values of TFNs (Tolga et al., 2005)
Criteria Experts C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6
C1 E1 E E FS VS E VS
E2 E W W W VS E
E3 E FS FS FS A E
E4 E E E W FS FS
E5 E W E W E E
E6 E W W E W E
C2 E1 E-1 E W E E A
E2 W-1 E VS FS VS FS
E3 FS-1 E FS E FS E
E4 E-1 E VS FS FS VS
E5 W-1 E FS W E FS
E6 W-1 E VS VS W E
C3 E1 FS-1 W-1 E E W W
E2 W-1 VS-1 E E W E
E3 FS-1 FS-1 E W E E
E4 E-1 VS-1 E E FS FS
E5 E-1 FS-1 E W E E
E6 W-1 VS-1 E W W W
C4 E1 VS-1 E-1 E-1 E E FS
E2 W-1 FS-1 E-1 E E E
E3 FS-1 E-1 W-1 E FS E
E4 W-1 FS-1 E-1 E VS FS
E5 W-1 W-1 W-1 E FS E
E6 E-1 VS-1 W-1 E E E
C5 E1 E-1 W-1 W-1 E-1 E A
E2 VS-1 W-1 W-1 E-1 E E
E3 A-1 E-1 E-1 FS-1 E E
E4 FS-1 FS-1 FS-1 VS-1 E VS
E5 E-1 E-1 E-1 FS-1 E FS
E6 W-1 W-1 W-1 E-1 E E
C6 E1 VS-1 A-1 W-1 FS-1 A-1 E
E2 E-1 FS-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E
E3 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E
E4 FS-1 VS-1 FS-1 FS-1 VS-1 E
E5 E-1 FS-1 E-1 E-1 FS-1 E
E6 E-1 E-1 W-1 E-1 E-1 E
Tab.5  Pairwise comparisons of criteria via linguistic variables
Criteria Experts C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6
C1 E1 (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (5/2, 3, 7/2) (1,1,1) (5/2, 3, 7/2)
E2 (1,1,1) (2/3, 1, 3/2) (2/3, 1, 3/2) (2/3, 1, 3/2) (5/2, 3, 7/2) (1,1,1)
E3 (1,1,1) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (7/2, 4, 9/2) (1,1,1)
E4 (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (2/3, 1, 3/2) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (3/2, 2, 5/2)
E5 (1,1,1) (2/3, 1, 3/2) (1,1,1) (2/3, 1, 3/2) (1,1,1) (1,1,1)
E6 (1,1,1) (2/3, 1, 3/2) (2/3, 1, 3/2) (1,1,1) (2/3, 1, 3/2) (1,1,1)
C2 E1 (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (2/3, 1, 3/2) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (7/2, 4, 9/2)
E2 (2/3, 1, 3/2) (1,1,1) (5/2, 3, 7/2) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (5/2, 3, 7/2) (3/2, 2, 5/2)
E3 (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (1,1,1) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (1,1,1) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (1,1,1)
E4 (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (5/2, 3, 7/2) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (5/2, 3, 7/2)
E5 (2/3, 1, 3/2) (1,1,1) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (2/3, 1, 3/2) (1,1,1) (3/2, 2, 5/2)
E6 (2/3, 1, 3/2) (1,1,1) (5/2, 3, 7/2) (5/2, 3, 7/2) (2/3, 1, 3/2) (1,1,1)
C3 E1 (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (2/3, 1, 3/2) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (2/3, 1, 3/2) (2/3, 1, 3/2)
E2 (2/3, 1, 3/2) (2/7, 1/3, 2/5) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (2/3, 1, 3/2) (1,1,1)
E3 (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (1,1,1) (2/3, 1, 3/2) (1,1,1) (1,1,1)
E4 (1,1,1) (2/7, 1/3, 2/5) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (3/2, 2, 5/2)
E5 (1,1,1) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (1,1,1) (2/3, 1, 3/2) (1,1,1) (1,1,1)
E6 (2/3, 1, 3/2) (2/7, 1/3, 2/5) (1,1,1) (2/3, 1, 3/2) (2/3, 1, 3/2) (2/3, 1, 3/2)
C4 E1 (2/7, 1/3, 2/5) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (3/2, 2, 5/2)
E2 (2/3, 1, 3/2) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1)
E3 (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (1,1,1) (2/3, 1, 3/2) (1,1,1) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (1,1,1)
E4 (2/3, 1, 3/2) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (5/2, 3, 7/2) (3/2, 2, 5/2)
E5 (2/3, 1, 3/2) (2/3, 1, 3/2) (2/3, 1, 3/2) (1,1,1) (3/2, 2, 5/2) (1,1,1)
E6 (1,1,1) (2/7, 1/3, 2/5) (2/3, 1, 3/2) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1)
C5 E1 (1,1,1) (2/3, 1, 3/2) (2/3, 1, 3/2) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (7/2, 4, 9/2)
E2 (2/7, 1/3, 2/5) (2/3, 1, 3/2) (2/3, 1, 3/2) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1)
E3 (2/9, 1/4, 2/7) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (1,1,1) (1,1,1)
E4 (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (2/7, 1/3, 2/5) (1,1,1) (5/2, 3, 7/2)
E5 (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (1,1,1) (3/2, 2, 5/2)
E6 (2/3, 1, 3/2) (2/3, 1, 3/2) (2/3, 1, 3/2) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1)
C6 E1 (2/7, 1/3, 2/5) (2/9, 1/4, 2/7) (2/3, 1, 3/2) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (2/9, 1/4, 2/7) (1,1,1)
E2 (1,1,1) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1)
E3 (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1)
E4 (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (2/7, 1/3, 2/5) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (2/7, 1/3, 2/5) (1,1,1)
E5 (1,1,1) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (2/5, 1/2, 2/3) (1,1,1)
E6 (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (2/3, 1, 3/2) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1)
Tab.6  Pairwise comparisons of criteria via TFNs
Criteria C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6
C1 (1,1,1) (0.874,1.122,1.427) (1,1.260,1.554) (1.018,1.348,1.758) (1.435,1.698,1.973) (1.246,1.348,1.435)
C2 (0.701,0.891,1.145) (1,1,1) (1.692,2.182,2.717) (1.246,1.513,1.789) (1.246,1.513,1.789) (1.643,1.906,2.149)
C3 (0.644,0.794,1) 0.368,0.458,0.591) (1,1,1) (0.816,1,1.225) (0.874,1.122,1.427) (0.935,1.122,1.334)
C4 (0.569,0.742,0.983) (0.559,0.661,0.802) (0.816,1,1.225) (1,1,1) (1.334,1.513,1.672) (1.145,1.260,1.357)
C5 (0.507,0.589,0.697) (0.701,0.891,1.145) (0.701,0.891,1.145) (0.598,0.661,0.750) (1,1,1) (1.536,1.698,1.844)
C6 (0.697,0.742,0.802) (0.465,0.525,0.609) (0.750,0.891,1.070) (0.737,0.794,0.874) (0.542,0.589,0.651) (1,1,1)
Tab.7  Fuzzy geometric mean of pairwise comparison
Criteria Weight Low Weight Med Weight Upper
C1 0.146 0.201 0.274
C2 0.168 0.233 0.317
C3 0.103 0.142 0.197
C4 0.121 0.159 0.211
C5 0.112 0.148 0.197
C6 0.093 0.117 0.150
Tab.8  Fuzzy synthetic extent with respect to its criteria
Criteria BNP Rank
C1- Green design 0.207 2
C2- Clean technologies 0.239 1
C3- Reuse and recycle 0.147 5
C4- Residue, waste and spill control 0.164 3
C5- Logistic and scheduling efficiency 0.152 4
C6- Green equipment and facilities 0.120 6
Tab.9  Best BNP or crisp values of criteria
Linguistic Variables Triangular Fuzzy Numbers
Very Poor (VP) (0 ,0, 2)
Poor (P) (1, 2, 3)
Medium Poor (MP) (2, 3.5, 5)
Fair (F) (4, 5, 6)
Medium Good (MG) (5, 6.5, 8)
Good (G) (7 ,8, 9)
Very Good (VG) (8, 10, 10)
Tab.10  Linguistic variables for rating (Shukla et al., 2014).
Criteria Alternatives Experts Rating
E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6
C1 A1 VG VG G G G VG
A2 F P MP MP P F
A3 G G MP VG F F
A4 VG G VG VG G G
C2 A1 VG VG VG VG G VG
A2 G G VG VG F G
A3 G F G G VG G
A4 VG VG G G G VG
C3 A1 G VG VG G G F
A2 G G VG G VG G
A3 VG G MP G G G
A4 G G G VG G MP
C4 A1 G VG G G MG VG
A2 VG VG G VG G VG
A3 VG G G G VG G
A4 G G VG G VG G
C5 A1 VG G G VG VG G
A2 VP P MG F F MG
A3 G G MG F G F
A4 VG G G MG VG MG
C6 A1 VG G VG VG G VG
A2 MP F P P F MP
A3 G MP MP MP G MP
A4 VG G G MG VG G
Tab.11  Rating the alternatives in linguistic terms
Criteria Alternatives Experts Rating
E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6
C1 A1 (8,10,10) (8,10,10) (7,8,9) (7,8,9) (7,8,9) (8,10,10)
A2 (4,5,6) (1,2,3) (2,3.5,5) (2,3.5,5) (1,2,3) (4,5,6)
A3 (7,8,9) (7,8,9) (2,3.5,5) (8,10,10) (4,5,6) (4,5,6)
A4 (8,10,10) (7,8,9) (8,10,10) (8,10,10) (7,8,9) (7,8,9)
C2 A1 (8,10,10) (8,10,10) (8,10,10) (8,10,10) (7,8,9) (8,10,10)
A2 (7,8,9) (7,8,9) (8,10,10) (8,10,10) (4,5,6) (7,8,9)
A3 (7,8,9) (4,5,6) (7,8,9) (7,8,9) (8,10,10) (7,8,9)
A4 (8,10,10) (8,10,10) (7,8,9) (7,8,9) (7,8,9) (8,10,10)
C3 A1 (7,8,9) (8,10,10) (8,10,10) (7,8,9) (7,8,9) (8,10,10)
A2 (7,8,9) (7,8,9) (8,10,10) (7,8,9) (8,10,10) (7,8,9)
A3 (8,10,10) (7,8,9) (2,3.5,5) (7,8,9) (7,8,9) (7,8,9)
A4 (7,8,9) (7,8,9) (7,8,9) (8,10,10) (7,8,9) (2,3.5,5)
C4 A1 (7,8,9) (8,10,10) (7,8,9) (7,8,9) (5,6.5,8) (8,10,10)
A2 (8,10,10) (8,10,10) (7,8,9) (8,10,10) (7,8,9) (8,10,10)
A3 (8,10,10) (7,8,9) (7,8,9) (7,8,9) (8,10,10) (7,8,9)
A4 (7,8,9) (7,8,9) (8,10,10) (7,8,9) (8,10,10) (7,8,9)
C5 A1 (8,10,10) (7,8,9) (7,8,9) (8,10,10) (8,10,10) (7,8,9)
A2 (0,0,2) (1,2,3) (5,6.5,8) (4,5,6) (4,5,6) (5,6.5,8)
A3 (7,8,9) (7,8,9) (5,6.5,8) (4,5,6) (7,8,9) (4,5,6)
A4 (8,10,10) (7,8,9) (7,8,9) (5,6.5,8) (8,10,10) (5,6.5,8)
C6 A1 (8,10,10) (7,8,9) (8,10,10) (8,10,10) (7,8,9) (8,10,10)
A2 (2,3.5,5) (4,5,6) (1,2,3) (1,2,3) (4,5,6) (2,3.5,5)
A3 (7,8,9) (2,3.5,5) (2,3.5,5) (2,3.5,5) (7,8,9) (2,3.5,5)
A4 (8,10,10) (7,8,9) (7,8,9) (5,6.5,8) (8,10,10) (7,8,9)
Tab.12  Translating linguistic terms into fuzzy terms
Criteria Alternatives
A1 A2 A3 A4
C1 (7,8,9) (1,3.500,6) (2,6.583,10) (7,9,10)
C2 (7, 9.667,10) (4,8.167,10) (4,7.833,10) (7,9,10)
C3 (7,9,10) (7,8.667,10) (2,7.583,10) (2,7.583,10)
C4 (5,8.417,10) (7,9.333,10) (7,8.667,10) (7,8.667,10)
C5 (7,9,10) (0,4.167,8) (4,6.750,9) (5,8.167,10)
C6 (7,9.33,10) (1,3.500,6) (2,5,9) (5,8.417,10)
Tab.13  FDM
Alternatives Criteria
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6
A1 (0.145,0.186,0.207) (0.167,0.231,0.239) (0.103,0.133,0.147) (0.082,0.138,0.164) (0.107,0.137,0.152) (0.084,0.112,0.120)
A2 (0.021,0.072,0.124) (0.096,0.195,0.239) (0.103,0.128,0.147) (0.115,0.153,0.164) (0,0.064,0.122) (0.012,0.042,0.072)
A3 (0.041,0.136,0.207) (0.096,0.187,0.239) (0.029,0.112,0.147) (0.115,0.142,0.164) (0.061,0.103,0.137) (0.024,0.060,0.108)
A4 (0.145,0.186,0.207) (0.167,0.215,0.239) (0.029,0.112,0.147) (0.115,0.142,0.164) (0.076,0.124,0.152) (0.060,0.101,0.120)
Tab.14  WNFDM
Criteria FPIS FNIS
C1 0.207 0.021
C2 0.239 0.096
C3 0.147 0.029
C4 0.164 0.082
C5 0.152 0.000
C6 0.120 0.012
Tab.15  FPIS and FNIS per criterion
Distance C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 Sum
d(A1 to FPIS) 0.033 0.036 0.023 0.043 0.024 0.018 0.178
d(A2 to FPIS) 0.122 0.075 0.024 0.025 0.090 0.071 0.407
d(A3 to FPIS) 0.090 0.076 0.062 0.027 0.053 0.057 0.364
d(A4 to FPIS) 0.033 0.038 0.062 0.027 0.041 0.032 0.231
Tab.16  Distance between the alternatives and the FPIS with respect to each criterion
Distance C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 Sum
d(A1 to FNIS) 0.139 0.105 0.087 0.050 0.116 0.082 0.578
d(A2 to FNIS) 0.058 0.087 0.085 0.057 0.069 0.034 0.389
d(A3 to FNIS) 0.110 0.085 0.072 0.053 0.091 0.054 0.465
d(A4 to FNIS) 0.139 0.100 0.072 0.053 0.106 0.074 0.544
Tab.17  Distance between the alternatives and the FNIS with respect to each criterion
Alternative d+ d- d+ + d- CC Rank
A1- Reduction release of substances: MARPOL 0.178 0.578 0.755 0.765 1
A2- Manage of water ballast violations 0.407 0.389 0.796 0.489 4
A3- Contained spill of hazardous materials 0.364 0.465 0.830 0.561 3
A4- Reduction of environmental deficiencies 0.231 0.544 0.775 0.702 2
Tab.18  CC of alternatives and their respective ranking
1 A Awasthi, H Omrani, P Gerber (2018). Investigating ideal-solution based multicriteria decision making techniques for sustainability evaluation of urban mobility projects. Transportation Research Part A, Policy and Practice, 116: 247–259
2 A Aydi (2018). Evaluation of groundwater vulnerability to pollution using a GIS-based multi-criteria decision analysis. Groundwater for Sustainable Development, 7: 204–211
3 D Bailey, G Solomon (2004). Pollution prevention at ports: Clearing the air. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24(7): 749–774
4 S Balli, S Korukoglu (2009). Operating system selection using Fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS methods. Mathematical and Computational Applications, (14): 119–130
5 S Bengtsson, E Fridell, K Andersson (2012). Environmental assessment of two pathways towards the use of biofuels in shipping. Energy Policy, 44: 451–463
6 E Broesterhuizen, T Vellinga, P Taneja, L van Leeuwen (2014). Sustainable procurement for port infrastructure. Infranomics, 11–26
7 J Buckley (1985). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17(1): 233–247
8 C Carter, D Rogers (2008). A framework of sustainable supply chain management: moving toward new theory. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 38(5): 360–387
9 B Cayir Ervural, R Evren, D Delen (2018). A multi-objective decision-making approach for sustainable energy investment planning. Renewable Energy, 126: 387–402
10 D Y Chang (1992). Extent Analysis and Synthetic Decision, Optimization, Techniques and Applications, Volume 1.Singapore: World Scientific
11 D Y Chang (1996). Applications of the extent analysis method of Fuzzy AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 95(3): 649–655
12 Y Chang (2013). Environmental efficiency of ports: A data envelopment analysis approach. Maritime Policy & Management, 40(5): 467–478
13 C Chen (2000). Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under Fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 114(1): 1–9
14 C Chen, C Lin, S Huang (2006). A Fuzzy approach for supplier evaluation and selection in supply chain management. International Journal of Production Economics, 102(2): 289–301
15 S Chen, C Hwang (1992). Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications.Berlin: Springer
16 R Chiu, I Lai (2011). Green Port Measures: Empirical case in Taiwan. In: Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies. 8: 1–15
17 R H Chiu, L H Lin, S C Ting (2014). Evaluation of Green Port Factors and Performance: A Fuzzy AHP Analysis. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2014(5): 1-12
18 R Darbra, A Ronza, T Stojanovic, C Wooldridge, J Casal (2005). A procedure for identifying significant environmental aspects in sea ports. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 50(8): 866–874
19 A F De Toni, L Comello (2005). Prede o ragni? Uomini e organizzazioni nella ragnatela della complessità (Preys or spiders? Men and organizations in the web of complexity).Torino: UTET University (In Italian)
20 E Dedes, D Hudson, S Turnock (2012). Assessing the potential of hybrid energy technology to reduce exhaust emissions from global shipping. Energy Policy, 40: 204–218
21 T Demirel, N C Demirel, C Kahraman (2008). Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process and its Application: Theory and Applications with Recent Developments. New York: Springer US
22 Department of Homeland Security (2012). Standards for Living Organisms in Ship’s Ballast Water Discharged U.S. Waters. Final Rule. National Archives and Records Administration. Federal Register, 77(57)
23 J F Ding (2011). An integrated fuzzy TOPSIS method for ranking alternatives and its applications. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 19(4): 341–352
24 O Duru, E Bulut, S Huang, S Yoshida (2013). Shipping performance assessment and the role of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs): 'Quality Function Deployment' for transforming shipowner's expectation. In: Proceedings of Conference of International Association of Maritime Economists, Taipei
25 V Eyring, I Isaksen, T Bernsten, W J Collins (2010). Transport impacts on atmosphere and climate: Shipping. Atmospheric Environment, 44(37): 4735–4771
26 K Fagerholt, N T Gausel, J G Rakke, H N Psaraftis (2015). Maritime routing and speed optimization with emission control areas. Transportation Research Part C, Emerging Technologies, 52: 57–73
27 H Gudmundsson (2001). Indicators and performance measures for transportation, environment and sustainability in North America. Report from a German Marshall Fund Fellowship 2000 Individual Study Tour.Denmark: Ministry of Environment and Energy: National Environment Research Institute
28 C H Han (2010). Strategies to reduce air pollution in shipping industry. Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 26(1): 7–29
29 W Homsombat, T Yip, H Yang, X Fu (2013). Regional cooperation and management of port pollution. Maritime Policy & Management, 40(5): 451–466
30 T Y Hsieh, S T Lu, G H Tzeng (2004). Fuzzy MCDM approach for planning and design tenders selection in public office buildings. International Journal of Project Management, 22(7): 573–584
31 C Hwang, K Yoon (1981). Multiple Attributes Decision Making Methods and Applications.Berlin: Springer
32 IMO (1978). International convention for the prevention of pollution from ships (MARPOL).
33 IMO (2012). World Maritime Day: A Concept of a Sustainable Maritime Transportation System.
34 InterManager, MARINTEK (2015). The Shipping KPI Standard V2.3.
35 The Research Council of Norway International Maritime Organization (IMO) (2012). World Maritime Day: A Concept of a Sustainable Maritime Transportation System.Brasil: Rio de Janeiro
36 C M Jeon, A Amekudzi (2005). Adressing sustainability in transportation systems: Definitions, indicators, and metrics. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 11(1): 31–50
37 H Johnson, M Johansson, K Andersson, B Sodahl (2013). Will the ship energy efficiency management plan reduce CO2 emissions? A comparison with ISO 5001 and the IMS code. Maritime Policy & Management, 40(2): 177–190
38 C Kahraman (2009). Introduction: Fuzzy theory and technology. Multiple-Valued Logic and Soft Computing, 15(2–3): 103–105
39 C Kahraman, C Cebeci, D Ruan (2004). Multi-attribute comparison of catering service companies using fuzzy AHP. The case of Turkey. International Journal of Production Economics, 87(2): 171–184
40 P Kaur, S Chakrabortyb, . (2007). A new approach to vendor selection problem with impact factor as an indirect measure of quality. Journal of Modern Mathematics and Statistics, 1–8
41 S Kavakeb, T Nguyen, K McGinley, Z Yang, I Jenkinson, R Murray (2015). Grenn vehicle technology to enhance the performance of a European port: A simulation model with a cost-benefit approach. Transportation Research Part C, Emerging Technologies, 60: 169–188
42 K Konsta, E Plomaritou (2012). Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and shipping companies performance evaluations: The case of Greek tanker shipping companies. International Journal of Business and Management, 7(10): 143–155
43 K H Lai, V Y Lun, C W Wong, T Cheng (2011). Green shipping practices in the shipping industry: Conceptualization, adoption, and implications. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55(6): 631–638
44 J Lam (2015). Designing a sustainable maritime supply chain: A hybrid QFD-ANP approach. Transportation Research Part E, Logistics and Transportation Review, 78: 70–81
45 C Lee, J Lam (2012). Managing reverse logistics to enhance sustainability of industrial marketing. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(4): 589–598
46 J J Liou, L Yen, G H Tzeng (2008). Building an effective safety management system for airlines. Journal of Air Transport Management, 14(1): 20–26
47 T Lirn, Y Wu, Y Chen (2013). Green Performance Criteria for sustainable ports in Asia. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 43(5): 5–5
48 J Lister (2015). Green shipping: Governing sustainable maritime transport. Global Policy, 6(2): 118–129
49 Y Lun, K h Lai, C W Wong, T Cheng (2016). Green Shipping Management.Switzerland: Springer International Publishing
50 M Luo, T Yip (2013). Ports and the environment. Maritime Policy & Management, 40(5): 401–403
51 J O Melious (2008). Reducing the environmental impacts of remote ports: The example of Prince Rupert. Canadian Political Science Review, 2(4): 40–50
52 R Mudgal, R Shankar, P Talib, T Raj (2010). Modeling the barriers of green supply chain practices: An Indian perspective. International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management, 7(1): 81–107
53 S Oguzitimur (2011). Why Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy process approach for transport problems? In: Proceedings of European Regional Science Association (ERSA) Conference Papers, Vienna
54 J Park, G Yeo (2012). An evaluation of greenness of major Korean ports: A fuzzy set approach. Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 28(1): 67–82
55 A Paz, P Maheshwari, P Kachroo, S Ahmad (2013). Estimation of performance indices for the planning of sustainable transportation systems. Advances in Fuzzy Systems, 601468 doi:10.1155/2013/601468
56 E Peris-Mora, J Diez Orejas, A Subirats, S Ibáñez, P Alvarez (2005). Development of a system of indicators for sustainable port management. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 50(12): 1649–1660
57 M Puig, C Wooldridge, J Casal, R Darbra (2015). Tool for the identification and assessment of Environmental Aspects in Ports (TEAP). Ocean and Coastal Management, 113: 8–17
58 J P Rodrigue, C Comtois, B Slack (2013). The Geography of Transport Systems.New York: Taylor & Francis Group
59 J Romeo (2013). Green ship design makes excellent environmental and economic sense.
60 O Schinas, C Stefanakos (2012). Cost assessment of environmental regulation and options for marine operators. Transportation Research Part C, Emerging Technologies, 25: 81–99
61 L Shimin, W Diew (2012). Greenhouse gas mitigation strategies for container shipping industry. American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 5(4): 310–317
62 R Shukla, D Garg, A Agarwal (2014). An integrated approach for Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS in modeling supply chain coordination. Production & Manufacturing Research: An Open Access Journal, 2(1): 415–437
63 C C Sun (2010). A performance evaluation model by integrating fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(12): 7745–7754
64 D Tadic, A Aleksic, P Popovic, S Arsovski, A Castelli, D Joksimovic, M Stefanovic (2016). The evaluation and enhancement of quality, environmental protection and safety in seaports. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 17(2): 261-275
65 E Tolga, M Demircan, C Kahraman (2005). Operating system selection using fuzzy replacement analysis and analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Production Economics, 97(1): 89–117
66 F Torfi, R Farahani, S Rezapour (2010). Fuzzy AHP to determine the relative weights of evaluation criteria and Fuzzy TOPSIS to rak the alternatives. Applied Soft Computing, 10(2): 520–528
67 UNCTAD (2012). Review of Maritime Transport 2012: Sustainable Freight Transport Development and Finance.New York and Geneva: United Nations Business
68 J Woo, D Moon (2013). The effects of slow steaming on the environmental performance in linear shipping. Maritime Policy & Management, 41(2): 176–191
69 J Xin, R R Negenborn, G Lodewijks (2014). Energy-aware control for automated container terminals using integrated flow shop scheduling and optimal control. Transportation Research Part C, Emerging Technologies, 44: 214–230
70 C S Yang, C S Lu, J Xu, P Marlow (2013). Evaluating green supply chain management capability, environmental performance, and competitiveness in container shipping context. Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, 10: 2274–2293
71 L A Zadeh (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3): 338–353
No related articles found!
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
版权所有 © 2015 高等教育出版社.
电话: 010-58556848 (技术); 010-58556485 (订阅) E-mail: subscribe@hep.com.cn