Evaluating Ports Environmental Performance based on the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP)
,
Abstract
Appropriate environmental performance is considered one of the most important indicators in the sustainable development of organizations and industries. Evaluating the environmental performance in ports as one of the two main parts of the maritime transport system is of particular importance. Therefore, the current study was designed and conducted to develop a method for evaluating the environmental performance of ports based on the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP). In the present study, 22 experts in the field of environment and marine sciences were selected in 2020. Firstly, various studies on the factors affecting the environmental performance of ports were reviewed. Secondly, a questionnaire was designed to assess ports’ environmental performance. Thirdly, this questionnaire was developed using the Delphi technique. Finally, by determining the weight of each parameter, the method of environmental performance assessment in ports was developed based on the FAHP. The final normalized weights for six environmental performance factors including reactive and proactive performance, sustainability, socio-cultural, economic, and governance were estimated 0.202, 0.241, 0.226, 0.070, 0.080, and 0.182. Additionally, it was found that each of the parameters had a different weight and impact on these factors. The highest and lowest impact on the environmental performance index belonged to environmental risk assessment (weight=0.217), cultural effects, and justice (weight=0.107). In the current study, a new method was developed for evaluating the environmental performance of ports based on six factors, 32 parameters, and FAHP. Therefore, this method may provide an effective step in reducing environmental impacts and improving the level of environmental performance in ports to achieve the goal of green port.
2. Shi W, Li KX. Themes and tools of maritime transport research during 2000-2014. Marit Pol Manag. 2017;44(2):151-169.
3. Woo J-K, Moon DS, Lam JSL. The impact of environmental policy on ports and the associated economic opportunities. Transport Res Pol Pract. 2018;110:234-242.
4. Yang Y-C. Operating strategies of CO2 reduction for a container terminal based on carbon footprint perspective. J Clean Prod. 2017;141:472-480.
5. Rao C, Yan B. Study on the interactive influence between economic growth and environmental pollution. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2020;27(31):39442-39465.
6. Tanha F, Rangkooy H, Marzban M, Kazemi E, Rasoolykalamaki F, Debiehkhosravi A. An Approach to the Control Management of Gaseous Pollutants Emissions from Power Plants Using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Int J Occup Hyg. 2015;7(1):27-31.
7. Li Y, Zhou S, Jia Z, Ge L, Mei L, Sui X, Wang X, Li B, Wang J, Wu S. Influence of industrialization and environmental protection on environmental pollution: a case study of Taihu Lake, China. Int J Environ Res Publ Health. 2018;15(12):2628.
8. Lee PT-W, Kwon OK, Ruan X. Sustainability challenges in maritime transport and logistics industry and its way ahead. Sustainability; 2019.
9. Venkatesh S, Sriraman V. A Notional research on implementing green port strategy at the new Manglore port trust. Int J Manag. 2020;11(10).
10. Teerawattana R, Yang Y-C. Environmental performance indicators for green port policy evaluation: case study of Laem Chabang port. Asian J Shipp Logist. 2019;35(1):63-9.
11. Jägerbrand AK, Brutemark A, Sveden JB, Gren M. A review on the environmental impacts of shipping on aquatic and nearshore ecosystems. Sci Total Environ. 2019;695:133637.
12. Shahbod N, Mansouri N, Bayat M, Nouri J, Ghoddousi J. A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process approach to identify and prioritize environmental
performance indicators in hospitals. Int J Occup Hyg. 2017; 9(2):66-77.
13.Poulsen RT, Ponte S, Sornn-Friese H. Environmental upgrading in global value chains: The potential and limitations of ports in the greening of maritime transport. Geoforum. 2018;89:83-95.
14. Asariotis R, Benamara H. Maritime transport and the climate change challenge. Geneva, New York , UN, Earthscan, 2012.
15. Monios J, Wilmsmeier G. Deep adaptation to climate change in the maritime transport sector–a new paradigm for maritime economics? Marit Policy Manag. 2020:1-20.
16. Shi W, Xiao Y, Chen Z, McLaughlin H, Li KX. Evolution of green shipping research: themes and methods. Marit Policy Manag. 2018;45(7):863-876.
17. Derakhshani E, Naghizadeh A, Shahabi H, Nazinejad M. Evaluation of Environmental and Respirable Dust in Air of Tile Industry in South Khorasan. Arch Hyg Sci. 2014;3(3):85-90.
18. Flostrand A, Pitt L, Bridson S. The Delphi technique in forecasting–A 42-year bibliographic analysis (1975–2017). Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2020;150:119773.
19. Mohammadfam I, Mansouri N, Nikoomaram H, Ghasemi F. Comparison of commonly used accident analysis techniques for manufacturing industries. Int J Occup Hyg. 2015;7(1):32-37.
20. Venkata-Siva-Raja-Prasad S, Prasada-Rao Y, Venkata-Chalapathi P. Prioritizing the Elements of OHSAS-18001 in Construction Segments in India–AHP Approach. Int J Occup Hyg. 2013;5(4):159-165.
21. Hurley JS. Quantifying decision making in the critical infrastructure via the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Int J Cyber Warf Terrorism. 2020: 465-477.
22. Mohammadfam I, Aliabadi MM, Soltanian AR, Tabibzadeh M, Mahdinia M. Investigating interactions among vital variables affecting situation awareness based on Fuzzy DEMATEL method. Int J Ind Ergon. 2019;74:176-195.
23. Shamaii A, Omidvari M, Hosseinzadeh Lotfi F. Performance assessment of HSE management systems: A fuzzy approach in a Steel Manufacturing Company. Int J Occup Hyg. 2016;8(2):100-109.
24. Lyu H-M, Sun W-J, Shen S-L, Zhou A-N. Risk assessment using a new consulting process in fuzzy AHP. J Construct Eng Manag. 2020;146(3):04019112.
25. Nikpishe Kohjhari F, Morovati M, Sadeghinia M, Amanat Yazdi L. Assessment and Management of Environmental Risks of Steel Industries by EFMEA Method (Case Study: Ardakan Steel and Melting factory). J Environ Health Eng. 2020:76-88.
26. Wan C, Zhang D, Yan X, Yang Z. A novel model for the quantitative evaluation of green port development–A case study of major ports in China. Transport Res Transport Environ. 2018;61:431-43.
27. Hua C, Chen J, Wan Z, Xu L, Bai Y, Zheng T, Fei Y. Evaluation and governance of green development practice of port: A sea port case of China. J Clean Prod. 2020;249:119434.
28. Xing X, Wang J, Tou L. The relationship between green organization identity and corporate environmental performance: The mediating role of sustainability exploration and exploitation innovation. Int J Environ Res Publ Health. 2019;16(6):921.
29. Svaetichin I, Inkinen T. Port waste management in the Baltic Sea area: A four port study on the legal requirements, processes and collaboration. Sustainability. 2017;9(5):699.
30. Haque F, Ntim CG. Environmental policy, sustainable development, governance mechanisms and environmental performance. Bus Strat Environ. 2018;27(3):415-435.
31. Hou Y, Iqbal W, Muhammad Shaikh G, Iqbal N, Ahmad Solangi Y, Fatima A. Measuring energy efficiency and environmental performance: a case of South Asia. Processes. 2019;7(6):325.
32. Sarkheil H, Rahbari S. HSE Key Performance indicators in HSE-MS establishment and sustainability: a case of south pars gas complex, Iran. Int J Occup Hyg. 2016;8(1):45-53.
| Files | ||
| Issue | Vol 13 No 2 (2021) | |
| Section | Original Article(s) | |
| Published | 2021-06-30 | |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.18502/ijoh.v13i2.8369 | |
| Keywords | ||
| Environmental Performance Environmental Impacts Green Port Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Fuzzy Logic | ||
| Rights and permissions | |
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
