Development of a Method for Evaluating the Ports Environmental Performance Based on Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP)
Introduction: Appropriate environmental performance is considered as one of the 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 very important. Therefore, this study was designed and conducted aimed at developing a method for evaluating the environmental performance of ports based on fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP).
Methods: 22 experts in the field of environment and marine sciences took part in the present study in 2020. In the first step, various studies on the factors affecting the environmental performance of ports were reviewed. In the second step, a questionnaire was designed to assess ports environmental performance. In the third step, in a Delphi study, this questionnaire was developed. In the fourth step, by determining the weight of each parameter, the method of environmental performance assessment in ports was developed based on the FAHP.
Results: 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, respectively. Additionally, it was found that each of the parameters has different weight and impact on these factors. The highest and lowest impact on environmental performance index belonged to environmental risk assessment (weight=0.217) and cultural effects and justice (weight=0.107), respectively.
Conclusion: In this study, a new method has been developed for evaluating the environmental performance of ports based on six factors and 32 parameters and FAHP. Therefore, using this method can be an effective step in reducing environmental impacts and improving the level of environmental performance in ports to achieve the goal of "green port".
2. Yang Y-C. Operating strategies of CO2 reduction for a container terminal based on carbon footprint perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2017;141:472-80.
3. Rao C, Yan B. Study on the interactive influence between economic growth and environmental pollution. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2020;27(31):39442-65.
4. 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). International Journal of Occupational Hygiene. 2015;7(1):27-31.
5. Lam JSL, Cullinane KPB, Lee PT-W. The 21st-century Maritime Silk Road: challenges and opportunities for transport management and practice. Taylor & Francis; 2018.
6. Shi W, Li KX. Themes and tools of maritime transport research during 2000-2014. Maritime Policy & Management. 2017;44(2):151-69.
7. Woo J-K, Moon DS, Lam JSL. The impact of environmental policy on ports and the associated economic opportunities. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 2018;110:234-42.
8. Lee PT-W, Kwon OK, Ruan X. Sustainability challenges in maritime transport and logistics industry and its way ahead. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute; 2019.
9. Venkatesh S, Sriraman V. A NOTIONAL RESEARCH ON IMPLEMENTING GREEN PORT STRATEGY AT THE NEW MANGALORE PORT TRUST. International Journal of Management. 2020;11(10).
10. Teerawattana R, Yang Y-C. Environmental performance indicators for green port policy evaluation: case study of Laem Chabang port. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics. 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. Science of the Total Environment. 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. International Journal of Occupational Hygiene. 2017;9(2):66-77.
13. Flostrand A, Pitt L, Bridson S. The Delphi technique in forecasting–A 42-year bibliographic analysis (1975–2017). Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2020;150:119773.
14. MOHAMMADFAM I, MANSOURI N, NIKOOMARAM H, GHASEMI F. Comparison of commonly used accident analysis techniques for manufacturing industries. International Journal of Occupational Hygiene. 2015;7(1):32-7.
15. VENKATA-SIVA-RAJA-PRASAD S, PRASADA-RAO Y, VENKATA-CHALAPATHI P. Prioritizing the Elements of OHSAS-18001 in Construction Segments in India–AHP Approach. International Journal of Occupational Hygiene. 2013;5(4):159-65.
16. Hurley JS. Quantifying decision making in the critical infrastructure via the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Cyber Warfare and Terrorism: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications: IGI Global; 2020. p. 465-77.
17. Mohammadfam I, Aliabadi MM, Soltanian AR, Tabibzadeh M, Mahdinia M. Investigating interactions among vital variables affecting situation awareness based on Fuzzy DEMATEL method. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 2019;74:102842.
18. Shamaii A, Omidvari M, Hosseinzadeh Lotfi F. Performance assessment of HSE management systems: A fuzzy approach in a Steel Manufacturing Company. IJOH. 2016;8(2):100-9.
19. Lyu H-M, Sun W-J, Shen S-L, Zhou A-N. Risk assessment using a new consulting process in fuzzy AHP. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 2020;146(3):04019112.
20. 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). Journal of Environmental Health Enginering. 2020:76-88.
21. 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. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. 2018;61:431-43.
22. Hua C, Chen J, Wan Z, Xu L, Bai Y, Zheng T, et al. Evaluation and governance of green development practice of port: A sea port case of China. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2020;249:119434.
23. 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. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2019;16(6):921.
24. 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.
25. Haque F, Ntim CG. Environmental policy, sustainable development, governance mechanisms and environmental performance. Business Strategy and the Environment. 2018;27(3):415-35.
26. 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.
27. SARKHEIL H, RAHBARI S. HSE Key Performance indicators in HSE-MS establishment and sustainability: a case of south pars gas complex, Iran. International Journal of Occupational Hygiene. 2016;8(1):45-53.
|Issue||Vol 13 No 2 (2021)|
|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.|