Inland waterway ports selection and evaluation using stochastic analytical hierarchy process

References

• Bichou, K. (2006). Review of port performance approaches and a supply chain framework to port performance benchmarking. Research in Transportation Economics, 17, 567–598.
   Google Scholar
• Bichou, K., & Gray, R. (2005). A critical review of conventional terminology for classifying seaports. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 39(1), 75–92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang, Y. T., Lee, S. Y., & Tongzon, J. L. (2008). Port selection factors by shipping lines: Different perspectives between trunk liners and feeder service providers. Marine Policy, 32(6), 877–885.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cobuloglu, H. I., & Büyüktahtakın, İ. E. (2015). A stochastic multi-criteria decision analysis for sustainable biomass crop selection. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(15), 6065–6074.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deng, X., Hu, Y., Deng, Y., & Mahadevan, S. (2014). Supplier selection using AHP methodology extended by D numbers. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(1), 156–167.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Oliveira, G. F., & Cariou, P. (2015). The impact of competition on container port (in) efficiency. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 78, 124–133.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Swart, L., Gille, J., Streicher, G., Schönfelder, S., & Trosky, F. (2016). Danube+ 20: More jobs due to better inland water transport? Transportation Research Procedia, 14, 163–172.
   Google Scholar
• Dinu, O., Burciu, Ş, Oprea, C., Ilie, A., & Rosca, M. (2016). Inland waterway ports nodal attraction indices relevant in development strategies on regional level. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 145(8), 082008.
   Google Scholar
• Einwächter, H., Müller, J., Richter, J., Stroinski, W., & Zahn, G. (1989). The competitiveness of the public inland ports in the federal Republic of Germany. Bulletin of the Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses, 64, 79–101.
   Google Scholar
• Emeç, Ş, & Akkaya, G. (2018). Stochastic AHP and fuzzy VIKOR approach for warehouse location selection problem. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 31(6), 950–962.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gardels, D. J., Lambert, D., & Mattei, N. J. (2016). P3 solutions for the Nation’s Inland Marine Transportation System. Ports 2016, pp. 922–931.
   Google Scholar
• Gohomene, D. A., Bonsal, S., Maistralis, E., Wang, J., & Li, K. X. (2016). The attractiveness of ports in West Africa: Some lessons from shipping lines’ port selection. Growth and Change, 47(3), 416–426.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golden, B. L., & Wang, Q. (1989). An alternate measure of consistency. In B. L. Golden, E. A. Wasil, & P. T. Harker (Eds.), The analytic hierarchy process (pp. 68–81). Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Grossardt, T., Bray, L., & Burton, M. (2014). Inland navigation in the United States: An evaluation of economic impacts and the potential effects of infrastructure investment. National Waterways Foundation Research Report.
   Google Scholar
• Hanaoka, S., & Regmi, M. B. (2011). Promoting intermodal freight transport through the development of dry ports in Asia: An environmental perspective. IATSS Research, 35(1), 16–23.
   Google Scholar
• Hossain, N. U. I., Nur, F., Hosseini, S., Jaradat, R., Marufuzzaman, M., & Puryear, S. M. (2019). A Bayesian network based approach for modeling and assessing resilience: A case study of a full service deep water port. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 189, 378–396.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hossain, N. U. I., Nur, F., Jaradat, R., Hosseini, S., Marufuzzaman, M., Puryear, S. M., & Buchanan, R. K. (2019). Metrics for assessing overall performance of inland waterway ports: A Bayesian network based approach. Complexity, 2019.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hosseini, S., & Barker, K. (2016). Modeling infrastructure resilience using Bayesian networks: A case study of inland waterway ports. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 93, 252–266.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jalao, E. R., Wu, T., & Shunk, D. (2014). A stochastic AHP decision making methodology for imprecise preferences. Information Sciences, 270, 192–203.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahraman, C., & Kaya, İ. (2010). A fuzzy multicriteria methodology for selection among energy alternatives. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(9), 6270–6281.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kerman, J. (2011). A closed-form approximation for the median of the beta distribution. arXiv preprint arXiv:1111.0433.
   Google Scholar
• Kutin, N., Nguyen, T. T., & Vallée, T. (2017). Relative efficiencies of ASEAN container ports based on data envelopment analysis. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 33(2), 67–77.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laarhoven, P. J. M., & Pedrycz, W. (1983). A fuzzy extension of Saaty’s priority theory, fuzzy sets and systems. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 11, 1–3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, C. R. (2017). The evolving role of rural river ports as strategic economic development actors. Water Resources and Rural Development, 9, 28–38.
   Google Scholar
• Mississippi Department of Transportation. (2011). Appendix H: Port and waterway needs assessment. Mississippi's Unified Long-Range Transportation Infrastructure Plan. [online], p. 5. Retrieved from http://mdot.ms.gov/documents/planning/Programs/MULTIPLAN/MULTIPLAN%202035/Apdx%20H%20Port%20and%20Waterway%20Needs%20Assessment.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Mississippi Department of Transportation. (2014a). Statewide ports needs and marketing assessment.
   Google Scholar
• Mississippi Department of Transportation. (2014b). Economic role of marine transportation in Mississippi. Retrieved from: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiX_8OGgr7VAhWpr1QKHWtMAjsQFggtMA
   Google Scholar
• Moktadir, M. A., Ali, S. M., Paul, S. K., & Shukla, N. (2019). Barriers to big data analytics in manufacturing supply chains: A case study from Bangladesh. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 128, 1063–1075.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (2015). Funding and managing the US inland waterways system: What policy makers need to know. Transportation Research Board, pp. 14–20.
   Google Scholar
• Nir, A. S., Lin, K., & Liang, G. S. (2003). Port choice behaviour – from the perspective of the shipper. Maritime Policy & Management, 30(2), 165–173.
   Google Scholar
• Nur, F., Marufuzzaman, M., & Puryear, S. (2019). Managing congestion in Inland waterway transportation network under uncertainty. IISE Annual Conference and EXPO 2019, Orlando, FL, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Nur, F., Marufuzzaman, M., & Puryear, S. M. (2020). Optimizing inland waterway port management decisions considering water level fluctuations. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 140, 106210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oztaysi, B. (2014). A decision model for information technology selection using AHP integrated TOPSIS-Grey: The case of content management systems. Knowledge-Based Systems, 70, 44–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pant, R., Barker, K., & Landers, T. L. (2015). Dynamic impacts of commodity flow disruptions in inland waterway networks. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 89, 137–149.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pant, R., Barker, K., Ramirez-Marquez, J. E., & Rocco, C. M. (2014). Stochastic measures of resilience and their application to container terminals. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 70, 183–194.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pavan, M., & Todeschini, R. (2009). Multicriteria decision making methods. In S. D. Brown, R. Tauler, & B. Walczak (Eds.), Comprehensive chemometrics (pp. 591–629). Amsterdam: Elsevier BV.
   Google Scholar
• Peng, Y., Wang, G., & Wang, H. (2012). User preferences based software defect detection algorithms selection using MCDM. Information Sciences, 191, 3–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rezaei, J., Fahim, P. B., & Tavasszy, L. (2014). Supplier selection in the airline retail industry using a funnel methodology: Conjunctive screening method and fuzzy AHP. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(18), 8165–8179.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodrigue, J. P., & Notteboom, T. (2009). The terminalization of supply chains: Reassessing the role of terminals in port/hinterland logistical relationships. Maritime Policy & Management, 36(2), 165–183.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rouyendegh, B. D., & Erkan, T. E. (2012). Selection of academic staff using the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process(FAHP): a pilot study. Tehnicki vjesnik, 19(4), 923–929.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saaty, T. L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(3), 234–281.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sierra, J. P., Genius, A., Lionello, P., Mestres, M., Mösso, C., & Marzo, L. (2017). Modelling the impact of climate change on harbour operability: The Barcelona port case study. Ocean Engineering, 141, 64–78.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smid, M., Dekker, S., & Wiegmans, B. (2016). Modeling the cost sensitivity of intermodal inland waterway terminals: A scenario based approach. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 85, 112–122.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Song, D. W., & Yeo, K. T. (2004). A competitive analysis of Chinese container ports using the analytic hierarchy process. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 6(1), 34–52.
   Google Scholar
• Thanki, S., Govindan, K., & Thakkar, J. (2016). An investigation on lean-green implementation practices in Indian SMEs using analytical hierarchy process (AHP) approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135, 284–298.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tongzon, J. L. (1995). Determinants of port performance and efficiency. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 29(3), 245–252.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tongzon, J., & Heng, W. (2005). Port privatization, efficiency and competitiveness: Some empirical evidence from container ports (terminals). Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 39(5), 405–424.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tovar, B., & Wall, A. (2015). Can ports increase traffic while reducing inputs? Technical efficiency of Spanish port authorities using a directional distance function approach. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 71, 128–140.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Triantaphyllou, E., & Mann, S. H. (1995). Using the analytic hierarchy process for decision making in engineering applications: Some challenges. International Journal of Industrial Engineering: Applications and Practice, 2(1), 35–44.
   Google Scholar
• Ubando, A. T., Cuello, J. L., El-Halwagi, M. M., Culaba, A. B., Promentilla, M. A. B., & Tan, R. R. (2016). Application of stochastic analytic hierarchy process for evaluating algal cultivation systems for sustainable biofuel production. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 18(5), 1281–1294.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ulutas, A., Shukla, N., Kiridena, S., & Gibson, P. (2016). A utility-driven approach to supplier evaluation and selection: Empirical validation of an integrated solution framework. International Journal of Production Research, 54(5), 1554–1567.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Transportation Statistics Annual Report. (2015). Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Wiegmans, B., Witte, P., & Spit, T. (2015a). Characteristics of European inland ports: A statistical analysis of inland waterway port development in Dutch municipalities. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 78, 566–577.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiegmans, B., Witte, P., & Spit, T. (2015b). Inland port performance: A statistical analysis of Dutch inland ports. Transportation Research Procedia, 8, 145–154.
   Google Scholar
• Witte, P., Wiegmans, B., & Rodrigue, J. P. (2017). Competition or complementarity in Dutch inland port development: A case of overproximity? Journal of Transport Geography, 60, 80–88.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yeo, G. T., Roe, M., & Dinwoodie, J. (2011). Measuring the competitiveness of container ports: Logisticians’ perspectives. European Journal of Marketing, 45(3), 455–470.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeng, Q., Liu, Y., Yang, Z., & Yu, B. (2011). Optimization of Dry ports location for Western Taiwan Straits economic zone. In Y. Yin, Y. Wang, J. Lu, & W. Wang (Eds.), ICCTP 2011: Towards sustainable transportation systems (pp. 103–110). Nanjing, China: ASCE Library.
   Google Scholar
• Zeng, Q., Maloni, M. J., Paul, J. A., & Yang, Z. (2013). Dry port development in China: Motivations, challenges, and opportunities. Transportation Journal, 52(2), 234–263.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao, H., & Li, N. (2016). Performance evaluation for sustainability of strong smart grid by using stochastic AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods. Sustainability, 8(2), 129.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu, C., Zhang, G., & Dong, Q. (2009). An optimization model on the radiation area of the International Inland Port. IEEE Conference on Intelligent Computation Technology and Automation, 2, 7–10.
   Google Scholar