Frontiers of Engineering Management

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 368–383 | Cite as

A model for the evaluation of environmental impact indicators for a sustainable maritime transportation systems

  • Lizzette Pérez Lespier
  • Suzanna LongEmail author
  • Tom Shoberg
  • Steven Corns
Research Article


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.


environmental sustainability maritime transportation system environmental impact indicators fuzzy analytic hierarchy process fuzzy TOPSIS decision-making tool 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



The authors acknowledge the funding from the Engineering Management & Systems Engineering Department at Missouri University of Science and Technology along with a special thanks to the US Geological Survey for partially funding this research through US Geological Survey award number G13AC00028.


  1. Awasthi A, Omrani H, Gerber P (2018). Investigating ideal-solution based multicriteria decision making techniques for sustainability evaluation of urban mobility projects. Transportation Research Part A, Policy and Practice, 116: 247–259Google Scholar
  2. Aydi A (2018). Evaluation of groundwater vulnerability to pollution using a GIS-based multi-criteria decision analysis. Groundwater for Sustainable Development, 7: 204–211Google Scholar
  3. Bailey D, Solomon G (2004). Pollution prevention at ports: Clearing the air. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24(7): 749–774Google Scholar
  4. Balli S, Korukoglu S (2009). Operating system selection using Fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS methods. Mathematical and Computational Applications, (14): 119–130zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Bengtsson S, Fridell E, Andersson K (2012). Environmental assessment of two pathways towards the use of biofuels in shipping. Energy Policy, 44: 451–463Google Scholar
  6. Broesterhuizen E, Vellinga T, Taneja P, van Leeuwen L (2014). Sustainable procurement for port infrastructure. Infranomics, 11–26Google Scholar
  7. Buckley J (1985). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17(1): 233–247MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Carter C, Rogers D (2008). A framework of sustainable supply chain management: Moving toward new theory. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 38(5): 360–387Google Scholar
  9. Cayir Ervural B, Evren R, Delen D (2018). A multi-objective decisionmaking approach for sustainable energy investment planning. Renewable Energy, 126: 387–402Google Scholar
  10. Chang D Y (1992). Extent Analysis and Synthetic Decision, Optimization, Techniques and Applications, Volume 1. Singapore: World ScientificGoogle Scholar
  11. Chang D Y (1996). Applications of the extent analysis method of Fuzzy AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 95(3): 649–655zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Chang Y (2013). Environmental efficiency of ports: A data envelopment analysis approach. Maritime Policy & Management, 40(5): 467–478Google Scholar
  13. Chen C (2000). Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under Fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 114(1): 1–9zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen C, Lin C, Huang S (2006). A Fuzzy approach for supplier evaluation and selection in supply chain management. International Journal of Production Economics, 102(2): 289–301Google Scholar
  15. Chen S, Hwang C (1992). Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. Berlin: SpringerzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Chiu R, Lai I (2011). Green port measures: Empirical case in Taiwan. In: Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies. 8: 1–15Google Scholar
  17. Chiu R H, Lin L H, Ting S C (2014). Evaluation of green port factors and performance: A fuzzy AHP analysis. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2014(5): 1–12Google Scholar
  18. Darbra R, Ronza A, Stojanovic T, Wooldridge C, Casal J (2005). A procedure for identifying significant environmental aspects in sea ports. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 50(8): 866–874Google Scholar
  19. De Toni A F, Comello L (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)Google Scholar
  20. Dedes E, Hudson D, Turnock S (2012). Assessing the potential of hybrid energy technology to reduce exhaust emissions from global shipping. Energy Policy, 40: 204–218Google Scholar
  21. Demirel T, Demirel N C, Kahraman C (2008). Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process and its Application: Theory and Applications with Recent Developments. New York: SpringerzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. US 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)Google Scholar
  23. Ding J F (2011). An integrated fuzzy TOPSIS method for ranking alternatives and its applications. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 19(4): 341–352MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. Duru O, Bulut E, Huang S, Yoshida S (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, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  25. Eyring V, Isaksen I, Bernsten T, Collins W J (2010). Transport impacts on atmosphere and climate: Shipping. Atmospheric Environment, 44 (37): 4735–4771Google Scholar
  26. Fagerholt K, Gausel N T, Rakke J G, Psaraftis H N (2015). Maritime routing and speed optimization with emission control areas. Transportation Research Part C, Emerging Technologies, 52: 57–73Google Scholar
  27. Gudmundsson H (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 InstituteGoogle Scholar
  28. Han C H (2010). Strategies to reduce air pollution in shipping industry. Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 26(1): 7–29Google Scholar
  29. Homsombat W, Yip T, Yang H, Fu X (2013). Regional cooperation and management of port pollution. Maritime Policy & Management, 40 (5): 451–466Google Scholar
  30. Hsieh T Y, Lu S T, Tzeng G H (2004). Fuzzy MCDM approach for planning and design tenders selection in public office buildings. International Journal of Project Management, 22(7): 573–584Google Scholar
  31. Hwang C, Yoon K (1981). Multiple Attributes Decision Making Methods and Applications. Berlin: SpringerzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. IMO (2012). World Maritime Day: A Concept of a Sustainable Maritime Transportation System.
  33. InterManager, MARINTEK (2015). The Shipping KPI Standard V2.3.Google Scholar
  34. The Research Council of Norway International Maritime Organization (IMO) (2012). World Maritime Day: A Concept of a Sustainable Maritime Transportation System. Brasil: Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  35. Jeon C M, Amekudzi A (2005). Adressing sustainability in transportation systems: Definitions, indicators, and metrics. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 11(1): 31–50Google Scholar
  36. Johnson H, Johansson M, Andersson K, Sodahl B (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): 177–190Google Scholar
  37. Kahraman C (2009). Introduction: Fuzzy theory and technology. Multiple-Valued Logic and Soft Computing, 15(2–3): 103–105MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  38. Kahraman C, Cebeci C, Ruan D (2004). Multi-attribute comparison of catering service companies using fuzzy AHP. The case of Turkey. International Journal of Production Economics, 87(2): 171–184Google Scholar
  39. Kaur P, Chakrabortyb, S. (2007). A new approach to vendor selection problem with impact factor as an indirect measure of quality. Journal of Modern Mathematics and Statistics, 1–8Google Scholar
  40. Kavakeb S, Nguyen T, McGinley K, Yang Z, Jenkinson I, Murray R (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: 169–188Google Scholar
  41. Konsta K, Plomaritou E (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): 143–155Google Scholar
  42. Lai K H, Lun V Y, Wong C W, Cheng T (2011). Green shipping practices in the shipping industry: Conceptualization, adoption, and implications. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55(6): 631–638Google Scholar
  43. Lam J (2015). Designing a sustainable maritime supply chain: A hybrid QFD-ANP approach. Transportation Research Part E, Logistics and Transportation Review, 78: 70–81Google Scholar
  44. Lee C, Lam J (2012). Managing reverse logistics to enhance sustainability of industrial marketing. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(4): 589–598Google Scholar
  45. Liou J J, Yen L, Tzeng G H (2008). Building an effective safety management system for airlines. Journal of Air Transport Management, 14(1): 20–26Google Scholar
  46. Lirn T, Wu Y, Chen Y (2013). Green performance criteria for sustainable ports in Asia. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 43(5): 5–5Google Scholar
  47. Lister J (2015). Green shipping: Governing sustainable maritime transport. Global Policy, 6(2): 118–129Google Scholar
  48. Lun Y, Lai K h, Wong C W, Cheng T (2016). Green Shipping Management. Switzerland: Springer International PublishingGoogle Scholar
  49. Luo M, Yip T (2013). Ports and the environment. Maritime Policy & Management, 40(5): 401–403Google Scholar
  50. Melious J O (2008). Reducing the environmental impacts of remote ports: The example of Prince Rupert. Canadian Political Science Review, 2(4): 40–50Google Scholar
  51. Mudgal R, Shankar R, Talib P, Raj T (2010). Modeling the barriers of green supply chain practices: An Indian perspective. International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management, 7(1): 81–107Google Scholar
  52. Oguzitimur S (2011). Why Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy process approach for transport problems? In: Proceedings of European Regional Science Association (ERSA) Conference Papers, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  53. Park J, Yeo G (2012). An evaluation of greenness of major Korean ports: A fuzzy set approach. Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 28(1): 67–82Google Scholar
  54. Paz A, Maheshwari P, Kachroo P, Ahmad S (2013). Estimation of performance indices for the planning of sustainable transportation systems. Advances in Fuzzy Systems, 601468 doi:10.1155/2013/601468Google Scholar
  55. Peris-Mora E, Diez Orejas J, Subirats A, Ibáñez S, Alvarez P (2005). Development of a system of indicators for sustainable port management. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 50(12): 1649–1660Google Scholar
  56. Puig M, Wooldridge C, Casal J, Darbra R (2015). Tool for the identification and assessment of Environmental Aspects in Ports (TEAP). Ocean and Coastal Management, 113: 8–17Google Scholar
  57. Rodrigue J P, Comtois C, Slack B (2013). The Geography of Transport Systems. New York: Taylor & Francis GroupGoogle Scholar
  58. Romeo J (2013). Green ship design makes excellent environmental and economic sense. Scholar
  59. Schinas O, Stefanakos C (2012). Cost assessment of environmental regulation and options for marine operators. Transportation Research Part C, Emerging Technologies, 25: 81–99Google Scholar
  60. Shimin L, Diew W (2012). Greenhouse gas mitigation strategies for container shipping industry. American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 5(4): 310–317Google Scholar
  61. Shukla R, Garg D, Agarwal A (2014). An integrated approach for Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS in modeling supply chain coordination. Production & Manufacturing Research: An Open Access Journal, 2 (1): 415–437Google Scholar
  62. Sun C C (2010). A performance evaluation model by integrating fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(12): 7745–7754Google Scholar
  63. Tadic D, Aleksic A, Popovic P, Arsovski S, Castelli A, Joksimovic D, Stefanovic M (2016). The evaluation and enhancement of quality, environmental protection and safety in seaports. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 17(2): 261–275Google Scholar
  64. Tolga E, Demircan M, Kahraman C (2005). Operating system selection using fuzzy replacement analysis and analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Production Economics, 97(1): 89–117Google Scholar
  65. Torfi F, Farahani R, Rezapour S (2010). Fuzzy AHP to determine the relative weights of evaluation criteria and Fuzzy TOPSIS to rak the alternatives. Applied Soft Computing, 10(2): 520–528Google Scholar
  66. UNCTAD (2012). Review of Maritime Transport 2012: Sustainable Freight Transport Development and Finance. New York and Geneva: United Nations BusinessGoogle Scholar
  67. Woo J, Moon D (2013). The effects of slow steaming on the environmental performance in linear shipping. Maritime Policy & Management, 41(2): 176–191Google Scholar
  68. Xin J, Negenborn R R, Lodewijks G (2014). Energy-aware control for automated container terminals using integrated flow shop scheduling and optimal control. Transportation Research Part C, Emerging Technologies, 44: 214–230Google Scholar
  69. Yang C S, Lu C S, Xu J, Marlow P (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: 2274–2293Google Scholar
  70. Zadeh L A (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3): 338–353MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lizzette Pérez Lespier
    • 1
  • Suzanna Long
    • 2
    Email author
  • Tom Shoberg
    • 3
  • Steven Corns
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Analytics, Information Systems & Supply ChainUniversity of North Carolina WilmingtonWilmingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Engineering Management and Systems EngineeringMissouri University of Science and TechnologyRollaUSA
  3. 3.U.S. Geological SurveyCenter of Excellence for Geospatial Information ScienceRollaUSA

Personalised recommendations