Abstract
Multiple stakeholders with a wide range of objectives are engaged in a port system. Ports themselves are faced with many uncertainties in this volatile world. To meet stakeholder objectives and deal with uncertainties, adaptive port planning is increasingly being acknowledged. This method offers robust planning, and thereby, a sustainable and flexible port may be developed. The planning process starts with defining success in terms of the specific objectives of stakeholders during the projected lifetime of the port. In the present work, an integrated framework to reach a consensus on the definition of success, involving stakeholders with different influences, stakes and objectives, is presented. The framework synthesises the problem structuring method with stakeholder analysis and combines these with fuzzy logic to support decision-makers in formulating a definition of success in the planning process. Our framework is applied to the Port of Isafjordur, the third busiest port of call for cruise ships in Iceland. Values of stakeholders about port planning were structured around the value-focussed thinking method to identify stakeholder objectives. The highest level of agreement on the objectives, which is viewed here as success in port planning, was revealed by the fuzzy multi-attribute group decision-making method. Success was defined, prioritising an increase in competitiveness among other planning objectives, such as effective and efficient use of land, increasing safety and security, increasing hinterland connectivity, increasing financial performance, better environmental implications, flexibility creation and increasing positive economic and social impacts.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For instance (1) environmental value: balanced port (infra)structures to relieve pressure on the coastal area, positive environmental impacts, respect to the ecosystem, including bird and marine life, (2) social value: positive effect on the quality of life, job creation, safe and secure environment in the port area and quick response to emergencies, (3) Economic value: attraction of international and national port users, enough service and utility for different types of vessels, ability to operate in bad weather conditions and aesthetic port area to attract tourists. The values from these three categories are first examined as sub-objectives, and then the sub-objectives are clustered into different means objectives as discussed in this paper.
For instance, in the context of port planning and design, a fundamental objective could be to reduce port congestion. To achieve this objective, different means objectives include increasing cargo distribution to neighbouring ports, improving port connectivity to the hinterland with different types of modalities and upgrading port and terminal facilities.
An academic stakeholder group was added as it plays an important role in the port planning by generating new ideas and developing knowledge through their research (Slinger et al. 2017).
High in the summer season because of the high number of cruise calls and low in the winter season because of the frequently harsh weather.
References
Ackermann, F. 2012. Problem structuring methods “in the dock”: arguing the case for soft OR. European Journal of Operational Research 219 (3): 652–658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2011.11.014.
Alencar, M.H., L. Priori Jr., and L.H. Alencar. 2017. Structuring objectives based on value-focused thinking methodology: creating alternatives for sustainability in the built environment. Journal of Cleaner Production 156: 62–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.221.
AlMaian, R.Y., K.L. Needy, T.C.L. da Alves, and K.D. Walsh. 2016. Analyzing effective supplier-quality-management practices using simple multi attribute rating technique and value-focused thinking. Journal of Management in Engineering 32 (1): 04015035. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000364.
Arecco, P., T. Vellinga, M. Hertogh, M. Oosting, P. Taneja, and P. Vervoorn, eds. 2016. Formulating goals towards success for Adaptive Port Planning Applied case: Europoort at Port of Rotterdam. In Proceedings of the 9th PIANC—International conference on coastal and port engineering in developing countries (COPEDEC) conference, Oct 16–21, 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Belton, V., and T. Stewart. 2010. Problem structuring and multiple criteria decision analysis. In Trends in multiple criteria decision analysis, ed. M. Ehrgott, J.R. Figueira, and S. Greco, 209–239. New York: Springer.
Bendall, H.B., and A.F. Stent. 2005. Ship investment under uncertainty: valuing a real option on the maximum of several strategies. Maritime Economics & Logistics 7 (1): 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100122.
Bender, M.J., and S.P. Simonovic. 2000. A fuzzy compromise approach to water resource systems planning under uncertainty. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 115 (1): 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0114(99)00025-1.
Bennett, P., J. Bryant, and N. Howard. 2001. Drama theory and confrontation analysis. In Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited: Problem structuring methods for complexity, uncertainty and conflict, ed. J. Rosenhead and J. Mingers, 225–248. Chichester: Wiley.
Blin, J.M. 2008. Fuzzy relation in group decision theory. Journal of Cybernetics 4 (2): 17–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/01969727408546063.
Cabral, A.M.R., and F.S. de Ramos. 2014. Cluster analysis of the competitiveness of container ports in Brazil. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 69: 423–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.09.005.
Checkland, P. 1985. Achieving ‘desirable and feasible’ change: an application of soft systems methodology. Journal of the Operational Research Society 36 (9): 821–831. https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.1985.148.
Checkland, P., and J. Scholes. 1999. Soft systems methodology in action. Chichester: Wiley.
Checkland, P., and M. Winter. 2006. Process and content: Two ways of using SSM. Journal of the Operational Research Society 57 (12): 1435–1441. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602118.
Clintworth, M., E. Boulougouris, and B.S. Lee. 2018. Combining multicriteria decision analysis and cost-benefit analysis in the assessment of maritime projects financed by the European Investment Bank. Maritime Economics & Logistics 20 (1): 29–47. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-017-0072-x.
Denktas-Sakar, G., and C. Karatas-Cetin. 2012. Port sustainability and stakeholder management in supply chains: a framework on resource dependence theory. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics 28 (3): 301–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2013.01.002.
Eden, C., and F. Ackermann. 1998. Making strategy: the journey of strategic management. London: Sage.
Eden, C., and F. Ackermann. 2001. SODA—The principles. Chichester: Wiley.
European Commission. 2018. Ports—Mobility and transport—European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/maritime/ports/ports_en. Accessed 29 Dec 2018.
Ferretti, V. 2016. From stakeholders’ analysis to cognitive mapping and multi-attribute value theory: an integrated approach for policy support. European Journal of Operational Research 253 (2): 524–541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.02.054.
Friend, J. 2011. The strategic choice approach. In Wiley encyclopedia of operations research and management science, ed. J.J. Cochran, L.A. Cox Jr., P. Keskinocak, J.P. Kharoufeh, and J. Cole Smith. Chichester: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470400531.eorms0971.
Frooman, J. 1999. Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review 24 (2): 191–205. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1999.1893928.
Güner, S. 2018. Incorporating value judgements into port efficiency measurement models: insights from Turkish ports. Maritime Economics & Logistics 20 (4): 569–586. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-017-0062-z.
Hassan, O.A.B. 2004. Application of value—focused thinking on the environmental selection of wall structures. Journal of Environmental Management 70 (2): 181–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2003.11.007.
Icelandic Directorate of Fisheries. 2018. Find ship—Individual vessels—Web Directorate of Fisheries. http://www.fiskistofa.is/english/quotas-and-catches/induvidual-vessels/. Accessed 19 Dec 2018.
Kahraman, C., D. Ruan, and I. Doǧan. 2003. Fuzzy group decision-making for facility location selection. Information Sciences 157: 135–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-0255(03)00183-X.
Keeney, R.L. 1992. Value-focused thinking: a path to creative decision making. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Keeney, R.L. 1996. Value-focused thinking: identifying decision opportunities and creating alternatives. European Journal of Operational Research 92 (3): 537–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(96)00004-5.
Keeney, R.L., and T.L. McDaniels. 1999. Identifying and structuring values to guide integrated resource planning at BC gas. Operations Research 47 (5): 651–662. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.47.5.651.
Klir, G.J., and A.T. Folger. 1988. Fuzzy sets, uncertainty, and information. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Kunz, R.E., J. Siebert, and J. Mütterlein. 2016. Combining value-focused thinking and balanced scorecard to improve decision-making in strategic management. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 23 (5–6): 225–241. https://doi.org/10.1002/mcda.1572.
Lienert, J., F. Schnetzer, and K. Ingold. 2013. Stakeholder analysis combined with social network analysis provides fine-grained insights into water infrastructure planning processes. Journal of Environmental Management 125: 134–148.
Mardani, A., A. Jusoh, and E.K. Zavadskas. 2015. Fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making techniques and applications—Two decades review from 1994 to 2014. Expert Systems with Applications 42 (8): 4126–4148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2015.01.003.
Marttunen, M., J. Lienert, and V. Belton. 2017. Structuring problems for multi-criteria decision analysis in practice: a literature review of method combinations. European Journal of Operational Research 263 (1): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.04.041.
Moglia, F., and M. Sanguineri. 2003. Port planning: the need for a new approach? Maritime Economics & Logistics 5 (4): 413–425. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100089.
Morgan, W. 1951. Observations on the study of hinterlands in Europe. Tijdschrift sociale en economische geografie 42: 366–371.
PIANC. 2018. PIANC Publications. https://www.pianc.org/publications. Accessed 29 Dec 2018.
Pidd, M. (ed.). 2003. Tools for thinking. Chichester: Wiley.
Poplawska, J., A. Labib, D.M. Reed, and A. Ishizaka. 2015. Stakeholder profile definition and salience measurement with fuzzy logic and visual analytics applied to corporate social responsibility case study. Journal of Cleaner Production 105: 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.095.
Port of Isafjordur Authority. 2019. Port of Isafjordur, Cruise ship. http://port.isafjordur.is/index.php?pid=1&w=s. Accessed 13 May 2018.
Rosenhead, J. 1996. What’s the problem? An introduction to problem structuring methods. Interfaces 26 (6): 117–131. https://doi.org/10.1287/inte.26.6.117.
Rosenhead, J. 2001. Robustness analysis: keeping your options open. In Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited, ed. J. Rosenhead and J. Mingers, 181–207. Chichester: Wiley.
Ross, T.J. (ed.). 2004. Fuzzy logic with engineering applications. Chichester: Wiley.
Santos, A.M.P., R. Salvador, and C. Guedes Soares. 2018. A dynamic view of the socioeconomic significance of ports. Maritime Economics & Logistics 20 (2): 169–189. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-017-0081-9.
Shaw, D. 2006. Journey making group workshops as a research tool. Journal of the Operational Research Society 57 (7): 830–841. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602155.
Sheng, H., F.F.H. Nah, and K. Siau. 2005. Strategic implications of mobile technology: a case study using value-focused thinking. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 14 (3): 269–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2005.07.004.
Slinger, J., P. Taneja, T. Vellinga, and C. Van Dorsser, eds. 2017. Stakeholder inclusive design for sustainable port development. In Proceedings of the international maritime-port technology and development conference (MTEC), April 26–28, 2017, Singapore.
Smith, C.M., and D. Shaw. 2018. The characteristics of problem structuring methods: a literature review. European Journal of Operational Research 274 (2): 403–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2018.05.003.
Sun, B., W. Ma, X. Chen, and X. Li. 2018. Heterogeneous multi granulation fuzzy rough set-based multiple attribute group decision making with heterogeneous preference information. Computers & Industrial Engineering 122: 24–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.05.034.
Taneja, P. 2013. The flexible port. Ph.D. dissertation, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
Taneja, P., H. Ligteringen, and M. Van Schuylenburg. 2010. Dealing with uncertainty in design of port infrastructure systems. Journal of Design Research 8 (2): 101–118. https://doi.org/10.1504/JDR.2010.032073.
Taneja, P., H. Ligteringen, and W. Walker. 2012. Flexibility in port planning and design. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research 1 (12): 66–87.
Wan, S., F. Wang, and J. Dong. 2018. A group decision-making method considering both the group consensus and multiplicative consistency of interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy preference relations. Information Sciences 466: 109–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2018.07.031.
Wiegmans, B., I. Menger, B. Behdani, and B. Van Arem. 2018. Communication between deep sea container terminals and hinterland stakeholders: information needs and the relevance of information exchange. Maritime Economics & Logistics 20 (4): 531–548. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-017-0071-y.
Woo, J.K., D.S.H. Moon, and J.S.L. Lam. 2017. The impact of environmental policy on ports and the associated economic opportunities. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 110: 234–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.09.001.
Yin, R.K. (ed.). 1994. Case study research: design and methods. London: Sage.
Yuen, C.A., A. Zhang, and W. Cheung. 2012. Port competitiveness from the users’ perspective: an analysis of major container ports in China and its neighbouring countries. Research in transportation economics 35 (1): 34–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2011.11.005.
Acknowledgements
The time and expertise contributed by the people listed in Table 1 and other formal and informal groups who were involved in this project are acknowledged. The authors are grateful to anonymous referees for their careful review of this paper, corrections and fruitful remarks. This work was supported in part by the University of Iceland Research Fund (Rannsoknarsjodur Haskola Islands), the Municipality of Isafjardarbaer and the Icelandic Road and Coastal Administration Research Fund (Rannsoknarsjodur Vegagerdarinnar).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
The colour-scaled level of agreement within the interviewees and the list of sub-objectives and means objectives of port planning are presented in Tables 3 and 4.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Eskafi, M., Fazeli, R., Dastgheib, A. et al. A value-based definition of success in adaptive port planning: a case study of the Port of Isafjordur in Iceland. Marit Econ Logist 22, 403–431 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-019-00134-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-019-00134-6