A Hybrid Model for Enhancing Container Port Management with a Focus on Sustainable Development

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Ph.D. student, Department of Industrial Engineering, Payam Noor University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Industrial Engineering, Payam Noor University, Tehran, Iran.

10.48308/jimp.15.3.118

Abstract

Introduction and Objectives: Given the critical role of ports in global trade and supply chains, the development of sustainable port management models has become a priority in the maritime industry. Focusing on existing research in sustainable management, this research aims to develop an integrated model for evaluating and prioritizing factors affecting the sustainability of container ports. The primary objective of this research is to examine and weigh sustainability criteria across three dimensions—environmental, social, and economic—to assist port authorities in making comprehensive and inclusive decisions in port management. Accordingly, this model is intended to reduce the complexity of sustainability assessments and increase the accuracy of measuring the key factors influencing the sustainable performance of ports.
Methodology: This study applied the fuzzy Delphi method to screen and validate basic sustainability factors. Initially, 26 sustainability criteria were reviewed and validated based on existing literature and a survey of 14 experts. Subsequently, the fuzzy Full Consistency Method (FUCOM) was used to weigh and prioritize these criteria. In this stage, eight experts with relevant experience in port management and sustainability provided the necessary data through designed questionnaires. The fuzzy FUCOM method was chosen because of its ability to reduce the number of pairwise comparisons and to take account of the uncertainties involved. Through this process, the criteria were ranked based on their relative importance, and the final weights of the main factors and their corresponding sub-criteria were calculated.
Findings: The results of this study show that among the sustainability dimensions related to container ports, the environmental dimension is the most important with a weight of 0.541, while the economic and social dimensions are the next most important with weights of 0.304 and 0.154 respectively.
Among the environmental sub-criteria, water pollution management (with a relative weight of 0.1864) ranked highest, followed by air pollution management (relative weight of 0.1388) and the protection of ecosystems and habitats (relative weight of 0.1051). In the economic dimension, port operational efficiency (relative weight of 0.1760) was the most significant, followed by value-added productivity (relative weight of 0.1321) and port development financing (relative weight of 0.1192). It highlights the role of these factors in the economic development of ports. In the social dimension, health and safety (relative weight of 0.2228) were identified as the most critical criteria, while job creation and employment security (relative weight of 0.1577) and vocational skills training (relative weight of 0.1173) were also of high importance. Overall, the results of this study indicated that water and air pollution management factors, along with the protection of ecosystems and habitats, with final weights of 0.1008, 0.1388, and 0.1051, respectively, are the most influential factors in port sustainability. The findings suggest that focusing on these factors can significantly reduce the negative environmental impacts of port activities, increase stakeholder satisfaction, and enhance the global competitiveness of ports through improved environmental performance. Additionally, this approach can help ports achieve global sustainable development goals (SDGs) and align with international environmental regulations, ultimately leading to a more sustainable and responsible port system.
Conclusion: This study provides a structured method for assessing and prioritizing sustainability factors in container ports, which can help to identify areas for improvement and implement sustainable strategies. The proposed model serves as a practical tool for monitoring sustainability performance and aligning with international standards.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Agarwal, A. (2020). Investigating design targets for effective performance management system: an application of balanced scorecard using QFD. Journal of Advances in Management Research, 18(3), 353–367. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAMR-05-2020-0075/FULL/XML
  2. Balbaa, A., & Liyanage, J. P. (2010). Environmental sustainability management process in a port of study in Egypt: compliance level and importance analysis towards an integrated methodology. International Journal of Sustainable Strategic Management, 2(2), 111. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSM.2010.032555
  3. Barjasteh Nezhad, S., Kazemi, M., & Pooya, A. (2022). Performance Evaluation with a Combination of Balanced Scorecard Model and the Fuzzy Best-Worst Method (Case Study: Mashhad City Train Operation Company). Journal of Industrial Management Perspective, 12(3), 173–201. https://doi.org/10.52547/JIMP.12.3.173 (In Persian)
  4. Becker, J., Becker, A., & Sałabun, W. (2017). Construction and Use of the ANP Decision Model Taking into Account the Experts’ Competence. Procedia Computer Science, 112, 2269–2279. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROCS.2017.08.145

 

  1. Behjat, S., & Nahavandi, N. (2020). Quay cranes and yard trucks scheduling problem at container terminals. International Journal of Engineering Transactions C: Aspects, 33(9), 1751–1758. https://doi.org/10.5829/ije.2020.33.09c.08
  2. Bhattacharya, A., Mohapatra, P., Kumar, V., Dey, P. K., Brady, M., Tiwari, M. K., & Nudurupati, S. S. (2014). Green supply chain performance measurement using fuzzy ANP-based balanced scorecard: a collaborative decision-making approach. Production Planning & Control, 25(8), 698–714. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2013.798088
  3. Carlan, V., Sys, C., & Vanelslander, T. (2016). How port community systems can contribute to port competitiveness: Developing a cost–benefit framework. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 19, 51–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RTBM.2016.03.009
  4. Chang, E. W., & Tai, H. H. (2021). An Investigation into Switching Vessel Sizes for Efficient Container Terminal Operations: A Case Study of Kaohsiung Port. International Journal of Maritime Engineering, 163(A1), 101–118. https://doi.org/10.5750/IJME.V163IA1.9
  5. Chen, Z., Ming, X., Zhang, X., Yin, D., & Sun, Z. (2019). A rough-fuzzy DEMATEL-ANP method for evaluating sustainable value requirement of product service system. Journal of Cleaner Production, 228, 485–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2019.04.145
  6. Dedasht, G., Zin, R. M., Ferwati, M. S., Abdullahi, M. M., Keyvanfar, A., & McCaffer, R. (2017). DEMATEL-ANP Risk Assessment in Oil and Gas Construction Projects. Sustainability 2017, Vol. 9, Page 1420, 9(8), 1420. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU9081420
  7. Fedorenko, R., Yakhneeva, I., Zaychikova, N., & Lipinsky, D. (2021). Evaluating the socio-economic factors impacting foreign trade development in port areas. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(15). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158447
  8. Ferwati, M. S., Al Saeed, M., Shafaghat, A., & Keyvanfar, A. (2019). Qatar Sustainability Assessment System (QSAS)-Neighborhood Development (ND) Assessment Model: Coupling green urban planning and green building design. Journal of Building Engineering, 22, 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JOBE.2018.12.006
  9. Ghasemzadeh Moghaddam, S., Zare Ahmadabadi, H., Naser Sadrabadi, A., Hosseini Bamakan, S. M., & Zamzam, F. (2025). A Model for the Distribution of Construction Credits Based on Network Data Envelopment Analysis. Journal of Industrial Management Perspective, 15(1), 193–224. https://doi.org/10.48308/JIMP.15.1.193 (In Persian)
  10. Hansen, E. G., & Schaltegger, S. (2016). The Sustainability Balanced Scorecard: A Systematic Review of Architectures. Journal of Business Ethics, 133(2), 193–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10551-014-2340-3/TABLES/4
  11. Haralambides, H. E. (2019). Gigantism in container shipping, ports and global logistics: a time-lapse into the future. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 21(1), 1–60. https://doi.org/10.1057/S41278-018-00116-0/FIGURES/23
  12. Home | Ports & Maritime Organization. (2025). Retrieved February 13, 2025, from https://shahidrajaeeport.pmo.ir/en/home1
  13. Hossain, T., Adams, M., & Walker, T. R. (2019). Sustainability initiatives in Canadian ports. Marine Policy, 106, 103519. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MARPOL.2019.103519
  14. Hou, J., Shi, J., Chen, L., Zhang, Z., & Kuang, E. (2024). Exploring the spatial spillover effects of Yangtze River Delta ports on urban economic growth. PLoS ONE, 19(8). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307770
  15. Ignaccolo, M., Inturri, G., Giuffrida, N., & Torrisi, V. (2020). A Sustainable Framework for the Analysis of Port Systems.
  16. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action - Harvard Business School Press. https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=8831
  17. Karakas, S., Acar, A. Z., & Kirmizi, M. (2020). Development of a multidimensional performance evaluation model for container terminals at Marmara Sea. Research in Transportation Business and Management, 37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2020.100498
  18. Kishore, L., Pai, Y. P., Ghosh, B. K., & Pakkan, S. (2024). Maritime shipping ports performance: a systematic literature review. Discover Sustainability 2024 5:1, 5(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/S43621-024-00299-Y
  19. Krmac, E., & Mansouri Kaleibar, M. (2023). A comprehensive review of data envelopment analysis (DEA) methodology in port efficiency evaluation. Maritime Economics & Logistics 2022 25:4, 25(4), 817–881. https://doi.org/10.1057/S41278-022-00239-5
  20. Kurt, I., Aymelek, M., Boulougouris, E., & Turan, O. (2021). Operational cost analysis for a container shipping network integrated with offshore container port system: A case study on the West Coast of North America. Marine Policy, 126, 104400. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MARPOL.2021.104400
  21. Lim, S., Pettit, S., Abouarghoub, W., & Beresford, A. (2019). Port sustainability and performance: A systematic literature review. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 72, 47–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRD.2019.04.009
  22. Lu, C.-S., Shang, K.-C., & Lin, C.-C. (2016). Identifying crucial sustainability assessment criteria for container seaports. Maritime Business Review, 1(2), 90–106. https://doi.org/10.1108/mabr-05-2016-0009
  23. Mio, C., Costantini, A., & Panfilo, S. (2022). Performance measurement tools for sustainable business: A systematic literature review on the sustainability balanced scorecard use. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 29(2), 367–384. https://doi.org/10.1002/CSR.2206
  24. Mousavi, P., Yousefi Zenouz, R., & Hassanpoor, A. (2015). IDENTIFYING ORGANIZATIONAL INFORMATION SECURITY RISKS USING FUZZY DELPHI. 7(1), 163–184. https://sid.ir/paper/140465/en (In Persian)
  25. Ocampo, L. (2022). Full consistency method (FUCOM) and weighted sum under fuzzy information for evaluating the sustainability of farm tourism sites. Soft Computing, 26(22), 12481–12508. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00500-022-07184-8/TABLES/8
  26. Okay, N. C., Sencer, A., & Taskin, N. (2024). Quantitative indicators for environmental and social sustainability performance assessment of the supply chain. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10668-024-05210-3/TABLES/4
  27. Pamučar, D., Stević, Ž., & Sremac, S. (2018). A New Model for Determining Weight Coefficients of Criteria in MCDM Models: Full Consistency Method (FUCOM). Symmetry 2018, Vol. 10, Page 393, 10(9), 393. https://doi.org/10.3390/SYM10090393
  28. Puig, M., Wooldridge, C., Darbra, R. M., & Chair, E. (2023). ESPO Environmental Report-EcoPortsinSights 2022 3 PREPARED BY. www.ecoslc.eu
  29. Rodrigues, K. T., & Ensslin, S. R. (2024). Environmental performance evaluation in ports: a literature review and future research guidelines. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 26(2), 241–260. https://doi.org/10.1057/S41278-023-00268-8/METRICS
  30. Saaty, T. L. (2004). Decision making — the Analytic Hierarchy and Network Processes (AHP/ANP). Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering 2004 13:1, 13(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11518-006-0151-5
  31. Saaty, T. L., & Vargas, L. G. (2013). Decision Making with the Analytic Network Process. 195. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7279-7
  32. Sogut, M. Z., & Erdoğan, O. (2022). An investigation on a holistic framework of green port transition based on energy and environmental sustainability. Ocean Engineering, 266, 112671. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.OCEANENG.2022.112671
  33. Sorgenfrei, J. (2018). Port Business (2nd ed.). EBSCO.
  34. Stanković, J. J., Marjanović, I., Papathanasiou, J., & Drezgić, S. (2021). Social, economic and environmental sustainability of port regions: Mcdm approach in composite index creation. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 9(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse9010074
  35. Su, B., Zhao, R., & Xie, X. (2022). Measurement and comparative study of production and operation efficiency of Chinese ports under the background of high quality development. Https://Doi.Org/10.1117/12.2645783, 12302, 1369–1374. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2645783
  36. Talley, W. K. (1994, December). Performance indicators and port performance evaluation - ProQuest. https://www.proquest.com/openview/645080c00b164958aa86649ebc47987c/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=35644
  37. Teerawattana, R., & Yang, Y. C. (2019). Environmental Performance Indicators for Green Port Policy Evaluation: Case Study of Laem Chabang Port. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 35(1), 63–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AJSL.2019.03.009
  38. Tijan, E., Jović, M., Panjako, A., & Žgaljić, D. (2021). The role of port authority in port governance and port community system implementation. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(5), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052795
  39. Tongzon, J. L., & Ganesalingam, S. (1994). An Evaluation of ASEAN Port Performance and Efficiency*. Asian Economic Journal, 8(3), 317–330. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1467-8381.1994.TB00020.X
  40. (2024). Review of maritime transport 2024.
  41. Vega-Muñoz, A., Salazar-Sepulveda, G., Espinosa-Cristia, J. F., & Sanhueza-Vergara, J. (2021). How to measure environmental performance in ports. In Sustainability (Switzerland) (Vol. 13, Issue 7). MDPI AG. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13074035
  42. Wang, H., Daoutidis, P., & Zhang, Q. (2023). Ammonia-based green corridors for sustainable maritime transportation. Digital Chemical Engineering, 6, 100082. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.DCHE.2022.100082
  43. Yaghoubi, A., Amiri, M., & Safi Samghabadi, A. (2014). Designing a Hybrid Approach to Predict the Performance of Decision Making Units Based on Fuzzy Stochastic DEA and PCA.Journal of Industrial Management Perspective, 4(3), 157–176. https://jimp.sbu.ac.ir/article_87282_en.html (In Persian)

 

Journal of Industrial Management Perspective
Volume 15, Issue 3 - Serial Number 59
September 2025
Pages 118-140

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics