چشم‌انداز مدیریت صنعتی

چشم‌انداز مدیریت صنعتی

ارزیابی پایداری بنادر ایران بر پایه روش بهترین- بدترین کمینه‌گرا (PBWM): چالش‌ها و فرصت‌ها در راستای توسعه اقتصادی پایدار

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان
سارا ولیپور پرکوهی 1
حمیدرضا فلاح لاجیمی 2
علیرضا عرب 3
1 دانشجوی دکتری، گروه مدیریت صنعتی، دانشکده علوم اقتصادی و اداری، دانشگاه مازندران، بابلسر، ایران.
2 دانشیار، گروه مدیریت صنعتی، دانشکده علوم اقتصادی و اداری، دانشگاه مازندران، بابلسر، ایران.
3 استادیار، گروه مدیریت صنعتی، دانشکده علوم اقتصادی و اداری، دانشگاه مازندران، بابلسر، ایران.
10.48308/jimp.16.1.248
چکیده
مقدمه و اهداف: بنادر، به‌عنوان نقاط کلیدی در شبکه‌های لجستیکی جهانی، تحت‌تأثیر تحولات تجارت جهانی و تغییرات در حوزه‌های مرتبط مانند کشتیرانی همواره در حال تغییر و تطبیق است. در سال‌های اخیر، چالش‌هایی مانند افزایش آگاهی‌های زیست‌محیطی، فشارهای ناشی از مسئولیت اجتماعی و ضرورت اجرای عملیات اقتصادی پایدار، بنادر را به چالش کشیده‌اند. بنادر ایران به‌دلیل موقعیت ژئوپلیتیکی خاص و نقش کلیدی آن‌ها در حمل‌ونقل بین‌المللی، از اهمیت ویژه‌ای برخوردارند و نقش به سزایی در رشد و توسعه اقتصادی کشور ایفا می‌کنند. با توسعه زیرساخت‌های بندری، استفاده از فناوری‌های نوین در مدیریت عملیات، بهبود بهره‌وری انرژی و افزایش تعاملات تجاری با کشورهای همسایه، فرصت‌های قابل‌توجهی برای توسعه اقتصادی پایدار ایجاد می‌شود. همچنین، توسعه صنایع وابسته به بنادر، از جمله لجستیک، حمل‌ونقل و مناطق آزاد تجاری، می‌تواند به افزایش اشتغال، جذب سرمایه‌گذاری خارجی و رشد اقتصادی منجر شود. این تحقیق قصد دارد به بررسی پایداری 14 بندر مهم ایران در هر سه بعد پایداری شامل اقتصادی، زیست‌محیطی و اجتماعی بپردازد و راهکارهایی برای استفاده بهینه از ظرفیت‌های موجود در جهت تحقق توسعه اقتصادی پایدار ارائه دهد.
روش‌ها: در این مطالعه برای ارزیابی پایداری بنادر از روش نوین بهترین- بدترین کمینه‌گرا استفاده شده‌است. این روش مانند روش کلاسیک خود با شناسایی بهترین و بدترین معیار در مقایسات زوجی از بروز سوگیری یکسان‌نگری و سوگیری لنگراندازی جلوگیری می‌کند. با این حال، برتری این روش نسبت به نوع کلاسیک خود این است که برخلاف BWM کلاسیک که تنها برای 9 معیار یا گزینه استفاده می‌شود، در این روش در صورتی که تعداد گزینه یا معیار بیشتر از 9 تا باشد می‌توان با انتخاب گزینه‌های مرجع و مقایسات زوجی آنان را بررسی نمود.
یافته‌ها: نتایج این پژوهش نشان‌می‌دهد از 14 بندر، چهار بندر ایران در هر سه بعد پایداری، عملکردی مطلوب داشته‌اند. این امر نشان‌دهنده توانمندی این بنادر در مدیریت مؤثر منابع و ایجاد تعادل میان توسعه اقتصادی و حفظ محیط‌زیست می‌باشد. علاوه بر این، تعامل مثبت با جوامع محلی و توجه به مسئولیت‌های اجتماعی، نقش مهمی در بهبود وضعیت این بنادر ایفا کرده است. از سوی دیگر، سه بندر ایران به علت ضعف‌های ناشی از کمبود سرمایه‌گذاری، مدیریت ناکارآمد، یا عدم توجه کافی به مسائل زیست‌محیطی و اجتماعی در رتبه‌های پایانی قرار گرفته‌اند. در نتیجه، این بنادر نیازمند بازنگری در سیاست‌ها و اتخاذ راهکارهای نوین برای بهبود وضعیت فعلی و افزایش رقابت‌پذیری خود هستند.
نتیجه‌گیری: این پژوهش با ارزیابی وضعیت پایداری ۱۴ بندر اصلی ایران، بر اهمیت بازنگری در زیرساخت‌ها، ارتقای فرآیندهای مدیریتی و اتخاذ راهبردهای نوآورانه تأکید دارد تا زمینه‌ساز بهبود رقابت‌پذیری پایدار شود. این امر می‌تواند نقش بنادر ایران را در زنجیره تجارت بین‌المللی تقویت کرده و به توسعه اقتصادی و بهره‌وری بیشتر در سطح ملی و منطقه‌ای منجر شود. همچنین، توجه به ابعاد زیست‌محیطی و اجتماعی در توسعه بنادر می‌تواند به ایجاد تعادل میان رشد اقتصادی و حفظ محیط‌زیست کمک کند، که این خود به پایداری بلندمدت بنادر یاری می‌رساند. بنابراین، پیشنهاد می‌شود که سیاست‌گذاران و مدیران بنادر با اتخاذ استراتژی‌های جامع و پایدار، گام‌های مؤثری در جهت بهبود عملکرد بنادر بردارند تا بتوانند در رقابت جهانی جایگاه مطلوبی کسب کنند و به توسعه پایدار کشور کمک نمایند.
کلیدواژه‌ها
بندر
پایداری
روش بهترین- بدترین کمینه‌گرا
اقتصادی
زیست‌محیطی
اجتماعی
موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

Evaluation of the Sustainability of Iranian Ports Based on The Parsimonious Best-Worst Method (PBWM): Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Economic Development

نویسندگان English

Sara Valipour Parkouhi 1
Hamidreza Fallah Lajimi 2
Alireza Arab 3
1 Ph.D. Student, Department of Industrial Management, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran.
2 Associate Professor, Department of Industrial Management, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran.
3 Assistant Professor, Department of Industrial Management, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran.
چکیده English

Introduction. Ports, as key points in global logistics networks, are constantly evolving and adapting due to developments in global trade and changes in related sectors such as shipping. In recent years, challenges such as growing environmental awareness, social responsibility pressures, and the necessity of sustainable economic practices have challenged ports. Iranian ports, due to their strategic geopolitical position and vital role in international transportation, are of particular significance. They play a key role in the country's economic growth and development. The development of port infrastructure, the application of modern technologies in operations management, improvements in energy efficiency, and the enhancement of trade interactions with neighboring countries create significant opportunities for sustainable economic development. Furthermore, the development of industries related to ports, such as logistics, transportation, and free trade zones, can lead to increased employment, foreign investment, and economic growth. This study aims to examine the sustainability of 14 major Iranian ports in all three dimensions of sustainability—economic, environmental, and social—and to propose strategies for optimal utilization of available capacities in order to achieve sustainable economic development.
Methods. In this study, the Parsimonious Best-Worst Method (PBWM) is used to assess the sustainability of ports. Similar to the classical BWM, this approach prevents the occurrence of equalization bias and anchoring bias by identifying the best and worst attributes through pairwise comparisons. However, its superiority over the classical version lies in the fact that, unlike the traditional BWM—which can only be applied to a maximum of nine criteria or alternatives—this method allows for cases involving more than nine criteria or alternatives. In such situations, reference alternatives can be selected, and pairwise comparisons are then conducted based on these references.
Results and discussion. The results of this study indicate that, among the 14 ports examined, four Iranian ports performed favorably across all three dimensions of sustainability. This demonstrates the capacity of these ports to effectively manage resources while striking a balance between economic development and environmental preservation. Furthermore, positive engagement with local communities and attention to social responsibilities have played a significant role in enhancing their performance. Besides, three Iranian ports were ranked at the lower end as a result of shortcomings such as insufficient investment, ineffective management, or inadequate attention to environmental and social issues. Consequently, these ports require a reassessment of their policies and the adoption of innovative strategies to improve their current situation and enhance their competitiveness.
Conclusions. This study, by evaluating the sustainability of 14 major ports in Iran, emphasizes the importance of revisiting infrastructure, enhancing management processes, and adopting innovative strategies to improve sustainable competitiveness. These efforts could strengthen the role of Iranian ports in the global trade network and contribute to national and regional economic development, leading to greater productivity. Furthermore, considering the environmental and social dimensions in port development can help strike a balance between economic growth and environmental preservation, thereby contributing to the long-term sustainability of ports. Therefore, it is recommended that policymakers and port managers adopt comprehensive and sustainable strategies to enhance port performance. By doing so, they can secure a competitive position in the global arena and contribute to the sustainable development of the country.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Port
Sustainability
Parsimonious Best-Worst Method (PBWM)
Economical
Environmental
Social
1.     Abkenar, Z. A., Lajimi, H. F., Hamedi, M., & Parkouhi, S. V. (2022). Determining the importance of barriers to IoT implementation using bayesian best-worst method. Advances in Best-Worst Method: Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Best-Worst Method (BWM2021),
2.     Ak, M. F., Yucesan, M., & Gul, M. (2022). Occupational health, safety and environmental risk assessment in textile production industry through a Bayesian BWM-VIKOR approach. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 36(2), 629-642.
3.     Asgari, N., Hassani, A., Jones, D., & Nguye, H. H. (2015). Sustainability ranking of the UK major ports: Methodology and case study. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 78, 19-39.
4.     Bartosiewicz, A., & Kucharski, A. (2023). Indicators of port sustainability: The example of Baltic Sea container ports. Sustainable Development.
5.     Batalha, E., Chen, S.-L., Pateman, H., & Zhang, W. (2023). Defining a social role for ports: managers’ perspectives on whats and whys. Sustainability, 15(3), 2646.
6.     Brauers, W. K. M., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2011). MULTIMOORA optimization used to decide on a bank loan to buy property. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 17(1), 174-188.
7.     Caliskan, A. (2022). Seaports participation in enhancing the sustainable development goals. Journal of Cleaner Production, 379, 134715.
8.     Corrente, S., Greco, S., & Rezaei, J. (2024). Better decisions with less cognitive load: The Parsimonious BWM. Omega, 126, 103075.
9.     Dui, H., Zheng, X., & Wu, S. (2021). Resilience analysis of maritime transportation systems based on importance measures. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 209, 107461.
10.  Dushenko, M., Thærie Bjorbæk, C., & Steger-Jensen, K. (2018). Application of a sustainability model for assessing the relocation of a container terminal: A case study of kristiansand port. Sustainability, 11(1), 87.
11.  Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business strategy and the environment, 11(2), 130-141.
12.  Eggert, J., & Hartmann, J. (2023). Sustainable supply chain management–a key to resilience in the global pandemic. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 28(3), 486-507.
13.  Emad, G., & Yeganeh, S. (2015). Identify and assessment of Sustainable Development Indexes and Their Implementation level in Iranian Port Development Plans (Case Study: ShahidBeheshti Port) (in persian) The first national conference on sea-based sustainable development, 
14.  Fadiga, A., Ferreira, L. M. D., & Bigotte, J. F. (2024). Decarbonising maritime ports: A systematic review of the literature and insights for new research opportunities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142209.
15.  Fattahi, M., & Kaveh, M. (2021). Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to examine the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of transit at Amirabad Port with a blue ocean approach (in persian). Imam Khomeini University University of Marine Science and Technology, 25(99). https://doi.org/10.22034/ijmst.2021.240164
16.  Felício, J. A., Batista, M., Dooms, M., & Caldeirinha, V. (2023). How do sustainable port practices influence local communities’ perceptions of ports? Maritime Economics & Logistics, 25(2), 351-380.
17.  González Laxe, F., Martín Bermúdez, F., Martín Palmero, F., & Novo-Corti, I. (2019). Sustainability at Spanish ports specialized in liquid bulk: evolution in times of crisis (2010–2015). Maritime Policy & Management, 46(4), 491-507.
18.  Hossain, T., Adams, M., & Walker, T. R. (2021). Role of sustainability in global seaports. Ocean & Coastal Management, 202, 105435.
19.  Hussein, K., & Song, D.-W. (2024). Port supply chain integration and sustainability: a resource-based view. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 35(2), 504-530.
20.  Jugović, A., Sirotić, M., & Poletan Jugović, T. (2022). Identification of pivotal factors influencing the establishment of green port governance models: A bibliometric analysis, content analysis, and DPSIR Framework. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 10(11), 1701.
21.  Junior, I. C. L., de Oliveira, U. R., de Almeida Guimarães, V., Ribeiro, L. G., & Fernandes, V. A. (2022). Probabilistic analysis of the sustainable performance of container terminals. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 43, 100725.
22.  Karimi, F., Haghighat Monfared, J., & Keramati, M. (2024). Evaluating the resilience and sustainability of the supply chain with the integrated approach of the theory of constraints, process approach and multi-criteria decision making (Case of study: Offshore sector of the Oil Industry). Journal of Industrial Management Perspective, 14(2), 34-65.
23.  Khalifeh, M., & Caliskan, A. (2025). The role of port smartness in achieving sustainable development goals. Maritime Policy & Management, 52(1), 106-120.
24.  Kim, S., Choi, S., & Kim, C. (2021). The framework for measuring port resilience in Korean port case. Sustainability, 13(21), 11883.
25.  Laxe, F. G., Bermúdez, F. M., Palmero, F. M., & Novo-Corti, I. (2016). Sustainability and the Spanish port system. Analysis of the relationship between economic and environmental indicators. Marine pollution bulletin, 113(1-2), 232-239.
26.  Le, T. T., Nguyen, H. P., Rudzki, K., Rowiński, L., Bui, V. D., Truong, T. H., Le, H. C., & Pham, N. D. K. (2023). Management strategy for seaports aspiring to green logistical goals of IMO: Technology and policy solutions. Polish Maritime Research, 30(2), 165-187.
27.  León-Mateos, F., Sartal, A., López-Manuel, L., & Quintas, M. A. (2021). Adapting our sea ports to the challenges of climate change: Development and validation of a Port Resilience Index. Marine Policy, 130, 104573.
28.  Lian, Z. (2024). Sustainable synergistic development of marine economic degree growth and marine art industry. Journal of Sea Research, 198, 102474.
29.  Liang, F., Brunelli, M., & Rezaei, J. (2020). Consistency issues in the best worst method: Measurements and thresholds. Omega, 96, 102175.
30.  Liang, F., Brunelli, M., & Rezaei, J. (2022). Best-worst tradeoff method. Information sciences, 610, 957-976.
31.  Liu, M., Lai, K.-h., Wong, C. W., Xin, X., & Lun, V. Y. (2025). Smart ports for sustainable shipping: concept and practices revisited through the case study of China’s Tianjin port. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 27(1), 50-95.
32.  Majidi, A., Mirzapour Al-e-Hashem, S. M., & Hashemkhani Zolfani, S. (2021). Sustainability ranking of the Iranian major ports by using MCDM methods. Mathematics, 9(19), 2451.
33.  Makarova, I., Buyvol, P., Mukhametdinov, E., & Boyko, A. (2023). The Construction of Seaports in the Arctic: Prospects and Environmental Consequences. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 11(10), 1902.
34.  Moeremans, B., Dooms, M., & Haezendonck, E. (2023). Long-term analysis of traffic flows in European inland ports: implications for the port–city interface. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 25(2), 272-300.
35.  Moghaddam, M., & Sadaghi, S. M. (2022). Developing the strategic orientation of Jask Port using the SWOT model (in persian). Journal of Oceanography, 13(49), 26-37.
36.  Molina-Serrano, B., González-Cancelas, N., & Soler-Flores, F. (2020). Analysis of the port sustainability parameters through Bayesian networks. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 6, 100030.
37.  Moslem, S. (2025). Evaluating commuters' travel mode choice using the Z-number extension of Parsimonious Best Worst Method. Applied Soft Computing, 173, 112918.
38.  Negri, M., Cagno, E., Colicchia, C., & Sarkis, J. (2021). Integrating sustainability and resilience in the supply chain: A systematic literature review and a research agenda. Business strategy and the environment, 30(7), 2858-2886.
39.  Othman, A., El-gazzar, S., & Knez, M. (2022). A framework for adopting a sustainable smart sea port index. Sustainability, 14(8), 4551.
40.  Özispa, N., & Arabelen, G. (2018). Sustainability issues in ports: content analysis and review of the literature (1987-2017). SHS Web of Conferences,
41.  Puig, M., Wooldridge, C., & Darbra, R. M. (2014). Identification and selection of environmental performance indicators for sustainable port development. Marine pollution bulletin, 81(1), 124-130.
42.  Rafiei, M., Movahedi Sobhani, F., & Hadji Molana, M. (2023). Sustainable Supply Chain Planning of a Pharmacitucal Holding using Supply Hub. Journal of Industrial Management Perspective, 13(1), 241-279.
43.  Rezaei, J. (2015). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega, 53, 49-57.
44.  Rezaei, J., Arab, A., & Mehregan, M. (2022). Equalizing bias in eliciting attribute weights in multiattribute decision‐making: experimental research. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 35(2), e2262.
45.  Rezaei, J., Arab, A., & Mehregan, M. (2024). Analyzing anchoring bias in attribute weight elicitation of SMART, Swing, and best‐worst method. International Transactions in Operational Research, 31(2), 918-948.
46.  Roh, S., Thai, V. V., Jang, H., & Yeo, G.-T. (2023). The best practices of port sustainable development: a case study in Korea. Maritime Policy & Management, 50(2), 254-280.
47.  Saner, H. S., Yucesan, M., & Gul, M. (2022). A Bayesian BWM and VIKOR-based model for assessing hospital preparedness in the face of disasters. Natural hazards, 111(2), 1603-1635.
48.  Sarker, M. R., Moktadir, M. A., & Santibanez-Gonzalez, E. D. (2021). Social sustainability challenges towards flexible supply chain management: Post-COVID-19 perspective. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 22(Suppl 2), 199-218.
49.  Seifbarghy, M. (2022). A Multi-Objective Sustainable Closed Loop Supply Chain Model Considering Suppliers Evaluation and using SWARA-WASPAS Method. The Journal of Industrial Management Perspective, 12 (3), 63-88.
50.  Shafiabadi, H., & Yousefi, H. (2017). Identifying and ranking the indicators that affect the sustainability assessment of Iranian dry ports (in persian) 19th Marine Industries Conference, 
51.  Sharaan, M., Ibrahim, M. G., Moubarak, H., ElKut, A. E., Romya, A. A., Hamouda, M., Soliman, A., & Iskander, M. (2024). A Qualitative Analysis of Climate Impacts on Egyptian Ports. Sustainability, 16(3), 1015.
52.  Sheikh, W., Chowdhury, M. M. H., & Mahmud, K. K. (2023). A comprehensive performance measurement model for maritime Logistics: Sustainability and policy approach. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 14, 101097.
53.  Slawinski, N., & Bansal, P. (2011). Managing the time paradox in business sustainability. Academy of Management Proceedings,
54.  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.
55.  Styliadis, T., Angelopoulos, J., Leonardou, P., & Pallis, P. (2022). Promoting sustainability through assessment and measurement of port externalities: a systematic literature review and future research paths. Sustainability, 14(14), 8403.
56.  Tadić, S., Krstić, M., Roso, V., & Brnjac, N. (2020). Dry port terminal location selection by applying the hybrid grey MCDM model. Sustainability, 12(17), 6983.
57.  Tang, D., Chen, Z., Xu, C., Yuan, Y., Zhong, X., & Yuan, C. (2023). Energy consumption and emissions analysis of large container seaports considering the impact of COVID-19: A case study of Ningbo Zhoushan Port. Ocean & Coastal Management, 244, 106781.
58.  Wu, Q., Liu, X., Zhou, L., Qin, J., & Rezaei, J. (2024). An analytical framework for the best–worst method. Omega, 123, 102974.
59.  www.pmo.ir. (2018). 
60.  Yalcin Kavus, B., Ayyildiz, E., Gulum Tas, P., & Taskin, A. (2023). A hybrid Bayesian BWM and Pythagorean fuzzy WASPAS-based decision-making framework for parcel locker location selection problem. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(39), 90006-90023.