[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i7p5730-d1106746.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Extending Quality Function Deployment and Analytic Hierarchy Process under Interval-Valued Fuzzy Environment for Evaluating Port Sustainability

Author

Listed:
  • Yu-Jie Wang

    (Department of Shipping and Transportation Management, National Penghu University of Science and Technology, Penghu 880, Taiwan)

Abstract
To confront the related problems of environmental protection, energy saving, and carbon reduction, sustainability has been a prominent issue for enterprises seeking to meet the requirements of the Earth Summit’ sustainable development goals (SDGs). Basically, sustainability evaluation of enterprises must be considered from environmental, social, and economic perspectives, recognized as quality requirements. Numerous enterprises, especially for international ports, must pay attention to these requirements in expressing their corporate social responsibility (CSR) for decreasing marine pollution. Practically, the three requirements may be dependent under uncertain environments, and rationally evaluated by fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making (FMCDM) with dependent evaluation criteria (DEC). In other words, evaluating port sustainability, containing location expanding, should belong to FMCDM with DEC. For DEC under uncertain environments, fuzzy extension of the analytic network process (ANP) is a feasible solution to solve the above problems. However, fuzzy computations of ANP are heavily complicated; thus, we desire to combine quality function deployment (QFD) with the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) under the interval-valued fuzzy environment (IVFE) into a hybrid method for evaluating port sustainability. In numerous multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) efforts, AHP was often extended into FMCDM to encompass the imprecision and vagueness of data, but the extension was properly used for FMCDM with independent evaluation criteria (IDEC). Herein, QFD is utilized to express the dependent relationships between criteria, and thus transforms IDEC into DEC for the evaluation of port sustainability. Through the hybrid method, QFD is combined with AHP to replace ANP under IVFE, the complicated ties of ANP-corresponding interval-valued fuzzy numbers (IVFNs) are overcome, and the problem of evaluating port sustainability is rationally solved.

Suggested Citation

  • Yu-Jie Wang, 2023. "Extending Quality Function Deployment and Analytic Hierarchy Process under Interval-Valued Fuzzy Environment for Evaluating Port Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-19, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:7:p:5730-:d:1106746
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/7/5730/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/7/5730/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. R. E. Bellman & L. A. Zadeh, 1970. "Decision-Making in a Fuzzy Environment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 141-164, December.
    2. Wang, Ying-Ming & Luo, Ying & Hua, Zhongsheng, 2008. "On the extent analysis method for fuzzy AHP and its applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(2), pages 735-747, April.
    3. Lin, Ling-Zhong & Yeh, Huery-Ren & Wang, Ming-Chao, 2015. "Integration of Kano’s model into FQFD for Taiwanese Ban-Doh banquet culture," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 245-262.
    4. Gin-Shuh Liang, 2010. "Applying fuzzy quality function deployment to identify service management requirements for customer quality needs," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 47-57, January.
    5. Yu-Jie Wang, 2022. "Interval-Valued Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision-Making by Combining Analytic Hierarchy Process with Utility Representation Function," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(05), pages 1433-1465, September.
    6. Chang, Da-Yong, 1996. "Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 649-655, December.
    7. Leung, L. C. & Cao, D., 2000. "On consistency and ranking of alternatives in fuzzy AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 124(1), pages 102-113, July.
    8. Zhu, Ke-Jun & Jing, Yu & Chang, Da-Yong, 1999. "A discussion on Extent Analysis Method and applications of fuzzy AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(2), pages 450-456, July.
    9. Joalland, Olivier & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre, 2023. "Developing large-scale offshore wind power programs: A choice experiment analysis in France," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(PA).
    10. Liang, Gin-Shuh, 1999. "Fuzzy MCDM based on ideal and anti-ideal concepts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 112(3), pages 682-691, February.
    11. Chan, Lai-Kow & Wu, Ming-Lu, 2002. "Quality function deployment: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 143(3), pages 463-497, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wei Liu & Jiaqi Chen & Yinan Fei & Ziyan Hu & Changlong Yu & Wa Gao, 2024. "A Design Study on Commercial Cleaning Robots Based on Kano–QFD," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(20), pages 1-18, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rezaei, Jafar & Ortt, Roland, 2013. "Multi-criteria supplier segmentation using a fuzzy preference relations based AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 225(1), pages 75-84.
    2. Faramondi, Luca & Oliva, Gabriele & Setola, Roberto & Bozóki, Sándor, 2023. "Robustness to rank reversal in pairwise comparison matrices based on uncertainty bounds," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 304(2), pages 676-688.
    3. Zhü, Kèyù, 2014. "Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: Fallacy of the popular methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 236(1), pages 209-217.
    4. Heo, Eunnyeong & Kim, Jinsoo & Boo, Kyung-Jin, 2010. "Analysis of the assessment factors for renewable energy dissemination program evaluation using fuzzy AHP," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 14(8), pages 2214-2220, October.
    5. Nitidetch Koohathongsumrit & Pongchanun Luangpaiboon, 2022. "An integrated FAHP–ZODP approach for strategic marketing information system project selection," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(6), pages 1792-1809, September.
    6. Hsin-Chieh Wu & Toly Chen & Chin-Hau Huang, 2020. "A Piecewise Linear FGM Approach for Efficient and Accurate FAHP Analysis: Smart Backpack Design as an Example," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-18, August.
    7. Grošelj, Petra & Hodges, Donald G. & Zadnik Stirn, Lidija, 2016. "Participatory and multi-criteria analysis for forest (ecosystem) management: A case study of Pohorje, Slovenia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 80-86.
    8. Olcer, A. I. & Odabasi, A. Y., 2005. "A new fuzzy multiple attributive group decision making methodology and its application to propulsion/manoeuvring system selection problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 166(1), pages 93-114, October.
    9. Paweł Karczmarek & Witold Pedrycz & Adam Kiersztyn, 2021. "Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process in a Graphical Approach," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 463-481, April.
    10. Mohamed Hanine & Omar Boutkhoum & Abderrafie El Maknissi & Abdessadek Tikniouine & Tarik Agouti, 2016. "Decision making under uncertainty using PEES–fuzzy AHP–fuzzy TOPSIS methodology for landfill location selection," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 36(4), pages 351-367, December.
    11. María Carmen Carnero & Andrés Gómez, 2019. "Optimization of Decision Making in the Supply of Medicinal Gases Used in Health Care," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-31, May.
    12. Kahraman, Cengiz & Cebeci, Ufuk & Ruan, Da, 2004. "Multi-attribute comparison of catering service companies using fuzzy AHP: The case of Turkey," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 171-184, January.
    13. Satish Tyagi, 2016. "An improved fuzzy-AHP (IFAHP) approach to compare SECI modes," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(15), pages 4520-4536, August.
    14. Keon Chul Park & Dong-Hee Shin, 2017. "Security assessment framework for IoT service," Telecommunication Systems: Modelling, Analysis, Design and Management, Springer, vol. 64(1), pages 193-209, January.
    15. Tolga, Ethem & Demircan, Murat Levent & Kahraman, Cengiz, 2005. "Operating system selection using fuzzy replacement analysis and analytic hierarchy process," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(1), pages 89-117, July.
    16. Durbach, Ian N. & Stewart, Theodor J., 2012. "Modeling uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(1), pages 1-14.
    17. Tsai, Pei-Hsuan & Tang, Jia-Wei & Chen, Chih-Jou, 2022. "Partnerships that go places: How to successfully market products from vendor partners at retail stores from the vendors’ perspective," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    18. Pandey, Mukesh Mohan, 2020. "Evaluating the strategic design parameters of airports in Thailand to meet service expectations of Low-Cost Airlines using the Fuzzy-based QFD method," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    19. Mikhailov, L., 2004. "A fuzzy approach to deriving priorities from interval pairwise comparison judgements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 159(3), pages 687-704, December.
    20. Sajid Ali & Sang-Moon Lee & Choon-Man Jang, 2017. "Determination of the Most Optimal On-Shore Wind Farm Site Location Using a GIS-MCDM Methodology: Evaluating the Case of South Korea," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-22, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:7:p:5730-:d:1106746. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.