1. bookVolume 15 (2014): Edition 4 (December 2014)
Détails du magazine
License
Format
Magazine
eISSN
1407-6179
Première parution
20 Mar 2000
Périodicité
4 fois par an
Langues
Anglais
Accès libre

Optimization of Decision-Making in Port Logistics Terminals: Using Analytic Hierarchy Process for the Case of Port of Thessaloniki

Publié en ligne: 19 Dec 2014
Volume & Edition: Volume 15 (2014) - Edition 4 (December 2014)
Pages: 255 - 268
Détails du magazine
License
Format
Magazine
eISSN
1407-6179
Première parution
20 Mar 2000
Périodicité
4 fois par an
Langues
Anglais

1. Adamos, G., Nathanail, E. and Zacharaki, E. (2012). Developing Decision-Making framework for Collaborative Practices in Long-Short Distance Transport Interconnection. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 48, 2012, 2849-2859.10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.1253Search in Google Scholar

2. Al-fatah A. and Karasneh A. (2012). Improving Decision Making: Route Optimization Techniques for Aqaba Sea Port in Jordan. International Journal of Business and Management, 7 (9).Search in Google Scholar

3. Arnold J. (2006). Best Practices in Management of International Trade Corridors. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank.Search in Google Scholar

4. Charnes A. and Cooper W. (1961). Management models and industrial applications of linear programming, New York: Wiley.Search in Google Scholar

5. Chen M. K. and Wang S. (2010). The critical factors of success for information service industry in developing international market: Using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 37, 694-704.10.1016/j.eswa.2009.06.012Search in Google Scholar

6. Christiansen, P., Johansen, B.G., Andersen, J. and Eidhammer, O. (2012). Case studies: Results and synthesis. Deliverable 5.2. CLOSER project.Search in Google Scholar

7. De Brucker K, Verbeke A. and Macharis C. (2004). The applicability of Multi-Criteria Analysis to the evaluation of Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS). Economic Impacts of Intelligent Transportation Systems: Innovations and Case Studies: Research in Transportation Economics, 8, 151-179.Search in Google Scholar

8. Eckhardt, J., Hietajärvi, A-M., Rönty, J., Andersen, J. & Eidhammer, O. (2012). Guidance and recommendations for interconnection between long distance and local/regional freight transport. D6.2. CLOSER project.Search in Google Scholar

9. Eckhardt J. et al. (2013). Transport corridor management structure. Bothnian Green Logistic Corridor project.Search in Google Scholar

10. Gogas M. and Nathanail E. (2010). Multi-optimization techniques for the design of freight terminals network. In: the Proceedings of 5th International Congress on Transportation Research in Greece, Volos, September 2010.Search in Google Scholar

11. Gogas M., Papoutsis K. and Nathanail E. (2013). The impact of management structures and decision making models of “green” logistics terminals on their performance. In: the Proceedings of International Conference on Reliability and Statistics (RelStat), Riga, October, 2013.Search in Google Scholar

12. Huynh N. and Vidal J. M. (2012). A novel methodology for modelling yard cranes at seaport terminals to support planning and real-time decision making. Int. J. of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, 7 (1), 62 - 91.10.1504/IJSSCA.2012.045265Search in Google Scholar

13. IMONODE consortium (2005)a. Development of nodal points and terminals: Efficient Integration of Cargo Transport Modes and Nodes in CADSES area. IMONODE project.Search in Google Scholar

14. IMONODE consortium (2005)b. Promoting intermodal freight transport in S.E. Europe - Analysis of the existing situation and first strategic results of the IMONODE project. IMONODE project.Search in Google Scholar

15. Karel W. and Brauers M. (2013). Multi-objective seaport planning by MOORA decision making. Annals of Operations Research, 206 (1), 39-58.Search in Google Scholar

16. Li S. and Li J. Z. (2009). Hybridising human judgment, AHP, simulation and a fuzzy expert system for strategy formulation under uncertainty. Expert Systems with Applications, 36, 5557-5564.10.1016/j.eswa.2008.06.095Search in Google Scholar

17. Nathanail, E., Adamos, G., Parra L., Ruiz-Ayucar, E., L’ Hostis, A., Blanquart, C., Olsen, S., Christiansen, P., Osland, O., Järvi, T., Svedova, Z. Zan, B., (2011). Deliverable D4.1. - Analysis of the Decision-Making Framework. CLOSER Project.Search in Google Scholar

18. Nathanail E. G., Gogas M. A. and Papoutsis K. N. (2014). Investigation of Stakeholders’ View towards the introduction of ICT in Supply Chain using Analytic Hierarchy Process. Journal of Traffic and Logistics Engineering, 2 (2), 113-119.10.12720/jtle.2.2.113-119Search in Google Scholar

19. Nijkamp P. (1986), Infrastructure and regional development: A multidimensional policy analysis. Empirical Economics, 11(1), 1.10.1007/BF01978142Search in Google Scholar

20. Nijkamp, P., Rietveld, P. and Voogd H. (1990). Multicriteria Evaluation in Physical Planning. North-Holland. Amsterdam.Search in Google Scholar

21. Önüt S., Efendigil T., Soner Kara S. (2010). A combined fuzzy MCDM approach for selecting shopping center site: An example from Istanbul, Turkey. Expert Systems with Applications, 37 (3), 1973-1980.10.1016/j.eswa.2009.06.080Search in Google Scholar

22. Permala, A. &Rantasila, K. (2010) Best Practices Handbook. ENABLE Deliverable 2.1.Search in Google Scholar

23. Phuong T. and Chapman D. M. (2006). Seaport development in Vietnam: Evaluation using the AHP. In Using multi criteria decision analysis in natural resource management. Ashgate studies in environmental and natural resource economics.Search in Google Scholar

24. Saaty T. (1972). An eigenvalue allocation model for prioritization and planning in Working paper, Energy Management and Policy Center: University of Pennsylvania.Search in Google Scholar

25. Saaty T. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15, 234-281.10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5Search in Google Scholar

26. Saaty T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill International, New York, NY, USA.Search in Google Scholar

27. Saaty, T. L. (1988). The analytic hierarchy process (McGraw-Hil.). New York.Search in Google Scholar

28. Ssebuggwawo D., Hoppenbrouwers S. J. B. A., and Proper H. A. (2010) Group Decision Making in Collaborative Modeling: Aggregating Individual Preferences with AHP. In: Digital Proceedings of the 4th SIKS conference in Enterprise Information Systems (EIS 2009), Ravenstein, 2010.Search in Google Scholar

29. Stillwell W., Von Winterfeldt D. and John R. (1987). Comparing hierarchical and non-hierarchical weighting methods for eliciting multi-attribute value models. Management Science, 33, 442-450.10.1287/mnsc.33.4.442Search in Google Scholar

30. STRAIGHTSOL Consortium (2012). Deliverable D3.2 Stakeholders, criteria and weights.Search in Google Scholar

31. Su S., Yu J. and Zhang J. (2010). Measurements study on sustainability of China's mining cities. Expert Systems with Applications, Volume 37 (8), 6028-6035.10.1016/j.eswa.2010.02.140Search in Google Scholar

32. Transportation Research Board National Cooperative Highway Research Program (TRB/NCHRP) (2004). Cooperative Agreements on Corridor Management, Synthesis 337 - A synthesis of highway practice. Transport Research Board of National Academies.Search in Google Scholar

33. Triantaphyllou E. and Mann S. H. (1995). Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process for Decision Making in engineering applications: some challenges. International Journal of Industrial Engineering: Applications and Practice, 2 (1), 35-44.Search in Google Scholar

34. Weber M., Eisenführ F. and Von Winterfeldt D. (1988). The Effects of Spitting Attributes on Weights in Multiattribute Utility Measurement. Management Science, 34, 431-445.10.1287/mnsc.34.4.431Search in Google Scholar

35. Williams, K.M. and Hopes, C. (2007). Guide for Analysis of Corridor Management Policies and Practices. Centre for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR).Search in Google Scholar

36. World Bank (2005). Best Practices in Corridor Management. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD).Search in Google Scholar

Articles recommandés par Trend MD

Planifiez votre conférence à distance avec Sciendo