[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.2012.06.1253]Search 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.2009.06.012]Search 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.2012.045265]Search 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.2008.06.095]Search 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.2.2.113-119]Search in Google Scholar
[19. Nijkamp P. (1986), Infrastructure and regional development: A multidimensional policy analysis. Empirical Economics, 11(1), 1.10.1007/BF01978142]Search 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.2009.06.080]Search 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)90033-5]Search 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.33.4.442]Search 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.2010.02.140]Search 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.34.4.431]Search 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
