IJOH I NTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL HYGIENE

Copyright © 2021 by Iranian Occupational Health Association (IOHA)

eISSN: 2008-5435

DOI: 10.18502/ijoh.v13i2.8369 ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Evaluating Ports Environmental Performance based on the Fuzzy

Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP)

ALIJAN ALI AKBARI1, FARZAM BABAEI SAMIROMI*2, REZA ARJMANDI2, MASOUMEH SHOJAEI3
1
Department Environmental Management, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran
2
Department of Environmental Management, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran
3
Department of Environmental Engineering, Islamic Azad University, Parand Branch, Tehran, Iran

Received March 08, 2021; Revised June 11, 2021; Accepted June 13, 2021

This paper is available on-line at http://ijoh.tums.ac.ir

ABSTRACT
Appropriate environmental performance is considered one of the most important indicators in the sustainable development
of organizations and industries. Evaluating the environmental performance in ports as one of the two main parts of the
maritime transport system is of particular importance. Therefore, the current study was designed and conducted to develop
a method for evaluating the environmental performance of ports based on the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP). In
the present study, 22 experts in the field of environment and marine sciences were selected in 2020. Firstly, various studies
on the factors affecting the environmental performance of ports were reviewed. Secondly, a questionnaire was designed to
assess ports’ environmental performance. Thirdly, this questionnaire was developed using the Delphi technique. Finally, by
determining the weight of each parameter, the method of environmental performance assessment in ports was developed
based on the FAHP. The final normalized weights for six environmental performance factors including reactive and
proactive performance, sustainability, socio-cultural, economic, and governance were estimated 0.202, 0.241, 0.226, 0.070,
0.080, and 0.182. Additionally, it was found that each of the parameters had a different weight and impact on these factors.
The highest and lowest impact on the environmental performance index belonged to environmental risk assessment
(weight=0.217), cultural effects, and justice (weight=0.107). In the current study, a new method was developed for
evaluating the environmental performance of ports based on six factors, 32 parameters, and FAHP. Therefore, this method
may provide an effective step in reducing environmental impacts and improving the level of environmental performance in
ports to achieve the goal of green port.

KEYWORDS: Environmental Performance; Environmental Impacts; Green Port; Analytic Hierarchy Process
(AHP); Fuzzy Logic

Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Tehran University of Medical Sciences.

151 | IJOH | June 2021 | Vol. 13 | No. 2 Aliakbari A. et al.

INTRODUCTION
Maritime transportation plays an important role in statistics, the economic growth in developed countries
international trade. About four-fifths of world trade is is more remarkable than that in other countries. The
done by sea and ports. The share of developing countries economic growth, alongside the industrial growth, will
in maritime transport in world trade is even higher [1-2]. naturally lead to an increase in the consumption of
Where ships and ports are the two main parts of the energy resources. Increasing energy consumption has
maritime transport system. Despite the environmentally a significant impact on increasing industrial pollutants
friendly nature of maritime transportation, in maritime [7].
transportation growth literature, the adverse effects of
transport development, maintaining, and long-term Environmental impacts arise not only from inland
sustainability have been considered as one of the major operations but also from maritime activities and
policy challenges in trade and development, transportation [8]. Accordingly, depending on the type
environmental sustainability, energy security, and of processes and activities, ships and ports, the
climate change [3]. maritime transport system is affected by a number of
environmental challenges. Studies show that maritime
According to the previous studies, there is a direct
transport is one of the parameters that can affect
relationship between industrial growth and the
climate change [4-9-10]. Due to abnormal changes in
increase in environmental pollutants. These
the global environment, communities face serious
environmental impacts can be classified into air
problems such as global warming, water pollution,
pollution and reduction of environmental quality.
waste disposal, air pollution, ozone depletion, space
These challenges can be addressed by greenhouse gas
destruction, and rapid energy consumption. The
emissions that the highest emission rates of these gases
severity of pollution and greenhouse gas emissions
are related to industries, transportation, domestic,
from port activities also casts doubt on the
commercial, and public sectors. Some of the most
sustainability of this type of transport. In addition, the
important causes of air pollution are the activities of
structure of global supply chain networks is limited to
industries, non-compliance with environmental
reducing not only the costs but also the negative
regulations pertaining to the control of emission limits,
impact on the environment [11-12].
failure to install pollution reduction equipment, and
especially failure to evaluate environmental Although, maritime transport is one of the most
performance or incorrect assessment of environmental environmentally friendly transportation systems, with
impacts [4-6]. Accordingly, the evaluation of the growth of freight traffic, the issue of the long-term
appropriate environmental performance is considered sustainability of this growth has become an important
as one of the important indicators in the sustainable part of policy issues in the field of globalization, trade
development and productivity of organizations and and development, environmental sustainability,
industries. energy security, and climate change [3]. Evaluation of
environmental performance in large and complex
The industrial revolution with its significant
organizations such as ports as one of the two main
development of industries and the efforts of countries
to achieve economic development, and low parts of the maritime transport system is very
environmental literacy of communities coupled with important. Therefore, in the current study, considering
inefficiency or lack of control over pollutants, on the the role of maritime transport in world trade, the
importance of ports as one of the two main parts of the
other hand, have caused problems pertaining to
maritime transport system, as well as the
environmental pollution. This issue has, in turn,
become the center of attention of researchers and environmental impacts associated with various
policymakers. In many developing countries, the operations, business processes, and various activities
in ports, we designed and developed a model to
Corresponding author: Farzam Babaei Samiromi
evaluate the environmental performance of ports based
E-mail: farzam.babaei@gmail.com
on the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP).
growing tendency for industrialization has paved the
way for economic growth and income. Based on

Published online: June 30, 2021

Environmental Performance Evaluation of Ports IJOH.tums.ac.ir | 152

METHODS
This study was implemented based on the FAHP and
Delphi technique in three-round by a panel of
with the participation of a panel of experts consisting
experts consisting of 22 experts in the field of
of 22 experts in the field of environment and marine
environment and marine sciences.
sciences in 2020.

2.1. Implementation steps: 4: Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP):

The study process consisted of four steps: In the final step, based on the FAHP and with the
participation of 22 experts, the weight of each of
1: Comprehensive literature review: the six factors, as well as the related parameters in
In this step, various studies were reviewed based the questionnaire developed in the third step, was
on the factors affecting the environmental determined. Accordingly, by determining the
performance of ports, including parameters, weight of each parameter, a method for evaluating
indicators affecting the environmental environmental performance in ports was
performance, and various environmental effects in developed.
ports.
2.2. Delphi technique:
2: Designing a questionnaire to evaluate Group decision-making is a good approach to solve
environmental performance in ports: complex problems. In group decision-making, with the
In the second step, six factors of environmental unanimity of experts in a field, an appropriate decision
performance based on the green ports were can be made on the subject. Delphi technique is a
included reactive performance (carbon footprint, qualitative research method that depends on the
the amount of generated waste, improving air participants' knowledge about the subject to reach a
quality and water resources, the total amount of consensus in group decisions. This method is
water consumed, and dust pollution appropriate for systematically combining the opinions
parameters/sub-factors), proactive performance of panel of experts in a field to make a final judgment
(environmental management program, on an issue [18-19]. In the third step of this study, an
environmental training, hazardous cargo environmental performance evaluation questionnaire
management, energy/fuel efficiency improvement, was used based on the Delphi technique has been
and environmental risk assessment), sustainability developed in three rounds.
(training and upgrading port activities, 2.3. Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP):
construction management program, use of The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) determines the
renewable energy, use of recyclable resources, best option among different options with respect to the
reduction of energy consumption, and marketing calculated total weight of the criteria [20]. The next
activities), socio-cultural (employee safety, justice, step is to determine the relative weight of the selected
physical impact, cultural impact, and public criteria and sub-criteria by pairwise comparisons. At
safety), economic (direct employment, indirect this point, a panel of experts using criteria
employment, financial health, investments in comparisons determines their relative score [12-21]. In
technology development, and training of full-time this study, a matrix for pairwise comparison of factors
employees), and governance factors (government affecting environmental performance in ports and six
investment in the port, the productivity of the matrices for pairwise comparison of the parameters set
employees of the port's public sector, the level of for each of the six factors were formed.
safety, the open market of the port, and the
corporate social responsibility report) [8-11-13- Fuzzy logic is a form of a multi-valued region in which
17]. the correct values of the variables may be any real
number between zero and one. This logic uses the
3: Delphi study: concept of partial correctness so that its values can be
In this step, an environmental performance between completely true and completely false [22-23].
evaluation questionnaire was developed using the

Published online: June 30, 2021

153 | IJOH | June 2021 | Vol. 13 | No. 2 Aliakbari A. et al.

In AHP, individual experts’ verbal expressions are RESULTS

utilized to estimate the relative importance of factors
through pair-wise comparisons. Since verbal 3.1. Delphi Findings:
expressions are inaccurate, indefinite, and ambiguous The results of experts’ panel demographic data
in the evaluation of more than one subject. showed that the means of age and work experience of
these specialists were 40.42±7.73 and 12.4±15.35
It is difficult to analyze and summarize the results. years. In addition, 68.18% (15 people) of the panel of
However, the fuzzy region provides a very useful tool experts had a master's degree and 31.82% (7 people)
for measuring ambiguous concepts related to had Ph.D. A questionnaire for evaluating
individuals' mental judgments. As a result, it is a environmental performance in ports with coefficient of
powerful tool suitable for overcoming the mentioned variation (CV) of 0.08 and an acceptance criterion of
problems to obtain more accurate information in the 4≤ was developed for each of the parameters after
form of verbal expressions [21-22]. three rounds of study based on the Delphi technique.

A combination of the AHP method with fuzzy logic The questionnaire was made of six factors of
has been widely used to rank the criteria, sub-criteria, environmental performance including reactive
and different methods for performing FAHP. This performance, proactive performance, sustainability,
study was based on the method proposed by Chang socio-cultural, economic, and governance. 32
because it was easier to implement than other methods parameters related to environmental performance in
and at the same time provides accurate results [24]. ports including carbon footprint, amount of generated
The triangular fuzzy numbers are known as one of the waste, improving air quality and water resources, dust
commonly used types of fuzzy numbers. A triangular pollution and noise pollution (reactive performance
fuzzy number is represented as A = (l, m, u) in which factor), environmental management program,
l, m and u denote a fuzzy set. The upper limit, denoted environmental education, environmental monitoring
by u is the maximum value that a fuzzy number A can program, environmental risk assessment and
take. The lower limit denoted by l is the minimum management of hazardous cargo (proactive
value that the fuzzy number A can take. The value of performance factor), training and upgrading of port
m is the most probable value of a fuzzy number [22]. activities, technology development, use of renewable
The membership function of a triangular fuzzy number energy, use of recyclable resources, reduction of
is as follows: energy consumption, implementation of sustainable
design, construction methods (sustainability factor),
physical impacts, cultural effects, public safety,
discourse-interaction, comprehensive education,
social participation (socio-cultural factor), direct
employment, indirect employment, investments in
technology development, value creation, production
It should be noted that any errors and inconsistencies and consumption patterns (economic factor),
in comparing the importance between options and government investment in the port, productivity of
indicators distort the final result of the calculations. port public sector, port open market, social
So, it is necessary to confirm the validity of the responsibility report, independent management, and
answers and data received from experts. In this stakeholders’ integrity (governance factor).
method, the validity of expert responses and data was
determined based on the inconsistency rate. It should be noted that the evaluation of these
If the consistency rate is 0.1 or less, it indicates parameters should be done based on the five- Likert
consistency in the comparisons and the validity of the scale (very low, low, medium, high, and very high).
respondents is confirmed [22-24]. Therefore,
inconsistency rates were calculated for all matrices of
pairwise comparisons and invalid responses were
3.2. FAHP Findings:
The port environmental performance evaluation
excluded from the study.
questionnaire was approved by the Delphi panel of

Published online: June 30, 2021

 Environmental Performance Evaluation of Ports IJOH.tums.ac.ir | 154

experts. Then, each one of the parameters and factors’ reactive performance (RP), proactive performance
weight was estimated using FAHP. In this step, the (PP), sustainability (S), socio-cultural (SC), economic
panel of experts answered the AHP questions. Then, (E), and governance (G) for evaluating the
these questionnaires were collected and the validity of environmental performance of ports were obtained
each questionnaire and paired comparison matrices 0.202, 0.241, 0.226, 0.070, 0.080, and 0.182.
were evaluated by calculating the inconsistency rate Furthermore, the incompatibility rate of this matrix
and invalid questionnaires were removed. was CRg=0.017 and CRm=0.007.

The port environmental performance indicator (PEPI)

Table 1 and Equation 1 show the fuzzy mean matrix was calculated based on Equation 1:
and the final normalized weights of the six factors
PEPI=0.20RP + 0.241PP + 0.226S + 0.070SC + 0.080E + 0.82G
affecting the environmental performance of the ports.
(1)
The normalized final weight for the six factors of

Table 1. Fuzzy mean matrix and final normalized weights of six factors affecting the environmental performance of ports

Reactive Proactive Socio- Normalized

Sustainability Governance Economic
Performance Performance Cultural weight

1.33,
Reactive 1.00, 1.00, 0.47, 0.71, 0.61, 0.83, 0.90, 0.97, 1.25,
2.29, 0.202
Performance 1.00 1.22 1.22 1.05 2.20, 3.13
3.21

1.46,
0.82, 1.41, 1.00, 1.00, 0.70, 1.03, 0.74, 1.03, 1.37,
Sustainability 2.42, 0.226
2.11 1.00 1.49 1.42 2.26, 3.09
3.34
1.54,
Proactive 0.82, 1.21, 0.67, 0.97, 1.00, 1.00, 1.29, 1.98, 1.41,
2.51, 0.241
Performance 1.65 1.42 1.00 2.59 2.37, 3.30
3.44
1.10,
0.95, 1.03, 0.70, 0.97, 0.39, 0.51, 1.00, 1.00, 1.22,
Governance 1.92, 0.182
1.11 1.35 0.78 1.00 1.88, 2.46
2.69
0.74,
0.32, 0.45, 0.32, 0.44, 0.30, 0.42, 0.42, 0.54, 1.00,
Economic 1.10, 0.080
0.80 0.73 0.71 0.83 1.00, 1.00
1.57
1.00,
Socio- 0.31, 0.44, 0.30, 0.41, 0.29, 0.40, 0.37, 0.52, 0.64,
1.00, 0.070
Cultural 0.75 0.69 0.65 0.91 0.91, 1.35
1.00

The fuzzy mean matrix and the normalized weights of dust pollution, improved air quality and water
five parameters of the reactive performance factor resources, noise pollution, amount of waste, and
have been presented in Table 2. The normalized final carbon footprint was obtained to be 0.55, 0.206, 0.182,
weights for parameters of this factor including 0.211, and 0.245. Furthermore, the incompatibility
rate of this matrix was CRg=0.027 and CRm=0.012.

Published online: June 30, 2021

155 | IJOH | June 2021 | Vol. 13 | No. 2 Aliakbari A. et al.

Table 2. Fuzzy mean matrix and final normalized weights of parameters affecting the reactive performance factor

Improved
Dust air quality Noise Amount of Carbon Normalized
pollution and water pollution waste footprint weight
resources
1.00, 1.00, 0.43, 0.62, 0.57, 0.78, 0.68, 0.95, 0.44, 0.68,
Dust pollution 0.155
1.00 1.02 1.10 1.29 1.21

Improved air
0.98, 1.62, 1.00, 1.00, 0.62, 1.03, 0.54, 0.78, 0.68, 0.86,
quality and 0.206
2.34 1.00 1.63 1.15 1.11
water resources

0.91, 1.28, 0.61, 0.97, 1.00, 1.00, 0.54, 0.70, 0.50, 0.69,
Noise pollution 0.182
1.76 1.61 1.00 1.04 1.06

Amount of 0.77, 1.06, 0.87, 1.28, 0.96, 1.42, 1.00, 1.00, 0.49, 0.69,
0.211
waste 1.48 1.85 1.87 1.00 1.13

0.83, 1.47, 0.90, 1.16, 0.95, 1.45, 0.89, 1.44, 1.00, 1.00,
Carbon footprint 0.245
2.28 1.48 1.99 2.04 1.00

The fuzzy mean matrix and the normalized weights of education, environmental risk assessment, and
parameters of proactive performance factor have been environmental management program were estimated
presented in Table 3. The finalized weight for five to be 0.166, 0.216, 0.185, 0.217, and 0.216.
parameters of environmental monitoring program, Furthermore, the incompatibility rate of this matrix
hazardous cargo management, environmental was CRg=0.017 and CRm=0.007.

Published online: June 30, 2021

Environmental Performance Evaluation of Ports IJOH.tums.ac.ir | 156

Table 3. Fuzzy mean matrix and final normalized weights of parameters affecting the proactive performance factor

Environmental Hazardous Environmental Environmental

Environmental Normalized
monitoring cargo risk management
education weight
program management assessment program

Environmental
1.00, 1.00, 0.46, 0.66, 0.74, 1.04, 0.68, 0.89, 0.47, 0.67,
monitoring 0.166
1.00 1.01 1.37 1.16 1.04
program
Hazardous cargo 0.99, 1.51, 1.00, 1.00, 0.70, 1.11, 0.57, 0.80, 0.75, 1.08,
0.216
management 2.16 1.00 1.67 1.10 1.48
Environmental 0.73, 0.96, 0.60, 0.90, 1.00, 1.00, 0.66, 0.87, 0.67, 0.95,
0.185
education 1.35 1.43 1.00 1.15 1.30

Environmental risk 0.86, 1.13, 0.91, 1.25, 0.87, 1.15, 1.00, 1.00, 0.69, 0.99,
0.217
assessment 1.47 1.74 1.51 1.00 1.39

Environmental
0.96, 1.48, 0.67, 0.93, 0.77, 1.06, 0.72, 1.01, 1.00, 1.00,
management 0.216
2.13 1.33 1.49 1.45 1.00
program

The fuzzy mean matrix and the normalized weights of development, implementation of sustainable methods
parameters of the sustainability factor have been in design and construction, use of recyclable
presented in Table 4. Normalized final weight for resources, and reduction of energy consumption were
these parameters including training and upgrading of obtained 0.178, 0.20, 0.188, 0.214, and 0.200.
port activities, use of renewable energy, technology Furthermore, the incompatibility rate of this matrix
was CRg=0.013 and CRm=0.006.

Published online: June 30, 2021

157 | IJOH | June 2021 | Vol. 13 | No. 2 Aliakbari A. et al.

Table 4. Fuzzy mean matrix and final normalized weights of parameters affecting the sustainability factor

Sustainable
Use of Use of Normali
Training and Technology methods in
renewable recyclable zed
upgrading development design &
energy resources weight
construction

Training and 1.00, 1.00, 0.49, 0.71, 0.77, 1.10, 0.69, 0.90, 0.51, 0.75,
0.178
upgrading 1.00 1.15 1.51 1.20 1.25

Use of renewable 0.87, 1.40, 1.00, 1.00, 0.71, 1.13, 0.60, 0.85, 0.85, 1.27,
0.220
energy 2.05 1.00 1.72 1.21 1.75

Technology 0.66, 0.91, 0.58, 0.88, 1.00, 1.00, 0.68, 0.90, 0.71, 1.02,
0.188
development 1.30 1.41 1.00 1.22 1.48

Sustainable
0.83, 1.11, 0.83, 1.18, 0.82, 1.11, 1.00, 1.00, 0.73, 1.07,
methods in design 0.214
1.45 1.67 1.48 1.00 1.58
& construction

Use of recyclable 0.80, 1.33, 0.57, 0.79, 0.68, 0.98, 0.63, 0.93, 1.00, 1.00,
0.200
resources 1.96 1.18 1.41 1.37 1.00

The fuzzy mean matrix and the normalized weights of indirect employment were estimated to be 0.146,
the economic parameters have been presented in Table 0.285, 0.40, 0.157 and 0.272. Furthermore, the
5. The normalized final weights of value creation, incompatibility rate of this matrix was CRg=0.004 and
direct employment, production and consumption CRm=0.002.
patterns, investment in technology development, and

Published online: June 30, 2021

Environmental Performance Evaluation of Ports IJOH.tums.ac.ir | 158

Table 5. Fuzzy mean matrix and final normalized weights of parameters affecting the economic factor

Production & Investment in

Value added Direct Indirect Normaliz
consumption technology
creation employment employment ed weight
patterns development

Value added 1.00, 1.00, 0.39, 0.54, 0.82, 1.00, 0.36, 0.53,
0.82, 1.07, 1.35 0.146
creation 1.00 0.93 1.22 0.94

1.08, 1.84, 1.00, 1.00, 1.11, 2.00, 0.82, 1.10,

Direct employment 1.03, 1.62, 2.23 0.285
2.59 1.00 2.90 1.42
Production and
0.82, 1.00, 0.35, 0.50, 1.00, 1.00, 0.45, 0.60,
consumption 0.64, 0.88, 1.28 0.140
1.22 0.90 1.00 0.93
patterns

Investment in
0.74, 0.94, 0.45, 0.62, 0.78, 1.13, 0.44, 0.60,
technology 1.00, 1.00, 1.00 0.157
1.22 0.97 1.57, 0.99
development

Indirect 1.06, 1.87, 0.70, 0.91, 1.08, 1.67, 1.00, 1.00,

1.01, 1.66, 2.28 0.272
employment 2.76 1.22 2.23 1.00

The fuzzy mean matrix and normalized weights of comprehensive education, cultural influences, and
socio-cultural parameters have been presented in justice were obtained 0.198, 0.204, 0.213, 0.171,
Table 6. Normalized final weight for socio-cultural 0.107, and 0.107. Furthermore, the incompatibility
parameters including physical impacts, social rate of this matrix was CRg=0.034 and CRm=0.014.
participation, public safety, discourse-interaction and

Published online: June 30, 2021

159 | IJOH | June 2021 | Vol. 13 | No. 2 Aliakbari A. et al.

Table 6. Fuzzy mean matrix and final normalized weights parameters affecting the Socio-Cultural factor

Physical Social Public Comprehensive Cultural Normalized

Justice
impacts participation safety education influences weight

Physical 1.00, 1.00, 0.58, 0.80, 0.64, 1.25, 1.94, 1.29,

0.82, 0.97, 1.16 0.198
impacts 1.00 1.22 0.94, 1.42 2.56 1.92, 2.47

Social 0.82, 1.25, 1.00, 1.00, 0.73, 1.03, 1.47, 1.29,

0.74, 1.03, 1.42 0.204
participation 1.73 1.00 1.08, 1.59 2.05 1.98, 2.59

0.70, 1.07, 0.63, 0.92, 1.00, 0.91, 1.41, 1.27,

Public safety 1.33, 1.95, 2.50 0.213
1.57 1.37 1.00, 1.00 2.04 1.91, 2.58

Comprehensive 0.86, 1.03, 0.70, 0.97, 0.40, 1.20, 1.75, 0.87,

1.00, 1.00, 1.00 0.171
education 1.22 1.35 0.51, 0.75 2.22 1.29, 1.78

Cultural 0.39, 0.51, 0.49, 0.68, 0.49, 1.00, 1.00, 0.61,

0.46, 0.58, 0.84 0.107
influences 0.80 0.97 0.71, 1.10 1.00 0.92, 1.42

0.41, 0.52, 0.39, 0.51, 0.39, 0.70, 1.08, 1.00,

Justice 0.56, 0.77, 1.15 0.107
0.78 0.78 0.52, 0.79 1.64 1.00, 1.00

The fuzzy mean matrix and the normalized weights of open market, stakeholder integrity, and independent
the governance parameters have been presented in management were calculated 0.208, 0.205, 0.213,
Table 7. Normalized final weights for these parameters 0.162, 0.105, and 0.108. Furthermore, the
including productivity of port public sector, social incompatibility rate of this matrix was CRg=0.026 and
responsibility report, government investment, port CRm=0.011.

Published online: June 30, 2021

 Environmental Performance Evaluation of Ports IJOH.tums.ac.ir | 160

Table 7. Fuzzy mean matrix and final normalized weights parameters affecting the governance factor

Productivity Social
Government Port open Stakeholder Independent Normalized
of port responsibility
investment market integrity management weight
public sector report

Productivity
1.00, 1.00, 0.69, 0.87, 0.70, 1.07, 0.78, 1.03, 1.19, 2.01, 1.22, 2.04,
of port public 0.208
1.00 1.18 1.57 1.35 2.83 2.87
sector
Social
0.85, 1.15, 1.00, 1.00, 0.76, 1.19, 0.78, 1.13, 1.09, 1.62, 1.22, 1.80,
responsibility 0.205
1.44 1.00 1.75 1.57 2.26 2.35
report

Government 0.64, 0.94, 0.57, 0.84, 1.00, 1.00, 1.20, 1.78, 0.96, 1.50, 1.33, 2.23,
0.213
investment 1.42 1.31 1.00 2.38 2.15 3.15

Port open 0.74, 0.97, 0.64, 0.88, 0.42, 0.56, 1.00, 1.00, 1.15, 1.60, 0.92, 1.21,
0.162
market 1.28 1.28 0.83 1.00 2.01 1.53

Stakeholder 0.35, 0.50, 0.44, 0.62, 0.47, 0.67, 0.51, 0.64, 1.00, 1.00, 0.64, 0.89,
0.105
integrity 0.84 0.92 1.04 0.88 1.00 1.28

Independent 0.35, 0.49, 0.43, 0.56, 0.32, 0.45, 0.65, 0.82, 0.78, 1.12, 1.00, 1.00,
0.108
management 0.82 0.82 0.75 1.09 1.56 1.00

Published online: June 30, 2021

161 | IJOH | June 2021 | Vol. 13 | No. 2 Aliakbari A. et al.

DISCUSSION
Environmental protection is one of the main pillars of
evaluating and managing environmental risks, and
management in any organization and industry.
learning from past experiences is one of the most
Therefore, a lack of organizational development
important factors that can evaluate the environmental
planning will lead to an unstable and one-dimensional
performance in an organization [28].
development. New approaches in management
systems and environmental standards improved The findings of the current study showed that the
environmental performance appraisal and a decreasing majority of the parameters in each of the factors
trend in harmful environmental impacts. Accordingly, affecting environmental performance in ports had
designing and applying a reliable method or technique different weights and effects compared to one other.
to evaluate environmental performance in The results in Tables 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 showed that
organizations and industries is of particular weights were in line with the results of previous
importance [25]. Therefore, the current study was studies in this field. For example, the parameters of
designed to develop a method for evaluating the carbon footprint and the amount of waste generated
environmental performance of ports based on the were identified as the main parameters in the reactive
FAHP. performance factor. Carbon footprint as a measure of
the total amount of carbon dioxide and methane
The findings of this study indicated that the developed
emissions from all port activities [4-10] as well as the
method for evaluating the environmental performance
amount of generated waste such as waste from port
of ports had six environmental performance factors
operations and activities [29] can be considered as
including reactive and proactive performance,
important parameters in evaluating the environmental
sustainability, socio-cultural, economic, and
performance of ports, which can lead the system to
governance with 32 parameters. The development of
higher environmental goals, including the attainment
the environmental performance evaluation method
of a green port [9].
was based on the six principles of the green port
approach [26-27]. Additionally, the results of this In addition, the parameters of environmental risk
study revealed that the six environmental performance assessment and environmental management program
factors had different weights and effects on the were two main parameters in the proactive
ports’environmental performance. Based on these performance factor identification (weight = 0.217 and
findings, the proactive performance factors, stability, 0.216). Environmental risk assessment as a systematic
and reactive performance had the most impact on the process of assessing the potential adverse effects of
ports’ environmental performance, 0.241, 0.226, and activities, pollutions on assets, and ecosystems and
0.202. As well as, governance, economic, and socio- environmental management programs as a systematic
cultural factors had the least effect on the method for carbon management were used to
environmental performance index in ports, 0.070, 080, continually improve environmental quality.
0.080, and 0.182. Furthermore, compliance with laws was one of the
main elements of optimal environmental performance
Based on the structure of modern organizational and
and in line with the goals of sustainable development
management systems, the first and perhaps the most
[30].
important step in establishing an optimal environment
is to analyze and evaluate the risks and opportunities The FAHP results of the parameters affecting the
of an organization. This step identifies and evaluates sustainability factor showed that the parameters
the potential and actual conditions of the risks as a including use of renewable energy and implementation
basis for any new design, extensive and minor of sustainable methods in design and construction
changes, adopt a variety of control methods, improve were estimated as two parameters with the greatest
the level of environmental performance, and increase impact on this factor (weight=0.220 and 0.214).
the level of stakeholder satisfaction. Therefore, paying Various studies showed that these parameters had high
attention to the proactive factor, including identifying, capabilities to increase the level of environmental

Published online: June 30, 2021

Environmental Performance Evaluation of Ports IJOH.tums.ac.ir | 162

performance and can help as parameters affecting ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

other parameters and factors related to reducing the The authors appreciate the contribution of expert panel
environmental impact of increments and operations in including environmental and marine scientists in this
an organization or industry [31-32]. study. This paper was extracted from a Ph.D.
dissertation at the Islamic Azad University, Research
It should be mentioned that the present study was one
Sciences Branch, Tehran, Iran.
of the few studies carried out in order to design and
develop an instrument to evaluate the environmental CONFLICT OF INTEREST
performance of ports based on the principles and The authors declare that they had no conflict of interest
indicators of the green port, as well as the analytic in this study.
hierarchy process and fuzzy logic. As such, the
findings of the present study can be regarded as an
effective step towards a comprehensive environmental
performance management program in ports. In
addition, it can improve the level of performance of
these ports in order to achieve the green port approach.

Ports play an important role in the maritime transport

system and world trade. With regard to the great
importance of ports in the development of Iran and
trade with other countries, the use of an approach that
can be in line with the goals of sustainable
development is very indispensable for the ports.
Therefore, it is very important to use an acceptable and
appropriate method to evaluate the environmental
performance in ports. The findings of this study, which
are based on analytical hierarchy process and fuzzy
logic, indicated that the developed method in this
study can be used as a highly reliable tool to evaluate
environmental performance in ports.

CONCLUSION
The findings indicated that the use of green port
principles and requirements in development of a
method for the environmental performance evaluation
of ports could lead to accurate results of ports
environmental performance. Additionally, the use of
analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and fuzzy logic in
this study helped to estimate the weight and effect of
each factor and sub-factor in measurement and
evaluation of environmental performance in ports.
Therefore, the use of this approach to evaluate the
environmental performance of ports based on the
principles of green port as well as the fuzzy analytic
hierarchy process (FAHP) can be an effective step
towards reducing environmental consequences and
upgrading environmental performance in ports.

Published online: June 30, 2021

163 | IJOH | June 2021 | Vol. 13 | No. 2 Aliakbari A. et al.

REFERENCES
1. Lam JSL, Cullinane KPB, Lee PT-W. The 21st- performance indicators in hospitals. Int J Occup
century Maritime Silk Road: challenges and Hyg. 2017; 9(2):66-77.
opportunities for transport management and 13.Poulsen RT, Ponte S, Sornn-Friese H.
practice. Transp Rev. 2018; 34(4): 413-415. Environmental upgrading in global value chains:
2. Shi W, Li KX. Themes and tools of maritime The potential and limitations of ports in the
transport research during 2000-2014. Marit Pol greening of maritime transport. Geoforum.
Manag. 2017;44(2):151-169. 2018;89:83-95.
3. Woo J-K, Moon DS, Lam JSL. The impact of 14. Asariotis R, Benamara H. Maritime transport and
environmental policy on ports and the associated the climate change challenge. Geneva, New York
economic opportunities. Transport Res Pol Pract. , UN, Earthscan, 2012.
2018;110:234-242. 15. Monios J, Wilmsmeier G. Deep adaptation to
4. Yang Y-C. Operating strategies of CO2 reduction climate change in the maritime transport sector–a
for a container terminal based on carbon footprint new paradigm for maritime economics? Marit
perspective. J Clean Prod. 2017;141:472-480. Policy Manag. 2020:1-20.
5. Rao C, Yan B. Study on the interactive influence 16. Shi W, Xiao Y, Chen Z, McLaughlin H, Li KX.
between economic growth and environmental Evolution of green shipping research: themes and
pollution. Environ Sci Pollut Res. methods. Marit Policy Manag. 2018;45(7):863-
2020;27(31):39442-39465. 876.
6. Tanha F, Rangkooy H, Marzban M, Kazemi E, 17. Derakhshani E, Naghizadeh A, Shahabi H,
Rasoolykalamaki F, Debiehkhosravi A. An Nazinejad M. Evaluation of Environmental and
Approach to the Control Management of Gaseous Respirable Dust in Air of Tile Industry in South
Pollutants Emissions from Power Plants Using Khorasan. Arch Hyg Sci. 2014;3(3):85-90.
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Int J Occup 18. Flostrand A, Pitt L, Bridson S. The Delphi
Hyg. 2015;7(1):27-31. technique in forecasting–A 42-year bibliographic
7. Li Y, Zhou S, Jia Z, Ge L, Mei L, Sui X, Wang X, analysis (1975–2017). Technol Forecast Soc
Li B, Wang J, Wu S. Influence of industrialization Change. 2020;150:119773.
and environmental protection on environmental 19. Mohammadfam I, Mansouri N, Nikoomaram H,
pollution: a case study of Taihu Lake, China. Int J Ghasemi F. Comparison of commonly used
Environ Res Publ Health. 2018;15(12):2628. accident analysis techniques for manufacturing
8. Lee PT-W, Kwon OK, Ruan X. Sustainability industries. Int J Occup Hyg. 2015;7(1):32-37.
challenges in maritime transport and logistics 20. Venkata-Siva-Raja-Prasad S, Prasada-Rao Y,
industry and its way ahead. Sustainability; 2019. Venkata-Chalapathi P. Prioritizing the Elements of
9. Venkatesh S, Sriraman V. A Notional research on OHSAS-18001 in Construction Segments in
implementing green port strategy at the new India–AHP Approach. Int J Occup Hyg.
Manglore port trust. Int J Manag. 2020;11(10). 2013;5(4):159-165.
10. Teerawattana R, Yang Y-C. Environmental 21. Hurley JS. Quantifying decision making in the
performance indicators for green port policy critical infrastructure via the Analytic Hierarchy
evaluation: case study of Laem Chabang port. Process (AHP). Int J Cyber Warf Terrorism. 2020:
Asian J Shipp Logist. 2019;35(1):63-9. 465-477.
11. Jägerbrand AK, Brutemark A, Sveden JB, Gren M. 22. Mohammadfam I, Aliabadi MM, Soltanian AR,
A review on the environmental impacts of shipping Tabibzadeh M, Mahdinia M. Investigating
on aquatic and nearshore ecosystems. Sci Total interactions among vital variables affecting
Environ. 2019;695:133637. situation awareness based on Fuzzy DEMATEL
12. Shahbod N, Mansouri N, Bayat M, Nouri J, method. Int J Ind Ergon. 2019;74:176-195.
Ghoddousi J. A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process 23. Shamaii A, Omidvari M, Hosseinzadeh Lotfi F.
approach to identify and prioritize environmental Performance assessment of HSE management
systems: A fuzzy approach in a Steel

Published online: June 30, 2021

Environmental Performance Evaluation of Ports IJOH.tums.ac.ir | 164

Manufacturing Company. Int J Occup Hyg.

2016;8(2):100-109.
24. Lyu H-M, Sun W-J, Shen S-L, Zhou A-N. Risk
assessment using a new consulting process in fuzzy
AHP. J Construct Eng Manag.
2020;146(3):04019112.
25. Nikpishe Kohjhari F, Morovati M, Sadeghinia M,
Amanat Yazdi L. Assessment and Management of
Environmental Risks of Steel Industries by
EFMEA Method (Case Study: Ardakan Steel and
Melting factory). J Environ Health Eng. 2020:76-
88.
26. Wan C, Zhang D, Yan X, Yang Z. A novel model
for the quantitative evaluation of green port
development–A case study of major ports in China.
Transport Res Transport Environ. 2018;61:431-
43.
27. Hua C, Chen J, Wan Z, Xu L, Bai Y, Zheng T, Fei
Y. Evaluation and governance of green
development practice of port: A sea port case of
China. J Clean Prod. 2020;249:119434.
28. Xing X, Wang J, Tou L. The relationship between
green organization identity and corporate
environmental performance: The mediating role of
sustainability exploration and exploitation
innovation. Int J Environ Res Publ Health.
2019;16(6):921.
29. Svaetichin I, Inkinen T. Port waste management in
the Baltic Sea area: A four port study on the legal
requirements, processes and collaboration.
Sustainability. 2017;9(5):699.
30. Haque F, Ntim CG. Environmental policy,
sustainable development, governance mechanisms
and environmental performance. Bus Strat
Environ. 2018;27(3):415-435.
31. Hou Y, Iqbal W, Muhammad Shaikh G, Iqbal N,
Ahmad Solangi Y, Fatima A. Measuring energy
efficiency and environmental performance: a case
of South Asia. Processes. 2019;7(6):325.
32. Sarkheil H, Rahbari S. HSE Key Performance
indicators in HSE-MS establishment and
sustainability: a case of south pars gas complex,
Iran. Int J Occup Hyg. 2016;8(1):45-53.

Published online: June 30, 2021