Review of methods for sustainability appraisals in ship acquisition

Environment Systems and Decisions

Volumn 35, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 323-333

  Aspen, Dina Margrethe ^a   Sparrevik, Magnus ^a   Fet, Annik Magerholm ^a  

^a NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Norway)

Author keywords

Design; MCDM; Method selection; Multi criteria decision making; Ship acquisition; Sustainability appraisal

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; DESIGN METHOD; MULTICRITERIA ANALYSIS; OPERATIONS TECHNOLOGY; PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT; PROJECT ASSESSMENT; SHIP DESIGN; SUSTAINABILITY;

EID: 84940453684     PISSN: 21945403     EISSN: 21945411     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10669-015-9561-6     Document Type: Review

References (52)

1. Andrews D, Papanikolaou A, Erichsen S, Vasudevan S (2009) State of the art report on design methodology. Paper presented at the 10th International Marine Design Conference, Trondheim, Norway
2. Barone M, Begovic E, Bertorello C, Stella M (2005) Preference communication in multiattribute procedures for optimised ship design. Paper presented at the 12th International Congress of the International Maritime Association of the Mediterranean, IMAM 2005 - Maritime Transportation and Exploitation of Ocean and Coastal Resources, Lisboa
3. Belton V, Stewart TJ (2002) Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Kluwer Academic, Boston
4. Brans J-P, Mareschal B (2005) Promethee methods. In: Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys, vol 78. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science. Springer New York, pp 163–186. doi:10.1007/0-387-23081-5_5
5. Brans JP, Vincke P (1985) A preference ranking organisation method (The PROMETHEE method for multiple criteria decision-making). Manage Sci 31:647–656. doi:10.2307/2631441
6. Bulut E, Yoshida S, Duru O (2010) Cognitive model of dry bulk carrier investment decision by utilizing analytic hierarchy process. Paper presented at the 8th IEEE International Conference on Industrial Informatics, INDIN 2010, Osaka
7. Bulut E, Duru O, Keçeci T, Yoshida S (2012) Use of consistency index, expert prioritization and direct numerical inputs for generic fuzzy-AHP modeling: a process model for shipping asset management. Expert Syst Appl 39:1911–1923. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.08.056
8. Coyne RD (1990) Knowledge-based design systems. Addison-Wesley, Reading
9. Cushing CR (2003) The ship acquisition process. In: Lamb T (ed) Ship design and construction, vol 1. Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers (SNAME), Jersey City
10. De Montis A, De Toro P, Droste-Franke B, Omann I, Stagl S (2005) Assessing the quality of different MCDA methods. In: Getzner M, Spash CL, Stagl S (eds) Alternatives for environmental valuation. Routledge, London, pp 99–133
11. Dokkum Kv (2011) Ship knowledge: ship design, construction and operation. DOKMAR, Enkhuizen
12. Duru O, Bulut E, Yoshida S (2012) Regime switching fuzzy AHP model for choice-varying priorities problem and expert consistency prioritization: a cubic fuzzy-priority matrix design. Expert Syst Appl 39:4954–4964. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.10.020
13. Erikstad SO (1996) A decision support model for preliminary ship design vol 1996:111. Doktor ingeniøravhandling. NTH, Trondheim
14. Erikstad SO, Andrews D (2015) State of the art report on design methodology. Paper presented at the 12th International Marine Design Conference, Tokyo, Japan
15. Eyres DJ, Bruce GJ (2012) Ship construction. Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann, Amsterdam
16. Figueira J, Mousseau V, Roy B (2005) Electre methods. In: Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys, vol 78. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science. Springer, New York, pp 133–153. doi:10.1007/0-387-23081-5_4
17. Fishburn PC (1970) Utility theory for decision making. Wiley, New York
18. García-Cascales MS, Lamata MT (2012) On rank reversal and TOPSIS method. Math Comput Model 56:123–132. doi:10.1016/j.mcm.2011.12.022
19. Guitouni A, Martel JM (1998) Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA method. Eur J Oper Res 109:501–521
20. Hinloopen E, Nijkamp P, Rietveld P (1983) Qualitative discrete multiple criteria choice models in regional planning. Reg Sci Urban Econ 13:77–102. doi:10.1016/0166-0462(83)90006-6
21. Hwang C-L, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications: a state-of-the-art survey. Springer, Berlin
22. Jacquet-Lagreze E, Siskos J (1982) Assessing a set of additive utility functions for multicriteria decision-making, the UTA method. Eur J Oper Res 10:151–164. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(82)90155-2
23. Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1993) Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
24. Leclercq JP (1984) Propositions d’extension de la notion de dominance en présence de relations d’ordre sur les pseudo-critères: MELCHIOR Revue Belge de Recherche Opérationnelle, de Statistique et d’Informatique 24:32–46
25. Leheta HW (2005) A multi-criteria stern trawler selection model using the analytic hierarchy process. In: 12th International Congress of the International Maritime Association of the Mediterranean, IMAM 2005—Maritime Transportation and Exploitation of Ocean and Coastal Resources, Lisboa, pp 1251–1257
26. Mistree F, Smith WF, Bras BA, Allen JK, Muster D (1990) Decision-based design. A contemporary paradigm for ship design. In: 1990 SNAME Annual Meeting, Jersey City, NJ, United States. Publ by Soc of Naval Architects & Marine Engineers, pp 565–597
27. Mistree F, Smith WF, Kamal SZ, Bras BA (1991) Designing decisions: axioms, models and marine applications. Paper presented at the Fourth International Marine Systems Design Conference, Kobe, Japan
28. Moffett A, Sarkar S (2006) Incorporating multiple criteria into the design of conservation area networks: a minireview with recommendations. Divers Distrib 12:125–137. doi:10.1111/j.1366-9516.2005.00202.x
29. Moghaddam NB, Nasiri M, Mousavi SM (2011) An appropriate multiple criteria decision making method for solving electricity planning problems, addressing sustainability issue. Int J Environ Sci Technol 8:605–620. doi:10.1007/BF03326246
30. Nowacki H (2010) Five decades of computer-aided ship design CAD. Comput Aided Des 42:956–969. doi:10.1016/j.cad.2009.07.006
31. Ölçer Aİ, Odabaşi AY (2005) A new fuzzy multiple attributive group decision making methodology and its application to propulsion/manoeuvring system selection problem European. J Oper Res 166:93–114. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2004.02.010
32. Ölçer AI, Alkaner S, Turan O (2004) Integrated multiple attributive decision support system for producibility evaluation in ship design. J Ship Prod 20:147–163
33. Pahl G, Beitz W, Feldhusen J, Grote K-H, Wallace K, Blessing L (2007) Engineering design: a systematic approach. Springer, London
34. Papalambros PY, Wilde DJ (2000) Principles of optimal design: modeling and computation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
35. Papanikolaou A, Zaraphonitis G, Boulougouris E, Langbecker U, Matho S, Sames P (2010) Multi-objective optimization of oil tanker design. J Mar Sci Technol 15:359–373
36. Polatidis H, Haralambopoulos DA, Munda G, Vreeker R (2006) Selecting an appropriate multi-criteria decision analysis technique for renewable energy planning. Energy Sour 1:181–193. doi:10.1080/009083190881607
37. Roberts FS (1979) Measurement theory with applications to decision making, utility and the social sciences. Addison-Wesley, Reading
38. Roubens M (1982) Preference relations on actions and criteria in multicriteria decision making. Eur J Oper Res 10:51–55. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(82)90131-X
39. Rousos EP, Lee BS (2012) Multicriteria analysis in shipping investment evaluation. Maritime Policy Manag 39:423–442
40. Roy B (1978) ELECTRE III: Un algorithme de classement fondé sur une représentation floue des préférences en présence de critères multiples Cahiers du CERO 20:3–24
41. Roy B, Bertier P (1971) La Méthode ELECTRE II, Note de Travail 142, SEMA-METRA Metra International
42. Roy B, Słowiński R (2013) Questions guiding the choice of a multicriteria decision aiding method EURO. J Decis Process 1:69–97. doi:10.1007/s40070-013-0004-7
43. Saaty RW (1987) The analytic hierarchy process-what it is and how it is used. Math Model 9:161–176. doi:10.1016/0270-0255(87)90473-8
44. Sen P, Yang J-B (1998) Multiple criteria decision support in engineering design. Springer, London
45. Song S, Hua-Jun L, Asme (2006) Study on ship form technical and economic evaluation ds based on interactive MCDM. In: Proceedings of the 25th international conference on offshore mechanics and arctic engineering, vol 2. Amer Soc Mechanical Engineers, New York
46. Stewart T (2005) Dealing with Uncertainties in MCDA. In: Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys, vol 78. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science. Springer, New York, pp 445–466. doi:10.1007/0-387-23081-5_11
47. Wibowo S, Deng H (2012) Intelligent decision support for effectively evaluating and selecting ships under uncertainty in marine transportation. Expert Syst Appl 39:6911–6920
48. Wijnolst N, Wergeland T (2009) Shipping innovation. IOS Press, Amsterdam
49. Xie X, Xu DL, Yang JB, Wang J, Ren J, Yu S (2008) Ship selection using a multiple-criteria synthesis approach. J Mar Sci Technol 13:50–62
50. Xuebin L (2009) Multiobjective optimization and multiattribute decision making study of ship’s principal parameters in conceptual design. J Ship Res 53:83–92
51. Yang ZL, Mastralis L, Bonsall S, Wang J (2009) Incorporating uncertainty and multiple criteria in vessel selection proceedings of the institution of mechanical engineers part M. J Eng Marit Environ 223:177–188
52. Žanić V, Čudina P (2009) Multiattribute decision making methodology in the concept design of tankers and bulk carriers. Brodogradnja 60:19–43