BazEkon - Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie

BazEkon home page

Meny główne

Autor
Merdivenci Fahriye (Akdeniz University, Turkey), Erturgut Ramazan (Akdeniz University, Turkey), Coşkun Artuğ Eren (Akdeniz University, Turkey)
Tytuł
A Software Development Application for Sustainable Airport Performance Analysis
Rozwój aplikacji służących do analizy zrównoważonej działalności lotniska
Źródło
LogForum, 2021, vol. 17, nr 1, s. 131-145, rys., tab., wykr., bibliogr. 37 poz.
Słowa kluczowe
Porty lotnicze, Rozwój zrównoważony transportu
Airports, Sustainable development of transport
Uwagi
summ., streszcz.
Abstrakt
Wstęp: We współczesnej, szybko się zmieniającej globalnej gospodarce, lotniska odgrywają ważną rolę w socjalnym, kulturalnym i ekonomicznym rozwoju społeczności oraz w budowaniu nowych mostów pomiędzy różnymi rynkami. Rozwój zrównoważony oznacza zachowanie balansu pomiędzy ekonomicznymi, społecznymi i środowiskowymi procesami oraz postępem we wszystkich tych trzech wymiarach na optymalnym poziomie. Dlatego też pomiar jak i zarządzanie zrównoważonej działalności odgrywa istotną funkcję w kontroli lotnisk. Zachowanie zasada zrównoważonego rozwoju w inwestycjach lotniskowych, będących odpowiedzią na zwiększający się popyt na ich usługi może być realizowany efektywnie w ramach zracjonalizowanej struktury. Struktura ta powinna odpowiadać zasadom rozwoju zrównoważonego, który to będzie odgrywał coraz istotniejszą rolę i zwiększał swoje znaczenie. Celem pracy jest opracowanie oprogramowania oceny rozwoju zrównoważonego lotnisk poprzez analizę działalności zrównoważonej obejmującą wiele zmiennych. Metody: Do przeprowadzenia analizy działalności zrównoważonej lotniska, istotne jest uwzględnienie ekonomicznych, społecznych oraz środowiskowych czynników, które są trzema podwymiarami rozwoju zrównoważonego we wszystkich strategicznych, taktycznych i operacyjnych procesach i mechanizmach decyzyjnych. W celu przeprowadzenia analizy, zastosowano metody DEMATEL oraz OMAX (Objectives Matrix), umożliwiające uwzględnienie tych wszystkich czynników równocześnie, poprzez zastosowanie wskaźników wagowych. Wyniki: Najważniejszym czynnikiem dla lotniska Antalya, jak również o największym znaczeniu, jest czynnik ekonomiczny. Współczynniki działalności zrównoważonych dla lotniska Antalya zostały obliczone dla lat 2018 oraz 2019. Działalność lotniska w 2019 była większa aniżeli w 2018. Wnioski: Największym osiągnięciem tej pracy jest opracowanie "aplikacji oceny działalności zrównoważonej" dla zarówno krajowych jak i międzynarodowych lotnisk. Praca ta przyczynia się również do pogłębienia prac badawczych nad działalnością innych lotnisk oraz porównania ich działania z poprzednimi ich osiągnięciami. (abstrakt oryginalny)

Background: In today's rapidly changing global economy, airports have an important role in the social, cultural, and economic development of societies and in building bridges between interconnected markets. Sustainability requires a balance between economic, social, and environmental processes and performance-based progress in efforts on all three dimensions at an optimum level. Therefore, sustainable performance measurement and management is an important function for the control of airports. The suitability of investments in airports to respond to the increasing needs and expectations of the future can be realized through a rational structure that operates technologically, effectively, and efficiently. The need for this structure to be sustainable with above-average performance further increases the importance of the issue. This study aims to develop a sustainable performance software for airports by conducting a sustainable performance analysis based on multiple variables. Methods: For sustainable performance analysis at airports, it is important to include economic, social, and environmental parameters, which are the three sub-dimensions of sustainability, in all strategic, tactical, and operational processes and decision-making mechanisms. For the performance analysis of airports, the DEMATEL Method, and the Objectives Matrix (OMAX) Method, which evaluates all the criteria together, were used to weight various performance indicators. Results: The most important criterion at Antalya Airport, which is also the most affected by other criteria, is "economic". Sustainable performance scores of Antalya Airport for 2018 and 2019 were calculated. The airport's performance in 2019 is higher compared to 2018. Conclusions: The biggest achievement of this research is thought to be developing a "Sustainable Performance Software" for national and international airports. This study will also contribute to the emergence of studies that will reveal the performances of other airports and compare their past performances with their current and national performances. (original abstract)
Pełny tekst
Pokaż
Bibliografia
Pokaż
  1. ACI 2018. Airport Carbon Accreditation Annual Report 2017-2018, Airports Council International. Available from Internet: https://www.airportcarbonaccreditation.org/library/annual-reports.html
  2. Akal Z., 2005. İşletmelerde Performans Ölçüm ve Denetimi [Performance Measurement and Control in Enterprises]. Milli Prodüktivite Merkezi Yayınları 473: Ankara.
  3. Aksakal E., Dağdeviren, M., 2010. "ANP ve DEMATEL Yöntemleri ile Personel Seçimi Problemine Bütünleşik Bir Yaklaşım [An integrated approach for personnel selection with DEMATEL and ANP methods]", Gazi Üniv. Müh. Mim. Fak. Dergisi, 25(4), 905-913. Available from Internet: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/gazimmfd/issue/6686/88614
  4. Andersson Granberg T., Munoz A.O., 2013. Developing key performance indicators for airports. In 3rd ENRI International Workshop on ATM/CNS, February 19, Singapore. Available from Internet: http://liu.divaportal.org/smash/get/diva2:618079/FULLTEXT01.pdf
  5. Balkan D., 2011. Enterprise productivity measurement in services by OMAX (Objective Matrix) method and an application with Turkish emergency service. In Reser Conference, Productivity of Services Next Gen-Beyond Output/Input. Hamburg, 1-13.
  6. Baltazar M.E., Rosa T., Silva J., 2018. Global decision support for airport performance and efficiency assessment. Journal of Air Transport Management, 71, 220-242. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2018.04.009
  7. Baxter G., Srisaeng P., Wild G., 2018. An Assessment of Airport Sustainability, Part 1-Waste Management at Copenhagen Airport. Resources, 7(1), 21. http://doi.org/10.3390/resources7020032
  8. Bezerra G.C., Gomes C.F., 2018. Performance measurement practices in airports: Multidimensionality and utilization patterns. Journal of Air Transport Management, 70(C), 113-125. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2018.05.006
  9. Bezerra G.C.L., Gomes C.F., 2016. "Performance measurement in airport settings: a systematic literature review", Benchmarking: An International Journal, 23(4), 1027-50. http://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-10-2015-0099
  10. Boons F., Van Buuren A., Teisman G., 2010, November. Governance of sustainability at airports: Moving beyond the debate between growth and noise. In Natural resources forum, 34, 4, 303-313. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-8947.2010.01314.x.
  11. Bourne M., Bourne P., 2011. Handbook of Corporate Performance Management. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
  12. Brisbane Airport Corporation, 2020. Brisbane Airport 2020 Master Plan, Available from Internet: https://www.bne.com.au/corporate/projects/airport-master-plan
  13. Chao C.C., Lirn T.C., Lin H.C., 2017. Indicators and evaluation model for analyzing environmental protection performance of airports. Journal of Air Transport Management, 63, 61-70. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2017.05.007
  14. Chourasia A.S., Jha K., Dalei N.N., 2020. Development and planning of sustainable airports. Journal of Public Affairs, e2145. http://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2145
  15. Dervitsiotis K., 1995. The objectives matrix as a facilitating framework for quality assessment and improvement in education. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 6: 5, 563-570. http://doi.org/10.1080/09544129550035215
  16. ECMA., 2001. C# language specification. Standard-ecma334
  17. Eshtaiwi M., Badi I., Abdulshahed A., Erkan T.E., 2018. Determination of key performance indicators for measuring airport success: A case study in Libya. Journal of Air Transport Management, 68, 28-34. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2017.12.004
  18. Frankis G., Humphreys I., Fry J., 2002. The benchmarking of airport performance. Journal of Air Transport Management, 8, 239-247. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-6997(02)00003-0
  19. Güngören M., 2016. Havaalanlarında Performans ve Kalite Yönetimi [Performance in Airports and Quality Management], in F. Kuyucak Şengür (Ed.), Havaalanı Yönetimi, Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayınları, Eskişehir, Türkiye, 142-167.
  20. Jääskeläinen A., 2009. Identifying a Suitable Approach for Measuring and Managing Public Service Productivity. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(4): 447-458. Available from Internet: http://www.ejkm.com/issue/download.html?idArticle=196
  21. Janic M., 2010. Developing an indicator system for monitoring, analyzing, and assessing airport sustainability. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 10(3). http://doi.org/10.18757/ejtir.2010.10.3.2889
  22. Koç S., Durmaz V., 2015. Airport corporate sustainability: An analysis of indicators reported in the sustainability practices. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 181, 158-170. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.877
  23. Kucuyak F., 2001. Havaalanlarında performans analizi için bir model önerisi ve Türkiye'deki havalimanlarında uygulanması [A Proposal for a performance analysis model in airports and application to airports in Turkey], Yüksek Lisans Tezi Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Eskişehir. Available at: https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/(Thesis No: 101570).
  24. Kumar A., Aswin A., Gupta H., 2020. Evaluating green performance of the airports using hybrid BWM and VIKOR methodology. Tourism Management, 76, 103941. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.06.016.
  25. Lu M.T., Hsu C.C., Liou J.J., Lo H.W., 2018. A hybrid MCDM and sustainabilitybalanced scorecard model to establish sustainable performance evaluation for international airports. Journal of Air Transport Management, 71, 9-19. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2018.05.008.
  26. Olfat L., Amiri M., Soufi J.B., Pishdar M., 2016. A dynamic network efficiency measurement of airports performance considering sustainable development concept: A fuzzy dynamic network-DEA approach. Journal of Air Transport Management, 57, 272-290. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2016.08.007
  27. Rodoplu Şahin D., Haitmurodov U., Turan P., 2019. Industry 4.0; Opportunities, Challenges of Airport And Airline Management Practices. The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioural Sciences EpSBS, 568-577. http://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2019.01.02.48
  28. Sameh M.M., Scavuzzi J., 2016. Environmental Sustainability Measures for Airports. Occasional Paper Series: Sustainable International Civil Aviation, 7. Available from Internet: https://mcgill.ca/iasl/files/iasl/vii_sustainability_and_environmental_protection_measures_for_airports_final.pdf
  29. Sameh M., Scavuzzi dos Santos J., 2018. "Environmental Sustainability Measures for Airports" in A. De Mestral, P. Fitzgerald, & M. Ahmad (Eds.), Sustainable Development, International Aviation, and Treaty Implementation (Treaty Implementation for Sustainable Development). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 62-80. http://doi.org/10.1017/9781316594216.005
  30. Tsai W.H., Chou W.C., 2009. Selecting management systems for sustainable development in SMEs:A novel hybrid model based on DEMATEL, ANP, and ZOGP, Expert Systems with Applications, 36: 1444-1458. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2007.11.058
  31. Tzeng, G.H., Chiang, C.H., Li, C.W., 2007. Evaluating intertwined effects in e-learning programs: A novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and DEMATEL. Expert systems with Applications, 32(4), 1028-1044. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2006.02.004
  32. Upham P., 2001. A comparison of sustainability theory with UK and European airports policy and practice. Journal of environmental management, 63(3), 237-248. http://doi.org/10.1006/jema.2001.0469
  33. Vreedenburg M., 1999, December 13. International Civil Aviation Organization Airport Privatization Seminar for the N.A.M./C.A.R./S.A.M. Regions. I.C.A.O. Available from Internet: https://www.icao.int/Meetings/AMC/MA/1999/aps/05_pp_vreedenburgh_e.pdf
  34. Wan L., Peng Q., Wang J., Tian Y., Xu C., 2020. Evaluation of Airport Sustainability by the Synthetic Evaluation Method: A Case Study of Guangzhou Baiyun International Airport, China, from 2008 to 2017. Sustainability, 12(8), 3334. http://doi.org/10.3390/su12083334.
  35. Wu W.W., 2008. Choosing knowledge management strategies by using a combined ANP and DEMATEL approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 35(3), 828-835. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2007.07.025
  36. Yuan X.M., Low J.M., Tang L.C., 2010. Roles of the airport and logistics services on the economic outcomes of an air cargo supply chain. International journal of production economics, 127(2), 215-225. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2009.08.005
  37. Zaim S., 2002. "Hedeflerle Yönetim, Balanced Scorecard ve Stratejik Kalite Yönetimi [Management by Goals, Balanced Scorecard and Strategic Quality Management]" Akademik Araştırmalar Dergisi, C: III, 12.
Cytowane przez
Pokaż
ISSN
1895-2038
Język
eng
URI / DOI
http://dx.doi.org/10.17270/J.LOG.2021.529
Udostępnij na Facebooku Udostępnij na Twitterze Udostępnij na Google+ Udostępnij na Pinterest Udostępnij na LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu