Türkiye’de Havaalanı Performansının CRITIC temelli EDAS Yöntemiyle Analizi

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2, 837 - 856, 30.08.2022

Kasım Kiracı , Cemal Durmuşçelebi

https://doi.org/10.18506/anemon.964827

Cited By: 3

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı 2013-2019 döneminde Türkiye’de kamu tarafından (DHMİ) işletilen havaalanlarının performansının ortaya çıkarılmasıdır. Çalışmada kapsamında belirlenen 15 kriter, yolcu sayısı açısından en büyük 10 havaalanı alternatifi için CRITIC temelli EDAS yöntemi kullanılarak performans analizini ortaya çıkarılmıştır. Çalışmanın sonuçları, 2013-2019 döneminde bazı havaalanlarının performansında kayda değer değişimlerin meydana geldiğini göstermektedir. Buna karşın bulgular, ilgili dönemde meydana gelen krizlerin havaalanı performans sıralamasında önemli bir değişikliğe neden olmadığına işaret etmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Havaalanları, Performans, Çok Kriterli Karar Verme, CRITIC, EDAS

Analysis of Airport Performance in Turkey with CRITIC-based EDAS Method

Öz

The air transport industry experienced rapid change and transformation after the second world war. After that period, in the first phase, airlines experienced structural change. In the second phase, the airport structures experienced a significant transformation. In this context, the ownership structure of airports has changed, and various practices related to the commercialization and privatization of airports have become widespread. This constrained the examination of airport performance and comparison of airports in terms of performance. Therefore, this study aims to reveal the performance of airports operated by the public in Turkey from 2013 through 2019. Performance analysis revealed by using the CRITIC-based EDAS method for the 15 criteria determined within the scope of the study and the 10 largest airport alternatives in terms of passenger numbers. The results of the study indicate that significant changes occurred in the performance of some airports in the period of 2013-2019. It has been determined that some airports have shown significant improvement in performance, especially in the 2015-2018 period. On the other hand, the findings indicate that both national and international events, situations, or crises that occurred in the relevant period did not cause a permanent change in the airport performance ranking.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Airports, Performance, Multi-Criteria Decision Making, CRITIC, EDAS

Kaynakça

• Abbott, M., & Wu, S. (2002). Total factor productivity and efficiency of Australian airports. Australian Economic Review, 35(3), 244-260.
• Abdel-Basset, M., Gamal, A., Chakrabortty, R. K., & Ryan, M. (2021). A new hybrid multi-criteria decision-making approach for location selection of sustainable offshore wind energy stations: A case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 280, 124462.
• Adler, N., Liebert, V., & Yazhemsky, E. (2013). Benchmarking airports from a managerial perspective. Omega, 41(2), 442-458.
• Akbulut, O. Y. (2019). CRITIC ve EDAS yöntemleri ile İş Bankası'nın 2009-2018 yılları arasındaki performansının analizi. Ekonomi Politika ve Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(2), 249-263.
• Anilkumar, B. C., Maniyeri, R., & Anish, S. (2021). Optimum selection of phase change material for solar box cooker integrated with thermal energy storage unit using multi-criteria decision-making technique. Journal of Energy Storage, 40, 102807.
• 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.
• Boardman, A. E., & Vining, A. R. (1989). Ownership and performance in competitive environments: A comparison of the performance of private, mixed, and state-owned enterprises. The Journal of Law and Economics, 32(1), 1-33.
• Bottasso, A., & Conti, M. (2010). An Assessment on the Cost Structure of the UK Airport Industry: Ownership Outcomes and Long Run Cost Economies. SSRN Electronic Journal. Doi:10.2139/ssrn.1618318
• Doi, S., Ghosh, S., Sarker, B., & Chakraborty, S. (2020). An integrated performance evaluation approach for the Indian international airports. Journal of Air Transport Management, 88, 101876.
• Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G., & Papayannakis, L. (1995). Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: The critic method. Computers & Operations Research, 22(7), 763-770.
• Dožić, S. (2019). Multi-criteria decision making methods: Application in the aviation industry. Journal of Air Transport Management, 79, 101683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jairtraman.2019.101683
• 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.
• Fan, J. P., Li, Y. J., & Wu, M. Q. (2019). Technology selection based on EDAS cross-efficiency evaluation method. IEEE Access, 7, 58974-58980.
• Francis, G., Humphreys, I., & Fry, J. (2002). The benchmarking of airport performance. Journal of Air Transport Management, 8(4), 239-247.
• Gao, R., Nam, H. O., Ko, W. I., & Jang, H. (2017). National Options for a Sustainable Nuclear Energy System: MCDM Evaluation Using an Improved Integrated Weighting Approach. Energies, 10(12), 1-24.
• Gillen, D., & Lall, A. (1997). Developing measures of airport productivity and performance: an application of data envelopment analysis. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 33(4), 261-273.
• Graham, A., & Morrell, P. (2016). Airport finance and investment in the global economy, First edition, London. Routledge.
• Jahan, A., Mustapha, F., Sapuan, S. M., Ismail, M. Y., & Bahraminasab, M. (2012). A framework for weighting of criteria in ranking stage of material selection process. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 58(1-4), 411-420.
• Karatop, B., Taşkan, B., Adar, E., & Kubat, C. (2021). Decision analysis related to the renewable energy investments in Turkey based on a Fuzzy AHP-EDAS-Fuzzy FMEA approach. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 151, 106958.
• Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Olfat, L., & Turskis, Z. (2015). Multi-criteria inventory classification using a new method of evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS). Informatica, 26(3), 435-451.
• Kiracı, K., & Bakır, M. (2019). Critic temelli Edas yöntemi ile havayolu işletmelerinde performans ölçümü uygulamasi. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (35), 157-174.
• Kuo, M. S., & Liang, G. S. (2011). Combining VIKOR with GRA techniques to evaluate service quality of airports under fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(3), 1304-1312.
• Lin, L. C., & Hong, C. H. (2006). Operational performance evaluation of international major airports: An application of data envelopment analysis. Journal of Air Transport Management, 12(6), 342-351.
• Lu, M. T., Hsu, C. C., Liou, J. J., & Lo, H. W. (2018). A hybrid MCDM and sustainability-balanced scorecard model to establish sustainable performance evaluation for international airports. Journal of Air Transport Management, 71, 9-19.
• Madic, M., & Radovanović, M. (2015). Ranking of some most commonly used nontraditional machining processes using ROV and CRITIC methods. UPB Sci. Bull., Series D, 77(2), 193-204.
• Martı́n, J. C., & Roman, C. (2001). An application of DEA to measure the efficiency of Spanish airports prior to privatization. Journal of Air Transport Management, 7(3), 149-157.
• Martín, J., & Román, C. (2008). The relationship between size and efficiency: A benchmarking analysis of Spanish commercial airports. Journal of Airport Management, 2(2), 183-197.
• Martín, J. C., Román, C., & Voltes-Dorta, A. (2009). A stochastic frontier analysis to estimate the relative efficiency of Spanish airports. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 31(3), 163-176.
• Oum, T. H., Yan, J., & Yu, C. (2008). Ownership forms matter for airport efficiency: A stochastic frontier investigation of worldwide airports. Journal of Urban Economics, 64(2), 422-435.
• Oum, T. H., Adler, N., & Yu, C. (2006). Privatization, corporatization, ownership forms and their effects on the performance of the world's major airports. Journal of Air Transport Management, 12(3), 109-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2005.11.003
• Örkcü, H. H., Balikçi, C., Dogan, M. I., & Genç, A. (2016). An evaluation of the operational efficiency of turkish airports using data envelopment analysis and the Malmquist productivity index: 2009-2014 case. Transport Policy, 48, 92–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.02.008
• Özsoy, V. S., & Örkcü, H. H. (2021). Structural and operational management of Turkish airports: a bootstrap data envelopment analysis of efficiency. Utilities Policy, 69, 101180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2021.101180
• Öztürk, S., & Saygın, S. (2017). 1973 Petrol krizinin ekonomiye etkileri ve stagflasyon olgusu. BJSS Balkan, Journal of Social Sciences, 6 (12), 1-12.
• Parker, D. (1999). The performance of BAA before and after privatisation: A DEA study. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 33(2), 133-145.
• Pels, E., Nijkamp, P., & Rietveld, P. (2001). Relative efficiency of European airports. Transport policy, 8(3), 183-192.
• Peng, X., & Liu, C. (2017). Algorithms for neutrosophic soft decision making based on EDAS, new similarity measure and level soft set. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 32(1), 955-968.
• Prakash, C., & Barua, M. K. (2016). A robust multi-criteria decision-making framework for evaluation of the airport service quality enablers for ranking the airports. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 17(3), 351-370.
• Sahebi, I. G., Masoomi, B., & Ghorbani, S. (2020). Expert oriented approach for analyzing the blockchain adoption barriers in humanitarian supply chain. Technology in Society, 63, 101427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101427
• Shojaei, P., Haeri, S. A. S., & Mohammadi, S. (2018). Airports evaluation and ranking model using Taguchi loss function, best-worst method and VIKOR technique. Journal of Air Transport Management, 68, 4-13.
• Skorupski, J., & Uchroński, P. (2020). Multi-criteria group decision-making approach to the modernization of hold baggage security screening system at an airport. Journal of Air Transport Management, 87, 101841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2020.101841
• Supciller, A. A., & Toprak, F. (2020). Selection of wind turbines with multi-criteria decision making techniques involving neutrosophic numbers: A case from Turkey. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.118237
• Trinkūnienė, E., Podvezko, V., Zavadskas, E. K., Jokšienė, I., Vinogradova, I., & Trinkūnas, V. (2017). Evaluation of quality assurance in contractor contracts by multi-attribute decision-making methods. Economic research-Ekonomska istraživanja, 30(1), 1152-1180.
• Ulutaş, A. (2017). EDAS yöntemi kullanılarak bir tekstil atölyesi için dikiş makinesi seçimi. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9(2), 169-183.
• Ulutaş, A. (2019). Entropi tabanlı edas yöntemi ile lojistik firmalarının performans analizi. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi, (23), 53-66.
• Wang, Z., & Song, W. K. (2020). Sustainable airport development with performance evaluation forecasts: A case study of 12 Asian airports. Journal of Air Transport Management, 89, 101925.
• Wyman, O. (2012). Guide to airport performance measures. Airports Council international, ACI. (Erişim: 25.05.2021), http://www.aci.aero/Media/aci/downloads/ACI_APM_Guidebook_2_2012.pdf
• Yokomi, M. (2005, July). Evaluation of technical efficiency at privatized airports: Case of BAA Plc. In a paper presented at the Air Transport Research Society (ATRS) Conference (July 3-6, 2005: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil).
• Yu, M. M. (2004). Measuring physical efficiency of domestic airports in Taiwan with undesirable outputs and environmental factors. Journal of Air Transport Management, 10(5), 295-303.
• Yu, M. M. (2010). Assessment of airport performance using the SBM-NDEA model. Omega, 38(6), 440-452.
• Žižović, M., Miljković, B., & Marinković, D. (2020). Objective methods for determining criteria weight coefficients: A modification of the CRITIC method. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 3(2), 149-161.