A value-based definition of success in adaptive port planning: a case study of the Port of Isafjordur in Iceland
- 20 Downloads
Multiple stakeholders with a wide range of objectives are engaged in a port system. Ports themselves are faced with many uncertainties in this volatile world. To meet stakeholder objectives and deal with uncertainties, adaptive port planning is increasingly being acknowledged. This method offers robust planning, and thereby, a sustainable and flexible port may be developed. The planning process starts with defining success in terms of the specific objectives of stakeholders during the projected lifetime of the port. In the present work, an integrated framework to reach a consensus on the definition of success, involving stakeholders with different influences, stakes and objectives, is presented. The framework synthesises the problem structuring method with stakeholder analysis and combines these with fuzzy logic to support decision-makers in formulating a definition of success in the planning process. Our framework is applied to the Port of Isafjordur, the third busiest port of call for cruise ships in Iceland. Values of stakeholders about port planning were structured around the value-focussed thinking method to identify stakeholder objectives. The highest level of agreement on the objectives, which is viewed here as success in port planning, was revealed by the fuzzy multi-attribute group decision-making method. Success was defined, prioritising an increase in competitiveness among other planning objectives, such as effective and efficient use of land, increasing safety and security, increasing hinterland connectivity, increasing financial performance, better environmental implications, flexibility creation and increasing positive economic and social impacts.
KeywordsDecision-making process Adaptive port planning Definition of success Value-focussed thinking Iceland
The time and expertise contributed by the people listed in Table 1 and other formal and informal groups who were involved in this project are acknowledged. The authors are grateful to anonymous referees for their careful review of this paper, corrections and fruitful remarks. This work was supported in part by the University of Iceland Research Fund (Rannsoknarsjodur Haskola Islands), the Municipality of Isafjardarbaer and the Icelandic Road and Coastal Administration Research Fund (Rannsoknarsjodur Vegagerdarinnar).
- AlMaian, R.Y., K.L. Needy, T.C.L. da Alves, and K.D. Walsh. 2016. Analyzing effective supplier-quality-management practices using simple multi attribute rating technique and value-focused thinking. Journal of Management in Engineering 32 (1): 04015035. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Arecco, P., T. Vellinga, M. Hertogh, M. Oosting, P. Taneja, and P. Vervoorn, eds. 2016. Formulating goals towards success for Adaptive Port Planning Applied case: Europoort at Port of Rotterdam. In Proceedings of the 9th PIANC—International conference on coastal and port engineering in developing countries (COPEDEC) conference, Oct 16–21, 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.Google Scholar
- Bennett, P., J. Bryant, and N. Howard. 2001. Drama theory and confrontation analysis. In Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited: Problem structuring methods for complexity, uncertainty and conflict, ed. J. Rosenhead and J. Mingers, 225–248. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Checkland, P., and J. Scholes. 1999. Soft systems methodology in action. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Clintworth, M., E. Boulougouris, and B.S. Lee. 2018. Combining multicriteria decision analysis and cost-benefit analysis in the assessment of maritime projects financed by the European Investment Bank. Maritime Economics & Logistics 20 (1): 29–47. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-017-0072-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Eden, C., and F. Ackermann. 1998. Making strategy: the journey of strategic management. London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Eden, C., and F. Ackermann. 2001. SODA—The principles. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
- European Commission. 2018. Ports—Mobility and transport—European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/maritime/ports/ports_en. Accessed 29 Dec 2018.
- Icelandic Directorate of Fisheries. 2018. Find ship—Individual vessels—Web Directorate of Fisheries. http://www.fiskistofa.is/english/quotas-and-catches/induvidual-vessels/. Accessed 19 Dec 2018.
- Keeney, R.L. 1992. Value-focused thinking: a path to creative decision making. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Klir, G.J., and A.T. Folger. 1988. Fuzzy sets, uncertainty, and information. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- Morgan, W. 1951. Observations on the study of hinterlands in Europe. Tijdschrift sociale en economische geografie 42: 366–371.Google Scholar
- PIANC. 2018. PIANC Publications. https://www.pianc.org/publications. Accessed 29 Dec 2018.
- Pidd, M. (ed.). 2003. Tools for thinking. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Poplawska, J., A. Labib, D.M. Reed, and A. Ishizaka. 2015. Stakeholder profile definition and salience measurement with fuzzy logic and visual analytics applied to corporate social responsibility case study. Journal of Cleaner Production 105: 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Port of Isafjordur Authority. 2019. Port of Isafjordur, Cruise ship. http://port.isafjordur.is/index.php?pid=1&w=s. Accessed 13 May 2018.
- Rosenhead, J. 2001. Robustness analysis: keeping your options open. In Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited, ed. J. Rosenhead and J. Mingers, 181–207. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Ross, T.J. (ed.). 2004. Fuzzy logic with engineering applications. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Slinger, J., P. Taneja, T. Vellinga, and C. Van Dorsser, eds. 2017. Stakeholder inclusive design for sustainable port development. In Proceedings of the international maritime-port technology and development conference (MTEC), April 26–28, 2017, Singapore.Google Scholar
- Taneja, P. 2013. The flexible port. Ph.D. dissertation, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
- Taneja, P., H. Ligteringen, and W. Walker. 2012. Flexibility in port planning and design. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research 1 (12): 66–87.Google Scholar
- Wiegmans, B., I. Menger, B. Behdani, and B. Van Arem. 2018. Communication between deep sea container terminals and hinterland stakeholders: information needs and the relevance of information exchange. Maritime Economics & Logistics 20 (4): 531–548. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-017-0071-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Yin, R.K. (ed.). 1994. Case study research: design and methods. London: Sage.Google Scholar