Maritime Economics & Logistics

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 29–47 | Cite as

Combining multicriteria decision analysis and cost–benefit analysis in the assessment of maritime projects financed by the European Investment Bank

  • Mark Clintworth
  • Evangelos Boulougouris
  • Byung Suk Lee
Original Article


As the financing institution of the EU, the European Investment Bank (EIB) has a long history of investments in the maritime sector. The EIB’s support for the sector is guided by EU maritime policy which is increasingly influenced by non-financial criteria such as safety, environment and employment. The increasing inclusion of non-financial criteria into financial decisions adds to the degree of subjectivity involved in project investment decisions, especially the ones involving public funds. This subjectivity is present in individual decision maker’s thought processes when assessing the relative importance of each criterion. Within this context, this paper examines a methodology which combines established financial analysis methods with multicriteria decision analysis in an effort to address this complex issue. The aim is to develop a model, which incorporates financial and non-financial criteria whilst accounting for the inherent subjectivity in investment decision making, in a transparent and auditable manner. The paper examines the application of the model to a fleet expansion project which has been financed by the EIB. Further research is proposed including ways in which the model could also be utilised as a performance indictor to track the degree to which EIB financing meets the goals outlined in EU maritime policy.


Analytical hierarchy process (AHP) Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) Fuzzy AHP European Investment Bank (EIB) Project appraisal Cost–benefit analysis (CBA) 



The authors wish to thank the editor and referees for their consideration and efforts invested, which have seriously contributed to an extensive improvement in the revised paper quality and overall flow.


  1. Babić, Z., and N. Tomić-Plazibat. 1999. Making Investment Decisions with Multicriterial Analysis and Zero-One Programming, Management. Journal of Contemporary Management Issues 4 (1-2): 167–178.Google Scholar
  2. Buckley, J.J. 1985. Fuzzy Hierarchical Analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 17 (3): 233–247. doi: 10.1016/0165-0114(85)90090-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chang, D.Y. 1992. Extent Analysis and Synthetic Decision. Optimization Techniques and Application 1 (1): 352–355.Google Scholar
  4. Deng, H. 1999. Multicriteria Analysis with Fuzzy Pairwise Comparison. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 21 (3): 215–231. doi: 10.1016/S0888-613X(99)00025-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. European Commission. 2012. Strategic Goals and Recommendations for the EU’s Maritime Transport Policy until 2020. European Union.Google Scholar
  6. European Commission. 2014. Guide to Cost-benefit Analysis of Investment Projects: Economic appraisal tool for Cohesion Policy 2014-2020. Publications Office of the European Union. doi: 10.2776/97516.
  7. EIB (European Investment Bank). 2011. EIB Transport Lending Policy. Luxembourg: European Investment Bank.Google Scholar
  8. EIB (European Investment Bank). 2008. The Economic Appraisal of Projects: An Overview of an Approach with the EIB. Luxembourg: European Investment Bank.Google Scholar
  9. EIB (European Investment Bank). 2012. Methodologies for the Assessment of Project Ghg Emissions and Emission Variations. Luxembourg: European Investment Bank.Google Scholar
  10. Hariharan, S., P.K. Dey, H.S. Moseley, A.Y. Kumar, and J. Gora. 2004. A New Tool for Measurement of Process-Based Performance of Multispecialty Tertiary Care Hospitals. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance 17 (6): 302–312. doi: 10.1108/09526860410557552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Haven, E.E. 1998. The Fuzzy Multicriteria Analysis Method: An Application on NPV Ranking. Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance & Management 7 (4): 243–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haezendonck, E. 2008. Transport Project Evaluation: Extending the Social Cost Benefit Approach. Maritime Economics & Logistics 10 (3): 322–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jones, B.D. 1999. Bounded Rationality. Annual Review of Political Science. 2: 1–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Leviäkangas, P., and J. Lähesmaa. 2002. Profitability Evaluation of Intelligent Transport System Investments. Journal of Transportation Engineering 128 (3): 276–286. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(2002)128:3(276).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lirn, T.C., H.A. Thanopoulou, M.J. Beynon, and A.K.C. Beresford. 2004. An Application of AHP on Transhipment Port Selection: A Global Perspective. Maritime Economics Logistics 6 (1): 70–91. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Loch, C.H., and S. Kavadias. 2002. Dynamic Portfolio Selection of NPD Programs Using Marginal Returns. Management Science 48 (10): 1227–1241. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.48.10.1227.275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mahmoodzadeh, S., J. Shahrabi, M. Pariazar, and M.S. Zaeri. 2007. Project Selection by Using Fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS Technique. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology. 30: 333–338.Google Scholar
  18. Ramcharan, E.K., and P.K. Dey. 2005. The Role of Environmental Factors in Industrial Site Selection Activities: A Case of Limestone Quarry Expansion in Barbados, West Indies. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 23 (2): 147–154. doi: 10.3152/147154605781765670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rousos, E.-P., and B.S. Lee. 2012. Multicriteria Analysis in Shipping Investment Evaluation. Maritime Policy & Management 39 (4): 423–442. doi: 10.1080/03088839.2012.690080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Saaty, T.L. 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  21. Song, D.W., and K.T. Yeo. 2004. A Competitive Analysis of Chinese Container Ports Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Maritime Economics and Logistics 6 (1): 34–52. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Spackman, M. 2004. Time Discounting and the Cost of Capital in Government. Fiscal Studies 25 (4): 467–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. van Laarhoven, P.J.M., and W. Pedrycz. 1983. A Fuzzy Extension of Saaty’s Priority Theory. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 11 (1): 229–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zadeh, L.A. 1965. Fuzzy Sets. Information and Control 8 (3): 338–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark Clintworth
    • 1
  • Evangelos Boulougouris
    • 2
  • Byung Suk Lee
    • 2
  1. 1.European Investment BankLuxembourgLuxembourg
  2. 2.Department of Ocean Architecture and Marine EngineeringUniversity of StrathclydeGlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations