IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i17p7531-d1467896.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multi-Criteria Analysis of Coast Guard Resource Deployment for Improvement of Maritime Safety and Environmental Protection: Case Study of Eastern Adriatic Sea

Author

Listed:
  • Tomislav Sunko

    (Croatian Military Academy “Dr Franjo Tuđman”, Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Croatia, Ilica 256b, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia)

  • Marko Mladineo

    (Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, University of Split, Rudera Boskovica 32, 21000 Split, Croatia)

  • Mirjana Kovačić

    (Faculty of Maritime Studies, University of Rijeka, Studentska Ulica 2, 51000 Rijeka, Croatia)

  • Toni Mišković

    (OIV—Transmitters and Communications Ltd., Ulica Grada Vukovara 269, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia)

Abstract

European maritime states are facing increasing challenges that threaten national security, maritime traffic safety, and environmental protection: increasing maritime traffic, increase in nautical tourism, oil spills, migrant boats, drug smuggling, etc. The Coast Guard is one of the most important government agencies to respond to these challenges. However, the speed of response to incidents depends on the geographical and geostrategic deployment of Coast Guard resources, especially of its homeports. The main objective is to have the Coast Guard’s homeports as close as possible to the national border at sea so that the response time to an incident is as fast as possible. However, there are many other criteria that affect the selection of the maritime location of the Coast Guard homeport. These other criteria (security issues, logistic issues, hydrographic and oceanographic features, and similar) are often in conflict with geographical locations on small remote islands that are close to the state border at sea. Therefore, this research analyzed and proposed the criteria set used to assess the maritime locations that could be potential Coast Guard homeports. A large sample of experts has been interviewed to evaluate the proposed criteria set and to propose criteria weights, thus creating the multi-criteria analysis model for the improvement of the spatial distribution of Coast Guard resources. The proposed model is based on the PROMETHEE method and provides evaluation and ranking of the maritime locations in order to help the Government prioritize the development of the maritime locations into the homeports for the deployment of Coast Guard resources. The case study of the eastern Adriatic Sea with real-world maritime locations and data was used to test the proposed model. The results have shown that, with proper strategic planning of the deployment of Coast Guard resources, the sustainability, safety, and security of the sea and the coast can be increased.

Suggested Citation

  • Tomislav Sunko & Marko Mladineo & Mirjana Kovačić & Toni Mišković, 2024. "Multi-Criteria Analysis of Coast Guard Resource Deployment for Improvement of Maritime Safety and Environmental Protection: Case Study of Eastern Adriatic Sea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-17, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:17:p:7531-:d:1467896
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/17/7531/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/17/7531/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James S. Dyer, 1990. "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 249-258, March.
    2. Katarina Rogulj & Nikša Jajac & Katja Batinić, 2023. "Flat Roofs Renovation Planning on Public Buildings Using Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-19, April.
    3. Bertrand Mareschal & Jean Pierre Brans & Philippe Vincke, 1986. "How to select and how to rank projects: the Prométhée method," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/9307, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    4. Brans, J. P. & Vincke, Ph. & Mareschal, B., 1986. "How to select and how to rank projects: The method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 228-238, February.
    5. Imad Hassan & Ibrahim Alhamrouni & Nurul Hanis Azhan, 2023. "A CRITIC–TOPSIS Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach for Optimum Site Selection for Solar PV Farm," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-26, May.
    6. James S. Dyer, 1990. "A Clarification of "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process"," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 274-275, March.
    7. Guitouni, Adel & Martel, Jean-Marc, 1998. "Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 501-521, September.
    8. Günay Uzun & Metin Dağdeviren & Mehmet Kabak, 2016. "Determining the Distribution of Coast Guard Vessels," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 46(4), pages 297-314, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Schuwirth, N. & Reichert, P. & Lienert, J., 2012. "Methodological aspects of multi-criteria decision analysis for policy support: A case study on pharmaceutical removal from hospital wastewater," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 220(2), pages 472-483.
    2. Liu, Xianliang & Liu, Yunfei, 2024. "Sensitivity analysis of the parameters for preference functions and rank reversal analysis in the PROMETHEE II method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    3. Tsuen-Ho Hsu & Ling-Zhong Lin, 2014. "Using Fuzzy Preference Method for Group Package Tour Based on the Risk Perception," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 299-323, March.
    4. Saul I. Gass, 2005. "Model World: The Great Debate—MAUT Versus AHP," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 35(4), pages 308-312, August.
    5. Pohekar, S. D. & Ramachandran, M., 2004. "Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning--A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 365-381, August.
    6. Marco Araújo & Love Ekenberg & Mats Danielson & João Confraria, 2022. "A Multi-Criteria Approach to Decision Making in Broadband Technology Selection," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 387-418, April.
    7. Mulliner, Emma & Smallbone, Kieran & Maliene, Vida, 2013. "An assessment of sustainable housing affordability using a multiple criteria decision making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 270-279.
    8. Hajkowicz, Stefan & Higgins, Andrew, 2008. "A comparison of multiple criteria analysis techniques for water resource management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 184(1), pages 255-265, January.
    9. Ormerod, Richard J. & Ulrich, Werner, 2013. "Operational research and ethics: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 291-307.
    10. Roman Vavrek, 2019. "Evaluation of the Impact of Selected Weighting Methods on the Results of the TOPSIS Technique," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(06), pages 1821-1843, November.
    11. Thomas L. Saaty & Daji Ergu, 2015. "When is a Decision-Making Method Trustworthy? Criteria for Evaluating Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(06), pages 1171-1187, November.
    12. Topcu, Y.I & Ulengin, F, 2004. "Energy for the future: An integrated decision aid for the case of Turkey," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 137-154.
    13. Lucia Rocchi & Anthony G. Rizzo & Luisa Paolotti & Antonio Boggia & Maria Attard, 2024. "Assessing climate change vulnerability of coastal roads," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 29(5), pages 1-29, June.
    14. Macharis, Cathy & Bernardini, Annalia, 2015. "Reviewing the use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for the evaluation of transport projects: Time for a multi-actor approach," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 177-186.
    15. Mimica R. Milošević & Dušan M. Milošević & Ana D. Stanojević & Dragan M. Stević & Dušan J. Simjanović, 2021. "Fuzzy and Interval AHP Approaches in Sustainable Management for the Architectural Heritage in Smart Cities," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-29, February.
    16. A Ishizaka & D Balkenborg & T Kaplan, 2011. "Does AHP help us make a choice? An experimental evaluation," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(10), pages 1801-1812, October.
    17. Schneider, Frank, 2008. "Multiple criteria decision making in application layer networks," Bayreuth Reports on Information Systems Management 36, University of Bayreuth, Chair of Information Systems Management.
    18. Cinelli, Marco & Kadziński, Miłosz & Gonzalez, Michael & Słowiński, Roman, 2020. "How to support the application of multiple criteria decision analysis? Let us start with a comprehensive taxonomy," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    19. Cavallaro, Fausto, 2009. "Multi-criteria decision aid to assess concentrated solar thermal technologies," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 34(7), pages 1678-1685.
    20. Montlaur, Adeline & Delgado, Luis & Prats, Xavier, 2023. "Domain-driven multiple-criteria decision-making for flight crew decision support tool," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:17:p:7531-:d:1467896. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.