Ballast water management: technology choice comparing TODIM and THOR 2
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This paper approaches the problem of ballast water treatment in ships. This has been identified as one of the four greatest threats to the world’s oceans. Solutions that have been considered for solving the problem are alternative water treatment technologies. In the case study reported in this paper three major water treatment technologies have been evaluated with the help of twenty-six criteria, quantitative as well as qualitative by using two discrete multicriteria methods, TODIM and THOR 2. The THOR 2 consists of the axiomatic evolution of the THOR method and both THOR 2 and THOR are made available through the THOR Web platform. Five groups of evaluation criteria are then considered: practicality; biological effectiveness; cost/benefit ratio; time frame for the implementation of standards; and environmental impact of the process' sub-products. In this paper a case study on choosing a ballast water treatment technology is presented. Three alternative ballast water management technologies are proposed by experts in the field and are evaluated with the help of twenty-six criteria, quantitative as well as qualitative. Each ballast water management method is described by a list of twenty-six attributes or criteria. After setting the problem in a clear way and consulting different experts, the two separate applications of both TODIM and THOR 2 are performed. What is denoted as Management Method #1 is indeed chosen as the best alternative according to both methods. The conclusion is that those two methods, although conceptually and analytically quite different, lead essentially to the same main results. Two other applications of both TODIM and THOR have indeed confirmed the convergence of results in spite of the conceptual and technical differences between the two methods. This suggests that formulating a decision problem in a correct, clear-cut way can be at least as important as the technical characteristics of the method per se.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
1. Proposal of Policy for Free Access Periodics
Authors whom publish in this magazine should agree to the following terms:
a. Authors should keep the copyrights and grant to the magazine the right of the first publication, with the work simultaneously permitted under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 that allows the sharing of the work with recognition of the authorship of the work and initial publication in this magazine.
b. Authors should have authorization for assuming additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this magazine (e.g.: to publish in an institutional repository or as book chapter), with recognition of authorship and initial publication in this magazine.
c. Authors should have permission and should be stimulated to publish and to distribute its work online (e.g.: in institutional repositories or its personal page) to any point before or during the publishing process, since this can generate productive alterations, as well as increasing the impact and the citation of the published work (See The Effect of Free Access).
Proposal of Policy for Periodic that offer Postponed Free Access
Authors whom publish in this magazine should agree to the following terms:
a. Authors should keep the copyrights and grant to the magazine the right of the first publication, with the work simultaneously permitted under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 [SPECIFY TIME HERE] after the publication, allowing the sharing of the work with recognition of the authorship of the work and initial publication in this magazine.
b. Authors should have authorization for assuming additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this magazine (e.g.: to publish in institutional repository or as book chapter), with recognition of authorship and initial publication in this magazine.
c. Authors should have permission and should be stimulated to publish and to distribute its work online (e.g.: in institutional repositories or its personal page) to any point before or during the publishing process, since this can generate productive alterations, as well as increasing the impact and the citation of the published work (See The Effect of Free Access).
d. They allow some kind of open dissemination. Authors can disseminate their articles in open access, but with specific conditions imposed by the editor that are related to:
Version of the article that can be deposited in the repository:
Pre-print: before being reviewed by pairs.
Post-print: once reviewed by pairs, which can be:
The version of the author that has been accepted for publication.
The editor's version, that is, the article published in the magazine.
At which point the article can be made accessible in an open manner: before it is published in the magazine, immediately afterwards or if a period of seizure is required, which can range from six months to several years.
Where to leave open: on the author's personal web page, only departmental websites, the repository of the institution, the file of the research funding agency, among others.
References
Belton, V., & Stewart, T. J. (2002). Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis. Kluwer, Boston.
Bouyssou, D. (1986). Some remarks on the notion of compensation in MCDM. European Journal of Operational Research, 26 (1), p 150-160.
Brans, J. P., & Mareschal, B. (1990). The PROMÉTHÉE methods for MCDM, the PROMCALC GAIA and BANKADVISER software. In Readings in Multiple Criteria Decision Aid (edited by C.A. Bana e Costa), chapter 2, Springer, Berlin.
Cardoso, R. S., Xavier, L. H., Gomes, C. F. S., & Adissi, P. J. (2009). Uso de SAD no apoio à decisão na destinação de resíduos plásticos e gestão de materiais. Pesquisa Operacional, 29( 1), 67–95.
Costa, I. P. A., Maêda, S. M. N., Teixeira, L. F. H. S. B., Gomes, C. F. S., & Santos, M. (2020). Escolha de navio de assistência hospitalar no combate à pandemia da covid-19. Revista de Saúde Pública, 54, 79. EPUB, August 10, 2020. https://doi.org/10.11606/s1518-8787.2020054002792
Clemen, R. T., & Reilly, T. (2001). Making Hard Decisions with Decision Tools®, Duxbury-Thomson Learning, Pacific Grove.
Costa, I. P. A., Gomes, C. F. S., Teixeira, L. F. H. S. B., Santos, M., & Maeda, S. (2020). Choosing a hospital assistance ship to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. Revista de Saúde Pública, 54, 1-8.
Ehrgott, M., Figueira, J. R., & Greco, S. (eds.) (2010). Trends in Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis, Springer, New York.
Globallast (2010). Economic Assessments for Ballast Water Management: A Guideline. GloBallast Partnerships Project Coordination Unit and International Maritime Organization, London, GloBallast Monograph Series, N. 19.
Globallast (2011). Establising Equivalency in the Performance Testind and Compliance Monitoring of Emerging Alternative Ballast Water Management Systems. GloBallast Partnerships Project Coordination Unit and International Maritime Organization, London, GloBallast Monograph Series, N. 20.
Gomes, C. F. S. (1999). THOR - Um Algoritmo Híbrido de Apoio Multicritério à Decisão para Processos Decisórios com Alternativas Discretas. Tese de doutorado em Engenharia de Produção, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil.
Gomes, C. F. S. (2005). Using MCDA methods THOR in an application for outranking the ballast water management options. Pesquisa Operacional, 25, Jan/April, p 11-28.
Gomes, C. F. S. (2006). Modelagem analítica aplicada à negociação e decisão em grupo. Pesquisa Operacional, 26(3), 537–566.
Gomes, C. F. S., & Costa, H. G. (2015). Aplicação de métodos multicritério ao problema de escolha de modelos de pagamento eletrônico por cartão de crédito. Production, 25(1), 54–68.
Gomes, C. F. S., Gomes, L. F. A. M., & Maranhão, F. J. C. (2010). Decision analysis for the exploration of gas reserves: merging TODIM and THOR. Pesquisa Operacional, 30(3), 601-617.
Gomes, C. F. S., & Maia, A. C. C. (2013). Ordenação de alternativas de biomassa utilizando o apoio multicritério à decisão. Production, 23(3), 488–499.
Gomes, L. F. A. M. (1989). Multicriteria ranking of urban transportation system alternatives. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 23(1), 43-52.
Gomes, L. F. A. M. (1989). Comparing two methods for multicriteria ranking of urban transportation system alternatives. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 23(2&3), 217-219.
Gomes, L. F. A. M. (1990). Modelling interdependencies among urban transportation system alternatives. Journal of Advanced Transportation,24( 1, 77-85.
Gomes, L. F. A. M. (1990). Eliminating rank reversal in multicriteria analysis of urban transportation system alternatives. Journal of Advanced Transportation,24(2), 181-184.
Gomes, L. F. A. M., Gomes, C. F. S., Rangel, L. A. D. (2009). A comparative decision analysis with THOR and TODIM: rental evaluation in Volta Redonda. Revista Tecnologia, 30(1), 7-11.
Gomes, L. F. A. M., & Lima, M. M. P. P. (1991). TODIM: basics and application to multicriteria ranking of projects with environmental impacts. Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences,16(4), 113-127.
Gomes, L. F. A. M., & Lima, M. M. P. P. (1992). From modeling individual preferences to multicriteria ranking of discrete alternatives: a look at Prospect Theory and the additive difference model. Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences,17(3), p 171-184.
Gomes, L. F. A. M., Machado, M. A. S., González, X. I., & Rangel, L. A. D. (2013). Behavioral multi-criteria decision analysis: the TODIM method with criteria interactions. Annals of Operations Research, 211(1), p 531-548.
Gomes, C. F. S., Nunes, K. R. A., Xavier, L. H., Cardoso, R., & Valle, R. (2008). Multicriteria decision making applied to waste recycling in Brazil. Omega, 36, p 395-404.
Gomes, L. F. A. M., & Rangel, L. A. D. (2009). An application of the TODIM method to the multicriteria rental evaluation of residential properties. European Journal of Operational Research, 193, 204–211.
Gomes, L. F. A. M., Rangel, L. A. D., & Maranhão, F. J. C. (2009). Multicriteria analysis of natural gas destination in Brazil: an application of the TODIM method. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 50, 92-100.
IMO (2020a). Ballast Water Management. http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/BallastWaterManagement/Pages/Default.aspx. Access: 10/09/2020.
IMO (2020b). Welcome to GloBallast. http://globallast.imo.org/index.asp?page=problem.htm&menu=true. Access: 10/09/2020.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-292.
Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1993). Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Rosenhead, J., Mingers, J. (eds) (2001). Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited, Wiley, Chichester.
Roy, B. (1996). Multicriteria Methodology for Decision Aiding, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Roy, B., & Bouyssou, D. (1993). Aide Multicritère à la Décision: Méthodes et Cas, Economica, Paris.
Sudha, A. S., Gomes, L. F. A. M., & Vijayalakshmi, K. R. (2020). Assessment of MCDM problems by TODIM using aggregated weights. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 35, 78-98.
Tenenbaum, D. R., Villac, M. C., Viana, S. C., Matos, M., Hatherly, M., Lima, I. V., & Menezes, M. (2004). Phytoplankton Atlas of Sepetiba Bay, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. GloBallast Partnerships Project Coordination Unit and International Maritime Organization, London, GloBallast Monograph Series, N. 16.
Tenório, F. M. (2020). Modelagem multicritério: uma evolução do método THOR. Dissertação (Mestrado em Sistemas e Computação) – Instituto Militar de Engenharia, Rio de Janeiro, Available: http://www.comp.ime.eb.br/pos/modules/files/dissertacoes/2020/2020-Fabricio.pdf. Access: 31/12/2020.
Tenorio, F. M., Santos, M., Gomes, C. F. S., & Araujo, J. C. (2020a). Estratégia para compra de oportunidade de uma fragata para a Marinha do Brasil a partir do método multicritério THOR. Revista Valore, 5, 43-57.
Tenorio, F. M., Santos, M., Gomes, C. F. S., Araujo, J. C. (2020b). Navy Warship Selection and Multicriteria Analysis: The THOR Method Supporting Decision Making. In: Thomé, A. M. T., Barbastefano, R. G., Scavarda, L. F., dos Reis, J. C. G., & Amorim, M. P. C. (eds.) Industrial Engineering and Operations Management. IJCIEOM 2020. Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics, 337. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56920-4_3
Tversky, A. (1969). Intransitivity of Preferences. Psychological Review, 76(1), 31-48.
Zindani, D., Maity, S. R., & Bhowmik, S. (2020). Complex interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy TODIM approach and its application to group decision making. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing. Published online: 16 July 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-020-02308-0.