Research Article
Application of an Integrated Model with MCDM and IPA to Evaluate the Service Quality of Transshipment Port
Table 2
Ratings for alternatives under qualitative criteria.
| | | Qualitative criteria | Rating |
| | Closeness to the import/export area | | | | | 10.0 | | | | 10.0 | | | | 8.0 | | Closeness to the main navigation route | | | | | 10.0 | | | | 10.0 | | | | 8.0 | | Intermodal link | | | | | 8.0 | | | | 10.0 | | | | 2.0 | | Port berthing time length | | | | | 8.0 | | | | 10.0 | | | | 6.0 | | Container yard efficiency | | | | | 8.0 | | | | 10.0 | | | | 6.0 | | Custom efficiency | | | | | 8.0 | | | | 10.0 | | | | 6.0 | | Inland transshipment freight rates | | | | | 10.0 | | | | 6.0 | | | | 10.0 | | EDI computer system | | | | | 8.0 | | | | 10.0 | | | | 4.0 | | Free trade zone | | | | | 8.0 | | | | 10.0 | | | | 10.0 | | Port future development plan | | | | | 6.0 | | | | 6.0 | | | | 10.0 |
|
|
