Journal of Air Transport Management 71 (2018) 9–19

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Air Transport Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jairtraman

A hybrid MCDM and sustainability-balanced scorecard model to establish T

sustainable performance evaluation for international airports
Ming-Tsang Lua, Chao-Che Hsub, James J.H. Lioua,∗, Huai-Wei Loc
a
Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, National Taipei University of Technology, Taiwan
b
Department of Transportation Management, Tamkang University, 151 Ying-Chuan Rd. Tamsui, Taipei 251, Taiwan
c
Graduate Institute of Industrial and Business Management, National Taipei University of Technology, 1, Sec. 3, Zhongxiao E. Rd., Taipei 10608, Taiwan

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The SBSC (sustainability-balanced scorecard) is adapted for the evaluation of the performance of airports to
Sustainability balanced scorecard (SBSC) ensure sustainable development. The approach aims to integrate this performance evaluation of sustainable
Airports development, and use qualitative and quantitative information with the sustainability-balanced scorecard. The
MCDM multiple criterion decision making model was first used to estimate the key influences of international airport
DEMATEL
performance in relation to sustainability. We first used the DEMATEL (decision-making trial and evaluation
DANP
laboratory) to establish a complex system illustrated as an influential-network-relationship-map. We next used
Modified VIKOR
the DANP (DEMATEL based on analytical network process) to confirm the influential weights. Then, we used a
hybrid modified VIKOR to select and improve the performance gaps between the aspiration values and the
current situation for the international airport. To demonstrate the proposed model, we applied it to three in-
ternational airports in Taiwan as a case study. The outcomes indicate that airport image is the most crucial factor
within the performance evaluation and that social perspective has the highest degree of net influence. The
largest weighted gap when examining the aspiration value is public transport for the A2 airports and trans-
parency of finance for the A1 and A3 airports. The implications for management are discussed.

1. Introduction researchers have revised the BSC, offering a hybrid method, the SBSC
(sustainability balanced scorecard) approach to investigate sustainable
Social responsibility and sustainable development have become performance. This method takes into account issues of sustainability by
important issues in recent years. There are many methods for perfor- including social and environmental issues (Rabbani et al., 2014). Other
mance evaluation of strategic control and techniques aimed at esti- studies have incorporated SBSCs into strategies for the sustainable
mating the performance results of their implementation in an organi- performance evaluation management of an enterprise by inserting eco-
zation (Ülgen and Mirze, 2004; Dinçer, 2004). One performance efficiency factors along with the appropriate main financial and en-
approach that empowers systematic and periodic system control is the vironmental factors (Möller and Schaltegger, 2005; Zhao and Li, 2015;
Balanced Score Card (BSC) structure established by Kaplan and Norton Figge et al., 2002).
(1996, 1992). There has been little effort applied to the implementation or adap-
The BSC evaluates an organization in terms of the performance tion of the SBSC technique for the evaluation of sustainable perfor-
factors enabling expression of its vision, for the formation of the stra- mance related to international airport activities. Actually this applica-
tegic framework required for performance evaluation and the mea- tion has not been addressed in prior studies. Thus, in this study, the
surement of management systems. There are many kinds of methods SBSC framework is applied to determine the preliminary estimation
that have been established to broadly estimate the performance of an indictors for improvement of the sustainable performance of an inter-
organization. The BSC technique is one of the most widespread per- national airport. This includes many aspects, such as “financial”, “in-
formance evaluation approaches, and it considers both non-financial ternal business process”, “learning and growth”, “environmental”, and
elements and financial elements (Zhao and Li, 2015; Schauβ et al., “social” perspectives. Hence, the preliminary criteria followed by the
2014). However, the technique neglects the most significant perspec- SBSC can be used to measure and improve these international airports’
tive, the evaluation of sustainable performance. Hence, many sustainable performance.

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (J.J.H. Liou).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2018.05.008
Received 10 August 2017; Received in revised form 5 February 2018; Accepted 25 May 2018
0969-6997/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.-T. Lu et al. Journal of Air Transport Management 71 (2018) 9–19

Moreover, the hybrid MCDM (multiple criteria decision-making) estimation measures (Wu and Hung, 2008).
approach is applied to determine estimation indicators from a series of The SBSC, which is derived from the traditional BSC, is defined by
exhaustive surveys asking for observational opinions. The hybrid Figge et al. (2002) as overcoming the deficiencies of the conventional
method can overcome issues of uncertainty and ambiguity in the pro- BSC by the incorporation of environmental, social and sustainability
fessionals' replies to yield the most reliable consensus of observations structures. As an enterprise performance estimation method, the BSC
about the estimation indicators (Okan et al., 2012). Clearly, this approach formulates a hierarchical system of strategic goals from four
adaption of sustainable performance evaluations for international air- main aspects: financial, internal business process, customers, and
ports includes multiple elements, making this an MCDM issue. Recently, learning and growth. The comprehensive estimation model integrates
several approaches have been offered to address the performance of physical and intangible assets to construct a relation among different
international airports, such as DEA (data envelopment analysis), KPI indicators. However, social, environmental, and sustainability per-
(key performance indicator), AHP (analytic hierarchy process), IPA spectives have been ignored. Hence, the SBSC arrangement has been
(Importance-performance analysis) and the balanced scorecard method recommended to evaluate the performance of international airports
(Olfat et al., 2016; Gupta et al., 2016; Rezaei et al., 2017; Zou et al., after incorporating parameters related to sustainable development. In
2015; Pandey, 2016; Merkert and Assaf, 2015; Li et al., 2017; Dinçer addition, this SBSC is designed not only to detect the strategic social
et al., 2017). However, the SBC and KPI approaches have several and environmental purposes of a firm but also improve the value-added
shortcomings. First, owing to their consideration of only a single factor, potential emerging from environmental and social perspectives. Some
they are not able to consolidate multiple performance factors. More- researchers have described the SBSC as an essential management
over, they are deficient in terms of perceiving the significance weights strategy or tool to increase the consciousness of corporation responsi-
of the sub-factors and key factors and therefore objectively evaluating bility (Tsalis et al., 2013). Others have used the SBSC to outline efficient
performance. strategies in which social, environmental and economic perspectives
To solve these deficiencies, we use an MCDM method with are amalgamated into a combined structure for sustainability estima-
DEMATEL (decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory), DANP tion (Maria, 2012).
(DEMATEL based on analytical network process) and the modified Owing to the high emissions and energy consumption of interna-
VIKOR (DDANP-mV) method to estimate overall performance (Lu et al., tional airports, it is appropriate to examine their performance from the
2013). Hence, the major contribution of this approach is the assembly viewpoint of sustainability. Combining sustainability theory with the
of an SBSC structure for estimating the sustainable performance of in- guidelines of GRI (Global Reporting Initiative) and the DJSI (Dow Jones
ternational airports with hybrid MCDM models. To accelerate the sus- Sustainability Index), the initial indicators for SBSC performance esti-
tainability of international airports, preliminary estimation indicators mation by international airports comprise “financial”, “internal busi-
are determined follow by the application of the SBSC, which not only ness process”, “learning and growth”, “environmental”, and “social”
takes regular elements into account but also considers social and en- perspectives. In accordance with the theories of GRI and as noted on the
vironmental issues expressed through linguistic variables. Essentially, DJSI, the initial indicators in the SBSC framework developed in the
this hybrid MCDM method is used to formulate estimation indicators study should reflect social, environmental, and financial benefits while
from the perspective of professionals. The DANP technique is an ef- totally incorporating the perspectives of managers, shareholders and
fective technique that can be used to build the complex relations be- governmental authorities involved in the management international
tween elements and derive the weights of the elements without further airports.
investigation. The DEMATEL (decision-making trial and error labora- After many face-to-face interviews with experts and a review of the
tory) results and the concepts of the ANP (analytical network process) relevant literature, the indicators of sustainable performance for use in
are applied to derive these influential weights, without the requirement the estimation procedure are determined. Thus, 15 criteria influencing
of further pairwise comparisons as with the original ANP technique. To sustainable performance are determined. These criteria are then
avoid the shortcomings of the traditional VIKOR technique, we applied grouped into 5 SBSC perspectives: financial, internal business process,
a modified VIKOR technique, replacing the relative good with the as- learning and development, environmental, and social. After identifying
piration values, so as to avoid the “stop-gap piecemeal” complication. evaluation indicators, a hierarchical structure for evaluation of sus-
This hybrid technique overcomes the limitations of the current decision tainable performance by international airports is formed. This hier-
prototypes and can be applied to benefit the investigation of the criteria archy contains five key levels with the overall aim at the top level, the
that effect the SBSC for estimating the sustainable performance of in- estimation indicators situated on this second level, and possible alter-
ternational airports. natives assigned to the lower levels. The structure of the evaluation
This remainder of the article is structured as follows. In the second indicators for international airports based on the SBSC approach is
section, we construct the evaluation criteria, and construct the sus- shown in Fig. 1.
tainable performance evaluation model for completion of the sustain- The study implements the DEMATEL method to clarify the re-
ability balanced scorecard framework for international airports. In lationships between the various assessment criteria because this is a
Section 3, we present the sustainable performance evaluation by these comprehensive technique for analyzing and establishing a fundamental
hybrid MCDM models for international airports. In Section 4, we pre- model involving causal relationships between complex perspectives
sent the case approach, its applications and an analysis of the outcomes. (Liou et al., 2011; Lu et al, 2013, 2015). It also establishes the corre-
Finally, we present the conclusions in Section 5. lations between the criteria and perspectives to establish the (INRM)
influential-network-relationship-map (Huang et al., 2007; Tzeng et al.,
2. Identifying the sustainable performance of SBSC 2007; Ou Yang et al., 2008). It has been successfully applied in many
situations, such as electronic health record adoption, safety issues, and
Sustainable performance evaluations are used to systematically re- mobile commerce (Liou et al., 2007, 2017; Lu et al., 2015). Moreover, it
view the activities at international airports aimed at reaching a certain has helped to improve the competency of airport administrators, and
objective. When sustainable performance evaluations become part of enabled socially responsible investment and cost evaluation in the
the control and management system of an international airport they can airport industry (Wu and Lee, 2007).
effectively measure the sustainability of its performance and the usage The indicators for estimating sustainable performance are selected
of resources related to this purpose. However, traditional estimation based on a review of the sustainability balanced scorecard literature,
metrics are limited for the assessment of overall performance and are expert opinions, interviews, and brain storming by administrators at
often focused only on financial performance. Traditional performance international airports, as shown in Table 1.
evaluation methods are neither comprehensive nor effective for holistic

10
M.-T. Lu et al. Journal of Air Transport Management 71 (2018) 9–19

Fig. 1. The impact on sustainable performance evaluation with SBSC for international airports.

3. Sustainable performance evaluation for international airports on the INRM (Lu et al., 2013, 2015).
by a hybrid MCDM model This DEMATEL method is applied to establish a total influence re-
lationship matrix and to explore the cause and effect interrelationships
This hybrid MCDM model established using the aforementioned between parameters derived from different perspectives and criteria.
approaches is deemed to be a suitable technique for exploration of is- Next, we combine the influential relationship matrix derived with the
sues related to sustainability for international airports. It can be applied DEMATEL method to construct this basic ANP (Saaty, 1996) and cal-
as a reference for administrators to develop sustainable performance culate the influential weights for each perspective/criterion (DE-
evaluation methods for each factor. The hybrid MCDM model's analy- MATEL-based ANP, DANP). Then, the modified VIKOR technique is
tical methods are not only used for selection and ranking but also to used to evaluate the gaps to the aspiration value for sustainable airport
elucidate the gaps between different perspectives and the criteria for performance. Finally, it is possible to determine how to decrease the
sustainable performance. The trend in current modeling is a shift from gaps to reach the aspiration value to ensure sustainable performance at
selection and ranking to enhancement of sustainable performance based international airports. The processes of the hybrid MCDM are illustrated

Table 1
Explanation of perspectives and criteria.
SBSC perspectives/Criteria Descriptions

Financial perspective (D1)

Return on investment (C1) Return on investment is the benefit of an international airport to the airport's investors resulting from an investment of
some resource.
Transparency of finance (C2) Timely, meaningful and reliable disclosures about finances and performance of international airports
Non-aviation incomes (C3) Providing business services to increase non-aviation incomes, such as stores and restaurants
Internal business process (D2)
Airport information (C4) The airplane information, public transport information and so on, whether these are enough or not in an international
airport
Electronic technologies (C5) Electronic technologies are defined as technological interfaces that enable customers to produce a service without a service
employee's involvement, such as wireless networks, check-in services, electronic billboards and electronic signs
Public transport (C6) Public transport is defined as a shared surface transport mode that operates to a set timetable on fixed routes and which is
available for public use in international airports, such as guided bus services, trolleybuses, metro, and trams
Learning and growth (D3)
Professional training (C7) Strengthening employees' attitudes and capabilities through professional training
Health care management and safe work Implementing health care management and creating a safe and friendly work environment
environment (C8)
Employee relationship management (C9) Managing the relationships of employee for improving employee loyalty and satisfaction
Environmental perspective (D4)
Carbon emission reduction and energy conservation Applying green supply chains for carbon emission reduction and energy conservation in international airports
(C10)
Green building practices (C11) Implementing green building practices in international airports
Preventing and monitoring noise (C12) Preventing and monitoring noise in international airports
Social perspective (D5)
Customer service culture (C13) Creating customer service culture for enhancing service quality of international airports
Airport image (C14) Promoting culture and art to elevate Taiwan's airport image
Aviation education and human resource Promoting aviation education and human resource development in international airports
development (C15)

11
M.-T. Lu et al. Journal of Air Transport Management 71 (2018) 9–19

Fig. 2. Model procedures of hybrid MCDM.

n
as Fig. 2. ∑i = 1 z ij , then we can guarantee lim a →∞Z a = [0]n × n , and G is the identity
matrix.
3.1. Assembling a network relationship via the DEMATEL method The fifth phase obtains relation and prominence, using the totals of
each column and row of the total influence matrix X= [x ij].
The DEMATEL method is an analytical technique for assembling a n
fundamental model for explaining complex problems and applying re- d = [di]n × 1 = ⎡∑ x ij⎤ = (d1, ..., di, ..., dn )´,
⎢ j=1 ⎥
lated mathematical matrices and theories to calculate the effect and ⎣ ⎦n × 1
cause of each aspect. The DEMATEL method is applied to construct the ´
matrix of influential relationships between perspectives and criteria and n
s = [sj]1´ × n = ⎡∑ x ij⎤ = (s1, ..., sj, ..., sn )´.
to gauge the effect and cause of each factor (Liou et al., 2016, 2017; ⎢ i=1 ⎥
⎣ ⎦1 × n
Shen et al., 2017). The technique is broadly applied in various cate-
gories of complex approaches to realize the structure of complex issues. The value di , the sum of all rows in the total influential matrix X ,
This DEMATEL method includes five phases. indicates the degree to which the factor directly or indirectly influences
The first phase identifies the criteria in the model, measuring this all other factors. Based on the definition, when j = i , then di − si in-
influence relation of each criterion on a scale from 0 to 4 in natural dicates the degree of the influence and, from the other factors, presents
language. the “net influence relationship”. di + si indicates the degree of the total
The next phase classifies a preliminary influence matrix, in asso- influential relationship of i criterion, that includes the i criterion af-
ciation with the degree of influence in the interaction between pairs to fecting all other criteria and is influenced by all other criteria, meaning
obtain the influence matrix, directly. “prominence”. If (di − si ) is negative, then criterion i is influenced by
The third phase normalizes the direct influence matrix to obtain the other factors, and if (di + si ) is positive, then criterion i affects the
matrix Z by other factors.

Z = sH , (1)
3.2. Determining the influential weights via application of the DANP
where
Applying the total influence matrix X ( XD by dimensions and X c by
⎧ 1 1 ⎫ factors) and using the basic concept of ANP (Lu et al., 2013, 2015), the
s = min n , n , i,j = 1,2,…, n.
i, j ⎨ max i ∑
j=1
hij maxj ∑i = 1 hij ⎬ (2) unweighted super-matrix W = (Xc∗) ´ and the weighted super-matrix
⎩ ⎭
W ∗ = X D∗ W can be found. Then, the global influential weights
The fourth phase obtains the total influence matrix X by: (w1, ..., wj, ..., wn ) for the DANP can be obtained by lim (Wc∗)φ . The
φ →∞
X = Z + Z 2 + ⋯+Z h = Z (G − Z )−1, when lim a →∞Z a = [0]n × n , (3) DANP method consists of five steps.
The first phase applies the influence survey structure by the
n n
where Z = [z ij]n × n , 0 ≤ z ij < 1, 0 < ∑ j = 1 z ij ≤ 1, and 0 < ∑i = 1 z ij ≤ 1. If DEMATEL method.
n
the total of at least one row or column is equal to 1 in ∑ j = 1 z ij and The next phase applies an unweighted super-matrix W = (Xcα ) ´ ,

12
M.-T. Lu et al. Journal of Air Transport Management 71 (2018) 9–19

transposing each normalized perspective onto the total influential de-

gree Xcα obtained from the total influence matrix X c by applying the
DEMATEL method, as in Eq. (4) through Eq. (3).

D
⎡ x11 /d1
D11
⋯ x1j 1j / d1 ⋯ x1Dm1m / d1 ⎤
The normalized X c , with a total influential degree, provides Xcα ⎢ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⎥
from the perspectives as follows: X Dα = ⎢ x iD1 i1/ di ⋯
D
x ij ij / di ⋯ Dim
x im ⎥
/ di
⎢ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⎥
⎢ x Dm1/d D
⋯ x mjmj / dm ⋯ Dmm
x mm / dm
⎥
⎣ m1 m ⎦
α11 α
⋯ x1j1j ⋯ x1αm1m
⎡ x11 ⎤
⎢ ⋮ ⋮
α
⋮ ⎥
= ⎢ x iα1i1 αim
⋯ x ij ij ⋯ x im ⎥ .
⎢ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⎥
We use Xcα11 to demonstrate the basic concept as an example in Eq. ⎢ xmαm1 1 α αmm ⎥
⋯ x mjmj ⋯ x mm
(6) and Eq. (7). ⎣ ⎦m × m (11)
m1 Multiplying the normalized matrix by the unweighted super- X Dα
di11 = ∑ j=1 x c11ij , i = 1,2, ..., m1,
(6) matrix W provides the normalized super-matrix W α , as Eq. (12).

x α11 × W11 ⋯ x iα1i1 × W i1 ⋯ x mαm1 1 × W m1

⎡ 11 ⋮ ⋮ ⋮
⎤
⎢ α α ⎥
W α = X Dα W = ⎢ x1αji1 × W1j ⋯ x ij ij × W ij ⋯ x mjmj × W mj ⎥ .
⎢ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⎥
αm1 1n αim αmm
⎣ x1m × W ⋯ x im × W in ⋯ x mm × W mm ⎦
n×n

(12)
The fourth step involves the calculation of the limit of the weighted
super-matrix W α . The influential weights w =(w1, ..., wj, ..., wn ) for the
DANP can be obtained by limβ →∞ (Wα) β .

3.3. Modified VIKOR method for evaluating and improving performance

The VIKOR method was established by Opricovic and Tzeng (2004)

Next, the unweighted super-matrix W is obtained by transposing
based on the concept of using the class distance function (Yu, 1973) as a
i.e., W = (Xcα ) ´ based on the basic ANP concept in an unweighted
Xcα ,
MADM method to resolve the issue of criteria conflicting with in-
supermatrix W , as in Eq. (8).
dependence (Opricovic and Tzeng, 2004; Opricovic, 1998). We apply
the VIKOR method for integration of the influential weights derived
through separately normalized performance and the criteria from dif-
ferent perspective, to illustrate the overall performance (Liou and
Tzeng, 2012; Shen et al., 2014; Lu et al., 2015). In this study we set a
benchmark aspiration value to prevent selecting the most favorable
option among inferior selections. Performance measure questionnaires
were used, with items scored from 0 to 4 (0 = very bad/dissatisfaction;
Furthermore, Eq. (9) produces matrix W11. If these criteria are in- 4 = very good/satisfaction), to evaluate performance. Thus, the as-
dependent, this corresponding entry in the matrix is zero or blank. pirational value can be set at 4 and the worst value at 0. With the
Matrix Wnn is obtained similarly. traditional VIKOR method, ranking and selection means that the pre-
ferred alternative approximates the positive ideal explanation. Expan-
x α11 ⋯ x αi111 ⋯ x cαm1111
c11 ⎡ c11 c ⎤ sion of the traditional VIKOR method start with the following form of
⋮ ⎢ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⎥ the Lkp metric:
W11 = (X11)´ = c1j ⎢ x cα111j ⋯ x αij11 ⋯ x αm111j ⎥
c c
.
p 1/ p
⋮ ⎢ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⎥ ⎧ ⎡ ⎛ f∗ − f ⎞⎤ ⎫
c1m1 ⎪ n ⎢ ⎜ j ⎪
⎟⎥
kj
⎢ x cα111m1 ⋯ x αim111 ⋯ x cαm111m1 ⎥ Lkp ∑
⎣ c ⎦m1× m1 (9) = ⎢wj ⎥ ,
⎨ j=1 ⎢ ⎜ ∗ −
⎟⎥ ⎬
⎪ ⎢ ⎜ fj − fj ⎟⎥ ⎪
The third phase obtains the weighted supermatrix utilizing the total ⎩ ⎣ ⎝ ⎠⎦ ⎭ (13)
influential relationship matrix XD , as in Eq. (10). Let each perspective of
matrix XD be normalized with the total degree of influence to obtain
f j∗ − fkj
X Dα . Eq. (11) shows the result:
rkj = ,
n
di = ∑ j=1 xDij , i = 1,2, ..., n and xDαij = xDij / di , i = 1,2, ..., n, f j∗ − f j−
(14)

13
M.-T. Lu et al. Journal of Air Transport Management 71 (2018) 9–19

Table 2 Finally, the comprehensive indicator Ck for ranking and enhancing

Background information of the specialists. the outcomes can be obtained by applying Eq. (21). Hence, Ck can be
Category No. considered the basis of the enhancing/ranking alternative when it is
near to zero.
Working Level
Top managers at international airports 7 Ck = v (Gk − G∗)/(G− − G∗) + (1 − v )(Mk − M ∗)/(M− − M ∗), v ∈ [0, 1],
Government offices within the civil aviation administration 3 (21)
Researchers in the aviation industry 5
Education Level where G∗ = mink Gk in the traditional method, or let G∗ = Gaspired = 0
Ph.D. 6 (no gap, thus the aspiration value is reached); G− = max k Gk in the
Masters 7 traditional method, or let G− = G worst = 1 (the worst condition);
Bachelor 2
M ∗ = mink Mk in the traditional method, or let M ∗ = M aspired = 0 (no
Years of work experience
More than 20 years 6 gap, thus the aspiration value is achieved); and M− = max k Mk in the
Between 15 and 19 years 5 traditional method, or let M− = M worst = 1 (the worst situation). Eq.
Between 10 and 14 years 3 (21) can be rewritten as Eq. (22) when Gaspired = 0 and M aspired = 0 (i.e.,
Less than 10 years 1 all criteria have achieved their corresponding aspiration values), and
G worst = 1 and M worst = 1 (i.e., the worst situation).

where rkj is the gap of the jth criterion in the kth alternative. For wj we Ck = vGk + (1 − v ) Mk, (22)
can use the influential weights (the traditional approach uses the re-
where v indicates the weight of the approach. In general, v = 1 means
lative importance weight of AHP or ANP) for the jth criterion; fkj is the
that only the average gap is considered; v = 0.5, which can be adjusted
performance score for the jth criterion for the kth alternative; f j∗ is the based on the consideration of this event from the points of view of
positive ideal; f j− is the negative ideal; 1 ≤ p ≤ ∞, j = 1, 2, ..., n , and various alternatives, and v = 0 indicates that only the specific max-
k = 1, 2, ..., K in the traditional VIKOR approach. The modified VIKOR imum gap is prioritized for enhancement.
method is comprised of the following phases:
The first phase: build the aspiration value and the worst value. 4. Empirical analysis
Traditionally, the positive and negative (“max–min”) ideal solutions
are given (if the performance matrix [fkj ] in each criterion, the larger An empirical case focused on Taiwan's international airports is of-
K ×n
is superior) as benchmarks, as in Eqs. (15) and (16). fered to demonstrate the use of the proposed MCDM model with the
The positive ideal explanation: goal of evaluating and choosing the best techniques. This method can
f jmax = max fkj , j = 1,2, ..., n; support administrators in their efforts to better deal with issues of
k (15)
sustainable performance within the SBSC framework and to realize
The negative ideal explanation: aspiration values for different perspectives and criteria.

f jmin = min fkj , j = 1,2, ..., n.

k (16) 4.1. Data collection
The proposed method for performance-gap enhancement is to give
The information was collected from 15 specialists (background in-
the aspirational and worst values (called “aspired–worst”) for use as
formation appears in Table 2) who understand sustainability issues at
benchmarks, as in Eqs. (17) and (18).
international airports (statistical significance confidence level of
The aspirational value vector:
95.881%, by consensus, which is greater than 95%; and the error of gap
is 4.119%, less than 5%). The experts’ views on all criteria were col-
f aspired = ⎜⎛f1aspired , ..., f jaspired , ..., f naspired ⎟⎞;
(17) lected through a questionnaire and personal interviews. The elicitation
⎝ ⎠
of expert opinions was executed in April 2017, and it took 30–40 min
The worst value vector: for each subject.

f worst = ⎜⎛f1worst , ..., f jworst , ..., f nworst ⎟⎞. 4.2. Establishing the INRM by the DEMATEL method
⎝ ⎠ (18)
The second phase: analyze the group utility (i.e., minimal total In this study, we use the DEMATEL method to set up the evaluation
average regret/gap) structure for analysis of sustainable performance the international air-
The group utility Gk and individual maximum regret Mk for gap ports within the SBSC framework from 5 perspectives with 15 criteria.
measures can be formulated using Lkp = 1 and Lkp =∞ of the modified The total influence matrix X acquired for these criteria and perspectives
VIKOR method, separately, as in Eqs. (19) and (20). is presented in Tables 3 and 4, based on the use of expert ques-
tionnaires. The experts’ opinions and thoughts were obtained from 5
⎛ f jaspired − fkj ⎞ perspectives. The relationships between them and scopes of influence
n n
⎜ ⎟ related to the various perspectives are shown in Table 3. Based on total
Gk = Lkp = 1 = ∑ wj rkj = ∑ wj ⎜ ;
aspired
⎟ influence (di + si ) , “social perspective (D5)” has the strongest effect in
j=1 j=1
⎜ fj − f jworst ⎟
⎝ ⎠ (19) the relationship and is the most significant. In comparison, “environ-
mental perspective (D4)” has the least effect. Based on the net influence
⎛ f aspired − f ⎞ (di − si ) , we also find that “internal business process (D2)” has the most
⎜ j kj
⎟ net influence on the other perspectives and that “social perspective
Mk = Lkp =∞ = max(rkj ) = max ⎜ j = 1,2, ..., n ⎟.
j j (D5)” has the weakest to affect.
aspired
⎜ fj − f jworst ⎟ The impact of all criteria with each other are shown in Table 4.
⎝ ⎠ (20)
Table 5 illustrates the relationship between and the extent of their total
The compromise solution mink Lkp
(mink Gk ) minimizes the in- influence through direct and indirect effects, relative to other criteria.
tegrating gap, which will be enhanced to ensure that the average gap “Airport image (C14)” is the most important criterion for consideration;
value is near to zero (i.e., achieves the aspiration value). “preventing and monitoring noise (C12)” affects the other criteria the
The third phase: analyze the comprehensive indicators. Ck . least. In addition, Table 5 also shows that “airport information (C4)” has

14
M.-T. Lu et al. Journal of Air Transport Management 71 (2018) 9–19

Table 3
Sum of effects on perspectives and total effect matrix of XD.
Perspectives D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 di si di + si di－si

Financial perspective (D1) 0.050 0.019 0.050 0.025 0.077 0.222 0.245 0.468 −0.023
Internal business process (D2) 0.070 0.043 0.047 0.046 0.090 0.296 0.124 0.420 0.172
Learning and growth (D3) 0.049 0.020 0.063 0.016 0.103 0.252 0.242 0.493 0.010
Environmental perspective (D4) 0.025 0.021 0.017 0.037 0.068 0.168 0.155 0.322 0.013
Social perspective (D5) 0.051 0.021 0.064 0.031 0.072 0.239 0.411 0.650 −0.171

the strongest net effect on the other criteria while “airport image (C14)” is the first criterion for improvement followed by transparency of fi-
is the most affected by the other criteria. nance (C2) and carbon emission reduction and energy conservation
(C10). Administrators paid the most attention to public transport in the
A2 international airport although transparency of finance (C2) had a
4.3. The DANP influential weight method
higher gap value of 0.520 and so should be the first criterion to be
enhanced followed by non-aviation incomes (C3) and green building
We apply the DEMATEL method to make confirm the influence re-
practices (C11). Administrators paid the most attention to transparency
lationships among the various perspectives and criteria, to acquire the
of finance in the A3 international airport. These outcomes indicate the
most accurate influence weights. This aim of the DANP is to explain the
sequence for priority of enhancement necessary to achieve the aspira-
interrelationship due to feedback and interdependence issues among
tion values for the criteria overall, in order of most to least significant.
the criteria. Hence, we assemble the model of quality assessment by
Priorities for enhancement can also be determined within the in-
applying the DANP method, which can then obtain the influential
dividual perspective. For instance, at the A1 international airport,
weights for each criterion (see Tables 5 and 6).
within the individual financial perspective (D1), the gap values in-
In addition, we identify the most important and significant factors
dicating priority are as follows: transparency of finance (C2), non-
for the evaluation of sustainable performance with SBSC for interna-
aviation incomes (C3), and return on investment (C1). Within the in-
tional airports. The most important is found to be airport image (C14),
ternal business process (D2), the prioritized gap values are ordered as
next is aviation education and human resources (C15) followed by
follows: airport information (C4), electronic technologies (C5), and
customer service culture (C13). Additionally, the influence weights are
public transport (C6). From the perspective of learning and growth (D3),
combined using the DEMATEL method to measure the priority for
priorities for improvement are ordered as follows: professional training
problem solving according to the INRM and the gaps identified via the
(C7), employee relationship management (C9), and safe work environ-
modified VIKOR.
ment and healthcare management (C8). From the environmental per-
spective (D4), improvement priorities are ordered as follows: green
4.4. Integrating and estimating the total gaps via the modified VIKOR building practices (C11), energy conservation and carbon emission re-
education (C10), and preventing and monitoring noise (C12). From the
This approach relates to measurement of the sustainable perfor- social perspective (D5), priorities are ordered as follows: aviation edu-
mance of Taiwan's three international airports (A1, A2 and A3) within cation and human resources (C15), customer service culture (C13), and
the SBSC framework in which a VIKOR is applied for improvement and airport image (C14). For the A2 international airport, from the in-
estimation of the total gaps (as shown in Table 6). Administrators can dividual perspective, priorities for improvement are ordered as follows:
use this method to assist with problems solving issues based on the (C2), (C3), and (C1) from the financial perspective (D1); (C6), (C5), and
combined index from both holistic and individual perspectives. (C4) in internal business processes (D2); (C8), (C7), and (C9) in learning
Applying the overall and criteria/perspective indices, gap values and growth (D3); (C10), (C12) and (C11) from the environmental per-
can be determined and prioritized by arriving at an aspirational value. spective (D4); (C14), (C15) and (C13) from the social perspective (D5).
In the A1 international airport, transparency of finance (C2) had a For the A3 international airport, from the individual perspective, the
higher gap value of 0.560 and was the first criterion that needed to be priorities are ordered as follows: (C2), (C3), and (C1) from the financial
improved, followed by green building practices (C11) and non-aviation perspective (D1); (C5), (C6), and (C4) in internal business processes (D2);
incomes (C3). Of all the criteria, decision makers are most attentive to (C7), (C9), and (C8) in learning and growth (D3); (C11), (C10) and (C12)
finance transparency in the A1 international airport. In the A2 inter- from the environmental perspective (D4); (C13), (C15), and (C14) from
national airport, public transport (C6) had a higher gap value of 0.60 do

Table 4
Preliminary influence matrix of Xc for each criterion.
Criteria C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15

C1 0.029 0.022 0.100 0.014 0.016 0.021 0.058 0.070 0.068 0.040 0.041 0.018 0.065 0.086 0.077
C2 0.048 0.007 0.074 0.011 0.011 0.012 0.038 0.024 0.028 0.019 0.017 0.017 0.065 0.110 0.079
C3 0.108 0.032 0.032 0.030 0.030 0.028 0.054 0.055 0.060 0.026 0.023 0.028 0.062 0.091 0.059
C4 0.053 0.056 0.088 0.015 0.075 0.069 0.057 0.057 0.063 0.037 0.032 0.019 0.063 0.127 0.077
C5 0.058 0.064 0.102 0.069 0.013 0.059 0.049 0.045 0.057 0.039 0.034 0.018 0.065 0.101 0.078
C6 0.080 0.028 0.101 0.036 0.035 0.018 0.028 0.029 0.033 0.103 0.057 0.076 0.076 0.145 0.078
C7 0.105 0.015 0.094 0.037 0.025 0.024 0.036 0.068 0.122 0.021 0.018 0.016 0.105 0.124 0.125
C8 0.038 0.011 0.051 0.022 0.018 0.013 0.051 0.019 0.084 0.016 0.013 0.013 0.068 0.109 0.092
C9 0.064 0.011 0.056 0.013 0.012 0.013 0.095 0.064 0.032 0.017 0.014 0.013 0.083 0.111 0.112
C10 0.061 0.016 0.042 0.032 0.023 0.050 0.021 0.019 0.021 0.023 0.088 0.044 0.059 0.126 0.051
C11 0.030 0.010 0.032 0.019 0.015 0.019 0.022 0.020 0.018 0.092 0.015 0.037 0.064 0.133 0.044
C12 0.013 0.007 0.015 0.007 0.007 0.019 0.011 0.010 0.010 0.016 0.010 0.007 0.025 0.088 0.021
C13 0.049 0.014 0.068 0.015 0.011 0.016 0.059 0.052 0.068 0.016 0.013 0.016 0.028 0.106 0.095
C14 0.059 0.025 0.076 0.026 0.028 0.043 0.044 0.036 0.030 0.077 0.053 0.057 0.083 0.049 0.059
C15 0.078 0.015 0.073 0.017 0.016 0.014 0.101 0.072 0.116 0.017 0.015 0.014 0.085 0.105 0.041

15
M.-T. Lu et al. Journal of Air Transport Management 71 (2018) 9–19

Table 5
Weight and ranking, the sum of effects of each criterion.
Perspectives/Criteria di si di + si di－si Influential weights
(Global weights)

Financial perspective (D1) 0.206

Return on investment (C1) 0.724 0.872 1.596 −0.149 0.084
Transparency of finance (C2) 0.559 0.333 0.892 0.227 0.028
Non-aviation incomes (C3) 0.716 1.003 1.719 −0.287 0.094
Internal business process (D2) 0.096
Airport information(C4) 0.889 0.363 1.252 0.526 0.032
Electronic technologies (C5) 0.852 0.337 1.188 0.515 0.029
Public transport (C6) 0.921 0.418 1.339 0.503 0.035
Learning and growth (D3) 0.225
Professional training (C7) 0.935 0.724 1.659 0.211 0.077
Health care management and safe work environment (C8) 0.617 0.640 1.258 −0.023 0.066
Employee relationship management (C9) 0.711 0.811 1.522 −0.100 0.081
Environmental perspective (D4) 0.125
Carbon emission reduction and energy conservation (C10) 0.629 0.996 1.624 −0.367 0.049
Green building practices (C11) 0.745 1.611 2.356 −0.867 0.040
Preventing and monitoring noise (C12) 0.781 1.088 1.868 −0.307 0.036
Social perspective (D5) 0.349
Customer service culture (C13) 0.629 0.996 1.624 −0.367 0.099
Airport image (C14) 0.745 1.611 2.356 −0.867 0.145
Aviation education and human resource (C15) 0.781 1.088 1.868 −0.307 0.104

the social perspective (D5). effect on the other perspectives. Therefore, administrators should en-
The gap values provided by the panel of specialists are applied to hance this first and focus next on environmental perspectives (D4),
obtain priorities for enhancement which are comprehensive and un- learning and growth (D3), financial perspectives (D1) and social per-
ique, both in terms of holistic and separate perspectives (see Table 6). spectives (D15) when evaluating and improving the sustainable per-
For international airport administrators, using SBSC framework to formance of international airports within the SBSC framework.
realize the priorities for improvement and to measure sustainable per- Next, after exploring the different perspectives, we determine the
formance must be easier than using these gaps for Taiwan's three in- criteria considered within the separate perspectives. Based on these
ternational airports. results, the criteria are diagramed within the influence relationship map
presented in Fig. 3. This map clearly illustrates the influence relation-
4.5. Outcomes and discussion ships among the criteria. From the financial perspective (D1), trans-
parency of finance (C2) is the most influential criterion and should be
This DEMATEL can be applied to distinguish the interrelationships enhanced first, followed by return on investment (C1) and non-aviation
between individual criteria and perspectives by application of the in- incomes (C3) (see Fig. 3, causal relationship D1); from the internal
fluence relationship network map (See Fig. 3). In Fig. 3, we can see that business process perspective (D2), airport information (C4) is the most
the internal business process (D2) affects the other perspectives, namely influential and should be enhanced first, followed by electronic tech-
the environmental perspective (D4), learning and growth (D3), financial nologies (C5), and public transport (C6) (see Fig. 3, causal relationship
perspective (D1) and social perspective (D5). Clearly, this reveals the D2); from the learning and growth perspective (D3), professional
significance of internal business processes (D2) as having the strongest training (C7) is the most influential criterion and should be enhanced

Table 6
Gap evaluation of sustainable performance of Taiwan's international airports.
Perspectives/Criteria Local Weight Global weight Sustainable performance gap (rkj)

(A1) (A2) (A3)

Financial perspective (D1) 0.206 0.391 0.224 0.427

Return on investment (C1) 0.409 0.084 0.280 0.140 0.360
Transparency of finance (C2) 0.136 0.028 0.560 0.360 0.520
Non-aviation incomes (C3) 0.454 0.094 0.440 0.260 0.460
Internal business process (D2) 0.096 0.312 0.397 0.393
Airport information (C4) 0.330 0.032 0.427 0.240 0.373
Electronic technologies (C5) 0.302 0.029 0.420 0.320 0.413
Public transport (C6) 0.369 0.035 0.120 0.600 0.393
Learning and growth (D3) 0.225 0.365 0.291 0.417
Professional training (C7) 0.344 0.077 0.387 0.300 0.440
Health care management and safe work environment (C8) 0.295 0.066 0.320 0.320 0.393
Employee relationship management (C9) 0.360 0.081 0.380 0.260 0.413
Environmental perspective (D4) 0.125 0.376 0.316 0.435
Carbon emission reduction and energy conservation (C10) 0.391 0.049 0.360 0.360 0.440
Green building practices (C11) 0.322 0.040 0.500 0.240 0.460
Preventing and monitoring noise (C12) 0.287 0.036 0.260 0.340 0.400
Social perspective (D5) 0.349 0.342 0.299 0.375
Customer service culture (C13) 0.285 0.099 0.320 0.280 0.420
Airport image (C14) 0.417 0.145 0.300 0.320 0.340
Aviation education and human resource (C15) 0.298 0.104 0.420 0.287 0.380
Total gaps 0.358 0.293 0.404

16
M.-T. Lu et al. Journal of Air Transport Management 71 (2018) 9–19

Fig. 3. The influential network relation map (INRM) for each perspective and criterion.

first, followed by employee relationship management (C9), and safe internal motivations carefully. Given the empirical results shown in
work environment and healthcare management (C8); from the en- Table 7, we realize the purpose of this investigation, to provide prio-
vironmental perspective (D4), green building practices (C11) is the most rities for improvement specific to each airport. For example, in terms of
influential criterion and should be enhanced first, followed by energy perspectives, the priorities for improvement for A1, A2 and A3 are fi-
conservation and carbon emission reeducation (C10), and preventing nancial, internal business process, and environmental, respectively.
and monitoring noise (C12); from the social perspective (D5), aviation Estimating sustainability performance within the SBSC model can ex-
education and human resources (C15) is the most influential criterion tend the international airports’ involvement in sustainability measures.
and should be enhanced first, followed by customer service culture The estimation criteria and perspectives necessary for measuring the
(C13), and airport image (C14). sustainable performance of international airports with the SBSC are
Furthermore, the most significant criterion as calculated with the found. Hence, administrators should use these for evaluation of sus-
DANP for estimating SBSC performance is “airport image (C14)”, with a tainable performance, in accordance with Table 7 and Fig. 3. This
weight 0.145, as shown in Table 6. The overall gap values given in method can be used by most international airports in the real world.
Table 6 indicating scope for enhancement are 0.358 for A1, 0.293 for Nevertheless, administrators should bear in mind that, when using this
A2, and 0.404 for A3. With the SBSC, the financial perspective (D1) model, some dissimilarities might exist between airports.
features the largest gap (0.391) for A1, while internal business process The main implications of airport sustainability are twofold. First,
(D2) is largest (0.397) for A2, and the environmental perspective (D4) based on Fig. 3, the financial perspective is located at the center of the
has the largest gap (0.435) for A3. These should be given first priority system, suggesting that financial sustainability is most vital for inter-
for enhancement if administrators hope to achieve the desired aspira- national airport development. In today's competitive air transport
tion levels. markets, how to increase non-aviation income could be a significant
factor to focus upon to ensure sustainable development and could play
an important role in airport efficiency. The administrators of interna-
4.6. Management implications
tional airports should investigate the various elements such as the
number of retail stores and the quality of their services or goods, when
In terms of long-term enhancement, administrators need to manage

17
M.-T. Lu et al. Journal of Air Transport Management 71 (2018) 9–19

Table 7 encompassing financial, internal business processes, learning and

Improvement priority for sustainable performance of international airports. growth and environmental perspectives. Hence, this investigation is
Formula Sequence of improvement significant in presenting SBSC observations of the Taiwan international
priority airport industry. The contributions are threefold: first, fewer important
attributes are successfully considered in the SBSC evaluation. Second,
F1: Influential network of perspectives (D2), (D4), (D3), (D1), (D5)
the SBSC approach is used to evaluate the importance and performance
F2:Influential network of criteria within individual (D1): (C2), (C1), (C3)
perspectives (D2): (C4), (C5), (C6)
levels which are converted into final performance scores. Third, a hy-
(D3): (C7), (C8), (C9) brid approach is devised to address the interdependence relationships
(D4): (C11), (C10), (C12) and produce a hierarchical framework among the SBSC perspectives
(D5): (C15), (C13), (C14) and criteria. Consequently, if the airport industry wishes to take ad-
F3:Sequence of perspective to rise to aspired/ A1 international airport
vantage of more scientific models like this approach offers, regional
desired level in the three international airports (D1), (D4), (D3), (D5), (D2)
(from high to low, by gap value) A2 international airport applications should be devised to improve competitiveness in the ob-
(D2), (D4), (D5), (D3), (D1) jective marketplace. This model can be used in various parts of the
A3 international airport world with dissimilar outcomes. The outcomes can help in designing
(D4), (D1), (D3), (D2), (D5)
specific SBSC activities tailored to objective geographies. A further
F4: Sequence of criteria to rise to aspired/desired In A1 international airport
level within individual perspective in the three (D1): (C2), (C3), (C1)
extension of this approach would be to benchmark specific groups or
international airports (from high to low, by gap (D2): (C4), (C5), (C6) pairs of SBSC implementations to find which are more favorable. Such
value) (D3): (C7), (C9), (C8) an investigation could improve the awareness of areas needing en-
(D4): (C11), (C10), (C12) hancement.
(D5): (C15), (C13), (C14)
There are several limitations to this study that require further
In A2 international airport
(D1): (C2), (C3), (C1) consideration. First, a more comprehensive review of the literature for
(D2): (C6), (C5), (C4) the choice of estimation criteria should be made and longitudinal stu-
(D3): (C8), (C7), (C9) dies should be used to classify other possible criteria. Although this
(D4): (C10), (C12), (C11) study establishes a new decision model based on SBSC to enhance the
(D5): (C14), (C15), (C13)
In A3 international airport
level of sustainable development, other frameworks (e.g., quality
(D1): (C2), (C3), (C1) function deployment (QFD); economic, environment and society (EES)
(D2): (C5), (C6), (C4) framework) may be used to establish other evaluation systems in the
(D3): (C9), (C7), (C8) future. Second, this study used data for three international airports in
(D4): (C11), (C10), (C12)
Taiwan. Other airports in the Asia Pacific region such Hong Kong,
(D5): (C13), (C15), (C14)
Singapore Changi, Korean Incheon, Shanghai Pudong could be added as
alternatives to evaluate their sustainable competitiveness. Third, this
devising a suitable strategy for the addition of non-aviation income research was conducted by surveying a relatively limited number of
(Olfat et al., 2016). Furthermore, policy and budget making should be specialists. A larger sample would have allowed for a more sophisti-
made in a way that makes service quality and sustainability consistent cated analysis of the estimation processes, which would improve the
with passenger and community expectations, such as by reducing noise generalizability of the results.
and emissions in the community. Second, as internal business process Future researchers could apply different approaches, such as the
has the highest net influence, the managers of the airport should first best-worst method (BWM) or entropy method to calculate the weights
enhance internal business processes such as airport information, elec- of the criteria. Other methods could be applied for gap evaluation such
tronic technologies, public transportation and so on. A multitude of as the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to an Ideal Solution
priorities must be fulfilled as efficiently as possible in the complex of (TOPSIS), Additive Ratio ASsessment (ARAS) or, COmplex
gates, terminals, aprons, and the system of taxiways and runways to PRoportional Assessment of alternatives with Grey relations (COPRAS-
ensure secure and timely movement of passengers (Kılkış and Kılkış, G). To account for bias between the experts, fuzzy theory or rough
2016). number theory could be possible ways to solve this problem. Lastly, to
Our model provides guidelines for sustainable airport development. provide more objective information on the applicability of the proposed
However, international airport decision makers should be cautious sustainability estimation model, future efforts could be made to apply
when using the MCDM model because the significance of the 15 criteria some data mining techniques (e.g., random forest or support vector
may vary based on the circumstances. They should compare sustainable machine) to extract the most essential criteria and thus improve the
performance with the SBSC results and define the gaps before making practicality of the general estimation structure. These outcomes of fu-
decision based on these worst performance evaluation sustainability ture research can then be related with those presented here.
models. It also worth noting that although the proposed application and
the several methods it used could increase the complexity of the ana- References
lysis procedure. Thus, the hybrid model could be integrated into a
program. Managers would only need to input data and the program Dinçer, Ö., 2004. Stratejik Yönetim Ve Işletme Politikası. Beta Yayınları, İstanbul.
Dinçer, H., Hacıoğlu, Ü., Yüksel, S., 2017. Balanced scorecard based performance mea-
could generate more reliable results than a single model. This is another surement of European airlines using a hybrid multicriteria decision making approach
advantage of the proposed hybrid model. under the fuzzy environment. J. Air Transport. Manag. 63, 17–33.
Figge, F., Hahn, T., Schaltegger, S., Wagner, M., 2002. The sustainability balanced
scorecard–linking sustainability management to business strategy. Bus. Strat.
Environ. 11 (5), 269–284.
5. Conclusions Gupta, H., Amiri, M., Soufi, J.B., Pishdar, M., 2016. A dynamic network efficiency
measurement of airports performance considering sustainable development concept:
This study examines the airport sustainability problem, re- a fuzzy dynamic network-DEA approach. J. Air Transp. Manag. 57, 272–290.
Huang, C.Y., Shyu, J.Z., Tzeng, G.H., 2007. Reconfiguring the innovation policy portfolios
commending a novel approach for the estimation and selection of cri- for Taiwan's SIP mall industry. Technovation 29, 744–765.
teria for sustainable performance using the SBSC approach. To the best Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P., 1992. The balanced scorecard: measures that drive perfor-
of our knowledge, this is the only approach addressing the SBSC for mance. Harv. Bus. Rev. 70, 71–79.
Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P., 1996. The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy Into
airport perspectives in Taiwan. It is shown that the SBSC initiatives in
Action. HBS Press, Boston.
Taiwan are generally perceived within a restricted social realm, rather Kılkış, S., Kılkış, S., 2016. Benchmarking airports based on a sustainability ranking index.
than within the totality of systemic efforts covering multi-faceted issues J. Clean. Prod. 130, 248–259.

18
M.-T. Lu et al. Journal of Air Transport Management 71 (2018) 9–19

Li, W., Yu, S., Pei, H., Zhao, C., Tian, B., 2017. A hybrid approach based on fuzzy AHP and Ou Yang, Y.P., Shieh, H.M., Leu, J.D., Tzeng, G.H., 2008. A novel hybrid MCDM model
2-tuple fuzzy linguistic method for evaluation in-flight service quality. J. Air combined with DEMATEL and ANP with applications. Int. J. Oper. Res. 5, 160–168.
Transport. Manag. 60, 49–64. Pandey, M.M., 2016. Evaluating the service quality of airports in Thailand using fuzzy
Liou, J.J.H., Tzeng, G.H., 2012. Comments on multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) multi-criteria decision making method. J. Air Transport. Manag. 57, 241–249.
methods in economics: an overview. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 18 (4), 672–695. Rabbani, A., Zamani, M., Yazdani-Chamzini, A., Zavadskas, E.K., 2014. Proposing a new
Liou, J.J.H., Tzeng, G.H., Chang, H.C., 2007. Airline safety measurement using a hybrid integrated model based on sustainability balanced scorecard (SBSC) and MCDM ap-
model. J. Air Transport. Manag. 13, 243–249. proaches by using linguistic variables for the performance evaluation of oil producing
Liou, J.J.H., Tsai, C.Y., Lin, R.H., Tzeng, G.H., 2011. A modified VIKOR multiple-criteria companies. Expert Syst. Appl. 41, 7316–7327.
decision method for improving domestic airlines service quality. J. Air Transport. Rezaei, J., Hemmes, A., Tavasszy, L., 2017. Multi-criteria decision-making for complex
Manag. 17 (2), 57–61. bundling configurations in surface transportation of air freight. J. Air Transport.
Liou, J.J.H., Tamošaitienė, J., Zavadskas, E.K., Tzeng, G.H., 2016. New hybrid COPRAS- Manag. 61, 95–105.
GMADM model for improving and selecting suppliers in green supply chain man- Saaty, T.L., 1996. Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: the Analytic Network
agement. Int. J. Prod. Res. 54 (1), 114–134. Process. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh.
Liou, J.J.H., Lu, M.T., Hu, S.K., Cheng, C.H., Chuang, Y.C., 2017. A hybrid MCDM model Schauß, J., Hirsch, B., Sohn, M., 2014. Functional fixation and the balanced scorecard:
for improving the electronic health record to better serve client needs. Sustainability adaption of BSC users judgment processes. J. Account. Organ. Change 4, 540–566.
9, 1819. Shen, K.Y., Yan, M.R., Tzeng, G.H., 2014. Combining VIKOR-DANP model for glamor
Lu, M.T., Lin, S.W., Tzeng, G.H., 2013. Improving RFID adoption in Taiwan's healthcare stock selection and stock performance improvement. Knowledge-Based. Off. Syst. 58,
industry based on a DEMATEL technique with a hybrid MCDM model. Decis. Support 86–97.
Syst. 56, 259–269. Shen, K.Y., Hu, S.K., Tzeng, G.H., 2017. Financial modeling and improvement planning
Lu, M.T., Hu, S.K., Huang, L.H., Tzeng, G.H., 2015. Evaluating the implementation of for the life insurance industry by using a rough knowledge based hybrid MCDM
business-to-business m-commerce by SMEs based on a new hybrid MADM model. model. Inf. Sci. 375, 296–313.
Manag. Decis. 53 (2), 290–317. Tsalis, T.A., Nikolaou, I.E., Grigoroudis, E., Tsagarakis, K.P., 2013. A framework devel-
Maria, R., 2012. Empirical study on the indicators of sustainable performance-the sus- opment to evaluate the needs of SMEs in order to adopt a sustainability-balanced
tainability balanced scorecard, effect of strategic organizational change. Amfiteatru scorecard. J. Integr. Environ. Sci. 10, 3–4.
Econ 32, 451–469. Tzeng, G.H., Chiang, C.H., Li, C.W., 2007. Evaluating intertwined effects in e-learning
Merkert, R., Assaf, A.G., 2015. Using DEA models to jointly estimate service quality programs: a novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and DEMATEL.
perception and profitability – evidence from international airports. Transp. Res. Part Expert. Syst. Appl. 32 (4), 1028–1044.
A 75, 42–50. Ülgen, H., Mirze, S.K., 2004. Isletmelerde Stratejik Yönetim. Literatür Yayınları, Istanbul.
Möller, A., Schaltegger, S., 2005. The sustainability balanced scorecard as a framework Wu, S.I., Hung, J.M., 2008. A performance evaluation model of CRM on nonprofit or-
for eco-efficiency analysis. J. Ind. Ecol. 9 (4), 73–83. ganizations. Total. Qual. Manag. Bus. 19 (4), 321–342.
Okan, D., Emrah, B., Shigeru, Y., 2012. A fuzzy extended DELPHI method for adjustment Wu, W.W., Lee, Y.T., 2007. Developing global managers' competencies using fuzzy
of statistical time series prediction: an empirical study on dry bulk freight market DEMATEL method. Expert Syst. Appl. 32 (2), 499–507.
case. Expert Syst. Appl. 1, 840–848. Yu, P.L., 1973. A class of solutions for group decision problems. Manag. Sci. 19 (8),
Olfat, L., Amiri, M., Soufi, J.B., Pishdar, M., 2016. A dynamic network efficiency mea- 936–946.
surement of airports performance considering sustainable development concept: a Zhao, H., Li, N., 2015. Evaluating the performance of thermal power enterprises using
fuzzy dynamic network-DEA approach. J. Air Transport. Manag. 57, 272–290. sustainability balanced scorecard, fuzzy Delphic and hybrid multi-criteria decision
Opricovic, S., 1998. Multicriteria Optimization of Civil Engineering Systems. Faculty of making approaches for sustainability. J. of Cleaner prod. 108, 569–582.
Civil Engineering, Belgrade. Zou, B., Kafle, N., Chang, Y.T., Park, K., 2015. US airport financial reform and its im-
Opricovic, S., Tzeng, G.H., 2004. Compromise solution by MCDM methods: a comparative plications for airport efficiency: an exploratory investigation. J. Air Transp. Manag.
analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 156 (2), 445–455. 47, 66–78.

19