Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications Vol. 3, Issue 2, 2020, pp. 111-126 ISSN: 2620-1607 eISSN: 2620-1747 DOI: https://https://doi.org/10.31181/oresta2003111m * Corresponding author. salih.memis@giresun.edu.tr (S.Memiş), edemir@pirireis.edu.tr (E.Demir), ckaramasa@anadolu.edu.tr (Ç. Karamaşa), selcuk.korucuk@giresun.edu.tr (S.Korucuk) PRIORITIZATION OF ROAD TRANSPORTATION RISKS: AN APPLICATION IN GİRESUN PROVINCE Salih Memiş 1, Ezgi Demir 2, Çağlar Karamaşa* 3, Selçuk Korucuk 1 1 Giresun University, Department of International Trade and Logistics, Giresun, Turkey 2 Piri Reis University, Department of Management Information Systems, İstanbul, Turkey 3 Anadolu University, Department of Business Administration, Eskişehir, Turkey Received: 25 June 2020 Accepted: 25 July 2020 First online: 27 July 2020 Research Paper Abstract: The purpose of this study is to determine and rank the road transportation risk factors that are crucial for effective and economic supply chain management. Road transportation risk factors can be defined as equipment related risks, risk to be lost and disappearance, risks related to delivery and packaging, inadequacy of qualified personnel and technical equipment, risks caused from incompatibility to logistic information system/technology, security risk, compulsory reasons, risks originated from regulations and arrangements, risks related to waiting at customs gate and transport infrastructure based risks. Accordingly, fuzzy PIPRECIA as a multi-criteria ranking method was used to prioritize the risk factors. According to the results, while the transport infrastructure based risks criterion was found as the most important, the risk to be lost and disappearance factor was obtained as the least important one. Keywords: Road transportation, road transportation risk factors, PIPRECIA, Fuzzy sets. 1. Introduction Goods, money and documents that are subject to commerce are started to circulate in market after globalization happened in 21th century. Companies try to find new methods in order to be competitive and reduce risks in related markets with globalization and the rapid development of information technologies. Circulation of goods is possible with suitable risk management plan under controlled, in time and most economical manner. Memiş et al./Oper. Res. Eng. Sci. Theor. Appl. 3 (2) (2020) 111-126 112 International transportation becomes crucial in parallel with the development of international commerce due to consumers’ habits in recent years. It is a requirement of transporting related goods and raw materials from one point to another because of rising needs and globalized commerce. Economic growth leads to the increased demand for freight shipment especially. Observed advancements in the communication between transportation and information technologies contribute to the circulation of goods. In this context, local and global commerce can be possible via the assurance of transportation activities. Each process of international trade contains various risks. Transportation risk can be considered as the most crucial and critical one due to including damages for goods that are subject to international trade. Risks related to transportation activities include not only driver based accidents in a transportation process, but also error based accidents in goods traffic. In other words, transportation risk can be defined as issues such as driver errors, missing and incorrect operations related to goods subject to trade in packaging and loading processes. It is not possible to develop and generalize international trade without bringing transportation sector based risks that are drivers of commerce and goods circulation under control. Risk and risk management concepts are started to gain importance, while international trade makes progress from exchange periods to virtual worlds. Each step of international trade includes different risks too. Therefore, globalization increased risks in the international trade. Transportation risks in the logistic activities need to be evaluated thoroughly due to having direct impact on the goods subject to trade. Risks happened in transportation activities can cause loss of property and material damage. Hence, transportation risk can be described as damage risk too. However, issues observed in transportation can cause loss of lives apart from material damage. Additionally, a time concept is handled as an essential risk element because incompatibility in arrangements related to good transport lead to material damage. Risk management in transportation activities can be differentiated for each mode and include related people identification, determination of danger and related risk, taking a risk control process into account according to the dangers, reviewing process and taking additional precautions for the risk control process. Road transportation is one of the mostly preferred transportation types due to low cost, delivery time and transport. General transportation and authorization rules are possible for each country. Additional rules can be applied according to the countries involved in a transportation process. That condition creates a risk element as obligation for obeying the rules related to road transportation regulations and arrangements. Accordingly, road transportation risk factors can be stated as equipment related risks, risk to be lost and disappearance, risks related to delivery and packaging, inadequacy of qualified personnel and technical equipment, risks caused from incompatibility to logistic information system/technology, security risk, compulsory reasons, risks related to waiting at customs gate and transport infrastructure based risks (Pezier, 2002; Cavinato, 2004; Tang, 2006; Manuj and Mentzer, 2008; Enyinda et al., 2010; Hoffman et al., 2013; Ho et al., 2015; Kara and Fırat, 2015; Koban and Keser, 2015; Korucuk and Erdal, 2018; Korucuk and Memiş, 2018). Prioritization of road transportation risks: An application in Giresun province 113 In this way, aforementioned road transportation risk factors are important for all stakeholders and have a direct impact on a business competitive level via cost minimization. In this context, the purpose of this study is to rank the road transportation risk criteria. A case study is made in Girusen province, Turkey. PIPRECIA as a multi-criteria decision-making method is used for prioritization under fuzzy environment in order to better represent decision-makers’ judgments. Other parts of the study are presented as follows: Studies for transportation and related risk factors are explained in the second part. Fuzzy PIPRECIA is introduced in the third section. Case study applied in Giresun province and findings are presented in the fourth part. Conclusions and future suggestions are made in the last section. 2. Literature Review Transportation and transportation risk factors related studies can be presented as below: Lazar et al. (2001) made risk evaluation in hazardous waste transportation via geographical information systems. Chen et al. (2003) made overall evaluation related to transportation risks in radioactive substance and waste under normal and accident conditions. Erkut and Ingolfsson (2005) examined transportation risk models in dangerous goods carriage and proposed new ones after a revision process. Xin et al. (2007) evaluated routing, inventory, planning, management- organization and external factors under logistic risks context. Ghazali (2009) examined the operational risks for highway projects in Malaysia. Risks are defined as wage scales, traffic congestion, road network change and excess load carriage. Adams (2010) searched a transportation risk based model and proposed a human behaviour based model. Wang (2011) used AHP model for ranking logistical risk factors according to carriage, technology, process, management, decision-making and environment contexts. Khan (2013) considered the risk factors in employee life cycle and presented various risk analysis methods. Zeng and Song (2015) made fuzzy based risk assessment in order to ensure road safety in project carriage. Govindan and Chaudhuri (2016) applied DEMATEL method for evaluating risk factors in third party logistical service providers. Prakas et al. (2017) proposed supply chain network design structure and model related to supply chain and logistical risks. Furthermore, they observed the efficiency of supply chain risk design in risk evaluation. İzer (2017) investigated new risk reduction technologies for cold chain logistics. Korucuk and Erdal (2018) ranked logistical risk factors for firms in cold chain transportation and found the most ideal risk management tool. Noriega et al. (2018) examined risk factors related to livestock carriage in Mexico. Korucuk and Memiş (2018) measured the risk factors for the supply chain via AHP and found quality risk as the most essential one. Budzynski et al. (2019) examined tramway transportation risks and made propositions for increasing transportation quality and security. According to the depth literature review, there is not enough study in order to determine the importance levels for road transportation risk factors and that shows Memiş et al./Oper. Res. Eng. Sci. Theor. Appl. 3 (2) (2020) 111-126 114 the originality and novelty of this concept. In addition, authors anticipate the contribution of this study to literature from method and application area viewpoint. 3. Methodology 3.1. Fuzzy Pivot Pairwise RElative Criteria Importance Assessment- Fuzzy PIPRECIA Method The Fuzzy PIPRECIA method was developed by Stević et al. (2018). It consists of 11 steps shown below. Step 1. Forming the required benchmarking set of criteria and forming a team of decision-makers. Sorting the criteria according to marks from the first to the last, which means they need to be sorted unclassified. Therefore, in this step, their significance is irrelevant. Step 2. In order to determine the relative importance of criteria, each decision- maker individually evaluates the pre-sorted criteria by starting from the second criterion, Equation (1). 1 1 1 1 1 1 j j r j j j j j if C C s if C C if C C − − −    = = =    (1) r j s denotes the evaluation of the criteria by a decision-maker r. In order to obtain a matrix js , it is necessary to perform the averaging of matrix r j s using a geometric mean. Decision-makers evaluate the criteria by applying the linguistic scales developed and defined in Stević et al. (2018). Step 3. Determining the coefficient jk 1 1 2 1 j j if j k s if j = = =  −  (2) Step 4. Determining the fuzzy weight jq 1 1 1 1 jj j if j qq if j k − = =  =     (3) Step 5. Determining the relative weight of the criterion jw Prioritization of road transportation risks: An application in Giresun province 115 1 j j n j j q w q = =  (4) In the following steps, it is necessary to apply the inverse methodology of the fuzzy PIPRECIA method. Step 6. Evaluation of the applying scale defined above, but this time starting from a penultimate criterion. 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 j j r j j j j j if C C s if C C if C C + + +    = = =    (5) ' r j s denotes the evaluation of the criteria by a decision-maker r. It is again necessary to average the matrix r j s by applying a geometric mean. Step 7. Determining the coefficient 'jk 1 ' 2 ' j j if j n k s if j n = = =  −  (6) n denotes a total number of criteria. Specifically, in this case, it means that the value of the last criterion is equal to fuzzy number one. Step 8. Determining the fuzzy weight 'jq 1 1 '' ' jj j if j n qq if j n k + = =  =     (7) Step 9. Determining the relative weight of the criterion ' j w 1 ' ' ' j j n j j q w q = =  (8) Step 10. In order to determine the final weights of the criteria, it is first necessary to perform the defuzzification of the fuzzy values jw and 'jw Memiş et al./Oper. Res. Eng. Sci. Theor. Appl. 3 (2) (2020) 111-126 116 1 '' ( ') 2 j j j w w w= + . (9) Step 11. Checking the results obtained by applying Spearman and Pearson correlation coefficients. 3.2. The Evaluation of Criteria Using the Fuzzy PIPRECIA Method In this study, ten criteria are handled for evaluating road transportation risks by eight decision-makers. Criteria related to road transportation risks are presented in Table 1. Table 1. Criteria related to road transportation risks Criteria Mark Risk to be lost and disappearance C1 Equipment related risks C2 Risks related to delivery and packaging C3 Inadequacy of qualified personnel and technical equipment C4 Risks caused from incompatibility to logistic information system/technology C5 Security risk C6 Compulsory reasons C7 Risks originated from regulations and arrangements C8 Risks related to waiting at customs gate C9 Transport infrastructure based risks C10 The evaluation of the criteria has been performed using a linguistic scale that involves quantification into fuzzy triangular numbers. Figure 1 and Figure 2 shows the evaluation of the criteria for fuzzy PIPRECIA and inverse fuzzy PIPRECIA by decision-makers and the average values (AV) which are used for further calculation. It is important to note that, compared to the original method developed, the average value (AV) is used here to average decision-makers' preferences (Đalić et al., 2020; Vesković et al., 2020; Tomašević et al., 2020; Stanković et al., 2020), which in this specific case contributed to the more accurate input parameters of the model. Whether a geometric mean or an average value is applied depends directly on a particular case. Both methods of averaging are valid. Prioritization of road transportation risks: An application in Giresun province 117 Figure 1. Evaluation of criteria by eight DMs for the fuzzy PIPRECIA Figure 2. Evaluation of criteria by eight DMs for Inverse fuzzy PIPRECIA Memiş et al./Oper. Res. Eng. Sci. Theor. Appl. 3 (2) (2020) 111-126 118 Based on the evaluation of the criteria and their averaging, Equation (1), a matrix sj is formed as in Figure 3. Figure 3. Sj form Applying Equation (2), those values are subtracted from number 2. Following the rules of operations with fuzzy numbers, the kj matrix is obtained as in Figure 4. Figure 4. Kj form Applying Equation (3), the value qj is obtained as in Figure 5. Prioritization of road transportation risks: An application in Giresun province 119 Figure 5. Qj form Applying Equation (4), the relative weights are acquired as in Figure 6. Figure 6. Wj form After that, it is necessary to defuzzify obtained values by using the expression 4 6 crisp l m u df + + = obtaining the number crispdf 0.036, 0.037, 0.058, 0.056, 0.060, 0.251, 0.196, 0.335, 0.513, 0.698 respectively. In order to determine the final weights of the criteria, it is necessary to apply Equations (5)–(9) or the methodology of the inverse fuzzy PIPRECIA method. Based on the evaluation by the decision-makers and the application of the average value, the matrix sj' is obtained as in Figure 7. Memiş et al./Oper. Res. Eng. Sci. Theor. Appl. 3 (2) (2020) 111-126 120 Figure 7. Sj form Applying Equation (6), the values of matrix kj' are obtained as in Figure 8. Applying Equation (7), the following values are obtained as in Figure 9. Figure 8. Kj form Figure 9. Qj form After that, it is necessary to apply Equation (8) to obtain relative weights for the fuzzy Inverse PIPRECIA method as in Figure 10. Prioritization of road transportation risks: An application in Giresun province 121 Figure 10. Wj form After that, it is necessary to defuzzify obtained values by using the expression 4 6 crisp l m u df + + = obtaining the number crispdf , 0.040, 0.045, 0.062, 0.064, 0.070, 0.118, 0.094, 0.133, 0.174, 0.220 respectively. Applying Equation (9), the final weights of road transportation risk criteria and rank of them are obtained as in Figure 11. Figure 11. Final weights It has been shown in Figure 12 the complete previous calculation, and the last column shows the defuzzified values of the relative weights of the criteria in terms of fuzzy PIPRECIA method. Memiş et al./Oper. Res. Eng. Sci. Theor. Appl. 3 (2) (2020) 111-126 122 Figure 12. Calculation and results obtained by the application of fuzzy PIPRECIA for road transportation risk criteria Accordingly, calculation and results obtained by the application of inverse fuzzy PIPRECIA for road transportation risk criteria are presented in Figure 13. Prioritization of road transportation risks: An application in Giresun province 123 Figure 13. Calculation and results obtained by the application of inverse fuzzy PIPRECIA for road transportation risk criteria Figure 14 shows the final results of the procedure for determining the individual significance of each of the road transportation risk criteria. As explained above, based on the personal preferences of the eight experts, the significance of the observed criteria was obtained using the Fuzzy PIPRECIA method. Then, the defuzzification of the values was carried out to obtain the final weights of all the road transportation risk criteria, and, based on them, we can determine that the most significant criterion is C10 (transport infrastructure based risks) with a weight coefficient of 0.459, followed by the ninth criterion C9 (risks related to waiting at customs gate) with a weight of 0.343. As opposed to that, C1 (risk to be lost and disappearance) was found as the least important criterion with a weight of 0.038. Memiş et al./Oper. Res. Eng. Sci. Theor. Appl. 3 (2) (2020) 111-126 124 SCC for the ranks obtained with fuzzy PIPRECIA and Inverse fuzzy PIPRECIA is 0.988, which means that these ranks are nearly to complete correlation. Additionally, Pearson's correlation coefficient has been calculated for the weights of the criteria obtained using these approaches and is 0.956. Figure 14. Final values of the road transportation risk criteria obtained using the fuzzy PIPRECIA method 4. Conclusion The aim of the present study is to determine and rank the road transportation risk factors that are important for effective and economic supply chain management. According to the results of the study transport infrastructure based risks and risks related to waiting at customs gate were obtained as the most important ones. On the other hand, risk to be lost and disappearance and equipment related risks were found as the least important ones. In future studies, transportation risk factors can be enlarged and considered apart from road. Also, criteria can be examined in a large application area. Furthermore, various weighting methods apart from PIPRECIA can be considered in fuzzy, hesitant fuzzy, intuitionistic fuzzy, spherical fuzzy or neutrosophic environments. References Adams, J. (2010), Managing Transport Risks: What Works?, DRAFT, for, Risk, Theory, Handbook., Comment, welcomed. 1-31. Badi, I., & Abdulshahed, A. (2019). Ranking the Libyan airlines by using full consistency method (FUCOM) and analytical hierarchy process (AHP). Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 2(1), 1-14. Bozanic, D., Tešić, D., & Kočić, J. (2019). Multi-criteria FUCOM–Fuzzy MABAC model for the selection of location for construction of single-span bailey bridge. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 2(1), 132-146. Prioritization of road transportation risks: An application in Giresun province 125 Budzynski, M, Tubis , A, & Jamroz, K. (2019), Identifying Selected Tram Transport Risks, IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 603(4), 1-10. Cavinato, J.L. (2004), Supply Chain Logistics Risks from the Back Room to the Board Room, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 34 (5), 383-387. Chen Y,S, Biwer, Y,M, Monette, A,F, Luna, R, Yoshimura, R, Detrick, C, Dunn, T, Maheras, S, Bhatnagar, S, & Kapoor, K. (2003), Resource Handbook On Transport Risk Assessment, International Journal of Radioactive Materials Transport , 14(1), 29-38. Đalić, I., Stević, Ž., Karamasa, C., & Puška, A. (2020). A novel integrated fuzzy PIPRECIA–interval rough SAW model: green supplier selection. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 3(1), 126-145. Durmić, E. (2019). Evaluation of criteria for sustainable supplier selection using FUCOM method. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 2(1), 91-107. Enyinda, C., Mbah, C.H.N. & Ogbuehi, A. (2010), An Empirical Analysis of Risk Mitigation in The Pharmaceutical Industry Supply Chain: A Developing Country Perspective, Production and Operations Management, 52 (1), 45-54. Erceg, Ž., & Mularifović, F. (2019). Integrated MCDM model for processes optimization in supply chain management in wood company. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 2(1), 37-50. Erkut, E, & Ingolfsson, A. (2005), Transport Risk Models For Hazardous Materials: Revisited”, Operations Research Letters, 33(1), 81-89. Ghazali, M,E,F. (2009), Operational Risks for Highway Projects in Malaysia”, Proceedıngs of World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 41, 364-367. Govindan, K. & Chaudhuri, A. (2016), Interrelationships of Risks Faced By Third Party Logistics Service Providers: A DEMATEL Based Approach, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 90, 177-195. Ho, W., Zheng, T., Yıldız, H. & Talluri, S. (2015), Supply Chain Risk Management: A Literature Review. International Journal of Production Research, 53(16), 5031- 5069. Hoffmann, P., Schiele, H. & Krabbendam, K. (2013). Uncertainty, Supply Risk Management and Their Impact on Performance. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 19, 199-211. İzer, A,D, (2017), Soğuk Zincir Lojistiği İçinde Risklerin Azaltılmasında Yeni Teknolojiler, 6.Ulusal Lojistik ve Tedarik Zinciri Kongresi 17-19 Mayıs 2017, Antalya. Kara, M.E. & Fırat, S.Ü.O. (2015), Tedarik Zinciri Risk Yönetiminin Gelişmesini Tetikleyen Risk Olayları Üzerine Bir İnceleme, IV. Ulusal Lojistik ve Tedarik Zinciri Kongresi, 21-23 Mayıs 2015, Gümüşhane. Khan, A, M. (2013), Risk Factors in Toll Road Life Cycle Analysis, Journal Transportmetrica A: Transport Science, 9, 408-428. Koban, E. & Keser, H. Y. (2015). Dış ticarette lojistik. (6. Baskı). Bursa, Türkiye: Ekin Basım Yayın Dağıtım. Korucuk, S & Erdal, H. (2018), AHP-VIKOR Bütünleşik Yaklaşımıyla Lojistik Risk Faktörlerinin ve Risk Yönetimi Araçlarının Sıralanması: Samsun İli Örneği, İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 10(3) , 282-305. Korucuk, S. & Memiş, S. (2018). Tedarik Zinciri Yönetimindeki Risk Faktörlerinin AHP İle Ölçülmesi: Erzurum İli Örneği. BEÜ SBE Derg.,7(2), 1036-1051. https://iopscience.iop.org/journal/1757-899X https://iopscience.iop.org/volume/1757-899X/603 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01676377 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01676377/33/1 Memiş et al./Oper. Res. Eng. Sci. Theor. Appl. 3 (2) (2020) 111-126 126 Lazar, R E, Dumitrescu, M, & Stefanescu, I.(2001), Risk Assessment Of Hazardous Waste Transport - Perspectives of GIS Application”, 808.1-808.8, Slovenia. Manuj, I. & Mentzer, J.T., (2008), Global Supply Chain Risk Management Strategies, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 38(3), 192- 223. Marković, V., Stajić, L., Stević, Ž., Mitrović, G., Novarlić, B., & Radojičić, Z. (2020). A Novel Integrated Subjective-Objective MCDM Model for Alternative Ranking in Order to Achieve Business Excellence and Sustainability. Symmetry, 12(1), 164. Noriega,V,M, Moreno, E,L,X, Amor, R, A,A, Lozano, R,S,M, Galindo, F, Miranda, C,G & Lama, M, (2018), Livestock Hauliers’ Attitudes, Knowledge and Current Practices Towards Animal Welfare, Occupational Wellbeing and Transport Risk Factors: A Mexican Survey , Preventive Veterinary Medicine , 160, 76-84. Pamučar, D., Stević, Ž., & Sremac, S. (2018). A new model for determining weight coefficients of criteria in mcdm models: Full consistency method (fucom). Symmetry, 10(9), 393. Pezier, J. (2002), Operational Risk Management, ISMA Discussion Papers in Finance 2002-21, To appear in ‘Mastering Operational Risk ‘ FT-Prentice Hall, 2003. Prakash, S., Soni, G. & Rothore, A.P.S., (2017), “Multi-Echelon Closed-Loop Supply Chain Network Design and Configuration Under Supply Risks and Logistics Risks”, International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management, 28(1), 1742-7975. Stanković, M., Stević, Ž., Das, D. K., Subotić, M., & Pamučar, D. (2020). A New Fuzzy MARCOS Method for Road Traffic Risk Analysis. Mathematics, 8(3), 457. Stević, Ž., Stjepanović, Ž., Božičković, Z., Das, D. K., & Stanujkić, D. (2018). Assessment of conditions for implementing information technology in a warehouse system: A novel fuzzy piprecia method. Symmetry, 10(11), 586. Tang, C.S., (2006). Perspectives in Supply Chain Risk Management, International Journal of Production Economics, 103, 451-488. Tomašević, M., Lapuh, L., Stević, Ž., Stanujkić, D., & Karabašević, D. (2020). Evaluation of Criteria for the Implementation of High-Performance Computing (HPC) in Danube Region Countries Using Fuzzy PIPRECIA Method. Sustainability, 12(7), 3017. Vesković, S., Milinković, S., Abramović, B., & Ljubaj, I. (2020). Determining criteria significance in selecting reach stackers by applying the fuzzy PIPRECIA method. Operational Research in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 3(1), 72-88. Wang, M. (2018), “Impacts of Supply Chain Uncertainty and Risk On The Logistics Performance”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 30(3), 689- 704. Xin, C., Cui, Y. & Zhao, J., (2007), “Research on Some Problems in The Exploration of Project Logistics”, China Water Transport (Academic Version), 5, 206-208. Zeng, R, & Song, D, (2015), “Risk Assessment of Road Transport in construction Logistic Based on Fuzzy Method, International Conference on Management Science, Education Technology, Arts, Social Science and Economics (MSETASSE 2015), 716- 719. © 2020 by the authors. Submitted for possible open access publication under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01675877 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01675877/160/supp/C PRIORITIZATION of ROAD TRANSPORTATION RISKS: AN APPLICATION in GİRESUN PROVINCE Salih Memiş 1, Ezgi Demir 2, Çağlar Karamaşa* 3, Selçuk Korucuk 1 1. Introduction 2. Literature Review 3. Methodology 3.1. Fuzzy Pivot Pairwise RElative Criteria Importance Assessment- Fuzzy PIPRECIA Method 3.2. The Evaluation of Criteria Using the Fuzzy PIPRECIA Method 4. Conclusion References