Scholarly article on topic 'Multicriteria Analysis Evaluating Venice Port Development'

Multicriteria Analysis Evaluating Venice Port Development Academic research paper on "Economics and business"

CC BY-NC-ND
0
0
Share paper
OECD Field of science
Keywords
{"Maritime Safety" / "Multicriteria analysis" / "Port improvements"}

Abstract of research paper on Economics and business, author of scientific article — Alessandra Libardo, Alberta Parolin

Abstract The general aim of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) is the adoption of the highest practicable standards in matters concerning maritime safety, efficiency of navigation, prevention and control of environmental effects due to maritime traffic. The major environmental consequences investigated by IMO include air pollution, water pollution and the planning of ships’ waste reception and handling. However, in specific conditions (i.e. port channels or channels along historical sites) other effects should be taken into account, such as: the ships’ wake wash (that causes vibrations on the buildings, disruption to their foundations and corruption on the embankment system), the noise impact on neighboring residential areas (during mooring and ship loading/unloading operations) and emissions during the approaching phase. Furthermore, it is important to protect ports in particular geographical conditions. Ship movements near inhabited centers must be preserved from casualties and accidents involving ships, like collisions in the inner route or loose of load, engine failure, oil spill off (the 2009/18/EC Directive established the principles for investigating accidents). In some cases offshore ports could reduce some risks and environmental impacts. This research deals with the Venice Lagoon case study, where an offshore port (able to serve container, dry bulk and tanker ships) is under feasibility evaluation. Some of the benefits that could be obtained are: a reduced pollution, energy savings and lower environmental/infrastructural impacts. These issues will be investigated through the application of a Multicriteria Analysis model (MCA) to evaluate any benefit and/or disadvantage arising from the offshore terminal in deepsea waters, highlighting how several parameters (including safety) must be evaluated in justifying a massive investment as the offshore terminal. The goal of the research is to define a general methodology for the appraisal of huge infrastructure investments.

Academic research paper on topic "Multicriteria Analysis Evaluating Venice Port Development"

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

SciVerse ScienceDirect

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 48 (2012) 2545 - 2554

Transport Research Arena- Europe 2012

Multicriteria Analysis evaluating Venice port development

Alessandra Libardoa'*? Alberta Parolinb

a IUA V University of Venice,Dorsoduro 2206, Venice 30123, Italy b Venice Port Authority, Fabbr. 13, Venice 30123, Italy

Abstract

The general aim of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) is the adoption of the highest practicable standards in matters concerning maritime safety, efficiency of navigation, prevention and control of environmental effects due to maritime traffic. The major environmental consequences investigated by IMO include air pollution, water pollution and the planning of ships' waste reception and handling. However, in specific conditions (i.e. port channels or channels along historical sites) other effects should be taken into account, such as: the ships' wake wash (that causes vibrations on the buildings, disruption to their foundations and corruption on the embankment system), the noise impact on neighboring residential areas (during mooring and ship loading/unloading operations) and emissions during the approaching phase. Furthermore, it is important to protect ports in particular geographical conditions. Ship movements near inhabited centers must be preserved from casualties and accidents involving ships, like collisions in the inner route or loose of load, engine failure, oil spill off (the 2009/18/EC Directive established the principles for investigating accidents). In some cases offshore ports could reduce some risks and environmental impacts. This research deals with the Venice Lagoon case study, where an offshore port (able to serve container, dry bulk and tanker ships) is under feasibility evaluation. Some of the benefits that could be obtained are: a reduced pollution, energy savings and lower environmental/infrastructural impacts. These issues will be investigated through the application of a Multicriteria Analysis model (MCA) to evaluate any benefit and/or disadvantage arising from the offshore terminal in deepsea waters, highlighting how several parameters (including safety) must be evaluated in justifying a massive investment as the offshore terminal. The goal of the research is to define a general methodology for the appraisal of huge infrastructure investments.

© 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer review under responsibility of the Programme Committee of the Transport Research Arena 2012

Keywords: Maritime Safety; Multicriteria analysis; Port improvements

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +39-041-533-4784; fax: +39-041-533-4254. E-mail address: alessandra.libardo@port.venice.it.

1877-0428 © 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer review under responsibility of the Programme Committee of the Transport Research Arena 2012

doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.1225

1. Introduction

The general aim of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) is the adoption of the highest practicable standards in matters concerning maritime safety, efficiency of navigation, prevention and control of environmental effects due to the maritime traffic. The major environmental consequences investigated by IMO include air pollution, water pollution and the plan for the reception and handling of ship waste (MARPOL Convention). However, in specific conditions (i.e. port channels or channels along historical sites) other effects should be taken into account (ESPO, 2010), such as the waves' motion impact on the seabed and coast, or energy savings. Furthermore, it is important to protect ports in sensitive geographical conditions. Ship movements near inhabited centers must avoid any impact, marine casualty and accident, such as a collision in inner routes, load looses, engine failures and oil spill offs (the 2009/18/EC Directive establishes the principles for investigating such accidents). The European Commission has received IMO directives and it is working in improving maritime safety, reducing maritime causalities and mitigating environmental impacts produced by port traffics in the EU.

Port development feasibility studies must take into account all these aspects in addition to usual parameters. Therefore, the appropriate tool for a comprehensive analysis is the Multicriteria methodology, in which risk factors could achieve a relevant role.

This appraisal procedure, a proprietary model coded in APL (Libardo, 2006; Cappelli, 2008)t, introduces the risk as an indicator.The weight assignment procedure included in the Multicriteria analysis (MCA) allows decision makers to rank (in a numeric scale) their objectives, and single out the project with the highest utility function (UF). The UF shows each alternative's ability to satisfy the established criteria.

2. The Multicriteria Analysis methodology

"/« a Multicriteria analysis, the "preferable" solution is the one with the highest measured effectiveness, relative to the set goals or assessment criteria. In the public works decision makers must identify assessable and quantifiable objectives, representing, the impacts due to different alternatives, from the planning, transportation, spatial, economic-financial, and environmental points of view" (Cappelli, 2010).

Once the alternative projects and objectives (criteria) are identified, every criterion (each with its own unit of measurement) must be quantified, and a matrix (projects-objectives) built. The generic elements in the matrix represent each criterion's value. Therefore, it is important to accurately describe the selected criteria as follows.

Once each micro criterion is measured, performance TVs for each micro criterion must be calculated to ensure the correct MCA's formulation and objectiveness. Maximum and minimum TVs must be set referring to substantiated external values, not related to the alternatives under consideration. In order to make all micro criteria comparable, they have to be normalized (between 0 and 1) through the following function:

y... + Xij - val minXij

val max Xij - val min Xij Where Uij are values recalibrating - between 0 and 1

Software realized by Alessandra Libardo with the supervision of prof. Giorgio Salerno (Florence University Models

Laboratory)

This calculation is performed for each criterion's greater or lesser deviation from the chosen TVs sets, equal to 1. The model's solution algorithm indicates the maximum utility, defined on the "r" objectives (OJ), along the following equation: max U(01,...,0r), which is defined as a set by "n" alternatives:

V Uij ■ kj n

Finally, the MCA will determine the UF through the linear combination of each normalized values with a list of weights (one for each micro criterion) by multiplying the normalized values on each criterion by the criterion's weight (kl, k2, ...,kj).

The assessing weights must be defined by the decision makers, who must make explicit how important every particular criterion is. The UF will provide the identification of preferable alternative, according to the established goals/criteria.

The U.F., measured by a non-dimensional index number, is characteristic for each objective and may be expressed in the form: U = U(Oj) = [0,1].

3. MCA in evaluating port development

Maritime plans aiming at improving port facilities, particularly, must define their goals together with the city government, the organization in charge of operating the infrastructure, and the relevant stakeholders as well.

Different infrastructure improvements could be measured in relation with the satisfaction of criteria able to describe their effects. This research identifies some general criteria useful to evaluate an offshore platform's feasibility considering risk, environmental, transport, and economic effects. Their definition is done on the basis of international literature as following described.

Risk indicator. The proper evaluation of the risks related to maritime accidents is a key issue and the methodology used to set up this indicator required a deep analysis because usually it is not taken into account in feasibility appraisal. European Maritime Safety Agency's annual review (EMSA 2010) categorizes maritime accidents as such: sinkings (5%), collisions/contacts (45%), groundings (22%), fires/explosions (13%), others (15%). Accidents concerned both cargo and passenger ships. Their main consequences are loss of life and pollution (bunker spill). Other consequences (observed in the "Risk analysis of the transit vessel traffic in the strait of Istanbul" Ulusgu et al. - 2008) are traffic disruption and infrastructure damages. According to SAFEDOR 2007, the most comprehensive study on the issue, there are five accident categories (collision, contact, grounding, fire/explosion, heavy weather) that potentially lead to different consequences (human fatalities within the crew, dangerous cargo leakage, bunker fuel spill, ship damage, cargo loss or damage). Starting from an initial accident frequency (derived by defined time series for the world fleet between 1993-2004), SAFEDOR defines several scenarios and assesses their probability using event tree modelling techniques.

In order to apply SAFEDOR's methodology to an offshore port case-study, only some scenarios (branches) are taken into consideration, skipping scenarios with frequency equal to 0.

It is possible, then, to consider five risk consequences indexes to be used as risk indicators in the MCA. Every risk index are calculated summing the accident frequencies for each scenario. These values are weighted with the relevant data (number and size of vessels calling at the port, crew and cargo characteristics), and the results show five risk indexes to include as micro criteria and compare with the Threshold Values (TVs) in a MCA.

Environmental impact. Another important criterion to include in the feasibility evaluation is the environmental effect of alternative projects. This indicator includes three micro criteria: air pollution, energy savings and the physical impact on the coast. The first two can be calculated from the vessels'

emissions and energy consumption, considering both deep sea movements and mooring. The latter micro criteria regards the effect of maritime movements on coastal edges and seabed. This kind of impact is particularly relevant for port channels, for approaching channels close to the coast, or in sensitive environments in general. This indicator is calculated on the basis of the wake wash moved by vessels (varying with vessels' number and size): the bigger the wave motion, the larger the damage on the coast.

Transport issue. This indicator considers the improvement in transport performances and includes two micro criteria: the extent of the satisfied demand (in relation to every alternative, from the first year of operation) and the freight's travel time (on the sea leg). It can be calculated from a common geographical point, including running time, wasting time and delays.

Economic sustainability. This indicator represents all costs borne to keep the alternatives in operation. It is composed by the four micro criteria: realization time (measured in months); estimated investment costs; management costs (employees and equipment); dredging and quays maintenance cost (the average cost observed in the historical data, like annual balance sheet of responsible authority, are an useful source for making the correct estimates).

Economic benefit. Transport investments can bring long term benefits to the economy, due to positive effects on GDP and a multiplier effect on the market. A project's value added (its contribution to local employment and productivity growth) was estimated in European (Russo, 2010; WIFO, 2011) and American studies (Bivens, 2010) in 18,000 direct and indirect jobs, approximately, for each billion spent.

Hence, to measure single effects, the research has detailed criterion by the following micro criteria:

• Risk indicators - Potential Loss of Life (PLL), Dangerous goods (DG), Bunker spill (BS),

Damage on the fleet coming in port, per year (DF), Cargo loss or damage (CL);

• Environmental impacts - Air pollution, Energy saving, Physical impact on the coast;

• Transport performances - Extent of the satisfied demand, Freight transfer time.

• Economic sustainability - Time required to complete the entire project, Total investment costs,

Management costs (means and employees), Dredging costs, Quays maintenance cost.

• Economic benefits - Value Added and employment.

In the assessment of the project's alternatives the estimate of the criteria's values must be calculated from the first year the project gets operational. The methodology and identified criteria are used on the Port of Venice case study as described in section 3.

4. Venice Case study

Porto Marghera, the commercial and industrial section of the Port of Venice, is located on the mainland side of the Venice lagoon and is linked to the deep sea by a dredged canal, 12 meters deep and 10 nautical miles long, leading to the Malamocco inlet.

According to Italy's Special Law for Venice (Law 798/94), oil traffic must be kept outside the lagoon to protect its environment. Therefore, an offshore pier (protect by a breakwater) is needed, funded by the Italian Government. From this platform, oil will be brought to the coast through an underwater pipeline. Venice Port Authority (VPA) proposed to move part of the container traffic to the offshore platform, located some 8 nautical miles from Malamocco inlet (Figure la). Hence an offshore container terminal was planned, in addition to the oil pier, by VPA, with an estimated additional cost of EUR 640 M. The new deep sea terminal will be able to handle larger post panama ships, catering for a traffic of up to 2 M TEUs. Containers will move to and from the mainland by shuttle barges and tugboats (the estimated cost for the barge and tugboat fleet is EUR 160 M). This approach will keep canal dredging within the present limit, safeguarding the delicate lagoon environment. It would be possible, too, to connect the platform with the onshore terminals by aN underwater railway tunnel, with an estimated (tunnel and shuttle train) of EUR 1,200 M.

The present research applies the evaluation methodology (as described in Section 2) to the offshore container terminal. Every benefit and disadvantage will be taken into account to assess the project feasibility, comparing two 2020 alternative scenarios: doing nothing (Alternative 0) and developing port facilities (Alternative 1).

Project alternatives

Alternative 0 represents the trend scenario towards 2020. This alternative does not imply any improvement or infrastructure investment, besides the canal dredging to ensure the safe transit of 8,000 TEUs container ships, with the development of port facilities to accommodate the additional traffic (700,000 TEU/yearby 2020, Figure lb).

19BÏ IPSO 1995 2000 200Î 2010 2015 2020

Fig. 1. (a) PortofVenice and the new Offshore Port; (b) Venice Container traffic: 1980 - 2010 and forecast by 2020. Source: Venice Port Authority, 2011

Alternative 1 considers the realization of an offshore platform 8 miles off Malamocco inlet, where the sea's natural depth is 20 m. According to the VPA, this project would bring additional gains in traffic, up to2M TEU/year (the platform's capacity is 3M TEU/year). According to this solution, containers will be shipped via barges, each able to carry 200 TEUs, that will take the containers to Porto Marghera, where the cargo will be forwarded to its final destinations.

The barges are conducted by 1,000 HP tugboats, with 117 m3 fuel capacity, a six people crew and a maximum speed of 14 knots. The estimated time for loading containers onto barges with an automated system (two cranes per barge) is 1 minute and 40 seconds per TEU. On the basis of the total volume to serve, speeds, loading and unloading operation time, a "fleet operations plan" estimates that 14 barges and 10 tugboats are needed per day.

An equivalent traffic growth with the actual infrastructures could be reached only dredging the access canal to a depth of 14 m, to accommodate post Panamax vessels. This solution would entail massive works to consolidate the embankments and would require constant and expensive dredging.

Venice micro criteria and threshold -values description

In this section all micro criteria relevant to the Venice case are calculated and, following the MCA methodology, maximum and minimum reference values are determined (the upper and lower TVs for each micro criterion). The goal is building an absolute scale to compare the corresponding values of each

alternative. When this is not possible, TVs are defined according to the international literature. The five macro criteria and thel6 micro criteria are reported below.

Risk indicator. The evaluation of risk indexes represents the possibility of an accident to occur inside the Venice lagoon. It is performed comparing the historical accident frequency in the lagoon. The two alternative risk indexes are evaluated according to the SAFEDOR methodology applied to the Port of Venice. The project under investigation being a container platform, data are limited to container traffic.

The accident risk indexes concerning the Venetian fleet are calculated from the initial frequency as reported in Table 1. Due to Venice port's physical characteristics, the only SAFEDOR risk scenario considered are: "operational state at low speed" (maneuvering in or close terminal) and "restricted" (approaching channels/fairway). Average values are reported in Table 2.

Table 1. Estimated frequency of initiating events for container vessels. Source: SAFEDOR, 2007

Accident scenario Accidents frequency

(per ship year)

Collision 1.61 xlO"2

Contact 3.65 xlO"3

Grounding 6.84 xlO"3

Fire/explosion 3.55 xlO"3

Heavy weather 2.64 xlO"3

Table 2. General common assumptions and estimation of basic input parameters. Source: SAFEDOR, 2007; *APV, 2011

Input parameter_Value_

Payload capacity at 14t homogeneous load 2,175 TEU Fuel tank capacity 3,850 m3 Ship crew 20 Share of dangerous cargo from total payload 6% Average amount of fuel in tanks (portion of capacity) 50% Container port Venice 2010* 393,914 TEU/year Venice Fleet* 65 ship/year Number of port calls per year 2010*_1,183 call/year

For each consequence, the expected events/year are calculated in Table 3.

Table 3. Estimated risk indexes in the Venice port, current situation. Source: our elaborations, 2011

PLL [crew member per year]_

[ton, per year]

[ton, per year]

[ship per year]

[TEU per year]

Collision Contact Grounding Fire/explosion Heavy weather

0,00 0,00 1,60 4,62 0,00

16,33 1,70 17,49 421,58 0,00

20,15 0,69 29,33 444,19 4,26

0,01 0,00 0,01 0,23 0,00

18,21 1,92 16,62 501,88 2,50

457,09

498,62

541,13

Alternative 0's risk indexes are calculated on the basis of the higher number of container ships forecasted for 2020 (Figure lb). Table 4 reports the results.

Alternative i's risk indexes are calculated on the number of ships calling at the offshore terminal (assuming a 2 M TEU/year traffic). Therefore, Alternative i's risk indexes consider both the risk reduction obtained by keeping container ships outside the lagoon, and the risk related to barge traffic (Table 5).

Table 4. Estimated risk indexes in the Venice port by 2020 (Alternative 0). Source: our elaborations, 2011

PLL DG BS DF CL

[crew member per [ton. per year] [ton. per year] [ship per year] [TEU per year]

Collision 0,00 27,63 34,09 0,01 30,82

Contact 0,00 2,87 1,17 0,00 3,25

Grounding 2,72 29,59 49,64 0,01 28,13

Fire/explosion 7,81 713,44 751,71 0,39 849,34

Heavy weather 0,00 0,00 7,21 0,00 4,23

Sum 10,53 773,54 843,82 0,42 915,76

Table 5. Estimated risk indexes in the Venice port, (Alternative 1). Source: our elaborations, 2011

PLL DG BS DF CL

[crew member per [ton. per year] [ton. per year] [ship per year] [TEU per year]

Collision 0,00 0,32 0,09 0,00 0,35

Contact 0,00 0,03 0,00 0,00 0,04

Grounding 0,07 0,34 0,13 0,00 0,32

Fire/explosion 0,19 8,17 1,90 0,08 9,73

Heavy weather 0,00 0,00 0,02 0,00 0,05

Sum 0,26 8,86 2,13 0,09 10,49

Risk indexes' TVs refer (Table 6) to two hypothetical scenarios: the first assumes that no offshore platform is realized and traffic reaches 2 M TEU/year; the second assumes an offshore terminal with a submarine railway link is built (reducing maritime traffic's impact within the lagoon). This study considers that an accident occurring inside the tunnel would have no direct impact on the lagoon.

Table 6. Threshold values. Source: our elaborations, 2011

PLL DG BS DF CL

[crew member per year] [ton. per year] [ton. per year] [ship per year] [TEU per year]

Alternative 0 10,53 773,54 843,82 0,42 915,76

Alternative 1 0,26 8,86 2,13 0,09 10,49

Minimum value 0 0 0 0 0

Maximum value 31,58 2.320,62 2.531,47 1,26 2.747,29

The risk indicator reports the probability of accidents inside the Venice lagoon (from Malamocco inlet to the onshore port). It is composed by five micro criteria, one for each possible consequences:

a) PLL measurement - frequency is estimated on the number of vessels (ships or barges) calling at Venice Port, and on the number of each vessel's crew.

b) DG measurement - tonnes of dangerous cargo evaluated on the number of vessels with an average payload capacity of 14 t and a determined share of dangerous cargo (SAFEDOR 2007).

c) BS measurement - tonnes estimated on an average bunker capacity and on an average amount of fuel in tanks, considering the vessels and tugs number.

d) DF measurement - frequency is estimated on the number of vessels that call at Venice Port.

e) LDT measurement - value estimated in TEU, calculated on the number of vessels calling at Venice Port, with an average payload capacity.

TVs for each risk's micro criteria are: min value equal to zero because in this case the offshore terminal, with an underwater railway tunnel, would need no vessels or barges to Porto Marghera; max value linked to the number of vessels needed to handle 2 M TEU in absence of new offshore port.

Environmental impact. This indicator takes into account air pollution, energy savings and the

physical impact on the coast.

f) Energy saving measurement: tonnes of fuel used in the operating service (24 hours per day for ships and 16 h/day for tugs), it is evaluated on the number of vessels needed to serve the demand and their engine characteristics (ARPAV, 2007). TVs: min value is equal to energy required for railway system, referring to the tunnel hypothesis where freight is delivered to inland destination through an electrical train; max value is evaluated on the tonnes of fuel required by ships to serve 2 M TEU in absence of new offshore port.

g) Air pollution measurement: grams of C02 per year estimated on different kind and number of vessels on the basis of covered nautical miles. On the basis of ARPAV formulation it was possible to calculate energy consumption and carbon footprint (CEFIC, 2011). TVs: min value is equal to zero referring to tunnel hypothesis1; max value is evaluated on the number of ships needed to serve 2 M TEU in absence of new offshore port (ship emissions per hour are higher than tug boat ones because it has to consider also emissions at mooring).

h) Physical impact on the coast measurement: this indicator is related to the amount of average wake wash. This volume is related to both vessels' size (C.I. 2011) and number. TVs: min value equal to zero in the case in which the offshore terminal is connected to the inland through an underwater railway tunnel; max value is the sum of the effects produced by the number of ships utilized to ship 2 M TEU/year.

Transport performance

i) Extent of the demand satisfied measurement: number of TEU/year. TVs: min value corresponding to the Alternative 0 (700,000 TEU/year); max value is evaluated relating to the capacity of container offshore terminal (equal to3M TEU/year).

j) Shipping time measurement: hours needed to ship TEU from the offshore terminal to inland networks. In both scenarios running time of ships and barges is equal due to canals speed limits. In the Offshore Alternative an additional time for load/unload barges has to be considered (estimated in 3 hours at berth in the offshore platform and 3 hours in onshore terminals with two cranes/barge). Alternative 0 has to consider an average additional time due to delays to shipping traffic (Halcrow, 2011), which is not required by Alternative 1 because ship could moor without towage service assistance. The delay represents the time between the ship arrival and the time when permission to proceed is given. TVs: min value is evaluated in relation to the average waiting time to ship from the lagoon entrance to the inland terminals; max value corresponding to the additional time to load/unload barges.

Economic sustainability. Indicator represents the time and costs needed to realize the new platform in

terms of construction time (months), investment and management cost.

k) Realization time of infrastructure measurement: value is estimated in months based on project forecasts (VPA, 2010). TVs: min value corresponding to the Alternative 0, in which there are not either investment or new infrastructures; max value is evaluated equal to twice the declared time, in relation to the observed data of realization of public infrastructures (MIT, 2011).

1) Investment cost of the project measurement: value estimated in euro on basis of design project. TVs: min value corresponding to the Alternative 0, in which there are not either investment or new infrastructures; max value corresponding to the most expensive project that included tunnel.

* In order to estimate impact in Venice lagoon the research considered only transport operations emissions (emissions in energy production is not evaluated).

m) Facilities, equipment and employees management cost measurement: general management cost per TEU. For Alternative 1 these costs include also maintenance cost of offshore quays. TVs: min value obtained to manage 3 M TEU (offshore platform capacity); max value corresponding to the current (VECON, 2010) average management cost per TEU. n) Dredging cost measurement: value estimated in euro per year, calculated on average annual dredging costs (€/mc, VPA, 2008). No costs result from barge operations, but Alternative 1 assumes that a dredging expenditure is made to keep 10 meters depth to serve other port traffics (i.e. bulk). TVs: min value corresponds to 0 dredging costs; max value corresponds to the average annual costs to keep 14 meters depth.

o) Quays maintenance measurement: value estimated in euro per square meter of quay (onshore port) considering different operation depth of channels. TVs: min value corresponds to the offshore project with tunnel. The quays maintenance costs are calculated on 10 meters channel depth; max value corresponding to the maximum depth needed to host big vessels (average draft of 14m).

Economic benefit

p) Added value measurement: number of jobs created per billion euro funded, as reported in the aforementioned studies. TVs: min value corresponds to zero in the trend scenario, max value corresponds to investment amount for complete project with offshore and railway tunnel.

Multicriteria results and conclusions

When multiple alternatives are available, MCA finds the preferable solution according to defined objectives detailed by micro criteria. These micro criteria, and the established TVs, represent the model's inputs and allow the normalization of variables with different unit of measurement. In the present MCA application, the innovative approach consists in focusing on a risk indicator. Table 7 reports the alternatives-micro criteria matrix to 2020, with values derived from the described estimates.

Table 7. Project objectives matrix year 2020 and threshold values

Minimum Maximum ALTERNATIVE 0 ALTERNATIVE 1 Measure unit

Air pollution 0 21,722,491 7,240,830 3,980,066 kg co2 /year

Energy savings 66,302 0 22,100 8,270 TEP / year

Physical impact on the coast 0 120,000,000 42,000,000 58,140,000 mc

Extent of the demand satisfied 700,000 3,000,000 700,000 2,000,000 TEU / year

Shipping time 45 283 45 284 minutes

Realization time 0 120 0 60 months

Total investment costs 0 1,840 0 800 K€

Management costs 42,875,000 307,393,585 42,875,000 204,929,057 € / year

Dredging costs 6,250,000 8,750,000 7,500,000 6,250,000 € / year

Quays maintenance cost 79,040,000 103,360,000 91,200,000 79,040,000 € / year

Added value 0 33,120 0 25,200 jobs

Assigning an equal weight to all criteria, the best solution is the Alternative 1 with an UF equal to 0.74 on a scale between 0 and 1 (Table 8). The UF values vary substantially when risk and environmental indicators are taken into account: the exclusion of these two classes of indicators leads to an inversion in the preferable project.

Table 8. UF value for both Alternative

Project AllWeight=l AllWeight=l AllWeight=l AllWeight=l

_Weight Risk=0_Weight environments Weight Risk and environments

Alternative 0 0.640 0.436 0.520 0.310

Alternative 1 0.740 0.437 0.600 0.290

These results show the methodology's application before decision makers assign priority weights5 to the different criteria, a critical phase because results can be altered. If the decision makers state the criteria are of equal importance, for instance, Alternative 1 should be preferred. If the decision makers consider economic growth and safety indicators to be more relevant than costs and time, then Alternative 1 would be even more preferable.

This analysis shows that a large investment can bejustified not only on economic grounds, but also for its ability to safeguard environmental, heritage and human resources. Besides improving port performances, other safety and environmental issues must be considered when appraising the building of a new infrastructures. In a complex scenario, MCA models are a valuable tool that helps taking decisions on major projects pursuing different (and sometimes conflicting) objectives, and when a cost/benefit analysis may not be enough to fully assess the project's feasibility.

References

ARPAV - Veneto (2007). Le emissioni da attivita portuale, Venezia.

Bivens J., Pollack E. (2010). An analysis of Transportation for America's Jobs Proposals. Economic Policy Institute (Washington DC).

Cappelli A., Libardo A. (2008). A CBA and MCA as DSS in Transportation Engineering. In Transportation decision making:

issues, tools, models and case studies. November 2008, Venice, Italy. Cappelli A., Libardo A. (2010). Decision making Support System: The Multicriteria Analysis Application and a New Model. In

Feasibility Decisions in Transportation Engineering. McGraw-Hill Milano. CEFIC ECTA (2011). Guidelines for Measuring and Managing C02 Emission from Freight Transport Operations, www.cefic.org C.I. Containerisation International (2011), www.ci-online.co.uk.

EMSA European Maritime Safety Agency (2010). Annual Report and Maritime Accident Review, www.emsa.europa.eu

ESPO (2010). EcoPorts Port Environmental Review 2009. Brussel.

Halcrow (2011), Port Of Venice Traffic And Terminal Study, for VPA

IFEU - (2008), EcoTransIT: Ecological Transport Information Tool, Heidelberg.

Libardo A. (2006). The choice problem in mega projects evaluation. In: Moelenbrink W. et al.: Networks for Mobility, October,

2006. University ofStuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany. ISBN: 3-89301-087-4 MIT - Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti Roma (2011). Conto Nazionale delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, anni 20092010. Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato S.p.A. Russo G. (2010). L'impatto economico delle infrastrutture nelle Regioni Piemonte e Liguria, nel periodo 2007-2020. STEP Ricerche di Torino

SAFEDOR (2007). Design, Operation and Regulation for Safety. EC FP6 2002-2006

Ulusju O., Ozba§ B., Altiok T., Or I. (2008), Risk analysis of transit vessel traffic in the strait of Istanbul, report of Laboratory for

Port Security (LPS) VECON (2010). Terminals Balance Sheet, VPA (2008), POT 2008-2011- SPDD, Venice

VPA (2011), Master Plan For The Development OfThe Venetian Port System - SPDD, Venice

WIFO, IHS (2010), Assessing the Lisbon Strategy 2005-2010 and Estimating Expected Effects from Reaching the EU 2020 Goals. Wien. 2010/384-2/A/WIFQ project no: 3510.

In previous studies (Libardo, 2006) it has built an integrated system of weights that have taken into account both willingness of decision makers and preferences expressed by a panel of citizens contacted via web. This solution was interesting and it brought to refine the results especially in the presence of several alternatives.