831

1 INTRODUCTION

The total length of the sea coastline of the Republic of

Croatia is 5,835.3 km. The distance from the

northernmost point (Savudrija) to the southernmost

point (rt Oštro) is 527 km. Therefore, the indentation

coefficient of the Croatian part of the Adriatic coast is

11.1, which ranks the Croatian coast among the most

indented in the world. Out of the 1,244 islands, islets,

rocks, and reefs in the Adriatic, Croatia is home to

1,185 of them, making it the country with the highest

number of islands in the Adriatic Sea and the second

highest in the entire Mediterranean, second only to

Greece. More precisely, there are 78 islands, 524 islets

and 642 rocks, of which 66 have been inhabited

mostly since ancient Greece [12]. Although the

islanders' way of life is traditionally linked to the sea

(fishing, seafaring, shipbuilding), each inhabited

island is a kind of world in miniature. Therefore, it is

essential for the Republic of Croatia to preserve and

improve life in the Croatian islands.

Transport infrastructure development in the

Republic of Croatia is based on the European Union's

transport policy principles. The goal of the strategy

[24] is to establish a multimodal transport system that

is sustainable and efficient, incorporating measures

tailored for each sector. Well-connected islands have

Sustainable Multi-criteria Decision Port Development

Framework

D. Županović, A. Gundić, A. Zekić & T. Mavra

University of Zadar, Zadar, Croatia

ABSTRACT: The specific features of various ports create difficulties for county port authorities in Zadar County

and other coastal regions of Croatia in effectively performing daily tasks like managing, maintaining,

constructing, and operating ports. The reason for this is the increased presence of various elements that directly

affect decision-making regarding the port's progress. Therefore, it has been acknowledged that it is necessary to

establish a methodology that allows decision-makers (county port authorities) to make objective decisions

regarding the future direction of port development. This article presents a methodology proposal based on the

AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process) method of multi-criteria decision-making. When determining the

methodology, special attention was paid to the decision-makers, who were found to possess specific

professional knowledge in their activity but rarely possess prior expertise in multi-criteria decision-making.

Hence, it was crucial to establish a methodology that would be both straightforward and suitable for adoption

by decision-makers themselves. The AHP method, aided by a wide range of easily accessible and even cost-free

tools, facilitates this through its visual representation of goals, criteria, sub-criteria, interconnections, and

subsequent outcomes. This approach ensures the feasibility of ongoing monitoring throughout the decision-

making process. Ultimately, the proposed methodology was verified on the examples of five port areas based

on conducted empirical research, which, with their properties, satisfy different directions of development. At

the same time, the obtained results confirm its applicability.

http://www.transnav.eu

the International Journal

on Marine Navigation

and Safety of Sea Transportation

Volume 18

Number 4

December 2024

DOI: 10.12716/1001.18.04.10

832

stronger tourism development and more favourable

demographic trends and structures compared to

islands that are isolated and experience depopulation

[14]. Transportation connections differ considerably

from island to island according to type, capacity,

possibility of vehicle and cargo transport, fleet age,

transport costs, and other features. In addition,

according to islanders, an important factor affecting

the efficiency of transportation connections between

the island and the mainland is the dependence on

weather conditions and sailing schedules [8]. In this

context, coastal liner services are important for the

development of the islands since they ensure a

permanent and regular connection between the

islands and the mainland, without which the

sustainable development of the inhabited islands in

the internal sea waters and the territorial sea of the

Republic of Croatia would not be possible. Improving

transportation in coastal liner services cannot be

emphasised enough. It is crucial for driving economic

growth in island and coastal regions and preventing

population decline. Therefore, it is necessary to

optimise the capacities and efficiency of both the

existing and the new infrastructure, promote inter-

modality and improve the safety and reliability of the

transport network by opening and enhancing the

infrastructure for the accommodation of ships that

perform transport in coastal liner services and their

access infrastructure (access roads, etc.).

The quality of maritime port infrastructure plays a

crucial role in developing coastal shipping and

accessibility to the islands, as stated in the Transport

Development Strategy of the Republic of Croatia for

2014-2020 [24]. The priority in the construction,

renovation, and modernisation of infrastructure

should be given to ports open to public traffic (coastal

shipping berths). These ports must also be designated

as ports of county and local importance.

The National Plan for the Development of Ports

Open for Public Traffic of County and Local

Importance [9] is a document that systematically and

comprehensively looks at the needs of the maritime-

passenger transport system at the county and local

level and provides development guidelines for the

future. Such a strategic document enables the unique

development of the entire coastal and island area,

considering the socio-economic needs of the island

population and the economy of that area. The plans

determine the development direction of each port,

necessary investments, and investment dynamics to

monitor real needs realistically and responsibly, i.e.,

the main guidelines for further investments in port

infrastructure and services are defined to achieve

general and specific goals.

The national plan emphasises the need to create an

effective management and development model for the

maritime-passenger transport system while raising

the level of connection efficiency between island and

coast and the quality of port services. It emphasises

the need to implement a policy of sustainable

development. Also, it includes the integration of ports

into the social and economic development of the local

area and the construction of an effective maritime-

passenger transport system to enhance tourism

potential. The assessment identifies administrative

processes, infrastructure, services, and port

organisation obstacles. It offers recommendations to

overcome these barriers, which will enhance security

levels in seaports, establish effective environmental

protection measures in port areas, and optimise

energy usage.

The County Port Authorities handle the

operational implementation of all the strategic plans

in the Republic of Croatia. The legal definition of the

term "Port Authority" states that it is a non-profit legal

entity established by the Law on Maritime Property

and Sea-ports [29] and the Decision on the

Establishment of the Port Authority [13]. Hence, it can

be concluded that it was established primarily for the

management, maintenance, construction, and use of

ports of county and local importance under the

Regulation on the classification of ports open to public

traffic in Zadar County as approved by the Minister of

Maritime Affairs, Transport, and Infrastructure of the

Republic of Croatia. The role of the County Port

Authority is important for the analysis of the port

future development, where the primary goal is not to

generate as much revenue as possible but to preserve

and maintain a port of county and local importance

even when no direct economic benefit is involved.

This contributes to the development of both the port

and the local communities, specifically the

widespread islands in Zadar County because of their

unique geographic features.

The future Development Plan of Zadar County

2021-2027 [7] aims to further invest in capital

infrastructure projects for port infrastructure. It also

focuses on the modernisation and improvement of

county and locally important seaports and road

transport connections.

Finally, we should emphasise the fact that there

are 22 County Port Authorities in the Republic of

Croatia [18], of which the Zadar County Port

Authority manages the most significant number of

ports - 113, of which eight ports are categorised as

ports of county importance, and 105 of them are

categorised as ports of local importance. Managing

ports in Zadar County and other coastal regions of the

Republic of Croatia can be challenging because of the

large number of ports with unique features. County

port authorities have a range of responsibilities, such

as managing, maintaining, constructing, and utilising

ports. However, these tasks can be challenging to

accomplish in real-life scenarios because of various

factors that directly impact decision-making

regarding port development.

Considering the above, it was concluded that a

methodology must be determined to assist decision-

makers (specifically county port authorities) in

making objective and efficient decisions related to

port development. This article proposes a

methodology based on the AHP (Analytical Hierarchy

Process) method of multi-criteria decision-making.

While selecting the methodology, particular focus was

given to the decision-makers, who were discovered to

have specialised expertise in their respective fields but

lacked prior experience in multi-criteria decision-

making. As a result, it was necessary to develop a

clear and user-friendly method that decision-makers

could use autonomously. Using various cost-effective

tools, including free ones, the AHP method helps to

visualise goals, criteria, and sub-criteria, as well as

their interconnections. This visualisation supports

833

continuous monitoring throughout the decision-

making process.

It is crucial to highlight that the successful

implementation of the suggested approach relies on

conducting a comprehensive analysis of the current

state and the unique characteristics of each port. This

analysis aims to identify strategies for enhancing the

ports of county and local importance. This article

presents a detailed analysis of 20 ports in the Zadar

County area. Out of these, 5 ports that hold county

importance have been identified. These ports have

specific features that highlight the potential of the

proposed methodology.

2 DESCRIPTION OF THE RESEARCH SUBJECT

In the process of evaluating the current situation, it

was ascertained that an essential challenge in

implementing decision-making methodologies for

directing port growth is the unsuitable (existing)

criteria used to classify public traffic ports in the

Republic of Croatia. While it may seem convenient to

point the finger at the legislator, specifically the

competent ministry (Ministry of the Sea, Transport,

and Infrastructure of the Republic of Croatia), for the

current state of affairs, their actions have been

influenced by numerous ports of importance (both

county and local) in the Republic of Croatia, which

required the implementation of

general/compromising regulations. Initially, these

regulations should adequately fulfil the requirements

of all ports, considering their distinct characteristics

and needs. Based on empirical experiences at the

operational level, particularly the work of decision-

makers at county port authorities, it is evident that the

existing legislation, in its current form, fails to offer a

satisfactory solution.

An analysis of the current legislation was vital to

make the proposed decision-making methodology

with the AHP method effective. Based on this analysis

and the empirical experiences of decision-makers,

changes to the criteria were proposed. In line with

what has been mentioned before, presented below is

an overview of the current criteria, their deficiencies,

and a proposal of new criteria regarding the

classification of ports open to public traffic in the

Republic of Croatia.

2.1 Existing criteria for the classification of ports open to

public traffic

The classification of ports is regulated by the Maritime

Domain and Seaports Act. It determines the legal

status of a maritime domain. It covers a wide range of

topics, such as establishing boundaries, managing and

protecting the maritime domain, regulating the use

and classification of seaports, establishing port

authorities, overseeing port activities, constructing

and utilising port infrastructure, and addressing

critical issues related to or-der and regulation within

seaports.

The Maritime Domain and Seaports Act is a

fundamental legal document that categorises ports

into two types: ports open to public traffic and ports

of special purposes, based on their intended function.

It's crucial to note that both types of ports can

facilitate international and domestic traffic.

According to their size and importance for the

Republic of Croatia, ports open to public traffic are

divided into:

− ports of special (international) economic interest

for the Republic of Croatia;

− ports of county importance;

− ports of local importance.

The Government of the Republic of Croatia

establishes the classification of ports open to public

traffic by using specific criteria:

− the total traffic and characteristics of the port over

ten years;

− the operational capacity of the port;

− the condition of the port's infrastructure and

superstructure;

− capacity to arrange and provide services;

− maintenance and repair of vessels and ports;

− the importance and quality of transportation links

to the nearby region;

− economic possibilities for further development of

the port, etc.

The classification of ports depends on their

compliance with the guidelines stated in the

Regulation on the classification of ports open to public

traffic as proposed by the relevant minister.

It is within the jurisdiction of the County Assembly

to determine which ports are ports open to public

traffic of county and local importance. The assembly

defines the port area, adhering to the spatial plan and

obtaining approval from the Government of the

Republic of Croatia. The port area of ports open to

public traffic of county and local importance

comprises the allocated space for:

− liner shipping performance;

− communal berth;

− nautical port berth;

− fishing berth;

− berths.

The Government of the Republic of Croatia

determines the classification of ports into county

importance, following the criteria outlined in the

Regulation of the Sorting of Ports Open to Public

Traffic and Ports of Special Purpose [26]:

− Average turnaround of over 50,000 tons of cargo

per year in the period from 1998 to 2003, or

average passenger traffic of over 100,000

passengers per year in the same period in a port

exclusively handling passenger traffic;

− Adequate road connection with the hinterland;

− Port capacities for cargo traffic of 50,000 tons, i.e.

piers and wharves for accommodating ships up to

80 m and up to 4 m draught;

− At least three lines per month in domestic traffic

for passenger-only ports.

The criteria for the classification of ports open to

public traffic into ports of local importance is the

average traffic of up to 50,000 tons of cargo per year in

the period from 1998 to 2003, i.e., the average

passenger traffic of up to 100,000 passengers per year

in the same period for passenger-only ports.

834

The established criteria for classifying ports open

to public traffic as either ports of county or local

importance indicates that these ports are smaller, have

lower passenger or cargo traffic, and provide fewer

services to users. Also, it has been determined that

local ports refer to all ports that are open to the public

and have only wharves available for safe berthing of

vessels.

When classifying ports open to public traffic, it is

crucial to ensure that each port satisfies all the criteria

for the corresponding port class. Ports open to public

traffic are categorised into passenger ports and cargo

ports based on the predominant traffic. If a port meets

the requirements for classification in a specific class, it

is classified under that class, provided the dominant

traffic also meets the required criteria.

Currently, there are 412 ports open to public traffic

in the Republic of Croatia. These ports are categorised

as either ports of county or local importance. Of these

412 ports, 64 are considered ports of county

importance, while the remaining 348 are classified as

ports of local importance. The distribution of these

ports across each county is presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Ports open to public traffic of county and local

importance in the Republic of Croatia.

________________________________________________

County Ports of local Ports of county

importance importance

________________________________________________

Split-Dalmatia 6 51

Zadar 8 105

Istra 8 32

Primorje-Gorski Kotar 27 74

Lika-Senj 8 12

Dubrovnik-Neretva 7 74

________________________________________________

2.2 Classification of ports open to public traffic in Zadar

County

There are 113 ports in Zadar County, out of which 8

are categorised as ports of county importance, while

105 are classified as ports of local importance. The

ports of county importance are the Port of Biograd,

the Port of Brbinj Lučina, the Port of Fortica, the Port

of Pag, the Port of Preko, the Port of Silba, the Port of

Žalić, the Port of Tkon, and the Port of Zaglav. These

are mainly passenger ports regulated by the

Regulation on the classification of ports open to public

traffic in Zadar County [10].

Most of the local ports in Zadar County are

intended for communal berths. This means that they

are primarily intended for the mooring of residents'

boats, i.e., for the permanent berthing of a vessel

whose owner lives in the area of the local self-

government unit or the vessel stays predominantly in

that area. The vessel must be registered in the Register

of Shipping or boat record book of the harbour

master's office or its branch office competent within a

particular territory, and for the use of which a

permanent berthing contract must be made with the

port authority and on which no economic activities

can be performed.

Besides its communal purpose, parts of the ports

are intended for nautical tourism and nautical

moorings, and parts of the ports are operational ones

designed for the mooring of vessels in public

transport, vessels for the occasional transportation of

passengers, cargo vessels, and other vessels and

fishing vessels when performing loading and dis-

charging. These are ports with a less developed

infrastructure, mooring equipment, and additional

facilities.

The field analysis indicates that these ports offer

services such as receiving vessels on a regular basis

and providing mooring facilities for recreational and

fishing boats. These ports also serve as small local

ports.

2.3 Shortcomings of the existing criteria for the

classification of ports open to public traffic

The existing criteria for classifying ports specified in

the Regulation of the Sorting of Ports Open to Public

Traffic and Ports of Special Purpose refer to the traffic

and frequency of routes, road, and rail connections

with the hinterland, and port capacities. From the

presentation of the existing criteria, all the mentioned

criteria can be classified as those belonging to the

traffic technology criteria. None of the criteria listed in

the Regulation be-longs to the category of socio-

economic criteria.

The current classification criteria for ports open to

public traffic are rigid and imprecise, lacking

credibility when evaluating the importance of ports

for county and regional development. The existing

criteria for developing ports do not consider each

county's unique geo-graphical, traffic, economic, and

social characteristics. This means that the economic

interests and needs of the local population are not

considered. However, it is imperative to recognise

that the local population holds the utmost importance

as stakeholders in the development of ports of county

and local importance. They are regular users of port

services and can experience both positive and

negative consequences from the port's development.

The subsequent section provides a thorough

outline of the methodology employed to determine

the most suitable development direction for ports of

county and local importance in the Republic of

Croatia, focusing specifically on the ports in Zadar

County.

3 METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH TO

DETERMINE THE MODEL (FRAMEWORK) OF

COUNTY PORT DEVELOPMENT

The successful and rational development of county

and local ports requires an assessment of all factors

that directly or indirectly impact their functioning.

The port's location is one of the most important

factors determining its operation. Typically, these

ports are situated in the centre of the town,

particularly in the Mediterranean countries like

Croatia and Italy, where smaller ports are often

located near historical centres. Such location has a

significant impact on urban and spatial planning, i.e.,

on planning the development of county and local

ports. In addition, the development of ports of the

county (and local) importance also depends on the

development of neighbouring ports and the entire

port system at a particular micro-location.

835

To determine the future development direction of

the county ports in Zadar County, the Analytical

Hierarchy Process (AHP) method was applied. The

application of the AHP method for identifying the

optimal scenario is grounded in comparing scenarios,

criteria, and sub-criteria and was chosen for its

simplicity and ease of use. Connecting the set goals,

criteria, and sub-criteria and maintaining control over

their relationship (consistency) allows the decision-

maker (in this case, the County Port Authority) to

have a precise understanding of the selected/optimal

goal, criteria and sub-criteria by conducting a

thorough analysis of the port's current state.

The decision-making process involves the

assessment of multiple criteria and sub-criteria, which

are used to prioritise potential decisions [20]. It is

important to follow three distinct steps to effectively

use decision-making techniques that involve

numerical analysis of alternatives:

− Determine relevant criteria and alternatives;

− Assign numerical measures to the relative

importance of criteria and the impact of

alternatives;

− Process numerical values to determine the ranking

of each alternative [25].

Deciding becomes more complex when multiple

interconnected and well-established criteria require

multi-criteria decision-making. Multi-criteria

decision-making methods help decision-makers

understand the dynamics of the problem and offer

productive and objective decision-making support

[20]. In multi-criteria decision-making, it is possible to

use the following methods: Simple Additive

Weighting Method (SAW), Data Envelopment

Analysis (DEA), DEMATEL method (DEcision

MAking Trial and Evaluation Laboratory), TOPSIS

method (Technique for Order Performance by

Similarity to Ideal Solution), a set of methods

ELECTRE (Elimination and Choice Expressing the

Reality), a set of methods PROMETHEE (Preference

Ranking Organisation Method for Enrichment of

Evaluation), method of Analytic Network Process

(ANP), and analytical hierarchical process (Analytical

Hierarchy Process, AHP).

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method is

an invaluable tool in multi-criteria decision-making. It

empowers decision-makers to structure their

problems by conducting pairwise comparisons and

considering expert judgments [16]. It has successfully

ad-dressed a wide range of problems, both in

individual and group decision-making contexts [4, 5].

Since a decision-maker bases judgments on

knowledge and experience and decides accordingly,

the AHP approach agrees well with the behaviour of a

decision-maker [2]. The AHP method is used to solve

complex decision-making problems by breaking them

down into smaller components: goals, criteria (sub-

criteria), and alternatives. These components are then

linked to a hierarchical structure. The AHP supports a

methodology for measuring quantitative and

qualitative performance [27]. It comprises two phases:

defining the hierarchy tree and conducting a

numerical evaluation of the tree [3]. The AHP method

results in ranking alternatives, just like the TOPSIS,

ELECTRE I, ELECTRE II, and ELECTRE III methods.

The possibility of controlling the consistency is one of

the most significant advantages of this method (for

example, in the TOPSIS, ELECTRE I and ELECTRE II

methods, consistency is not controlled) [15]. Vaidya

and Kumar [27] provide an overview of 150 scientific

studies in which the AHP method was applied, of

which 27 were analysed in detail. This method is used

in the fields of economy, industry, social disciplines,

transport, ecology, politics, military science, etc.

Furthermore, it solves problems such as choosing and

evaluating decision alternatives and decision factors,

resource allocation, analysis of benefits, costs,

opportunities, and risks, prediction, analytical

planning, construction, and evaluation of

development scenarios etc. The AHP method has

found its application in specific areas [5, 6, 11, 23, 28].

Considering the research requirements and

objectives, the AHP method was chosen among the

different multi-criteria methods discussed. This

approach provides decision-makers with a clear

method to compare values during the process of

multi-criteria decision-making. The main justification

for selecting this method is that, in contrast to other

methods, it allows for the breakdown of the decision-

making problem into more manageable components.

With the support of the input data, the AHP method

establishes a linear hierarchical structure that allows

for the ranking of alternatives while effectively

managing the procedure's consistency.

The AHP method for assessing the values of the

criteria weights ratio and the alter-natives' importance

uses Saaty's ratio scale (Table 2) [19]. Elements are

then pairwise compared according to a 9-level scale to

derive their weights [7]. The alternative indicates the

decision between different possibilities for solving the

problem.

Table 2. Saaty's Scale [21]

________________________________________________

Intensity of Definition Explanation

importance

________________________________________________

1 Equal Two activities contribute

importance equally to the objective

3 Weak importance Experience and judgment

of one over another slightly favour one

activity over another

5 Essential or strong Experience and judgment

importance strongly favour one

activity over another

7 Demonstrated An activity is strongly

importance favoured, and its

dominance demonstrated

in practice

9 Absolute The evidence favouring

importance one activity over another

is of the highest possible

order of affirmation

2, 4, 6, 8 Intermediate When compromise is

values between needed (i.e., when it is

two adjacent difficult to decide

judgments between two odd

intensities of importance)

________________________________________________

Saaty's scale is a method of assigning values to

different criteria based on their relative importance.

The scale has five levels of intensity and four

intermediate levels. Each level and intermediate level

corresponds to a value judgment about how much

more important one criterion is than the other. Odd

numbers (1, 3, 5, 7, 9) are associated with basic values,

while even numbers (2, 4, 6, 8) describe their

836

intermediate values. When values are reversed in the

scale, it indicates ratings that are opposite to those

listed. The scale compares two alternatives, and the

values represent how often one alternative is more

important than the other.

There are four fundamental steps in the

implementation process of the AHP method. Figure 1

illustrates the hierarchical structure of the model

developed in the first step.

Figure 1. Presentation of the hierarchical structure of the

model.

The goal occupies the highest position in the

hierarchical structure, followed by the criteria at the

first level and the sub-criteria at the subsequent level.

Alternatives are at the bottom level of the model's

hierarchical structure. All listed elements represent

input values. The structure's purpose is to enable the

assessment of the importance of the elements of a

certain level concerning some or all elements of the

neighbouring level [22].

In the second step, a pairwise comparison of

elements is performed at every level of the

hierarchical structure. By doing so, we can ascertain

the degree of significance of the first criterion in

relation to the second criterion. The importance of

criteria is expressed by the Saaty's scale. Using Saaty's

scale enables the comparison of the importance ratio

be-tween two criteria, regardless of how they are

expressed - whether quantitatively, qualitatively, or in

different units of measurement. The consistency check

is a significant component of the AHP method and is

performed at each comparison level. Given the

subjective nature of comparing pairs, inconsistencies

can occur. The AHP method states that the

consistency index (CI) should not exceed 0.10 for a

particular comparison to be valid. However, in

situations where it is not possible to fully optimise

decision-making, i.e. when the decrease in CI leads to

undesirable correlations between the terms being

compared, as demonstrated in the model described in

this paper, the analysis highlights the

recommendation to raise the tolerance of CI values.

Nevertheless, the CI must not exceed 0.15, even if

reassessing the established model is still required.

In the third step, a mathematical model is

employed to calculate the local priorities (weights) of

the criteria, sub-criteria, and alternatives. These

priorities are then combined to obtain the total

priorities of the alternatives.

The fourth step involves conducting a sensitivity

analysis to assess how changes in the model's input

data impact the priority alternatives. Sensitivity

analysis aims to deter-mine the impact of input data

variations on the model variables, irrespective of their

connection to the data used in constructing the model

or the significance of critical parameters and

independent variables in the model. The utilisation of

sensitivity analysis improves the model's reliability.

In the model presented in this paper, the AHP

scale (Table 2) excluded even numbers, while the odd

scale was transformed: 3 → 2, 5 → 3, 7 → 4 and 9

→ 5. The interpretation remained consistent with the

AHP method, as demonstrated in Table 3. The

abovementioned translation was used to ensure

consistency with the standard grading system

(school/academic) employed in the Republic of

Croatia. The intention was to simplify the comparison

methodology, reduce the inconsistency of evaluation,

and ultimately present the findings to the decision-

maker. Once the decision maker completes all

comparisons, the values of the gradation scale are

once again translated into the corresponding values of

the AHP method, i.e., 3 ← 2, 5 ← 3, 7 ← 4 and 9 ←

5.

Table 3. AHP evaluation scale adapted to create criteria and

guidelines for planning the development of ports of county

and local importance.

________________________________________________

Intensity of Definition Explanation

Importance

________________________________________________

1 Equal Two activities contribute

importance equally to the objective

2 Moderate Experience and judgment

importance slightly favour one

activity over another

3 Strong importance Experience and judgment

strongly favour one

activity over another

4 Very strong, An activity is strongly

demonstrated favoured, and its

importance dominance demonstrated

in practice

5 Absolute The evidence favouring

importance one activity over another

is of the highest possible

order of affirmation

________________________________________________

This paper conducts a thorough analysis of the

multiple factors that have a direct or indirect influence

on port operations. "To avoid making incorrect

decisions in a particular situation." the decision-

making process was customised for each port without

conducting a sensitivity analysis for the presented

ports and their models.

Before presenting the developed models for the

future development of the selected ports using multi-

criteria analysis, it is important to highlight how the

results obtained from this analysis are interpreted,

especially in terms of their graphical representation.

Despite the note accompanying each graph, which

clarifies that a higher percentage signifies a greater

degree of importance in terms of development needs,

it is important to emphasise that the results of the

multi-criteria analysis should not be interpreted solely

based on absolute values and exclusivity. The

simultaneous development of various areas is crucial,

especially in ports that meet the requirements. By

implementing this approach, the order can also be

seen as a set of relationships, particularly the absolute

values that define it, i.e., proportions through which

the mentioned development should be attained.

837

Finally, it is necessary to take into consideration the

specific role of the Zadar County Port Authority, i.e. a

factor employed in the multi-criteria analysis captures

the County Port Authority's core function of

overseeing and advancing ports that lack economic

viability but are imperative for the sustainability and

advancement of the local community. This is

particularly noticeable within the Zadar Port

Authority jurisdiction, particularly in its smaller,

rural, and island ports.

3.1 Setting goals for the development of the port

To determine the future direction of a port of local or

county importance, a comprehensive analysis and

evaluation of its present condition and operations is

necessary.

In order to address practical concerns and meet the

investment needs of port infra-structure and

superstructure, three development directions or

scenarios have been established for the ports of

county importance in Zadar County:

− Development of the public costal and liner service

(Croatian: JDLPP) and/or port economic capacity;

− Development of the ports for nautical tourism and

their function;

− Development of small local ports and their

function.

The first goal - The development of the public

coastal and liner service and/or port economic

capacity – has the primary function of improving the

public coastal and liner services and boosting the

economic capacity of ports. The main emphasis of this

goal is to enhance public passenger transport services

and optimise the economic role of ports. Overall, this

development direction is centred on improving the

connectivity between the mainland and the islands, as

well as facilitating interconnectivity among the

islands. This direction of development also implies

the development of accompanying services, which, in

the first place, relate to meeting the needs of

passengers while awaiting transport.

One aspect of this aim is to boost the economy,

specifically by enhancing the functionality of the

fishing port. This involves meeting the requirements

of local fishermen by providing moorings and

supporting port services to ensure proper

accommodation and maintenance of fishing boats. It

also involves facilitating the transfer of fish and other

seafood.

This goal considers the boats owned by the

residents, as they are an important factor in the tourist

economy. It covers a range of economic activities and

services, such as towing facilities and others.

The second goal - The development of the ports for

nautical tourism and their function focuses on

enhancing the nautical and tourist aspects of the port.

This involves improving the port's infrastructure and

facilities to accommodate smaller tourist boats, nau-

tical tourism vessels, and boats rented by tourists.

This development plan focuses on enhancing nautical

tourism and other tourism-related services. It refers to

ports with significant potential in developing nautical

tourism.

The third goal - The development of small local

ports and their function - refers to the development of

the communal role of the port and implies meeting

the needs of the local population for communal

berths. Also, it includes the development of other

activities closely related to the life and work of the

local population (maintenance and repair of boats,

sports activities, fishing for personal needs, etc.)

3.2 Defining criteria and sub-criteria

To achieve the mentioned development goals, two

sets of criteria have been established. These criteria

consider both the transportation and technological

aspects and the socio-economic factors when

evaluating the development directions of each county.

Each criterion is accompanied by sub-criteria that can

be expressed using appropriate descriptive or

numerical values in qualitative or quantitative terms.

These sub-criteria help evaluate and assess the

feasibility of achieving a specific scenario.

Development directions were determined based on

the existing situation and adapted to ports open to

public traffic of local and county importance within

the Zadar County Port Authority area. The process of

defining development directions considered the

existing state of the ports, their primary function, and

the development potential and requirements of all

stakeholders involved in the system.

Furthermore, the model sets forth four criteria that

determine the selection of the goal - the direction of

the port development function:

− Port location;

− Port capacity;

− Port infrastructure and additional services;

− Social acceptability and financial sustainability.

Each of the criteria includes its respective sub-

criteria, which are comprehensively listed and

described in Table 4.

Table 4. Overview of categories, criteria, and related sub-

criteria

________________________________________________

Category Criterion Sub-criterion

________________________________________________

Transport Port Natural factors and geographical

technology location factors

Transport connection

Port capacity Operational port area

Number of berths

Vessels entering

Port Availability and condition of basic

infrastructure infrastructure

Mooring equipment

Availability of additional port

facilities

Socio- Social The needs of the local population

economic acceptability The needs of boaters

and financial Economic needs

sustainability Financial sustainability

________________________________________________

3.2.1 Port location

This paper considers two sub-criteria to evaluate

the port's location: natural geo-graphical factors and

transport connectivity.

This criterion is the foundation for assessing the

port's geographical location and its connectivity with

838

other ports, urban areas, and economic centres within

and beyond the County.

Natural-geographical factors - this sub-criterion

evaluates the suitability of a specific port's

development based on natural influences, primarily

focusing on wind, waves, tides, and currents.

According to the sub-criterion on natural-

geographical factors, the port has:

− safe connection with the open sea;

− a water area that allows unrestricted

manoeuvrability (with sufficient depth and width

to meet both present requirements and future

expansion);

− the oceanographic and meteorological conditions

remain favourable all year round.

Transport connectivity is extremely important for

developing the islands and improving the local

population's quality of life on the islands. To meet the

criteria, it is imperative to examine the existing

connection between the mainland and islands, as well

as the inter-island connectivity. Furthermore, future

development needs and possibilities must be

considered. The frequency of passenger

transportation and multiple shipping lines greatly

influence this. When assessing the situation, it is

crucial to consider the requirement for increased

capacity due to the introduction of new shipping

routes, the up-grade of existing facilities to

accommodate Ro-Ro ships, and the expected demand

for passenger transportation.

It is vital to evaluate the connectivity of a

particular port to the road transport system and

identify possible opportunities for improvement. This

forms the foundation for the sub-criterion of

transportation connectivity.

− the availability of a shipping route;

− the existence of occasional passenger transport;

− connection to the road transport network.

3.2.2 Port capacity

The main focus of the assessment is to determine

the necessary improvements in port capacities to

accommodate incoming ships. This mainly concerns

the growth in berth numbers and the expansion of the

port's operational shore.

In evaluating these criteria, it is crucial to consider

not only the potential and need for expanding

capacity within the sub-criteria but also the

enhancement of the existing capacities. This approach

allows us to identify the areas that require

improvement within each sub-criterion.

The operational shore - When referring to the

"operational shore", we refer to a coastal zone

equipped with the technical and technological

features to accommodate ships from both local and

distant areas. This area is accessible to all users under

the same conditions, i.e., it is not occupied by

permanently moored ships and/or boats. Preference is

given to ships that operate on established, regular

routes.

Number of berths - When it comes to berth

allocation, the sub-criterion targets explicitly the

number of communal and nautical mooring locations.

Nonetheless, the possibility of enlarging the fishing

berths is also being considered.

Vessel entry - This sub-criterion focuses on the

average number of ships that enter the port on a daily

basis.

3.2.3 Port infrastructure

The aforementioned criterion assesses the service's

functionality and technical proficiency. This includes

the effectiveness of the port infrastructure, the

condition, and quality of mooring devices, and the

level and quality of port services and other activities

in the port area.

Availability and condition of the basic

infrastructure - The assessment conducted within the

mentioned sub-criterion entails evaluating the

accessibility and state of the fundamental

infrastructure, focusing specifically on the port's

equipment and its ability to provide transportation

services and accommodate different types of vessels.

This sub-criterion examines multiple aspects,

including water and electricity supply, the existence

of a functional port light, the availability of a

designated area for towing, a crane for ships, the

adequacy of space for people and vehicles along the

coast, the quality of vehicle access, and the feasibility

of fuel supply for vessels.

Condition of mooring devices - this sub-criterion

examines the technical and functional aspects of the

mooring devices. The evaluation of the mentioned

criterion includes taking into account both needs and

potential for growth.

Availability of additional port facilities - When

assessing additional port facilities, the analysis

focuses on the existing condition within specified sub-

criteria, as well as the potential and need to enhance

value-added services in a particular port area. When

evaluating the feasibility of expanding port facilities,

specific considerations include the land area available

within the port, the ability to handle vessel waste, the

proper management of oily water reception and

disposal, the adequate space for technical

maintenance of vessels, the provision of essential food

supplies, the availability of wireless Internet access, a

security service, and the availability of emergency

intervention services.

3.2.4 Social acceptability and financial sustainability

The criterion above is utilised to evaluate the level

of demand for a particular port service among the

system's users. This specific criterion enables the

assessment of both the demand for liner services and

the demand related to nautical tourism, excursion

tour-ism, communal moorings, and fishing moorings.

The assessment also considers how potential

development directions would impact users of the

port system.

In addition, an assessment is made regarding the

contrast between the positive out-comes of a specific

development path and its negative consequences.

839

The sub-criterion of the needs of the local

population refers to the needs of those who are

regular users of port services.

The needs of boaters – The evaluation within this

category considers the needs of boaters, with a

particular emphasis on meeting their requirements

related to the port's nautical function.

The needs of the economy – This sub-criterion

specifically addresses the requirements that emerge

from economic activities, particularly fishing-related

ones.

Financial sustainability – In relation to the

specified sub-criterion, the potential for concluding

the financial framework is based on actual revenues

and expenditures, i.e., an assessment is conducted on

the expenses associated with investing in port

infrastructure and its maintenance. Also, the

complexity of the necessary operations (construction,

re-construction, improvement, modernisation, etc.) is

considered.

The subsequent sub-chapter illustrates the

correlation and weighting coefficients for each port of

county and local importance, based on the described

model, set goals, criteria, and sub-criteria, i.e., it

demonstrates the optimal development scenarios for

each of the ports mentioned.

4 IMPLEMENTING THE MODEL FOR SELECTING

PORT DEVELOPMENT DIRECTION

Upon conducting an extensive field analysis of 20

ports falling under the jurisdiction of the Zadar

County Port Authority, five ports were selected

(Preko, Zaglav, Pag, Silba, Brbinj). The selected ports,

each with their own specific conditions, offer valuable

insights into the potential application of the AHP

method for selecting future port developments.

This paper includes subsequent sections that

provide details on the current characteristics of the

ports, the analysis performed using the proposed

model, and the results obtained from implementing

the proposed model. These results are presented in

both written and graphical forms.

4.1 Future development analysis model

Table 5 provides a simplified presentation of the

(total) comparison values for all ports. The blue value

indicates the greater importance of the term listed in

the far-right column, whereas the red value signifies

the greater importance of the term listed in the left

column of Table 4. Instead of listing individual values

for each port, the table simplifies the display by

showing aggregate values in the middle columns.

4.1.1 Comparison of the criteria in relation to the

activities outlined in the scenarios

Comparison of the criteria concerning the activities

outlined in the scenarios (development of the public

costal and liner service and port economic capacity,

development of the ports for nautical tourism and

their function, development of small local ports).

Table 5. Giving priority to the most significant criterion for

selecting the port development scenario

________________________________________________

Criterion Port Criterion

Preko Zaglav Pag Silba Brbinj

________________________________________________

Port 2 2 2 2 4 Port

location capacity

Port 3 3 3 2 3 Port

location infrastructure

and additional

services

Port 3 2 2 2 2 Social

location acceptability

and financial

sustainability

Port 1 3 2 2 2 Port

capacity infrastructure

and additional

services

Port capacity 3 2 2 2 2 Social

acceptability

and financial

sustainability

Port 2 3 2 2 2 Social

infrastructure acceptability

and and financial

additional sustainability

services

________________________________________________

4.1.2 Comparing sub-criteria within their respective

criterion

Table 6. Giving priority to the sub-criterion that holds

greater significance for the port location criterion

Table 6. Giving priority to the sub-criterion that holds

greater significance for the port location criterion

________________________________________________

Sub- Port Sub-

criterion Preko Zaglav Pag Silba Brbinj criterion

________________________________________________

Natural 2 3 2 2 1 Transport

and connection

geographical

position

________________________________________________

Table 7. Giving priority to the sub-criterion that holds

greater significance for the port capacity criterion

________________________________________________

Sub- Port Sub-

criterion Preko Zaglav Pag Silba Brbinj criterion

________________________________________________

Operational 3 2 3 3 3 Number

port area of berths

Operational 2 2 4 2 2 Vessel

port area entry

Number of 2 2 2 2 2 Vessel

berths entry

________________________________________________

Table 8. Giving priority to the sub-criterion that holds

greater significance for the port infra-structure and

additional services criterion

________________________________________________

Sub- Port Sub-

criterion Preko Zaglav Pag Silba Brbinj criterion

________________________________________________

Availability 2 2 2 2 2 Condition

and condition of mooring

of the basic devices

infrastructure

Availability 2 3 3 3 2 Availability of

and condition the additional

of the basic port facilities

infrastructure

Condition of 2 4 2 2 4 Availability of

mooring the additional

devices port facilities

________________________________________________

840

Table 9. Giving priority to the sub-criterion that holds

greater significance for the social accept-ability and financial

sustainability criterion

________________________________________________

Sub- Port Sub-

criterion Preko Zaglav Pag Silba Brbinj criterion

________________________________________________

The needs 2 2 2 2 2 The needs of

of the local boaters

population

The needs 1 2 2 2 3 Economic

of the local needs

population

The needs 2 2 2 2 2 Financial

of the local sustainability

population

The needs 1 3 2 2 2 Economic

of boaters needs

The needs 2 2 3 2 2 Financial

of boaters sustainability

Economic 2 2 2 2 2 Financial

needs sustainability

________________________________________________

4.1.3 Analysing and contrasting different scenarios

according to specific sub-criteria

Table 10. Giving priority to the scenario that aligns better

with the sub-criterion of natural and geographic location

acceptability

________________________________________________

Scenario Port Scenario

Preko Zaglav Pag Silba Brbinj

________________________________________________

Development 1 4 2 2 2 Development

of the public of the ports for

costal and nautical

liner service tourism and

and/or port their function

economic

capacity

Development 1 2 3 3 2 Development

of the public of small local

costal and ports

liner service

and/or port

economic

capacity

Development 1 3 3 2 2 Development

of the ports of small local

for nautical ports

tourism and

their function

________________________________________________

Table 11. Giving priority to the scenario that aligns better

with the sub-criterion of transport connectivity

________________________________________________

Scenario Port Scenario

Preko Zaglav Pag Silba Brbinj

________________________________________________

Development 3 3 2 3 2 Development

of the public of the ports for

costal and nautical

liner service tourism and

and/or port their function

economic

capacity

Development 2 2 3 2 3 Development

of the public of small local

costal and ports

liner service

and/or port

economic

capacity

Development 2 2 3 2 1 Development

of the ports of small local

for nautical ports

tourism and

their function

________________________________________________

Table 12. Giving preference to the scenario that is more

favourable in terms of the port apron sub-criterion

________________________________________________

Scenario Port Scenario

Preko Zaglav Pag Silba Brbinj

________________________________________________

Development 3 4 2 3 3 Development

of the public of the ports for

costal and nautical

liner service tourism and

and/or port their function

economic

capacity

Development 2 3 2 3 2 Development

of the public of small local

costal and liner ports

service and/or

port economic

capacity

Development 2 2 2 1 1 Development

of the ports of small local

for nautical ports

tourism and

their function

________________________________________________

Table 13. Giving priority to the scenario that aligns better

with the number of berths sub-criterion

________________________________________________

Scenario Port Scenario

Preko Zaglav Pag Silba Brbinj

________________________________________________

Development 2 4 2 3 2 Development

of the public of the ports for

costal and liner nautical

service and/or tourism and

port economic their function

capacity

Development 2 3 3 2 2 Development

of the public of small local

costal and liner ports

service and/or

port economic

capacity

Development 2 2 4 2 2 Development

of the ports of small local

for nautical ports

tourism and

their function

________________________________________________

Table 14. Giving priority to the scenario that aligns better

with the sub-criterion of the average number of vessel

entries

________________________________________________

Scenario Port Scenario

Preko Zaglav Pag Silba Brbinj

________________________________________________

Development 2 2 3 3 3 Development

of the public of the ports for

costal and nautical

liner service tourism and

and/or port their function

economic

capacity

Development 2 3 2 2 2 Development

of the public of small local

costal and liner ports

service and/or

port economic

capacity

Development 2 2 2 2 2 Development

of the ports of small local

for nautical ports

tourism and

their function

________________________________________________

841

Table 15. Giving priority to the scenario that aligns better

with the sub-criterion of the availability and condition of the

basic infrastructure

________________________________________________

Scenario Port Scenario

Preko Zaglav Pag Silba Brbinj

________________________________________________

Development 2 3 2 3 3 Development

of the public of the ports for

costal and nautical

liner service tourism and

and/or port their function

economic

capacity

Development 2 2 3 2 2 Development

of the public of small local

costal and ports

liner service

and/or port

economic

capacity

Development 2 2 2 2 3 Development

of the ports of small local

for nautical ports

tourism and

their function

________________________________________________

Table 16. Giving priority to the scenario that aligns better

with the condition of the mooring devices sub-criterion

________________________________________________

Scenario Port Scenario

Preko Zaglav Pag Silba Brbinj

________________________________________________

Development 2 3 3 3 3 Development

of the public of the ports for

costal and nautical

liner service tourism and

and/or port their function

economic

capacity

Development 2 2 2 2 2 Development

of the public of small local

costal and ports

liner service

and/or port

economic

capacity

Development 2 2 4 3 2 Development

of the ports of small local

for nautical ports

tourism and

their function

________________________________________________

Table 17. Giving priority to the scenario that aligns better

with the sub-criterion of the availability of additional

facilities

________________________________________________

Scenario Port Scenario

Preko Zaglav Pag Silba Brbinj

________________________________________________

Development 2 2 3 3 3 Development

of the public of the ports for

costal and nautical

liner service tourism and

and/or port their function

economic

capacity

Development 2 1 4 2 2 Development

of the public of small local

costal and ports

liner service

and/or port

economic

capacity

Development 2 2 2 2 2 Development

of the ports of small local

for nautical ports

tourism and their function

________________________________________________

Table 18. Giving priority to the scenario that aligns better

with the needs of the local population sub-criterion

________________________________________________

Scenario Port Scenario

Preko Zaglav Pag Silba Brbinj

________________________________________________

Development 2 2 2 3 3 Development

of the public of the ports for

costal and nautical

liner service tourism and

and/or port their function

economic

capacity

Development 2 1 2 2 2 Development

of the public of small local

costal and ports

liner service

and/or port

economic

capacity

Development 2 2 3 2 2 Development

of the ports of small local

for nautical ports

tourism and

their function

________________________________________________

Table 19. Giving priority to the scenario that aligns better

with the needs of the boaters' sub-criterion

________________________________________________

Scenario Port Scenario

Preko Zaglav Pag Silba Brbinj

________________________________________________

Development 3 4 5 4 4 Development

of the public of the ports for

costal and nautical

liner service tourism and

and/or port their function

economic

capacity

Development 2 2 2 2 2 Development

of the public of small local

costal and ports

liner service

and/or port

economic

capacity

Development 4 5 5 4 4 Development

of the ports of small local

for nautical ports

tourism and

their function

________________________________________________

Table 20. Giving priority to the scenario that best meets the

economic needs sub-criterion

________________________________________________

Scenario Port Scenario

Preko Zaglav Pag Silba Brbinj

________________________________________________

Development 2 2 2 2 3 Development

of the public of the ports for

costal and nautical

liner service tourism and

and/or port their function

economic

capacity

Development 3 3 3 2 3 Development

of the public of small local

costal and ports

liner service

and/or port

economic

capacity

Development 3 1 2 2 2 Development

of the ports of small local

for nautical ports

tourism and

their function

________________________________________________

842

Table 21. Giving priority to the scenario that aligns better

with the financial sustainability sub-criterion

________________________________________________

Scenario Port Scenario

Preko Zaglav Pag Silba Brbinj

________________________________________________

Development 3 4 2 2 4 Development

of the public of the ports for

costal and nautical

liner service tourism and

and/or port their function

economic

capacity

Development 2 2 2 2 2 Development

of the public of small local

costal and ports

liner service

and/or port

economic

capacity

Development 3 4 4 2 3 Development

of the ports of small local

for nautical ports

tourism and

their function

________________________________________________

4.2 Analysis of the received results

4.2.1 Port of Preko

Based on data from the Agency for Coastal

Maritime Traffic Lines [1], the port of Preko is among

the top three busiest routes in the eastern Adriatic.

The port reached its maximum capacity after

undergoing reconstruction in 2011. The development

of the port of Preko should consider both its economic

role and the enhancement of coastal and liner services.

The operational shore adequately accommodates the

existing routes, and if necessary, a larger ship can be

employed on this specific route. At present, there is no

urgent need for further investment in port

infrastructure, but improvements can still be made to

the existing facilities. The port infrastructure does not

currently require any additional modifications to

accommodate Ro-Ro passenger ships. Considering the

prosperous tour-ism industry, an increase in tourists

could necessitate the development of additional

amenities for both tourists and the local population.

The construction of port basins 1 and 2 is complete,

and they are operating at their maximum capacity. To

protect the port from the southeast wind, one option

is to build an extension of the breakwater in the

southern area of the passenger terminal. In addition,

the port of Preko has the potential to house additional

moorings that would extend along the shore. The port

of Preko is situated near Marina Olive Island and

Marina Preko. Marina Olive Island in Sutomišćica is

not only a marina that accommodates boats but also

has the facilities to accommodate larger yachts. In

relation to this, the port of Preko can only offer a

competitive advantage in terms of service pricing.

Marina Preko is located within port basin 1 and is

physically connected to Preko Port. Marina Preko

provides a range of berths suitable for larger boats

and smaller yachts. The marinas mentioned earlier

have occupied the nautical berths in the port of Preko.

Nevertheless, the passenger terminal can be upgraded

to accommodate more berths in the designated area of

the Preko port.

Figure 2. Graphic presentation of the analysis results for the

future development of the port of Preko

4.2.2 Port of Zaglav

The port of Zaglav should focus more on the

nautical aspect in its future development, considering

the existing prerequisites and the potential to boost

the tourist economy and other nautical tourism-

related activities. In the summer months, the current

capacities are inadequate to satisfy the demand for

accommodating diverse recreational vessels. The

entire bay area, where the port is located, has

excellent potential for expanding its nautical tourism

capabilities. Enhancing the mooring infrastructure

will allow the port to increase its impact. The

installation of floating jetties presents a potential

solution for expanding the moorings' capacity, while

considering the constraints imposed by the nearby gas

station (e.g., accommodating larger vessels or those

awaiting berths at the gas station within the protected

port area, etc.). Taking into account the environmental

quality, it is crucial to prioritise the enhancement of

the designated coastal area for communal berths and

the improvement of nautical capabilities. The present

capacities of communal berths are satisfactory. If

required, it is possible to modify the coastline so that

smaller boats can be accommodated, and the capacity

can be expanded. When considering the growth of

public coastal and liner services and the economic

capacity of ports, it is crucial to highlight the

proximity of the port of Zaglav to the towns of Žman,

Luka, and Savar. Altogether, these towns have a

population of 574, which accounts for 32% of Dugi

Otok's total population. The number of passengers on

ship line no. 406 and fast ship line no. 9406 has been

steadily increasing in the last five years. These facts

can provide a basis for the future development of

public coastal and liner services, as well as the

economic capacity of ports. The existing port

capacities meet the current demands. During the

tourist season, the operational capacity of the port is

partially inadequate, whereas, outside the season, it

greatly surpasses the actual mooring requirements.

The existing operational shore lacks the potential for

further expansion. In the event of an increase in the

number of lines, a designated area of the operational

shore could be allocated and expanded to

accommodate ferries. The port infrastructure has the

potential for significant improvements, leading to in-

creased availability of additional facilities across the

entire port area. A proposal has been put forward to

843

improve both the infrastructure and services of the

port.

Figure 3. Graphic presentation of the analysis results for the

future development of the port of Zaglav

4.2.3 Port of Pag

The future role of the port of Pag is to serve as a

haven for the Bay of Pag, a small local port, and a

berthing port for tourist vessels, particularly

following the deepening of the Privlački Gaz.

Considering the influx of fishing boats and ships to

the port, it becomes imperative to enhance the port's

economic role. If an increase in communal berths is

required, it is possible to expand the total capacity by

installing supplementary pontoons. There is the

potential to upgrade the port infrastructure and

expand the range of facilities in certain sections of the

port area. A proposition has been put forward to

enhance both the port infrastructure and its services.

Figure 4. Graphic presentation of the analysis results for the

future development of the port of Pag

4.2.4 Port of Silba

In 2020, the port of Silba underwent extensive

renovations and reconstruction, resulting in a port

infrastructure of exceptional quality. This

infrastructure fully satisfies the requirements for the

safe accommodation of Ro-Ro passenger ships and

passenger ships on the existing routes. The capacity of

the port is sufficient as well. The operational shore is

spacious and can handle commercial ships, such as

fishing boats, tourist vessels, and smaller cargo ships,

as long as they do not interfere with regular passenger

traffic. Because of the substantial maritime traffic and

frequent calls, the port of Silba has become the

dominant port in the broader region. The port of Silba

is the sole port on the island of Silba that can

accommodate Ro-Ro passenger ships and passenger

ships. Therefore, the port's future development

should prioritise the enhancement and expansion of

the public coastal and liner service, as well as the

economic role of the port. The entire port area has the

potential to enhance its infrastructure by adding more

port facilities. It is advisable for the port to make

efforts to improve its port call arrangements. The

port's development should prioritise enhancing its

local function as well. The focus of development

should be on expanding the number of communal

berths and upgrading the port infrastructure in the

communal area of the port. It is proposed to improve

port infrastructure and port services. The positioning

of Silba port makes it challenging for fast shipping

lines to berth because of the strong winds coming

from the southeast, west, and northwest. The objective

is to consider the arrangement of the operational

shore and allow for the berthing of ferry lines at the

port of Silba situated on the eastern side of the island

of Silba. Presently, the port lacks the capacity for

nautical moorings, which may pose a problem given

the in-creasing demand. However, the port's nautical

component has limited potential for development.

Figure 5. Graphic presentation of the analysis results for the

future development of the port of Silba

4.2.5 Port of Brbinj

The port of Brbinj has the potential for growth in

all three directions. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure

a balanced approach in developing the port, focusing

on nautical tourism, public costal and liner services, as

well as the economic and communal functions of the

port. The Port of Brbinj is the only ferry connection

that links Dugi Otok with the mainland. The analysis

of the number of passengers and vehicles over the five

years reveals a consistent upward trend. The port's

capacities meet the current demands. Should there

arise a necessity to accommodate a larger number of

vehicles, it is possible to increase the frequency of

sailings. The ferries that operate on this route offer a

high level of flexibility, as they can accommodate a

844

large number of vehicles and passengers. This is

based on the idea that the mentioned measure would

effectively address the increasing vehicle demand

with minimal costs compared to expanding the

current operational capacity to accommodate bigger

Ro-Ro vessels. Considering that the port of Brbinj is

the only ferry link between Dugi Otok and the

mainland, it is vital to prioritise enhancing the in-

adequate additional facilities. The redesign of the

southern section of the operational plateau would

result in the creation of a functional shoreline that is

appropriate for transit berths or the mooring of

commercial vessels, such as fishing, tourist, and

smaller cargo ships. The part of the operational shore

intended for the mooring of fast shipping lines needs

to be extended. If the coastline in the targeted area of

the public section of the port is modified, it could

significantly increase the capacity for communal

berths, thus addressing the need for more berths.

There is a clear requirement for a significant upgrade

in port capacities and the provision of additional port

facilities within the public section of the port. Given

the substantial volume of maritime traffic in the

nearby area, it can be con-cluded that the port is

deficient in moorings. The layout of the coastline can

be optimised to increase the number of moorings,

thus resolving capacity shortages during specific

seasons.

Figure 6. Graphic presentation of the analysis results for the

future development of the port of Brbinj

5 CONCLUSION

The article introduces a conceptual multi-criteria

decision port development frame-work based on the

APH method for the future development of ports of

county (and local) importance over the next decade.

The framework, which is grounded in the AHP

method, takes into consideration various criteria,

emphasising the analysis of 5 selected ports in Zadar

County. However, it is crucial to highlight that

implementing the mentioned framework requires

fulfilling three essential conditions: 1.) conducting a

detailed analysis of the actual state of each individual

port, respecting the defined criteria and professional

standards (expertise); 2.) It is essential that both expert

organisations and individuals with decision-making

authority actively take part in the decision-making

process. 3.) Ultimately, it is crucial to verify all the

results obtained by using this framework, based on

the analysis conducted in step 1 and with the

assistance of the entity in step 2. Hence, it is important

to highlight that this paper meets all the prerequisites

through the collaborative work of the authors and the

County Port Authority, serving as the supervisory

and management entity.

The presented framework exhibits a particular

deviation from the recommended consistency index

value of the AHP method, as evidenced by the graphs

in Figures 2 to 6 in the previous chapter. However,

this is precisely where the importance of applying ex-

pert knowledge becomes apparent. Based on this, the

framework presented in this paper permits certain

deviations from the stated value for two specific

reasons. The first and most important is that

determining the port development function does not

solely depend on optimal values and conditions. In

some instances, the sustainability of island life must

be given priority, even if it means conflicting with

other (sub)criteria and resulting in slightly higher

consistency index values. The second reason arises

from the first and suggests that it is never desirable to

subordinate the comparison of criteria and goals'

importance to achieving the "optimal" value of the

consistency index. However, it is essential to focus

specifically on the current state of the port's

infrastructure, along with its actual potential and

development requirements. While the ports of Preko,

Zaglav, and Pag exhibit a distinct direction in terms of

port development, the Silba port demonstrates the

potential for attaining very close values in this aspect.

Once more, it is vital to emphasise the importance of

using professional expertise. This will enable the

selection of two development paths that align with

specific conditions and requirements. Finally, the port

of Brbinj exemplifies a scenario where port

development leans predominantly in one direction,

yet because of its inherent characteristics; it possesses

the potential for growth in all direc-tions. Once again,

this case emphasises the importance of leveraging

expert knowledge and conducting a detailed analysis

of the port's condition and developmental needs. This

is an essential element in demonstrating the feasibility

of the proposed framework.

The authors believe that the suggested framework

can be successfully implemented in other port

authorities, i.e., ports of county (and local) importance

in the Republic of Croatia (and in other

Mediterranean ports), which will serve as the focus of

future re-search.

REFERENCES

[1] Agencija za obalni linijski pomorski promet. Available

online: https://agencija-zolpp.hr/ (accessed on 1 May

2024)

[2] Al-Harbi, K. M. A.-S. Application of the AHP in project

management. International Journal of Project

Management. 2001, 19(1), pp. 19-27.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0

263786399000381

[3] Bertolini, M.; Braglia, M.; Carmignani, G. Application of

the AHP methodology in making a proposal for a public

work contract. International Journal of Project

Management. 2006, 24(5), 422-430.

845

doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.01.005,

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0

263786306000123

[4] Chang, C.-W.; Wu, C.-R.; Lin, C.-T.; Chen, H.-C. An

application of AHP and sensitivity analysis for selecting

the best slicing machine. Computers & Industrial

Engineering. 2007, 52(2), pp. 296-307.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223228484_An

_application_of_AHP_and_sensitivity_analysis_for_sele

cting_the_best_slicing_machine

[5] Guze, S.; Neumann, T.; Wilczyński, P. Multi-Criteria

Optimisation of Liquid Cargo Transport According to

Linguistic Approach to the Route Selection Task. 2017,

24, pp. 89-96.

https://sciendo.com/pl/article/10.1515/pomr-2017-0026

[6] Lai, V. S.; Wong, B. K.; Cheung, W. Group decision

making in a multiple criteria environment: A case using

the AHP in software selection. European Journal of

Operational Research. 2002, 137(1), pp. 134-144.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0

377221701000844

[7] Liu, Y.; Eckert, C. M.; Earl, C. A review of fuzzy AHP

methods for decision-making with subjective

judgements. Expert Sys-tems with Applications. 2020,

161, article no. 113738.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0

957417420305625

[8] Marinković V. Croatian Islands - insight into the traffic-

geographical features of accessibility. Geoadria. 2018,

23(2), pp. 177-205. https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/321076

[9] Nacionalni plan razvoja luka otvorenih za javni promet

od županijskog i lokalnog značaja – nacrt konačnog

izvješća. Lis-topad 2016. Available online:

https://mmpi.gov.hr/more-86/projekti-113/nacionalni-

plan-razvoja-luka-otvorenih-za-javni-promet-od-

zupanijskog-i-lokalnog-znacaja/18202 (accessed on 1

May 2024)

[10] Naredba o razvrstaju luka otvorenih za javni promet na

području Zadarske županije.Official Gazette No. 7/2021-

149. Available online:

https://narodnenovine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2021_01_7_

149.html (accessed on 1 May 2024)

[11] Nosal, K.; Solecka, K. Application of AHP Method for

Multi-criteria Evaluation of Variants of the Integration of

Urban Public Transport. Transportation Research

Procedia. 2014, 3, pp. 269-278.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2]214

6514001690

[12] Novak, G. Hvar kroz stoljeća; Izdavački Zavod JAZU:

Zagreb, Croatia, 1972.

[13] Odluka o osnivanju Lučke uprave. Službeni glasnik

Zadarske županije 6/98, 15/03, 14/04, 11/05, 12/05, 9/07,

6/11, 16/15. Available online:

https://vlada.gov.hr/UserDocsImages//2016/Sjednice/201

5/246%20sjednica%20Vlade//246%20-%2020d.pdf

(accessed on 1 May 2024)

[14] Opačić V.T. Geografski aspekt proučavanja trajektnog

prometa: primjer hrvatskog otočja. Geoadria. 2022, 7(2),

pp. 95-109. https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/14771

[15] Özcan, T.; Çelebi, N.; Esnaf, Ş. Comparative analysis of

multi-criteria decision making methodologies and

implementation of a warehouse location selection

problem. Expert Systems with Applications. 2011, 38(8),

pp. 9773-9779.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0

957417411002284

[16] Peng, Y.; Kou, G.; Wang, G.; Wu, W.; Shi, Y. Ensemble

of Software Defect Predictors: An AHP-based Evaluation

Method. International Journal of Information

Technology & Decision Making. 2011, 10(01), pp. 187-

206.

https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/epdf/10.1142/S0219

622011004282

[17] Plan razvoja Zadarske županije 2021. – 2027. Zadar.

2021. Available online: https://www.zadarska-

zupanija.hr/images/dokumenti/314/Plan_razvoja_Zadars

ke_%C5%BEupanije_za_razdoblje_od_2021._do_2027._g

odine.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2024)

[18] Popis lučkih uprava na području Republike Hrvatske.

Available online: https://mmpi.gov.hr/more/lucke-

uprave/8456 (ac-cessed on 1 May 2024)

[19] Saaty, R. W. The analytic hierarchy process-what it is

and how it is used. Mathematical Modelling. 1987, 9(3-

5), pp. 161-176. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/

article/pii/0270025587904738

[20] Saaty, T. L. (2008) Decision making with the analytic

hierarchy process. Int. J. Services Sciences. 2008, 1(1), pp.

83-98.

https://www.rafikulislam.com/uploads/resourses/197245

512559a37aadea6d.pdf

[21] Saaty, T. L. How to make a decision: The analytic

hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational

Research. 1990, 48(1), pp. 9-26.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/03

7722179090057I

[22] Saaty, T. L. Decision making for leaders: The analytic

hierarchy process for decisions in a complex world; 3rd

Revised edition; Pitts-burgh: RWS Publications, 2012.

[23] Saaty, T. L.; Vargas, L. G. Decision Making with the

Analytic Network Process: Economic, Political, Social

and Technological Applica-tions with Benefits,

Opportunities, Costs, and Risks. New York: Springer,

2006. http://www.untag-smd.ac.id/files/Perpustakaan_

Digital_1/DECISION%20MAKING%20Decision%20Mak

ing%20with%20the%20Analytic%20Network%20Process

.pdf

[24] Strategija prometnog razvoja Republike Hrvatske za

razdoblje od 2014. do 2030. godine. Official Gazette No.

131/2014-2465, Available online: https://narodne-

novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2014_11_131_2465.html

(accessed on 1 May 2024)

[25] Triantaphyllou E. Multi-criteria Decision Making

Methods: A Comparative Study. Applied Optimization.

2000, 44, Springer, Boston, MA, 5-6.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/209805531_M

ulti-

Criteria_Decision_Making_Methods_A_Comparative_St

udy

[26] Uredba o razvrstaju luka otvorenih za javni promet i

luka posebne namjene. Official Gazette No. 110/04,

82/07. Available online:

https://www.zakon.hr/cms.htm?id=29397 (accessed on 1

May 2024)

[27] Vaidya, O. S.; Kumar, S. (2006). Analytic hierarchy

process: An overview of applications. European Journal

of Operational Research. 2006, 169(1), pp. 1-29.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0

377221704003054

[28] Veisi, H.; Liaghati, H.; Alipour, A. Developing an

ethics-based approach to indicators of sustainable

agriculture using ana-lytic hierarchy process (AHP).

Ecological Indicators. 2016, 60, pp. 644-654.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1

470160X15004331

[29] Zakon o pomorskom dobru i morskim lukama. Official

Gazette No. 158/03, 100/04, 141/06, 38/09, 123/11.

Official Gazette No. 83/23. Available online:

https://www.zakon.hr/z/505/Zakon-o-pomorskom-

dobru-i-morskim-lukama (accessed on 1 May 2024)

[30] Xanthopulos, Z.; Melachrinoudis, E.; Solomon, M. M.

Interactive Multiobjective Group Decision Making with

Interval Pa-rameters. Management Science. 2000, 46(12),

pp. 1585-1601.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227447278_Int

eractive_Multiobjective_Group_Decision_