Fuel consumption represents a pivotal factor in determining operational costs within maritime transportation, with direct implications for energy efficiency, environmental sustainability, and air pollution. This study aims to identify and evaluate the key determinants influencing fuel consumption, with the objective of optimizing these factors to enhance overall energy efficiency. A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) methodology was employed to systematically rank and prioritize the most significant criteria impacting fuel efficiency. The findings of the study indicate that compliance with sea conditions, optimal ship speed and the expertise of shipmasters (C3.2) are the most influential factors, followed by voyage planning that accounts for sea and weather conditions (C3.7). These results emphasize the critical role of operational strategies and the decision-making capabilities of personnel in minimizing fuel consumption. Moreover, the study identifies the significant contribution of maintenance practices, adherence to regulatory frameworks and environmental factors in shaping fuel efficiency outcomes. Quantitative analyses confirm that the implementation of energy-efficient practices can result in substantial cost savings and reductions in emissions. However, the achievement of stringent emission reduction targets may impose financial burdens on shipping companies, necessitating significant investments in fuel-efficient technologies and operational optimizations. Future research should focus on longitudinal voyage analyses, incorporating larger sample sizes and the development of mathematical models that align with the CO2 reduction targets set by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) for the years 2015, 2020, 2025, and 2030. This research provides valuable insights for maritime industry stakeholders and contributes to ongoing policy discussions, advocating for the establishment of standardized fuel consumption management practices that promote a more sustainable and economically efficient future for the shipping industry.
BialystockiNKonovessisD.On the estimation of ship’s fuel consumption and speed curve: a statistical approach. J Ocean Eng Sci2016; 1(2): 157–166.
2.
MersinK.Deficiencies and effects of the model in which ship weight is neglected in maritime transportation. UMUFED Int J West Black Sea Eng Sci2022; 4(1): 65–73.
3.
SertOBilgiliL.Evaluation of the effects of ship speed optimization on the cost-benefit relationship. J Ship Mar Technol2019; 215: 1–8.
4.
Karakadılar İS. Forecasts on the future of the dry bulk cargo transportation market. KMU J Soc Econ Res2022; 24(43): 634–654.
5.
WinnesHStyhreLFridellE.Reducing GHG emissions from ships in port areas. Res Transp Bus Manag2015; 17: 73–82.
6.
SkokoIStanivukTFranicB, et al. Comparative analysis of CO2 emissions, fuel consumption, and fuel costs of diesel and hybrid dredger ship engines. J Mar Sci Eng2024; 12(6): 999.
7.
EideMSLongvaTHoffmannP, et al. Future cost scenarios for reduction of ship CO2 emissions. Marit Pol Manage2011; 38: 11–37.
8.
BocchettiDLeporeAPalumboB, et al. A statistical approach to ship fuel consumption monitoring. J Ship Res2015; 59(3): 565–571.
9.
CoradduAOnetoLBaldiF, et al. Vessels fuel consumption forecast and trim optimisation: a data analytics perspective. Ocean Eng2017; 130: 351–370.
10.
UyanıkTKaratuğÇArslanoğluY.Machine learning approach to ship fuel consumption: a case of container vessel. Transp Res D Transp Environ2020; 84: 102389.
11.
KonurOYükselOKorkmazSA.Environmental effects of using organic Rankine cycle systems on port areas in cruise and Ro-Ro ships. J Marit Transp Logist2022; 3(2): 90–97.
12.
İnanTBabaAF.Route optimization system for commercial ships aimed at reducing voyage duration and fuel consumption according to weather and sea conditions. J Polytech2021; 24(3): 879–892.
13.
AijjouABahattiLRaihaniA.Study on container ship energy consumption. Energy and Sustainability VIII. WIT Trans Ecol Environ2019; 237: 25–36.
14.
YuHFangZFuX, et al. Literature review on emission control-based ship voyage optimization. Transp Res D Transp Environ2021; 93: 102768.
15.
GkerekosCLazakisITheotokatosG.Machine learning models for predicting ship main engine fuel oil consumption: a comparative study. Ocean Eng2019; 188: 106282.
16.
MersinK.Characteristics of displacement function and its application to fuel consumption function. Turan-Sam2020; 12(45): 32–36.
17.
KimMLeeJYAnS, et al. Proposals on effective implementation of the carbon intensity indication of ships. J Mar Sci Eng2024; 12(11): 1906.
18.
RonenD.The effect of oil price on containership speed and fleet size. J Oper Res Soc2011; 62: 211–216.
19.
BükerOStoltKKronerC, et al. Development of a prototype for measuring the fuel consumption of ocean-going ships. Flow Meas Instrum2025; 104: 102869.
20.
Bal BesikciESihmantepeA. Analysis of factors affecting the cost of voyages made by ships on their optimal routes and range. Finance Account J2020; 113: 267–284.
21.
TalayAADenizCDurmuşoğluY.Analysis of effects of methods applied to increase the efficiency on ships for reducing CO2 emissions. J ETA Mar Sci2014; 2(1): 61–74.
22.
ZhangZTeoCCWangX.Optimality properties of speed optimization for a vessel operating with time window constraint. J Oper Res Soc2015; 66(4): 637–646.
23.
BrynolfSFridellEAnderssonK.Environmental assessment of marine fuels: liquefied natural gas, liquefied biogas, methanol and bio-methanol. J Clean Prod2014; 74: 86–95.
24.
KayaAYErginerKE.Practices for improving energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions on ships: a focus group study. Dokuz Eylul Univ J Marit Fac2017; 9(2): 212–233.
25.
ZhangFXiaoBLiuZ, et al. Real-world emission characteristics of VOCs from typical cargo ships and their potential contributions to secondary organic aerosol and O3 under low-sulfur fuel policies. Atmos Chem Phys2024; 24(16): 8999–9017.
26.
JugovićABukšaTBukšaJ, et al. Investigating fuel reduction methods through propeller optimization on coastal Ro-Ro liner vessels. Sustainability2024; 16(21): 9543.
27.
LiWWangLZhangT.Regulatory compliance and fuel savings in the shipping industry. Mar Pollut Bull2022; 176: 113361.
28.
HansenH. Assistance tools for operational fuel efficiency. In: 9th conference computer and IT applications in the maritime industries (COMPIT), 2010, pp. 356–366.
29.
ZhouTHuQHuZ, et al. An adaptive hyperparameter tuning model for ship fuel consumption prediction under complex maritime environments. J Ocean Eng Sci2022; 7(3): 255–263.
30.
YuanJNianV.Ship energy consumption prediction with Gaussian process metamodel. Energy Proc2018; 152: 655–660.
31.
PsaraftisHNKontovasCA.Overview paper speed models for energy-efficient maritime transportation: a taxonomy and survey. Transp Res2013; 26: 331–351.
32.
SertOBilgiliL.An evaluation on the effects of ship speed optimization on the cost-benefit relationship. J Ship Mar Technol2019; 215: 57–64.
33.
LundhMGarcia-GabinWTervoK, et al. Estimation and optimization of vessel fuel consumption. IFAC-PapersOnLine2016; 49(23): 394–399.
34.
WangYLTzengGH.Brand marketing for creating brand value based on a MCDM model combining DEMATEL with ANP and VIKOR methods. Expert Syst Appl2012; 39: 5600–5615.
35.
WuWWLeeYT.Developing global managers’ competencies using the fuzzy DEMATEL method. Expert Syst Appl2011; 32(2): 499–507.
36.
TzengGChiangCLiC.Evaluating intertwined effects in e-learning programs: a hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and DEMATEL. Expert Syst Appl2007; 32(4): 1028–1044.
37.
TsengML.Application of ANP and DEMATEL to evaluate the decision-making of municipal solid waste management in metro Manila. Environ Monit Assess2009; 156(3): 181–197.
38.
Özdemir. A quantitative approach to the development of ballast water treatment systems in ships. Ships Offshore Struct2023; 18(6): 867–874.
39.
LiouJJHTzengGHChangHC.Airline safety measurement using a hybrid model. J Air Transp Manag2007; 13(4): 243–249.
40.
ChenHYuY.Using a strategies approach to analysis the location selection for high-tech firms in Taiwan. Manage Res News2008; 31(4): 228–244.
41.
VujanovićDMomčilovićVBojovićN, et al. Evaluation of vehicle fleet maintenance management indicators by application of DEMATEL and ANP. Expert Syst Appl2012; 39(12): 10552–10563.
42.
ÖzdemirÜGüneroğluA. Strategic approach model for investigating the cause of maritime accidents. Promet-Traffic Transp2015; 27: 113–123.
43.
SaatyTL.The fundamentals of the analytic network process–dependence and feedback in decision-making with a single network. J Syst Sci Syst Eng2004; 13(2): 129–157.
44.
SaatyTL.Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Serv Sci2008; 1: 83.
45.
Ou YangYPLeuJDTzengGH.A novel hybrid MCDM model combined with DEMATEL and ANP with applications. Int J Oper Res2008; 5(3): 160–168.
46.
HalffAYounesLBoersmaT.The likely implications of the new IMO standards on the shipping industry. Energy Policy2019; 126: 277–286.
47.
ChouCC.A fuzzy MCDM method for solving marine transshipment container port selection problems. Appl Math Comput2007; 186(1): 435–444.
48.
HsuWKKLianSJHuangSHS. An assessment model based on a hybrid MCDM approach for the port choice of liner carriers. Res Transp Bus Manag2020; 34: 100–126.
49.
DingJFLiangGS.Using fuzzy MCDM to select partners of strategic alliances for liner shipping. Inf Sci2005; 173(1–3): 197–225.
ZiylanK.Comparative Analysis of Ship Energy Efficiency Practices in Turkish Shipping Companies. Master’s Thesis, Dokuz Eylül University, Institute of Science, 2017.
52.
NassiraeiAAFSonodaTIshiiK. Development of ship hull cleaning underwater robot. In: 2012 Fifth international conference on emerging trends in engineering and technology, 2012, pp. 157–162. IEEE.
53.
KalenderS.Prediction of Ship Shaft Bearing Clearance Using Artificial Neural Networks and Dry Dock Maintenance Planning. Master's Thesis, Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering Program, Yıldız Technical University, Institute of Science, 2019.
54.
ÖzdemirSKökGTPehlivanD.Improving fuel efficiency in maritime transport: a multi-criteria decision-making approach. J Mar Sci Eng2023; 11(2): 1025–1040.
55.
ZhangYZhaoHYangX.Optimization of voyage planning to minimize fuel consumption in shipping. Transp Res D Transp Environ2021; 89: 38–49.
56.
LiXDuYChenY, et al. Data fusion and machine learning for ship fuel efficiency modeling: Part I–Voyage report data and meteorological data. Commun Transp Res2022; 2: 100074.
57.
SinghMAgarwalA.Applications of DEMATEL and ANP for maritime decision-making: a review. Mar Syst Technol2021; 42(5): 137–151.
58.
KumarSSharmaR.Integration of DEMATEL and ANP for sustainable shipping decisions. J Clean Prod2023; 354: 131844.
59.
KalenderKGökçeAÖztürk. Impact of crew training and maintenance practices on ship fuel efficiency. Marit Aff2020; 19(4): 545–561.
