SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Economics and Administrative Sciences Faculty / 2026 / Volume: 12 Issue: 2

Evaluating the Logistics Performance of One Belt One Road Project Countries with Multi Criteria Decision Making Methods

Ali Aygün Yürüyen(ARDAHAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ, NİHAT DELİBALTA GÖLE MESLEK YÜKSEKOKULU)0000-0002-0323-7789
Hüseyin Altay(İNÖNÜ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-9528-5552
Pages
—
Publication Date
2025-06-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Based on the comparison, it was observed that the results obtained for each corridor were quite similar, and the proposed approach gave consistent results.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Logistics is significant for national governments to evaluate the activities, functions and elements of the existing country-level logistics system to develop competitive advantage.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The Logistics Performance Index (LPI) is one of the most reliable reports used to evaluate logistics performance at the country level.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Based on the comparison, it was observed that the results obtained for each corridor were quite similar, and the proposed approach gave consistent results.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Logistics Performance Index (LPI) · Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) · SIWEC

Abstract

Logistics is significant for national governments to evaluate the activities, functions and elements of the existing country-level logistics system to develop competitive advantage. The Logistics Performance Index (LPI) is one of the most reliable reports used to evaluate logistics performance at the country level. In this study, a new hybrid model using the SIWEC, CRITIC, LOPCOW and MACONT methods from the Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods is proposed to measure the logistics performance of the countries located in the northern, southern and central corridors of the One Belt, One Road Project (OBORP) connecting Asia to Europe. SIWEC, CRITIC, and LOPCOW methods were used to calculate the objective weights of the criteria for each corridor. The MACONT method was employed to rank the countries based on their logistics performance for each corridor. According to the combined criteria weights, the most important criterion in the northern corridor was international shipping, while the least crucial criterion was customs. The most crucial criterion in the southern corridor was customs, while the least crucial criterion was tracking and tracing. In the middle corridor, the most crucial criterion was tracking and tracing, while the least crucial criterion was logistics quality and competence. Owing to the analysis made with the MACONT method, Germany was the country that showed the best logistics performance in all three corridors. The results obtained for each corridor using the decision-making approach offered in the study were compared with other alternative assessment methods such as MARA, ARAS, COPRAS, GIA, EDAS and OCRA to ensure the validity and robustness of the findings. Based on the comparison, it was observed that the results obtained for each corridor were quite similar, and the proposed approach gave consistent results.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yürüyen, A. A., Altay, H. (2025). Evaluating the Logistics Performance of One Belt One Road Project Countries with Multi Criteria Decision Making Methods. Journal of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Economics and Administrative Sciences Faculty, Volume: 12 Issue: 2. https://doi.org/10.30798/makuiibf.1609904

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (60)

  1. Akbulut, E. A., Ulutaş, A., Yürüyen, A. A., & Balalan, S. (2024). Hibrit bir ÇKKV modeli ile G20 ülkelerinin lojistik performansının ölçülmesi. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 12(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v12i1.2300
  2. Aksakal, B., Ulutaş, A., Balo, F., & Karabasevic, D. (2022). A new hybrid MCDM model for insulation material evaluation for healthier environment. Buildings, 12(5), 655. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12050655
  3. Amari, A., Moussaid, L., & Tallal, S. (2023). New parking lot selection approach based on the multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods: Health criteria. Sustainability, 15(2), 938. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15020938
  4. Amiri, A. S., Babaei, A., & Khedmati, M. (2025). Country-level assessment of COVID-19 performance: A cluster-based MACONT-CRITIC analysis. Applied Soft Computing, 112762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2025.112762
  5. Arvis, J. F., Alina Mustra, M., Ojala, L., Shepherd, B., & Saslavsky, D. (2010). Connecting to compete 2010: Trade logistics in the global economy--the logistics performance index and its indicators. World Bank.
  6. Ayçin, E., & Bektaş, S. (2024). BIST Kocaeli şehir endeksinde yer alan şirketlerin LOPCOW ve OPARA yöntemleriyle finansal performanslarının değerlendirilmesi. Sinop Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 8 (Eğitim Bilimleri ve Sosyal Bilimler Özel Sayısı), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.30561/sinopusd.1551020
  7. Aydın Ünal, E. (2024). PSI-MEREC-MACONT hibrit modeli ile TÜRKİYE sağlık sigorta branşının yıllara göre performans sıralaması. Karamanoglu Mehmetbey University Journal of Social & Economic Research/Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey Üniversitesi Sosyal ve Ekonomi̇k Araştırmalar Dergi̇si, 26(47). https://doi.org/10.18493/kmusekad.1448284
  8. Bağci, S. A. (2024). Kamu borçlanması ve borsada işlem gören devlet iç borçlanma senetleri göstergelerinin etkinliğinin LOPCOW yöntemi ile belirlenmesi. Third Sector Social Economic Review, 59(4), 2556-2575. https://doi.org/10.15659/3.sektor-sosyal-ekonomi.24.11.2281
  9. Bakır, M., & İnce, F. (2024). Havayolu işletmelerinde yolcu memnuniyetinin LOPCOW-AROMAN modeliyle analizi: Star alliance stratejik ortaklığı uygulaması. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (81), 168-189. https://doi.org/10.51290/dpusbe.1432572
  10. Beysenbaev, R., & Dus, Y. (2020). Proposals for improving the logistics performance index. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 36(1), 34-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2019.10.001
  11. Brodny, J., & Tutak, M. (2023). Assessing the energy security of European Union countries from two perspectives–A new integrated approach based on MCDM methods. Applied Energy, (347), 121443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.121443
  12. Cao, J., Spulbar, C., Eti, S., Horobet, A., Yüksel, S., & Dinçer, H. (2025). Innovative approaches to green digital twin technologies of sustainable smart cities using a novel hybrid decision-making system. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 10(1), 100651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2025.100651
  13. Deveci, M., Gokasar, I., Chen, Y., Wang, W., Karaismailoğlu, A. E., & Antucheviciene, J. (2025). Analysis of green energy in sustainable transportation in developing nations through a decision support model. Renewable Energy, 122643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2025.122643
  14. Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G., & Papayannakis, L. (1995). Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0548(94)00059-H
  15. Ecer, F., & Güneş, E. (2024). G7 ülkelerinin bilgi iletişim teknoloji düzeylerini belirleme: MEREC-CRITIC entegre ağırlıklı CoCoSo metodolojisi. Journal of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Economics and Administrative Sciences Faculty, 11(1), 219-242. https://doi.org/10.30798/makuiibf.1281607
  16. Ecer, F., & Pamucar, D. (2022). A novel LOPCOW‐DOBI multi‐criteria sustainability performance assessment methodology: An application in developing country banking sector. Omega, 112, 102690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2022.102690
  17. Ecer, F., & Torkayesh, A. E. (2022). A stratified fuzzy decision-making approach for sustainable circular supplier selection. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 71, 1130-1144. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2022.3151491
  18. El-Jaberi, I. K. A., Stojanović, I., Puška, A., Ljepava, N., & Prodanović, R. (2024). Selection of renewable energy projects from the investor’s point of view based on the fuzzy–rough approach and the bonferroni mean operator. Sustainability, 16(22), 9929. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16229929
  19. Gao, H., & Qian, K. (2025). Risk assessment of municipal water supply and drainage project costs using neutrosophic numbers. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 81, 712-728.
  20. Gülcemal, T., & İzci, A. Ç. (2024). TÜRK katılım bankacılığı sektörünün performansının LOPCOW-MOOSRA modeliyle analizi. Dogus University Journal/Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 25(1). https://doi.org/10.31671/doujournal.1287120
  21. Gürler, H. E., Özçalıcı, M., & Pamucar, D. (2024). Determining criteria weights with genetic algorithms for multi-criteria decision-making methods: The case of logistics performance index rankings of European Union countries. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 91, 101758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2023.101758
  22. Işık, Ö., Aydin, Y., & Kosaroglu, S. M. (2020). The assessment of the logistics performance index of CEE countries with the new combination of SV and MABAC methods. LogForum, 16(4), 549-559. https://doi.org/10.17270/J.LOG.2020.504
  23. Işık, Ö., Shabir, M., & Belke, M. (2023). Is there a causal relationship between financial performance and premium production? Evidence from Turkish insurance industry. Journal of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Economics and Administrative Sciences Faculty, 10(2), 1388-1412. https://doi.org/10.30798/makuiibf.1220299
  24. Işık, Ö., Shabir, M., & Moslem, S. (2024). A hybrid MCDM framework for assessing urban competitiveness: A case study of European cities. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 96, 102109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2024.102109
  25. Jhawar, A., Garg, S. K., & Khera, S. N. (2017). Improving logistics performance through investments and policy intervention: A causal loop model. International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, 20(3), 363-391. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPQM.2017.082638
  26. Ju, M., Mirović, I., Petrović, V., Erceg, Ž., & Stević, Ž. (2024). A novel approach for the assessment of logistics performance index of EU countries. Economics, 18(1), 20220074. https://doi.org/10.1515/econ-2022-0074
  27. Kahreman, Y. (2025). Türkiye’nin üretken kapasite performansının incelenmesi. Optimum Ekonomi ve Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 12(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.17541/optimum.1515558
  28. Kara, K., Yalçın, G. C., Simic, V., Baysal, Z., & Pamucar, D. (2024). The alternative ranking using two-step logarithmic normalization method for benchmarking the supply chain performance of countries. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 92, 101822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2024.101822
  29. Kaya, Ö. (2025). Designing green and safe micro mobility routes: An advanced geo-analytic decision system based approach to sustainable urban infrastructure. Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal, 64, 102027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2025.102027
  30. Korucuk, S., Aytekin, A., Görçün, Ö., Simic, V., & Görçün, Ö. F. (2024). Warehouse site selection for humanitarian relief organizations using an interval-valued fermatean fuzzy LOPCOW-RAFSI model. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 192, 110160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2024.110160
  31. Madić, M., & Radovanović, M. (2015). Ranking of some most commonly used non-traditional machining processes using ROV and CRITIC methods. UPB Sci. Bull., Series D, 77(2), 193-204.
  32. Martí, L., Puertas, R., & García, L. (2014). The importance of the logistics performance index in international trade. Applied economics, 46(24), 2982-2992. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2014.916394
  33. Maruf, M., & Özdemir, K. (2024). Ranking of tourism web sites according to service performance criteria with CRITIC and MAIRCA Methods: The case of Turkey. Uluslararası Yönetim Akademisi Dergisi, 6(4), 1108-1117. https://doi.org/10.33712/mana.1352560
  34. Mercangoz, B. A., Yıldırım, B. F., & Kuzu Yıldırım, S. (2020). Time period based COPRAS-G method: application on the logistics performance index. LogForum, 16(2), 239-250. https://doi.org/10.17270/J.LOG.2020.432
  35. Mešić, A., Miškić, S., Stević, Ž., & Mastilo, Z. (2022). Hybrid MCDM solutions for evaluation of the logistics performance index of the Western Balkan countries. Economics, 10(1), 13-34. https://doi.org/10.2478/eoik-2022-0004
  36. Oğuz, S. (2023). Evaluation of customs, infrastructure and logistics services with multi-criteria decision-making methods: A comparative analysis for the top 10 countries in the logistics performance index. Journal of Management Marketing and Logistics, 10(4), 167-178. http://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2023.1837
  37. Özdağoğlu, A., Ulutaş, A., & Keleş, M. K. (2022). Lojistik değerlendirme ölçütlerine göre ülke sıralamaları: Farklı yöntemlerin sıralama üzerindeki etkisi. Journal of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Economics and Administrative Sciences Faculty, 9(1), 512-541. https://doi.org/10.30798/makuiibf.913369
  38. Özekenci, S. Y. (2024). BIST enerji endeksi şirketlerinin LOPCOW-CRITIC tabanlı CoCoSo yöntemleri ile finansal performans analizi. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Meslek Yüksekokulu Dergisi, 27(1), 48-64. https://doi.org/10.29249/selcuksbmyd.1400056
  39. Öztaş, T., & Öztaş, G. Z. (2024). Innovation performance analysis of G20 countries: A novel integrated LOPCOW-MAIRCA MCDM approach including the COVID-19 period. Verimlilik Dergisi, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.51551/verimlilik.1320794
  40. Pehlivan, P., Aslan, A. I., David, S., & Bacalum, S. (2024). Determination of logistics performance of G20 countries using quantitative decision-making techniques. Sustainability, 16(5), 1852. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16051852
  41. Puška, A., Nedeljković, M., Pamučar, D., Božanić, D., & Simić, V. (2024). Application of the new simple weight calculation (SIWEC) method in the case study in the sales channels of agricultural products. MethodsX, 13, 102930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2024.102930
  42. Rashidi, K., & Cullinane, K. (2019). Evaluating the sustainability of national logistics performance using data envelopment analysis. Transport Policy, 74, 35-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.11.014
  43. Rezaei, J., van Roekel, W. S., & Tavasszy, L. (2018). Measuring the relative importance of the logistics performance index indicators using best worst method. Transport policy, 68, 158-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.05.007
  44. Senir, G. (2021). Comparison of domestic logistics performances of Türkiye and European Union countries in 2018 with an integrated model. LogForum, 17(2). https://doi.org/10.17270/J.LOG.2021.576
  45. Stević, Ž., Erceg, Ž., & Kovačević, B. (2022). The impact of sensitivity analysis on the evaluation of the logistics performance index. Novi Ekonomist, 16(1), 41-48. https://doi.org/10.7251/NOEEN2231041S
  46. Stojanović, I., & Puška, A. (2021). Logistics performances of Gulf Cooperation Council’s countries in global supply chains. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 4(1), 174-193. https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame2104174s
  47. Sarıgül, S. S., Ünlü, M., & Yaşar, E. (2023). Financial performance analysis of airlines operating in Europe: CRITIC based MAUT and MARCOS methods. International Journal of Business and Economic Studies, 5(2), 76-97. https://doi.org/10.54821/uiecd.1257488
  48. Taşcı, M. Z. (2024). Multidimensional performance evaluation using the hybrid MCDM method: A case study in the Turkish non-life insurance sector. Journal of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Economics and Administrative Sciences Faculty, 11(2), 854-883. https://doi.org/10.30798/makuiibf.1439172
  49. Tümenbatur, A. (2021). Orta koridor üzerindeki demir ipekyolu güzergahı ve lojistik merkez yer seçimi/ Iron silk road route and logistics center location selection on the middle corridor. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 30(3), 102-110. https://doi.org/10.35379/cusosbil.977922
  50. Ulutaş, A., Balo, F., & Topal, A. (2023). Identifying the most efficient natural fibre for common commercial building insulation materials with an integrated PSI, MEREC, LOPCOW and MCRAT model. Polymers, 15(6), 1500. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15061500
  51. Ulutaş, A., Topal, A., Görçün, Ö. F., & Ecer, F. (2024). Evaluation of third-party logistics service providers for car manufacturing firms using a novel integrated grey LOPCOW-PSI-MACONT model. Expert Systems with Applications, 241, 122680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.122680
  52. Ünal, E. A. (2025). Kasko üretimi yapan sigorta şirketlerin performansının hibrit ÇKKV modeli ile değerlendirilmesi. Verimlilik Dergisi, 59(1), 77-100. https://doi.org/10.51551/verimlilik.1530339
  53. Wen, Z., & Liao, H. (2021). Pension service institution selection by a personalized quantifier-based MACONT method. International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 25(6), 446-458. https://doi.org/10.3846/ijspm.2021.15651
  54. Wen, Z., Liao, H., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2020). MACONT: Mixed aggregation by comprehensive normalization technique for multi-criteria analysis. Informatica, 31(4), 857-880. https://doi.org/10.15388/20-INFOR417 World Bank (2023). International LPI. https://lpi.worldbank.org/.
  55. Wu, H. W., Zhen, J., & Zhang, J. (2020). Urban rail transit operation safety evaluation based on an improved CRITIC method and cloud model. Journal of Rail Transport Planning & Management, 16, 100206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrtpm.2020.100206
  56. Yalman, İ. N., Koşaroǧlu, Ş. M., & Işik, Ö. (2023). 2000-2020 Döneminde Türkiye Ekonomisinin Makroekonomik Performansının MEREC-LOPCOW-MARCOS Modeliyle Değerlendirilmesi. Finans Politik & Ekonomik Yorumlar, 60(664), 57-86.
  57. Yıldırım, B. F., & Mercangoz, B.A. (2020). Evaluating the logistics performance of OECD countries by using fuzzy AHP and ARAS-G. Eurasian Economic Review, 10(1), 27-45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40822-019-00131-3
  58. Yürüyen, A. A., & Ulutaş, A. (2024). Assessing the urban competitiveness of european cities using LOPCOW-RAWEC methodologies. Int J. Knowl. Innov Stud, 2(3), 179-189.https://doi.org/10.56578/ijkis020305
  59. Yürüyen, A. A., Ulutaş, A., & Özdağoğlu, A. (2023). Lojistik işletmelerinin performansının bir hibrit ÇKKV modeli ile değerlendirilmesi. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 11(3), 731-751. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v11i3.2245
  60. Zafar, S., Alamgir, Z., & Rehman, M. H. (2021). An effective blockchain evaluation system based on entropy-CRITIC weight method and MCDM techniques. Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications, 14(5), 3110-3123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12083-021-01173-8