# Multicriteria Analysis of Alternative Marine Fuels in Sustainable Coastal Marine Traffic
## 4 Application and Analysis of the Results
### Definition of Objectives Importance and Criteria Weights  
In the first step, the main objectives from the hierarchical scheme are evaluated from the stakeholders' perspective. A total of 20 participants joined the survey, of which eight represented shipowners, six represented the government, and six represented academia. It involved the importance evaluation of the environmental, technological, and economical objectives; these results are presented in Figure 5. The objectives were evaluated on a relative scale, showing that representatives from shipowners consider economic objectives as the most important and environmental aspects the least. Representatives from the government consider economic aspects as the most important, with a significant difference compared to the other aspects. On the other hand, representatives from academia consider the environmental aspects as the most important.  
In the next step, criteria representing the supporting sub-objectives for each objective group were evaluated by the included stakeholders. Although there were 10 criteria proposed for evaluation, by separating the criteria into particular groups the authors managed to reduce the level of complexity, not only to ensure that the consistency ratio remains within accepted range but also to facilitate the comparison process. The evaluation was performed using the Saaty 9-point scale and the normalized results are listed in Table 4, where it can be seen that certain differences between the stakeholders' evaluation do exist.  
Figure 5: Definition of importance of the different objectives.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Group** & **Criteria** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Environmental} & Climate change impact C1a  \\  & Acidification C2a  \\  & Exhaust emissions C3a  \\  & Available infrastructure C1b  \\ \multirow{2}{*}{Technological} & Reliability of supply C2b  \\  & Adaptation of ship engines C3b  \\  & Safety of fuel C4b  \\  & Investment C1c  \\ \multirow{2}{*}{Economical} & Operational cost C2c  \\  & Fuel price C3c  \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Selected criteria for each criteria group.  
Finally, the overall results of the criteria weight evaluation are presented in Table 5. These values represent the product of the degree of importance for each objective (shown in Figure 5), and the evaluation results are shown in Table 4. It can be seen that there are significant differences in the results. According to the shipowners, the criterion with the highest score is C3C, \"Fuel price\", while criterion C3b, \"Adaptation of ship engines\", has the lowest score. It is interesting to note that criterion C1a, \"Climate change impact\", has a relatively high score along with criteria from the economic group. Considering the stakeholders from the government, there is a difference between the scores, with the economic criteria having a significantly higher score in comparison to the other groups, and the technological group of criteria was evaluated as the least important with a more than three times lower score. This is a result of the significant difference in evaluation of the main objectives (Figure 5). Stakeholders from academia evaluated environmental criteria as the most important in comparison to other groups, with \"Climate change impact\" marked as the most important criterion. In the last column, the average criteria weights scenario is presented based on the average value of the previously estimated weights, where the highest value is related to C3C, \"Fuel price\", while the lowest score is related to the \"Adaptation of ship engines\" criterion.