# Multicriteria Analysis of Alternative Marine Fuels in Sustainable Coastal Marine Traffic
## 4 Application and Analysis of the Results
### Definition of Alternatives Performance Score  
In the second step of the evaluation, the alternatives were ranked according to their particular scores and criteria weights. Stakeholders were requested to evaluate alternatives in comparison to all criteria. The evaluation was performed by assigning each alternative an absolute value score (0-10), which reflects their perception and experience on how each alternative satisfies a particular criterion. During the evaluation, stakeholders were encouraged to combine their knowledge with the available literature and other materials. Due to a general lack of data in Croatia, the final results were a combination of expert judgement and data from specific research or other relevant materials. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Criteria** & **Shipowners** & **Government** & **Academia** \\ \hline Climate change impact C1a & 0.367 & 0.333 & 0.346 \\ Acidification C2a & 0.300 & 0.333 & 0.308 \\ Exhaust emissions C3a & 0.333 & 0.333 & 0.346 \\ Available infrastructure C1b & 0.273 & 0.242 & 0.237 \\ Reliability of supply C2b & 0.273 & 0.242 & 0.237 \\ Adaptation of ship engines C3b & 0.204 & 0.242 & 0.263 \\ Safety of fuel C4b & 0.250 & 0.274 & 0.263 \\ Investment C1c & 0.294 & 0.310 & 0.345 \\ Operational cost C2c & 0.294 & 0.345 & 0.310 \\ Fuel price C3c & 0.412 & 0.345 & 0.345 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Overview of the evaluation of criteria importance by three groups of stakeholders. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Criteria** & **Shipowners** & **Government** & **Academia** & **Average** \\ \hline Climate change impact C1a & 0.1039 & 0.0886 & 0.1626 & 0.1184 \\ Acidification C2a & 0.0849 & 0.0886 & 0.1448 & 0.1061 \\ Exhaust emissions C3a & 0.0941 & 0.0886 & 0.1626 & 0.1151 \\ Available infrastructure C1b & 0.0956 & 0.0566 & 0.0628 & 0.0717 \\ Reliability of supply C2b & 0.0956 & 0.0566 & 0.0628 & 0.0717 \\ Adaptation of ship engines C3b & 0.0714 & 0.0566 & 0.0697 & 0.0659 \\ Safety of fuel C4b & 0.0875 & 0.0643 & 0.0697 & 0.0738 \\ Investment C1c & 0.1079 & 0.1551 & 0.0914 & 0.1181 \\ Operational cost C2c & 0.1079 & 0.1725 & 0.0822 & 0.1209 \\ Fuel price C3c & 0.1512 & 0.1725 & 0.0914 & 0.1384 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Overview of the results of the normalized criteria weights obtained from three groups of stakeholders. The first part of the ranking procedure was to analyze the particular scope of each criterion, since the maximum or minimum can be their target values. In Table 6, a list of criteria is presented along with the particular scope, based on which the particular normalization (2) is applied to the results. The performance of each alternative is evaluated by all participants on an absolute scale of 0-10. Once all alternatives are evaluated, their scores are set to relative values by performing the normalization procedure where values are compared to the maximum and minimum recorded values, respectively. In Table 7, the results of the evaluation of each alternative are presented considering the shipowners', government's, and academics' perspective. It is interesting to note that the electric alternative scored the highest score in relation to six criteria, while hydrogen and LNG scored the highest score in relation one, respectively. Considering the climate change impact, the electric alternative scored the highest score followed by hydrogen and biofuel, while LNG got the lowest score. Considering the acidification, the results are pretty much similar to previous ones. Exhaust emissions are considered lowest from the hydrogen use but all alternatives have a relatively solid score. The available infrastructure is considered the best for the electric alternative, while hydrogen and biofuel are considered the worst. Similarly, reliability of supply is the best for the electric alternative. Considering the adaptation of ships' engines, it is interesting to note that all alternatives achieved a very high score with hydrogen being the best.