## 3 Findings and Discussion
### Evaluation of Alternatives for Airport Transfer Center Selection
#### 3.3.3 Evaluation of Alternative Airport Terminals According to MOORA Method  
The decision matrix for evaluating alternative airports according to the MOORA Ratio Approach is displayed in Table 14.  
Following normalization using the formula in Equation (25), the values in Table 15 were derived, ensuring they fall within the range of [0,1]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l} \hline \hline  & **CP** & **DP** & **CP** & **DP** \\ \hline
**AP1** & 1.54 & \(-\)1.5636 & 2 & 2 \\
**AP2** & 3.543 & \(-\)3.7913 & 1 & 1 \\
**AP3** & \(-\)2.195 & 2.1966 & 4 & 4 \\
**AP4** & \(-\)3.811 & 3.8034 & 5 & 5 \\
**AP5** & 0.923 & \(-\)0.6451 & 3 & 3 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 13: Net concordance and discordance values and ranking for evaluated airports. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l l} \hline \hline
**C (X,Y)** & **C** & **C \textgreater{} CAVG** & **D (X,Y)** & **D** & **D \textless{} DAVG** & **RESULT** & \\ \hline
**2,1** & 0.889 & 1 & **2,1** & 0.1044 & 1 & 1 & YES \\
**2,3** & 1.001 & 1 & **2,3** & 0.0000 & 1 & 1 & YES \\
**2,4** & 1.001 & 1 & **2,4** & 0.0000 & 1 & 1 & YES \\
**2,5** & 1.001 & 1 & **2,5** & 0.0000 & 1 & 1 & YES \\
**3,1** & 0 & 0 & **3,1** & 1.0000 & 0 & 0 & NO \\
**3,2** & 0 & 0 & **3,2** & 1.0000 & 0 & 0 & NO \\
**3,4** & 0.923 & 1 & **3,4** & 0.0983 & 1 & 1 & YES \\
**3,5** & 0 & 0 & **3,5** & 1.0000 & 0 & 0 & NO \\
**4,1** & 0 & 0 & **4,1** & 1.0000 & 0 & 0 & NO \\
**4,2** & 0 & 0 & **4,2** & 1.0000 & 0 & 0 & NO \\
**4,3** & 0.115 & 0 & **4,3** & 0.9017 & 0 & 0 & NO \\
**4,5** & 0 & 0 & **4,5** & 1.0000 & 0 & 0 & NO \\
**5,1** & 0.443 & 0 & **5,1** & 0.6774 & 0 & 0 & NO \\
**5,2** & 0.037 & 0 & **5,2** & 1.0000 & 0 & 0 & NO \\
**5,3** & 1.001 & 1 & **5,3** & 0.0000 & 1 & 1 & YES \\
**5,4** & 1.001 & 1 & **5,4** & 0.0000 & 1 & 1 & YES \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 12: _Cont._Ranking of Alternatives According to the MOORA Ratio Approach  
After establishing the normalized decision matrix, the yj values for each alternative airport were computed using the formula in Equation (26). These calculated values are shown in Table 16.  
When arranging the obtained yj values in descending order, it becomes apparent that according to the MOORA Ratio Approach, Cukurova Airport to be constructed in Tarsus district of Mersin province is given priority, with Antalya Airport following in second place. Mugla Airport ranks third, Sivas Nuri Demirag Airport ranks fourth and Erzurum Airport ranks last. Ranking of Alternatives According to MOORA Importance Coefficient Approach  
In this approach, the importance coefficients (wj) of the criteria determined by the AHP method were initially multiplied by the normalized decision matrix values in Table 15. This process yielded the values presented in Table 17.  
The calculation of the yj values for the airports was conducted using the weighted normalized decision matrix, as depicted in Table 18. When arranging the obtained yj values in line with the Importance Coefficient approach, it becomes apparent that according to the MOORA Ratio Approach, Cukurova Airport is given priority, with Sivas Nuri Demirag Airport following in second place. Antalya Airport ranks third, Erzurum Airport ranks fourth and Mugla Airport ranks last. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline  & \(\mathbf{y_{j}}\) & **Ranking** \\ \hline
**Airports** & **AP1** & 2.8227 & 1 \\
**AP2** & 2.8134 & 2 \\
**AP3** & 1.5231 & 4 \\
**AP4** & 1.2171 & 5 \\
**AP5** & 2.2563 & 3 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 16: Ranking of airport hubs according to MOORA-Ratio Approach.