Transport Policy 48 (2016) 92–104

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transport Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tranpol

An evaluation of the operational efficiency of turkish airports using

data envelopment analysis and the Malmquist productivity index:
2009–2014 case
H. Hasan Örkcü a,n, Cemal Balıkçı b, Mustafa Isa Dogan a, Aşır Genç b
a
Gazi University, Faculty of Sciences, Department of Statistics, 06500 Teknikokullar, Ankara, Turkey
b
Selcuk University, Graduate School Of Natural and Applıed Scıences Department of Statistics, Konya, Turkey

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Turkey’s airport industry has experienced substantial growth over the recent years, but few studies have
Received 15 June 2015 analysed their operational efficiency. This paper uses Malmquist productivity index (classical and
Received in revised form bootstrapping) to assess the operational performance of 21 Turkey airports during the period of 2009
2 February 2016
through 2014. The findings indicated that the efficiency and productivity of the majority of the Turkish
Accepted 22 February 2016
airports increased during the period under investigation. However, in the period of 2011–2012, a sig-
Available online 4 March 2016
nificant decline was observed in efficiency. The main reason of this stagnation is the significant increase
Keywords: in the physical capacity of the Turkish airports in 2011. The non-reflection of the increasing physical
Turkish airports capacity to passenger and cargo traffic caused a decline in 2012. In spite of declining in the period of
Operational airport efficiency
2011–2012, efficiency values of Turkish airports have increased again since 2013. Moreover, decom-
Data envelopment analysis
position of the Malmquist index showed that most Turkey airports experienced losses in efficiency;
Bootstrapping Malmquist index
however, in terms of technology, they have progressed. Two significant factors (i.e. operating hours and
percentage of international traffic) were identified by the Simar-Wilson double bootstrapping regression
analysis as explaining variations in airport efficiency.
& 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction
Airports play an important role in countries' economic devel-
opment. They provide a base for one of the most critical modes of
transportation around the world. The common purpose of all the
airports is to provide an air navigation and airport operating ser-
vices at international standards in the aviation sector, leaning on
high quality, safe, human-and environment-sensitive high tech-
nology infrastructure and systems and qualified labor force. Per-
formance evaluation of the airports and producing performance
improving policies for the inefficient airports will make important
contribution to national economies.
Turkey has 53 operational airports nationwide, the manage-
ment of the Turkey airports and the mission of regulation and
control of the Turkish airspace are performed by the General Di-
rectorate of State Airports Authority (Devlet Hava Meydanları
Işletmesi-DHMI). DHMI is a state economic enterprise, which has
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: hhorkcu@gazi.edu.tr (H.H. Örkcü),
cemalbalikci@yahoo.com (C. Balıkçı), midogan@gazi.edu.tr (M.I. Dogan),
agenc@selcuk.edu.tr (A. Genç).
legal entity, autonomy over its activities, liability limited with its
capital, is associated with the Ministry of Transportation, and its
services are accepted as privilege with the latest legal regulation.
Air transport required with civil aviation activities, management of
airports, performing ground services at airports, and air traffic
control services, establishment and operation of air navigation
systems and facilities and other related facilities and systems, and
to maintain them at the level of modern aeronautics are listed
among the missions of this entity.
In the last decade, commercial flights have raised up to 196%,
and number of passengers has leapt up 280% while cargo amount
has marked 126% increase. Hence, the air passenger level in total
has realized as 131 million and flight traffic as 1.1 million (DHMI
annual report, 2014).
Today the airplane traffic has reached to 1.7 million, and Turkey
is now one of the largest participants of the European air trans-
portation network with the daily added 342 flights mainly by
domestic and the Middle East flights in its airspace, which places
Turkey among the countries with the highest rate of daily added
traffic to the European air transportation network.
As a result of the positive momentum experienced in the last
decade, in terms of the number of air passengers, Turkey became

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.02.008
0967-070X/& 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
 H.H. Örkcü et al. / Transport Policy 48 (2016) 92–104
the 5th in Europe and 11th in the world, and in terms of con-
nection flight, Turkey became the first in Europe in the last 12
years. Istanbul Ataturk Airport became the 4th largest airport in
Europe in the same time period in terms of the number passengers
(DHMI web site). Turkey will be the most rapidly growing country
in terms of air traffic with a yearly increase rate of 7.2% and the
largest contributor to the European air traffic network till 2020
(DHMI annual report, 2013).
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the operating effi-
ciencies and the productivity changes of Turkish airports, to help
policy-makers, such as airport authorities, develop transparent
airport management strategies, to improve long-term airport in-
vestment plans, and to identify benchmark airports and their best-
in-class managerial practices that others can emulate. We used
both the Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) BCC model the
Malmquist productivity index (classical and bootstrapping), and
the regression analysis (Simar-Wilson bootstrapping approach) to
evaluate comparative operating efficiencies, productivity changes
of the Turkish airports over time, and important factors on the
efficiency to achieve the aforementioned objectives.
DEA is a non-parametric mathematical tool for assessing the
relative efficiency of decision-making units (DMUs). In this study,
an airport is viewed as a DMU and its operating efficiency com-
ponents will be considered. In addition to the DEA model, the
Malmquist productivity index was used to evaluate the change in
airport efficiency over time. The Malmquist productivity index
evaluates a productivity change of a DMU between two time
periods as the product of “catch-up” and “frontier shift” terms. The
catch-up (or recovery) term reflects the degree that a DMU attains
for improving its efficiency, while the frontier shift (or innovation)
term reflects the change in the efficient frontier surrounding the
DMU between the two time periods (Tone et al., 2004).
The background of the BCC DEA model, the MPI, bootstrapping
MPI, and the regression analysis (Simar-Wilson bootstrapping
approach) is presented first, followed by the three methodologies
used. Next, the data set of sampled airports for the BCC model and
the MPI as well as the key variables for the Simar-Wilson boot-
strapping regression analysis are described. The empirical results
are then reported and a summary of the key findings of this study
is presented.
The lack of a detailed study about the Turkish airports in the
literature and the need to close this gap increases the importance
of this study. There is no detailed information all airports in Turkey
(newly formed airports such as Siirt, Usak, Kastamonu, Agri, and
Konya), so this study focuses on major 21 airports of Turkey.
DEA and related models have become a popular method of
investigating airport efficiency. The performance of airports has
received significant attention in the literature. The DEA-CCR and
BCC methodology was developed to measure an airport's effi-
ciency relative to other airports using constant return to scale
(CRS) or variable return to scale (VRS), respectively, incorporating
multiple airport input versus output variables. Doganis and Gra-
ham (1987) presented the first study devoted totally to indicators
of airport performance. These indicators serve to monitor airport
performance over time, as well as among a group of airports, and
thus to determine their strong and weak points, and to direct
administrators' attention accordingly. Doganis et al. (1995) made a
performance study of 25 European airports. Hooper and Hensher
(1997) use the total factor productivity (TFP) measures, with in-
dices, to complete an analysis of airport performance. Gillen and
Lall (1997) applied DEA to a series of North American airports.
Parker (1999) used DEA to study technical efficiency of the British
Airport Authority before and after privatization, and found that
privatization had no noticeable impact on technical efficiency.
93
Sarkis (2000) utilized DEA for evaluating the performance of air-
ports; however, the analysis focused on three factors that may
influence operational performance of airports. He analysed how
efficiency evolved at 44 North American airports between 1990
and 1994. Martin and Roman (2001) used DEA to evaluate the
performance of 37 Spanish airports in 1997. Gillen and Lall (2001)
recommended the use of DEA for evaluation of performance be-
cause of its non-parametric requirements and consideration of a
number of factors simultaneously. Even though they introduced
DEA as a possible technique for evaluation, they did not address
many advantageous characteristics of various DEA-based models.
They also recommended, in their extensions, that additional fac-
tors in evaluations could prove beneficial. In their evaluations,
they did not incorporate financial measures. Pels et al. (2001)
compared European airports using DEA. Fernandes and Pacheco
(2002) studied 35 Brazilian domestic airports using the basic DEA
model to evaluate capacity efficiency and passenger utilization
with operational resources. Pacheco and Fernandes (2003) used
DEA to measure the distance from the efficient frontier and to
enable the avenues for management improvement. As an exten-
sion of the work by Sarkis (2000),and Sarkis and Talluri (2004)
used DEA and clustering analysis to perform benchmarking of
airports. Barros and Dieke (2007) empirically addressed financial
and operational performance of Italian airports using DEA meth-
odology. Lam et al. (2009) analysed various dimensions of opera-
tional efficiencies in major Asia Pacific airports through Data En-
velopment Analysis (DEA) models that simultaneously account for
external macroeconomics and price factors.
In relation to the measurement of airport productivity changes,
many studies have utilized the MPI to evaluate airport efficiency.
Murillo-Melchor (1999) analysed the scale efficiency and techno-
logical changes in 33 Spanish airports for the years between 1992
and 1994 by implementing an input-oriented DEA, complemented
with a Malmquist index. Results of a Malmquist index showed that
the total productivity decreased from 1992 to 1994. Gillen and Lall
(2001) explored the Malmquist index of productivity changes in
the terminal services and movements of 22 US airports during the
period 1989–1993. Abbott and Wu (2002) used the Malmquist
index to examine productivity changes in 12 major Australian
airports for the period 1989–2000. In their analysis, regression
analyses were conducted to explore the impacts of airport char-
acteristics and financial variables on varying efficiency changes,
technological changes, and total factor productivity growth. Fung
et al. (2008) evaluated the efficiency and productivity changes in
regional airports in China during the period 1995–2004. By the
decomposition of the Malmquist index, they identified the major
source of productivity growth to be technical progress, rather than
an improvement in efficiency. Barros and Weber (2009) used DEA
to estimate the Malmquist input-based index of total factor pro-
ductivity for 27 UK airports operating during 2000/01 to 2004/05.
Productivity change was factored into an index of efficiency
change and an index of technological change. Throughout the
period, UK airports experienced average decreases in productivity.
Martin et al. (2009) implemented a parametric approach to esti-
mate the efficiency and the marginal costs of 37 Spanish airports
between 1991 and 1997. The findings show that larger airports are
on average more efficient than smaller counterparts, possibly be-
cause of the pressure to cross-subsidize the smaller, non-profitable
airports within the system. Chow and Fung (2012) measured the
productivity changes of 30 airports in China during the period of
2000–2006 by computing their Malmquist productivity indices
using parametric output distance functions. Tsui et al. (2014a)
examined the efficiency and productivity changes of New Zeal-
and's major airports between 2010 and 2012, using slacks-based
94 H.H. Örkcü et al. / Transport Policy 48 (2016) 92–104
measure (SBM) model and the Malmquist productivity index
(MPI). The findings suggested that the majority of New Zealand
airports increased efficiency and productivity during the period
under investigation, but should decrease scale of operations in
order to operate at their most productive size. Ahn and Min (2014)
utilized both the DEA and the Malmquist productivity index to
evaluate the comparative performances of international airports
across the world during the multiple time periods and then
measure all of their technical, scale, and mix efficiencies.
A two-stage approach, combining the first-stage DEA model
and the second-stage Tobit regression analysis, has become a
popular method for determining the factors that affect airport
efficiency and productivity (Barros and Sampaio, 2004; Chi-Lok
and Zhang, 2009). However, it has been reported that in using this
two-stage approach, the efficiency scores generated by the first-
stage DEA model are dependent on each other (Xue and Harker,
1999), as a result, the second-stage Tobit estimation results may be
misleading. To solve this problem, Simar and Wilson (2000, 2007)
introduced the bootstrapping approach to improve the techniques
that are adopted in the literature of airport efficiency and pro-
ductivity studies. Tsui et al. (2014b) evaluated the operational ef-
ficiency of 21 Asia-Pacific airports between 2002 and 2011. A two-
stage method was used: Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) to as-
sess airport efficiency, followed by the second-stage regression
analysis to identify the key determinants of airport efficiency. The
second-stage regression analysis indicated that percentage of in-
ternational passengers handled by an airport, airport hinterland
population size, and dominant airline of an airport when entering
global airline strategic alliance, and an increase in GDP per capita
are significant in explaining variations in airport efficiency.
Several studies have used the bootstrapping approach for es-
timating efficiency determinants of airports. Barros and Dieke
(2008) used the truncated bootstrapped regression to estimate the
efficiency and identify the determinants of 31 Italian airports be-
tween 2001 and 2003. They found that the method to bootstrap
the DEA efficiency scores with a truncated regression analysis can
better explain DEA efficiency levels. Similarly, Barros (2008a)
employed the truncated bootstrapping regression analysis to
analyse the efficiency of Argentinian airports during the period of
intense economic crisis. Curi et al. (2011) used a bootstrapped DEA
procedure to estimate technical efficiency of 18 Italian airports
during the period 2000–2004. During the same year, Tsekeris
(2011) used the truncated bootstrapped regression to assess the
relative technical efficiency of Greek airports and investigate fac-
tors that determine airport efficiency. Assaf (2011) used the
Malmquist bootstrapped methodology to assess the extent of
productivity, efficiency, scale and technological changes at the
major Australian airports. Results showed that most Australian
airports have experienced significant total factor productivity in-
crease between 2002 and 2007, while few airports have recorded
productivity and efficiency decline over the same period. Merkert
and Mangia (2012) also applied the bootstrapping two-stage DEA
model to analyse 46 Norwegian airports' efficiency. Merkert et al.
(2012) employed the input-oriented DEA model and the Simar-
Wilson bootstrapping approach to analyse the efficiency of re-
gional airports worldwide, and suggested that the more sophisti-
cated two-stage model can deliver powerful insights into the
performance of regional airports. Wanke (2012) showed the use of
different approaches for assessing efficiency related-issues in 63
major Brazilian airports. Starting out with the bootstrapping
technique presented in Simar and Wilson (2000), several DEA
estimates were generated, allowing the use of confidence intervals
and bias correction in central estimates to test for significant dif-
ferences in efficiency levels, returns-to-scale, and input-
decreasing/output-increasing potentials. Gitto and Mancuso
(2012) used the bootstrapping data envelopment analysis to assess
the operational performance of 28 Italian airports during the
period of 2000 through 2006. This study found that the Italian
airport industry experienced a significant technological regress,
with few airports achieving an increase in productivity led by
improvements in efficiency. Tsui et al. (2014a) also utilized the
slack-based measure (SBM) model, the Malmquist Productivity
Index (MPI), and the Simar-Wilson bootstrapping methods to in-
vestigate the efficiency and productivity changes of 11 New Zeal-
and airports for the period of 2010–2012.
Barros (2008b) analysed the rate of technical progress at Por-
tuguese airports between 1990 and 2000, using a stochastic cost
frontier method. A translog frontier model was used and the
maximum likelihood estimation technique was employed to esti-
mate the empirical model. The results showed that the average
score is 88%, denoting a relatively high degree of waste, despite the
fact that technical change contributed to a reduction in costs. To-
var and Martin-Cejas (2009) used an input oriented stochastic
translog distance function to 26 Spanish airports for the years
between 1993 and 1999, followed by a second stage regression in
order to examine the effects of outsourcing and commercial ac-
tivities on airport efficiency. The main result is that efficiency is
positively influenced by outsourcing level and share of non-aero-
nautical revenues. Martin et al. (2009) used Markov chain Monte
Carlo simulation to measure an SFA model for the efficiency of
Spanish airports. Yang (2010) applied DEA and SFA to estimate the
efficiencies of 12 international airports in the Asia-Pacific region
from 1998 to 2006. Tovar and Martin-Cejas (2010) used a translog
input distance function and decomposed changes in productivity
into efficiency and technical changes for the years between 1993
and 1999 for a sample of 26 Spanish airports. The results indicated
an increase in overall productivity, which was driven by a smooth
positive technical change. Lozano et al. (2013) presented a Direc-
tional Distance Function (DDF) network DEA approach that takes
into account undesirable outputs, applying it to assess the effi-
ciency of 33 Spanish airports for year 2008. The finding revealed
that the network DEA approach has more discriminatory power
than its single-process counterpart, uncovering more inefficiencies
and providing more valid results.
With regard to Turkey airports, the literature on efficiency has
been limited to the application of DEA methodology. Kıyıldı and ve
Karaşahin (2006) utilized an input-oriented CCR DEA with a focus
on the influence of infrastructure at 32 small airports in Turkey for
the years between 1996 and 2002. They found seven out of 32
airports operating on the efficient frontier. Ulutas and Ulutas
(2009) applied a CCR DEA to data from 31 Turkey airports in 2004
and 2005. Peker and Baki (2009) used an input oriented DEA and
also compare the results of CCR and BCC models for 37 Turkey
airports in 2007. In a separate analysis, they conducted a t-test to
investigate the efficiency differences between large and small
airports and find that large airports are more efficient than small
ones. Kirankabes and Arikan (2011) applied CCR and BCC models
to data for 36 Turkey airports in 2009. Their results showed that
most of the airports are technically efficient but suffer from scale
inefficiencies. Kocak (2011) applied both CCR and BCC models to a
sample of 40 Turkey airports in 2008. Ar (2012) investigated the
dynamic changes over time by constructing a Malmquist Index.
The analysis included 31 Turkey airports for the years between
2007 and 2011, and the average total factor productivity grew by
13% during the five years, which was mainly driven by the tech-
nical efficiency change. Voltes-Dorta and Pagliari (2012) and
Martin et al. (2013) included only the eight international airports
in Turkey in their respective analysis of cost efficiencies of
 H.H. Örkcü et al. / Transport Policy 48 (2016) 92–104
international airports. Ülkü (2015) utilized a data envelopment
analysis (DEA) to compare the relative efficiency of airports within
AENA (for Spain) and DHMI (for Turkey) for the years between
2009 and 2011. The results indicated higher average efficiency
levels at Spanish airports, but private involvement enhances effi-
ciency at Turkey airports. The majority of the airports in Spain and
Turkey operate under increasing returns to scale.
2. Methodology
2.1. Data envelopment analysis and the BCC model
DEA is a linear programming-based approach for measuring
the relative efficiency of decision making units (DMUs). It was first
proposed by Charnes et al. (1978) as the CCR model. In general
terms, the efficiency of a particular unit can be defined as a ratio of
the value of outputs to the value of inputs, where maximum ef-
ficiencies are restricted to 1; thus, the efficiency of a unit must be
less than or equal to 1. Similar to the CCR model, the BCC model is
also one of the most popular models. The CCR model developed by
Charnes et al. (1978) is based on Constant Returns to Scale (CRS),
whereas the BCC model by Banker et al. (1984) is based on Vari-
able Returns to Scale (VRS). These DEA models, having the input-
oriented and output-oriented models, can identify benchmarking
entities and suggest the degree of improvement for inefficient
DMUs to be efficient. An input-oriented model aims to minimize
the level of inputs and maintain the current level of outputs,
whereas the output-oriented model aims to maximize the level of
outputs given the current level of inputs. Wober (2007) indicated
that the output-oriented model required a given level of inputs to
achieve the maximum output levels. In this study, output oriented
BCC model is considered and this means that airports focus on
maximizing three categories of air traffic outputs (i.e. air passenger
numbers, air cargo volumes, and aircraft movements), holding all
of the airport inputs constant.
It is assumed that there are n DMUs to be evaluated in terms of
m inputs and s outputs. Let xij (i = 1,2, … , m) and yrj (r = 1,2, … , s )
represent the input and output values of DMUj (j = 1,2, … , n),
respectively.
The BCC model has been developed by Banker et al. (1984) as
an extension of the CCR model to allow for returns-to-scale to be
variable. Thus, BCC model computes efficiency scores corre-
sponding to the assumption of variable returns-to-scale (VRS). It is
a more flexible than the CCR model since it allows for constant,
increasing, and decreasing returns-to-scale. Output-oriented BCC
model is as follows:
⎛ s m ⎞
Maxθ = ϕ + ε ⎜⎜ ∑ sr+ + ∑ si−⎟⎟
⎝ r=1 ⎠ procedure for correcting and obtaining confidence interval for the
i=1
s. t.
n
∑ λj xij + sio− = xio
j=1
n similar to Gitto and Mancuso (2012). The smooth bootstrap pro-
∑ λj yrj +
− sro = ϕyro
j=1
n
∑ λj = 1 j = 1, 2, …, n
j=1
λ j , si−, sr+ ≥ 0, i = 1, 2, …; m, r = 1, 2, …, s
+
where, θ is efficiency index, ε is a small positive number, and sio−
sro
are output and input slacks, respectively, λj is the dual variable or
95
the scalar vector associated with each DMU. A DMU is considered
as a BCC-efficient DMU when θ is equivalent to 1 and has zero
output and input slacks. Otherwise, the DMU is called a BCC-in-
efficient DMU.
2.2. The Malmquist productivity index and smoothing bootstrapping
Malmquist approach
Färe et al. (1994) developed a DEA-based Malmquist Pro-
ductivity Index (MPI) that measures total productivity changes
over time, which Caves et al. (1982) showed to capture the
changes in an airport's total productivity between two adjacent
periods as shown in Eq. (2):
⎡ Dt xt + 1, yt + 1
) ⎤⎥
1/2
M xt , yt , xt + 1, yt + 1 = ⎢
( ) (
Dt + 1 xt + 1, yt + 1
( ) ⎢⎣ Dt xt , yt
×
⎥⎦
( ) (
Dt + 1 x t , y t) (2)
where y represents the output vector that can be produced using
the input vector x and Dt (xt , yt ) is defined as the output distance
function and M measures the total productivity changes between
period t and period tþ1 with reference to the frontier technology
at period t It is common to define M as the geometric mean over
the study period. It reflects progress or regress in the efficiency of
the DMU along with progress or regress of the frontier technology.
The total productivity improves if M41, remains unchanged if
M¼1, and declines if M o1.
The MPI can be further decomposed into two components: the
efficiency change component (TECI), which measures the change
in the relative efficiency of an airport between period t and period
tþ1; and the technological change component (TCI), which cap-
tures the shift in the frontier technology between two periods
(Fung et al., 2008). The MPI can also be expressed as
Malmquist productivity
index = TECI (Catching − up) *TCI (Frontier − shift ).
The TECI is related to the degree of efforts that the DMU at-
tained for improving its efficiency. It indicates whether an airport
has moved closer to, or further from, the frontier technology over
the study period. The TCI reflects a change in the efficient frontiers
surrounding the DMUs between the two time periods and mea-
sures the change in an airport's total productivity, which is mainly
due to improvements in airport operating technology.
However, relation (2) does not allow us to determine whether
changes in productivity, efficiency or technology are real or merely
artifacts of the fact that we do not know the true production
frontiers and must estimate them from a finite sample (Simar and
Wilson, 1999). Thus, we employ a consistent bootstrap estimation
Malmquist index and its components TECI and TCI. The idea un-
derlying the bootstrap is to approximate the sampling distribution
of MPI the unknown true values of MPI. We traced a modified
smooth bootstrap procedure proposed by Simar and Wilson (1999)
cedure can be found detailed in Gitto and Mancuso (2012). In the
smooth bootstrap procedure, efficiency change and technological
change are similar to Malmquist index. With the obtained con-
fidence interval for the Malmquist index and its components, it is
possible to determine whether productivity improvement (or de-
(1)
cline) is significant at the established confidence level. The smooth
bootstrap procedure for the productivity was implemented using
the FEAR package (Wilson, 2008).
96 H.H. Örkcü et al. / Transport Policy 48 (2016) 92–104

2.3. Simar-Wilson bootstrapping regression analysis Table 2

Summary statistics about Turkish airports.
For the second stage analysis, the bootstrapping approach to
Outputs Inputs
the second-stage regression analysis is applied, which suggested
by Simar and Wilson (2000, 2007). The bootstrapping approach is y1 y2 y3 x1 x2 x3
a computer-based method for assigning measures of accuracy to
2009 Mean 32973.8 3653418.0 19896.0 1.4 4534.1 18059.0
statistical estimates (Simar and Wilson, 2000). However, Simar
St.Dev. 61629.9 6917287.9 76889.8 0.6 2146.4 29233.7
and Wilson (2007) criticized the potential bias in efficiency esti- Max 283953.0 29812888.0 371391.0 3.0 9700.0 125634.0
mates given the strong correlation between the resulting effi- Min 1232.0 16461.0 20.0 1.0 2640.0 607.0
ciency scores, that is, calculation of the efficiency of one firm in- 2010 Mean 36802.0 4215509.8 24382.7 1.4 4534.1 31609.9
St.Dev. 65416.6 7872483.8 95717.0 0.7 2160.4 74837.5
corporates observation of all other firms in the same data set.
Max 288246.0 32143819.0 452146.0 3.0 9700.0 345270.0
Hence, direct regression analysis is invalid owing to the de- Min 1281.0 33411.0 1.0 1.0 2640.0 1090.0
pendency of the efficiency scores. In this study, following Simar 2011 Mean 41613.3 4810361.5 26327.5 1.4 4534.1 31609.9
and Wilson (2007), the double bootstrap approach is used to St.Dev. 73345.7 9080578.3 105482.8 0.7 2160.4 74837.5
Max 325209.0 37394694.0 498049.0 3.0 9700.0 345270.0
overcome this problem. Simar and Wilson (2007) detail the this
Min 2017.0 21559.0 1.9 1.0 2640.0 1090.0
algorithm, also described in a step-by-step approach in Barros and 2012 Mean 43229.2 5298079.0 28321.7 1.4 4534.1 56033.8
Assaf (2009) and Barros and Garcia-del-Barrio (2011). We refer the St.Dev. 80696.6 10468124.0 115174.2 0.7 2160.4 75154.5
interested reader to these studies for details. Max 364322.0 45091962.0 543506.9 3.0 9700.0 345270.0
Min 2052.0 26257.0 1.7 1.0 2640.0 3500.0
During the second stage regression analysis, the efficiency
2013 Mean 47825.1 5952898.8 33219.4 1.4 4534.1 58998.4
scores obtained from the first-stage BCC model to be regressed on St.Dev. 89277.9 11768375.7 133574.0 0.7 2160.4 84456.1
the specific operating characteristics and ownerships related to Max 406317.0 51297790.0 630679.0 3.0 9700.0 345270.0
Turkish airports, identifying the significant factors to explain var- Min 2403.0 66929.0 2.1 1.0 2640.0 3500.0
2014 Mean 47825.14 5952898.81 33219.4 1.43 4534.09 58998.43
iations in airport efficiency.
St.Dev. 91492.62 12064816.19 137013.31 0.68 2251.12 87202.15
Max 406317 51297790 630679 3.0 9700 345270.0
Min 2403 66929 2.1 1.0 2640 3500.0
3. Data and selection of variables

There are 53 active airports in Turkey. It has not reached to the

desired input-output variables for the newly formed airports, such variables (Boussofiane et al., 1991; Tsui et al., 2014a).
as Siirt, Usak, Kastamonu, Agri, and Konya. For this reason, this Based on the literature review and data availability, we obtain
study focuses on 21 major airports of Turkey (Table 1). Data were three output variables and three input variables. The inputs con-
collected via the annual reports of the airports and DHMI website. sidered in this study are: x1: number of runway, x2: dimension of
Annual data were collected for the period of 2009–2014 (with a runway units (m), and x3: passenger terminal area (m2). The
total of 126 observations). Airport managers were contacted to outputs included in the present study were y1: annual number of
obtain additional information for this study. flights (planes), y2: annual passenger throughputs (persons), and
A general DEA convention was followed to decide the total y3: annual cargo throughputs (tons), as indicated by Doganis
number of airport observations, ensuring that satisfactory dis- (1992) that an airport's primary function is to provide an interface
criminating power was met; that is, the number of airports ob- between aircraft and its passengers or freight.
served should be at least twice the sum of the number of input and A summary of the descriptive statistics related to the airport
output variables, or the number of airport observations be equal or input and output variables for 21 major Turkey airports is pre-
larger than the product of the number of airport input and output sented in Table 2 for the period of 2009–2014.
The statistics suggested that there are large variations among
the sampled Turkey airports in terms of their input and output
levels. In terms of airport input variables, the passenger terminal
Table 1 area was found to have a large degree of variation. Moreover, there
List of the selected airports.
was no change in the number of runways among the sampled
The Name of the Airports Turkey airports because the construction of new runways often
Adana requires large investments and long-term planning. However, the
Izmir Adnan Menderes passenger terminal area has increased 2–3 times in 2012 for most
Antalya airports. 2011 was investment year for DHMI. In this year, DHMI
Istanbul Atatürk
Bursa Yenisehir
marked some organizational improvements such as MSSR sys-
Diyarbakır tems, PSR systems, ILS systems, DVOR systems, AVIAN Radar sys-
Elazig tems, CAT III operation procedure, and RNAV routes procedures.
Erzurum Most airports were renewed and new terminal buildings were
Ankara Esenboga
completed. Masterplans were implemented in most airports to
Van Ferit Melen
Gaziantep increase the usage ratio of capacity. The SMART Project were
Kayseri planned for safety and capacity to meet the necessary demand in
Malatya this year (DHMI annual report, 2011).
Mugla Milas-Bodrum
In terms of airport output variables, the annual number of
Mugla Dalaman
Nevsehir Kapodakya flights, annual passenger throughputs, and annual cargo throughputs
Isparta Süleyman Demirel increased over the study period, the mean number of flights and
Samsun Carsamba passenger and cargo movements increased by nearly 45%, 63%, and
Sivas Nuri Demirag 67%, respectively, during the study period.
Tekirdag Corlu
Trabzon
An excessive number of inputs and/or outputs with respect to
the number of observations causes in a large number of efficient
 H.H. Örkcü et al. / Transport Policy 48 (2016) 92–104 97

Table 3 4. Empirical results

Factors, inputs, outputs and inertia.
The output-oriented BCC model and the MPI (classical and
Factors Original variables Inertia
Outputs bootstrapping approaches) were applied to investigate the op-
erational efficiency and the total productivity changes of 21 major
o1 number of flights (y1) and annual passenger throughputs (y2) 0.926 Turkey airports between 2009 and 2014. The results are as follows.
o2 annual cargo throughputs (y3)
Inputs
i1 number of runway (x1) and dimension of runway units (x2) 0.935
4.1. BCC results
i2 passenger terminal area (x3)
Table 4 presents the DEA efficiency scores of 21 airports during
the multi-year period of 2009 through 2014 using the output-or-
iented BCC model. An examination of Table 4 revealed that the BCC
efficiency scores of half of the Turkish airports are relatively high
units (Simar and Wilson, 2008). Therefore, we first analyse the
during the study period.
relationship among inputs (outputs), and then we reduce the Adana, Antalya, and Istanbul Atatürk airports were the most
number of variables by employing the methodology proposed by efficient airports for the six-year period. On the other hand, Nev-
Daraio and Simar (2007). Scatter plots among output and input sehir Kapodakya, Bursa Yenisehir, Sivas Nuri Demirag, and Erzur-
variables with the correlations, respectively, are given in Appen- um airports were the least efficient airports during the entire
dix. There is a clear linear dependence among variables and this period. As mentioned above, there are large differences in size and
dependence allows us to reduce the number of variables by ag- operating capacities between Turkey airports. Despite the poor
gregating them in factors with minimum loss of information. The performance of Nevsehir Kapodakya and Bursa Yenisehir airports,
factor input (output) is obtained as the weighted sum of the ori- their efficiency values have increased during the period. Moreover,
ginal variables with weights represented by the values of the first Isparta Süleyman Demirel, Nevsehir Kapodakya and Bursa Yeni-
eigenvalue of the input (output) matrix. Mathematically, a factor, sehir airports, except for the decrease in 2012 for Isparta Süleyman
Demirel and slightly decrease in 2011 for Nevsehir Kapodakya,
F, is given by: F ¼Xa. Where, X is the matrix of the input (output)
outstand with the ever-increasing level of efficiency. Also, this
variables and a is the first eigen vector of the matrix XX0 . The
result also clearly appears from these findings Malmquist index.
capacity of a factor to summarize the information contained in the
For some airports, such as Izmir Adnan Menderes, Diyarbakır,
original variables is expressed by the inertia, which is computed Ankara Esenboga, Van Ferit Melen, and Tekirdag Corlu, passenger
by dividing the first eigen value by the sum of all eigen values of and cargo traffics did not increase in parallel to the increasing
the matrix XX0 . A value close to 1 indicates an accurate re- physical capacity, which was reflected as a decline in our study,
presentation. The output and input factors and their relative in- although these values remained same in reality. As a matter of fact
ertias are shown in Table 3. that, Turkish Air Lines was the top airline in Europe in 2012.
The percentage of inertia explained by the two factors is about
93%. Therefore, it is appropriate to summarize the information of 4.2. Malmquist productivity index results
the full data matrix by the two factors.
All analyses were performed with the new output and input In addition to the BCC model, the Malmquist productivity index
factors (variables). (classical and bootstrapping approaches) was used to evaluate the
change in airport efficiency over time. It is important to evaluate
changes in the total productivity of Turkish airports to understand
whether the total productivity of individual airports is improving
Table 4 or deteriorating over time. This section summarizes the MPI re-
The efficiency scores of the selected airports during the period of 2009–2014. sults obtained from the analysis of the multi-year airport perfor-
mance data. The Malmquist productivity index can be decomposed
Airport 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
into two components: technical change and technical efficiency
Adana 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 change. These components were separately calculated and then
Izmir Adnan Menderes 0.615 1.000 1.000 0.525 0.555 0.566 analysed. The classical and bootstrapping TFPI, TECI, and TCI scores
Antalya 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.859 0.962 0.929
for Turkish airports during 2009–2014 are presented in Table 5.
Istanbul Atatürk 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Bursa Yenisehir 0.095 0.145 0.152 0.169 0.169 0.167 The TFPI, TECI, and TCI scores greater than 1 indicated total pro-
Diyarbakır 0.839 0.993 1.000 0.563 0.681 0.625 ductivity growth gains efficiency and technical progress, respec-
Elazig 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.195 0.203 0.193 tively (and vice versa). The classical and bootstrapping MPI, TECI,
Erzurum 0.255 0.296 0.251 0.213 0.209 0.202 and TCI scores were calculated using the software of “DEAP Ver-
Ankara Esenboga 0.501 0.971 0.975 0.425 0.452 0.395
Van Ferit Melen 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
sion 2.1” and the FEAR package (Wilson, 2008), respectively.
Gaziantep 0.339 0.361 0.435 0.375 0.428 0.464 The following sub-sections summarized the classical and
Kayseri 0.515 0.322 0.391 0.392 0.371 0.434 bootstrapping TFPI, as well as the patterns of TECI and TCI during
Malatya 0.902 0.425 0.402 0.245 0.239 0.207 the six-year span and then interpreted the results of index figures.
Mugla Milas-Bodrum 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.901 0.851 0.865
Mugla Dalaman 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.941 1.000
Nevsehir Kapodakya 0.141 0.145 0.153 1.000 1.000 1.000 4.2.1. The outline of the airport productivity change
Isparta Süleyman Demirel 0.202 0.696 0.901 0.455 0.788 1.000 For the bootstrapping MPI, the geometric mean was 1.039,
Samsun Carsamba 0.363 0.436 0.449 0.345 0.338 0.345 which means that, overall, the 21 Turkey airports' total pro-
Sivas Nuri Demirag 0.355 0.078 0.085 0.069 0.079 0.091 ductivity in 2014 increased by 4% over the period of the study.
Tekirdag Corlu 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.987
During 2014, fourteen (more than half) airports experienced
Trabzon 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Mean 0.672 0.708 0.724 0.606 0.632 0.641 higher total productivity levels than in 2009. For the international
airports, Bursa Yenisehir, İstanbul Atatürk, Izmir Adnan Menderes,
98 H.H. Örkcü et al. / Transport Policy 48 (2016) 92–104

Table 5
Airport average productivity changes during 2009–2014.

Airport Productivity change TFPI 2009–2014 Efficiency change TECI 2009–2014 Technological change TCI 2009–2014

MPI MPI bootstrap TECI TECI bootstrap TCI TCI bootsrap

Adana 1.089 1.038 1.000 0.912 1.089 1.107

Izmir Adnan Menderes 1.186 1.217 1.135 1.125 1.045 1.041
Antalya 1.086 1.077 1.041 1.040 1.043 1.029
Istanbul Atatürk 1.291 1.343 1.000 1.000 1.291 1.323
Bursa Yenisehir 1.168 1.196 1.241 1.248 0.941 0.934
Diyarbakır 0.992 1.071 0.962 0.969 1.031 1.072
Elazig 0.797 0.815 0.802 0.801 0.994 0.978
Erzurum 0.908 0.910 0.927 0.925 0.979 0.971
Ankara Esenboga 1.213 1.227 1.112 1.109 1.091 1.084
Van Ferit Melen 0.834 0.857 0.859 0.845 0.971 0.989
Gaziantep 1.059 1.065 1.029 1.021 1.029 1.021
Kayseri 0.883 0.900 0.891 0.877 0.991 0.987
Malatya 0.670 0.702 0.714 0.705 0.939 0.945
Mugla Milas Bodrum 1.139 1.145 1.054 1.044 1.081 1.080
Mugla Dalaman 1.110 1.131 1.058 1.051 1.049 1.066
Nevsehir Kapodakya 1.048 1.052 1.116 1.111 0.939 0.922
Isparta Süleyman Demirel 1.203 1.254 1.321 1.315 0.911 0.919
Samsun Carsamba 1.009 1.084 0.979 0.971 1.031 1.086
Sivas Nuri Demirag 0.826 0.798 0.793 0.767 1.042 1.023
Tekirdag Corlu 0.989 0.999 0.991 0.990 0.998 0.989
Trabzon 1.190 1.242 1.101 1.105 1.081 1.087
Mean 1.020 1.039 0.996 0.986 1.024 1.028

Ankara Esenboga, Mugla-Milas Bodrum and Trabzon showed a
great improvement in its total productivity during the study per-
iod, whereas the performance of Erzurum decreased by 9%. Of the
provincial airports, Isparta Süleyman Demirel was subject to the
largest increase in total productivity (almost 25%) during the
period of the study. On the other hand, Elazig, Van Ferit Melen,
Kayseri, Malatya and Sivas Nuri Demirag experienced declines in
total productivity by at most 18.5%, 14.3%, 10.0%, 29.8%, and 21.20%,
respectively between 2009 and 2014.
Fig. 1 shows that for both classical and bootstrapping ap-
proaches the Technological Change Index (TCI), Technical Effi-
ciency Change Index (TECI), and the Total Factor Productivity Index
(TFPI) declined between 2011 and 2012, whereas they peaked in
2011. As displayed in Fig. 1, TECI, TCI, and TFPI exhibit similar
patterns for the six-year span. In this Figure, B indicates the
bootstrapping approach.
Similar to the investment situation in 2011, the figure shows
that, in the period of 2011–2012, there was a significant decline in
airports efficiency. The Boeing World Air Cargo Forecast (WACF)
2014/2015 also reported this decline. The forecast summarizes the
world's major air trade markets, identifies major trends, and pre-
sents forecasts for the future performance and development of
markets as well as for the world freighter airplane fleet. According
to the report, after rebounding more than 19% in 2010 over the
depressed levels of 2009, the world air cargo traffic stagnated from
mid-2011 to early 2013.
This prolonged period of weak growth can be attributed to two
factors: a weak world economy and slack trade growth. Since the
onset of global economic crisis in 2008, the world air cargo traffic
has averaged only 1.7% growth per year through 2013. On a posi-
tive note, the world air cargo traffic began to grow again in the
second quarter of 2013. By July 2014, traffic grew 4.4% compared
with the first seven months of 2013. Forecasts for even better
economic and trade growth should lead to sustained air cargo
traffic growth in 2015 and 2016.
In the period 2011–2012, there was a global crisis in the world
and Turkey was also affected by this crisis. Despite this, the
Turkish Airlines was the top company among European countries
regarding passenger and freight traffic numbers (DHMI, annual
report 2012).
Results of the productivity change, efficiency change, and
technological change as presented in Table 5 explain that the
productivity of airports is influenced by a technological change
more heavily than a technical efficiency change. In 2009–2014, the
Turkish Airlines found itself in a phase of transition between a
highly regulated civil aviation and free competition. They were,
therefore, forced to implement radical programs for institutional
restructuring. Airport efficiency seems to be affected by airports'
own ability to utilize their resources more significantly than the
external business environments. By beginning from 2003, gov-
ernment has taken new steps to improve infrastructure of the
airports, development of fleet and quality of the service. In this
context, airports were equipped with modern equipment, new and
modern airports were put into service and quality of the service
has improved. As a result of this improvements, there have been
significant increases in the number of flights, passengers and
amount of cargo.
4.2.2. Total Factor Productivity Index (TFPI)
Table 6 shows the changes of TFPI over time for both classical
and bootstrapping approaches, which increased from 2009 to
2011. For bootstrapping approach, the geometric mean is 1.298
which means that, the 21 Turkish airports' total productivity in
2011 significantly increased (by 30%). All airports included in this
study showed improvement in its total productivity until 2011.
Especially, except Tekirdag Corlu airport, TFPI values of all airports
increased at least 10% in 2011. By increasing its capacity, the
Turkish Airlines has continued to rise with a growing momentum
within the last 10 years. It reached a significant volume pro-
spectively in 2011 (DHMI, annual report 2011). DHMI has executed
airports and terminals modernization projects that it enables to
manage government and civilian enterprises company together.
 H.H. Örkcü et al. / Transport Policy 48 (2016) 92–104 99

1.40 Technical change is often triggered by external factors, such as

shifts in government policies, advances in technology, and changes
1.20
in economic environments. It was observed in the present study
1.00 that the productivity of the airports was influenced by technical
change, as discussed previously. This result coincides with the fact
0.80
that Turkey made important contributions to the aviation sector in
0.60 the last ten years and made significant investment and new pro-
jects in this area.
0.40
2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014
4.2.3. Technical Efficiency Change Index (TECI)
MPI MPI (B) As mentioned in Section 2, the MPI can be decomposed into
two components: the technical efficiency change (TECI) and the
(a)
technological change (TCI). Therefore, the growth in total pro-
1.20 ductivity of Turkey airports could be the result of either a gain in
1.10 efficiency, or the progress in technological efficiency, or both.
The technical efficiency change (TECI) represents the change in
1.00 efficiency for the individual Turkey airports and for all of the
Turkey airports between 2009 and 2014. Often, the change in an
0.90
airport’s efficiency scores could be attributed to proper execution
0.80 of the technical experience accumulated over the years, better
management of airport activity, and sound investment planning
0.70 (Barros et al., 2010). For bootstrapping approach, the geometric
2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014
mean of the TECI scores was 0.985, which means that the average
TECI TECI (B) efficiency level of Turkey airports decrease very slightly (1.5%) over
(b) the study period. Ten airports increased their efficiency: Izmir
1.250 Adnan Menderes, Antalya, Bursa Yenisehir, Ankara Esenboga, Ga-
ziantep, Mugla-Milas Bodrum, Mugla Dalaman, Nevsehir Kapoda-
1.150 kya, Isparta Süleyman Demirel, and Trabzon. Of these, Isparta
Süleyman Demirel experienced the largest improvement in its
1.050 efficiency, increasing by around 32% between 2009 and 2014. Is-
0.950 tanbul Atatürk neither increased nor decreased its efficiency
(TECI¼1), signifying that they were located on the efficiency
0.850 frontier. Finally, Adana, Diyarbakır, Elazig, Erzurum, Van Ferit
Melen, Kayseri, Malatya, Samsun Carsamba, Sivas Nuri Demirag,
0.750 and Tekirdag Corlu showed declines in efficiency over the study
0.650
period, ranging from 3% to 30%. The TECI results means that the
2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 majority of Turkey airports experienced efficiency gains above the
average.
TCI TCI (B) Table 7 summarizes the changes in TECI over time. Similar to
(c) the TFPI results, significant increases occurred in 2011. Most of the
airports showed improvements in their TECI in this year (espe-
Fig. 1. The productivity trend of the airports during the period of 2009–2014.
cially Bursa Yenisehir, Isparta Süleyman Demirel, and Sivas Nuri
(a) Classical MPI and bootstrapping MPI (b) Classical TECI and bootstrapping TECI
(c) Classical TCI and bootstrapping TCI. Demirag airports). After the capacity expansion in 2011, a recovery
occurred and the index value rose above 1 again in 2013 and 2014
(TECI values were 1.109 and 1.017 for 2012–2013 and 2013–2014,
respectively). According to Table 7; Istanbul Atatürk airports' TECI
This strategy gave efficiency to DHMI management. Total 25 scores are equal or greater than one over the period, which means
terminals buildings constructed and modernized that 17 of them that it did not change their productivity and Bursa Yenisehir and
from main sources of DHMI and 8 of them sharing corporation and Nevsehir Kapodakya airports are in good state in terms of TECI.
27 airports runway, taxi road and aprons had renewed or re- The efficiency change levels of the most of the airports are all
constructed until 2011 year. After the capacity expansion in the above the average during the entire period.
passenger terminal area (about 3 times for most airports) in 2011,
despite the increase in the amount of passengers, flights and cargo 4.2.4. Technological Change Index (TCI)
compared to the previous years, the airports' performances Technological change (TCI) is regarded as the consequences of
showed a downward momentum. However, due to the inability to R&D and innovation (Barros et al., 2010; Fung et al., 2008). It
meet the new increased capacity, their performance was perceived captures the effect of a shift in the productivity change frontier of
to have fallen. Because of the increase in both passenger and the individual Turkey airports, which helps clarify the effect of
freight traffic, Izmir Adnan Menderes, Antalya, and Istanbul Ata- technical change on productivity change using production func-
türk airports were slightly affected from the crisis and continued tions (Tsui et al., 2014b). From Table 5, for bootstrapping approach,
to its efficiency, whereas the other 18 airports suffered from a the geometric mean of the TCI scores was 1.028; this indicated that
decreased productivity. However, in this six-year period, despite a on average, Turkey airports experienced technical progress
temporary decline, the general recovery in activity and efficiency (around 3%). Five international airports (Bursa Yenisehir, Erzurum,
of Turkish airports is noteworthy. Kayseri, Malatya, and Nevsehir Kapodakya) showed technical re-
100 H.H. Örkcü et al. / Transport Policy 48 (2016) 92–104

Table 6
Changes of TFPI over time.

Airport 2009–2010 2010–2011 2011–2012 2012–2013 2013–2014

MPI MPI bootstrap MPI MPI bootstrap MPI MPI bootstrap MPI MPI bootstrap MPI MPI bootstrap

Adana 1.135 1.117 1.191 1.214 0.815 0.784 1.119 1.105 1.129 1.169
Izmir Adnan Menderes 1.191 1.249 1.242 1.241 1.232 1.192 1.093 1.106 1.121 1.159
Antalya 0.895 0.888 1.221 1.269 1.072 1.058 1.079 1.039 1.090 1.111
Istanbul Atatürk 1.284 1.346 1.176 1.393 1.231 1.252 1.159 1.167 1.212 1.240
Bursa Yenisehir 1.737 1.736 1.455 1.436 0.775 0.728 1.037 1.043 1.328 1.343
Diyarbakır 1.367 1.408 1.418 1.429 0.364 0.348 1.544 1.525 1.036 1.060
Elazig 0.814 0.816 1.259 1.258 0.264 0.249 1.252 1.262 1.057 1.064
Erzurum 1.339 1.363 1.096 1.105 0.474 0.462 1.104 1.130 1.153 1.151
Ankara Esenboga 1.663 1.641 1.184 1.170 0.968 0.981 1.333 1.341 1.012 0.992
Van Ferit Melen 1.208 1.251 1.188 1.220 0.281 0.279 0.784 0.792 1.067 1.056
Gaziantep 1.265 1.298 1.363 1.363 0.519 0.471 1.268 1.260 1.142 1.204
Kayseri 0.779 0.826 1.191 1.186 0.470 0.474 1.379 1.380 1.066 1.133
Malatya 0.505 0.500 1.141 1.136 0.285 0.263 1.032 1.048 0.943 0.988
Mugla Milas Bodrum 2.008 2.080 1.166 1.196 0.469 0.419 1.469 1.506 1.147 1.128
Mugla Dalaman 1.266 1.308 1.339 1.388 0.764 0.777 1.070 1.060 1.101 1.201
Nevsehir Kapodakya 1.054 1.091 1.173 1.222 0.606 0.589 1.179 1.184 1.267 1.238
Isparta Süleyman Demirel 2.081 2.029 1.620 1.665 0.289 0.319 2.113 2.093 1.348 1.389
Samsun Carsamba 1.273 1.288 1.214 1.240 0.525 0.524 1.067 1.077 1.152 1.143
Sivas Nuri Demirag 0.131 0.170 1.905 1.935 0.644 0.602 1.416 1.452 1.295 1.282
Tekirdag Corlu 1.198 1.262 1.059 1.068 0.430 0.475 1.415 1.415 1.029 1.053
Trabzon 1.403 1.435 1.349 1.396 0.848 0.838 1.151 1.130 1.092 1.156
Mean 1.091 1.125 1.271 1.298 0.568 0.556 1.217 1.219 1.128 1.151

Table 7
Changes of TECI over time.

Airport 2009–2010 2010–2011 2011–2012 2012–2013 2013–2014

TECI TECI bootstrap TECI TECI bootstrap TECI TECI bootstrap TECI TECI bootstrap TECI TECI bootstrap

Adana 1 0.987 1 0.992 1 0.974 1 1 1 1.009

Izmir Adnan Menderes 1.409 1.422 0.988 0.981 1.215 1.185 1.091 1.096 0.989 0.986
Antalya 1 0.991 1 1.003 1.082 1.055 1.089 1.083 0.984 0.989
Istanbul Atatürk 1 1.023 1 1.143 1 1 1 1.005 1 1.023
Bursa Yenisehir 1.477 1.456 1.255 1.235 1.444 1.422 0.959 0.951 1.231 1.213
Diyarbakır 1.195 1.234 1.029 1.034 0.569 0.571 1.332 1.322 0.951 0.941
Elazig 0.814 0.811 1.051 1.023 0.396 0.389 1.119 1.122 0.972 0.966
Erzurum 1.145 1.141 0.924 0.921 0.888 0.891 0.964 0.988 1.055 1.051
Ankara Esenboga 1.892 1.877 0.994 0.967 0.829 0.841 1.199 1.212 0.929 0.909
Van Ferit Melen 1.099 1.091 1 1.003 0.537 0.522 0.685 0.681 0.987 0.981
Gaziantep 1.101 1.116 1.186 1.191 0.691 0.634 1.173 1.179 1.045 1.055
Kayseri 0.695 0.699 1.169 1.161 0.641 0.622 1.266 1.269 0.971 0.979
Malatya 0.441 0.440 0.991 0.989 0.597 0.546 0.951 0.958 0.875 0.858
Mugla Milas Bodrum 1.863 1.861 1.019 1.011 0.488 0.423 1.333 1.387 1.061 1.034
Mugla Dalaman 1.699 1.705 1.134 1.139 0.695 0.701 0.939 0.922 0.979 0.978
Nevsehir Kapodakya 0.895 0.888 1.001 1.011 1.294 1.255 1.083 1.099 1.194 1.145
Isparta Süleyman Demirel 1.925 1.921 1.422 1.456 0.609 0.601 1.949 1.911 1.233 1.266
Samsun Carsamba 1.081 1.067 1.041 1.055 0.807 0.823 0.934 0.931 1.058 1.034
Sivas Nuri Demirag 0.117 0.132 1.641 1.621 0.855 0.824 1.312 1.334 1.187 1.123
Tekirdag Corlu 1 1.000 1 0.987 0.829 0.809 1.292 1.291 0.929 0.909
Trabzon 1.416 1.405 1.129 1.145 0.899 0.871 1.055 1.034 0.985 0.991
Mean 1.022 1.028 1.083 1.088 0.785 0.764 1.107 1.109 1.025 1.017

gress of between 1% and 8%, while the average technical efficiency
of four provincial airports (Elazig, Van Ferit Melen, Isparta Süley-
man Demirel, and Tekirdag Corlu) decreased between 1% and 9%,
over the study period. On the other hand, the provincial airports
showed technical progress: Diyarbakır (7.2%) and Sivas Nuri De-
mirag (2.3%). This implied that infrastructure investment and im-
provement of the management techniques (such as AMAN/DMAN)
may have a significant impact on their operations through in-
vestment into new airport operating techniques and production
technology methods. TCI results suggested that the majority of
technically efficient airports (twelve airports) showed above
average technical progress.
Table 8 shows changes in both TCI over time, which increased
by 2.8% from 2009 to 2014. Similar to TFPI and TECI results, sig-
nificant increases occurred in 2011. All of the airports showed
improvements in TCI values in this year (especially Izmir Adnan
Menderes, Antalya, and Diyarbakır airports). After the capacity
expansion in 2011, a recovery occurred and the index value rose
above 1 again in 2014 (TCI values are 1.092 and 1.102 for 2012-
2013 and 2013-2014, respectively). As clearly indicated, the total
 H.H. Örkcü et al. / Transport Policy 48 (2016) 92–104 101

Table 8
Changes in TCI over time.

Airport 2009–2010 2010–2011 2011–2012 2012–2013 2013–2014

TCI TCI bootstrap TCI TCI bootstrap TCI TCI bootstrap TCI TCI bootstrap TCI TCI bootstrap

Adana 1.135 1.124 1.191 1.178 0.815 0.802 1.119 1.103 1.129 1.145
Izmir Adnan Menderes 0.845 0.849 1.257 1.251 1.004 1.006 1.002 1.003 1.133 1.139
Antalya 0.895 0.891 1.221 1.229 0.991 0.993 0.991 0.956 1.108 1.102
Istanbul Atatürk 1.284 1.301 1.176 1.198 1.231 1.234 1.159 1.159 1.212 1.211
Bursa Yenisehir 1.176 1.171 1.159 1.151 0.537 0.511 1.081 1.094 1.079 1.085
Diyarbakır 1.144 1.140 1.378 1.345 0.639 0.601 1.159 1.151 1.089 1.081
Elazig 1 0.987 1.198 1.205 0.666 0.631 1.119 1.122 1.087 1.087
Erzurum 1.169 1.161 1.186 1.191 0.534 0.512 1.145 1.135 1.093 1.077
Ankara Esenboga 0.879 0.865 1.191 1.189 1.168 1.165 1.112 1.106 1.089 1.044
Van Ferit Melen 1.099 1.123 1.188 1.189 0.524 0.529 1.145 1.149 1.081 1.033
Gaziantep 1.149 1.157 1.149 1.132 0.751 0.721 1.081 1.056 1.093 1.102
Kayseri 1.121 1.119 1.019 1.008 0.733 0.731 1.089 1.081 1.098 1.123
Malatya 1.144 1.132 1.151 1.145 0.477 0.471 1.085 1.081 1.078 1.099
Mugla Milas-Bodrum 1.078 1.098 1.144 1.153 0.961 0.981 1.102 1.077 1.081 1.056
Mugla Dalaman 0.745 0.741 1.181 1.189 1.099 1.091 1.139 1.141 1.125 1.178
Nevsehir Kapodakya 1.178 1.177 1.172 1.179 0.468 0.467 1.089 1.066 1.061 1.051
Isparta Süleyman Demirel 1.081 1.056 1.139 1.122 0.474 0.499 1.084 1.088 1.093 1.091
Samsun Carsamba 1.178 1.184 1.166 1.134 0.651 0.634 1.142 1.144 1.089 1.101
Sivas Nuri Demirag 1.116 1.145 1.161 1.168 0.753 0.711 1.079 1.078 1.091 1.115
Tekirdag Corlu 1.198 1.222 1.059 1.051 0.519 0.587 1.095 1.087 1.108 1.111
Trabzon 0.991 0.989 1.195 1.181 0.943 0.947 1.091 1.085 1.109 1.119
Mean 1.067 1.068 1.173 1.169 0.723 0.717 1.100 1.092 1.101 1.102

Table 9 (2007). After obtaining the DEA BCC efficiency scores in the
Estimation results for Simar-Wilson double bootstrapping regression analysis. first-stage, we calculated the regression coefficients through the
bootstrapped procedure in the second stage (with BCC efficiency
Dependent variable: BCC efficiency scores
scores bounded at both ends of the 0–1 distribution). The esti-
Explanatory Variables Coefficients t-value mated results for the Simar-Wilson double bootstrapping re-
gression analysis are provided in Table 9. Taking the literature
**
Constant 0.488 9.098 and data availability into account, five explanatory variables
Population around the airport 0.038 0.945
Airport hub status 0.011 1.615
were developed for the second-stage regression analysis, which
Airport operating hours 0.135** 4.318 represents Turkey airports' operating characteristics, manage-
Joint military-civil airport 0.017 0.241 ment/ownerships, and regional locations (see Table 9). Since a
Percentage of international traffic  0.033*  2.519 higher score reflects a higher efficiency level for a DMU, a po-
R-Square:0.41
sitive coefficient for the independent variables from the second
Number of observations: 126
stage regression indicates a positive effect of the corresponding
Remarks: Total number of iterations ¼2000. variable on the level of efficiency. Data related to the selected
*
Indicate that the explanatory variable is significant at the 0.05 significance explanatory variables was obtained from DHMI annual reports,
level. Turkish Statistical Institute, Eurostat and airports' websites. In-
**
Indicate that the explanatory variable is significant at the 0.01 significance
dividual airports were also contacted to obtain additional
level.
information.
Used explanatory variables are as follows: population around
the airport, airport hub status (the airport hub status dummy
TCI was observed to be positive during the entire period and the takes the value of 1 when an airport is an international airport,
technical change levels of the majority of the airports were all and 0 otherwise), airport operating hours, joint military-civil
above the average during the entire period. airport (this dummy variable takes the value of 1 when an air-
Overall, the breakdown of total productivity changes of Turkey port is an open to military operations, and 0 otherwise), and
airports into the change in efficiency gain (TECI) and technical percentage of international traffic. The coefficients of the ex-
progress (TCI) showed mixed results. More than half of 21 major planatory variables were tested. Two explanatory variables were
found to be the significant factors that explain variations in
Turkey airports showed total productivity growth (MPI 41) and
airport efficiency among the sampled Turkish airports, including
efficiency gains (TECI o1) over the study period, and the technical
the operating hours and percentage of international traffic. The
progress (TCI 41) were experienced by at least half of the Turkey
sign of the explanatory variables' coefficients indicated the di-
airports in the group.
rection of the effect.
For the variable of ‘airport operating hours’, the positive coef-
4.3. The Simar-Wilson bootstrapping regression analysis results ficient (i.e. the positive impact) implied that longer airport oper-
ating hours could trigger higher efficiency for Turkey airports;
To evaluate the determinants of efficiency of Turkish airports, every hour that increased from an airport's daily operating hours
we adopted the double bootstrap approach of Simar and Wilson could result in an increase of the airport's efficiency by 0.135 units,
102 H.H. Örkcü et al. / Transport Policy 48 (2016) 92–104
with more airport traffic volumes to handle. To some degree,
longer airport operating hours may also allow an airport to gen-
erate more revenues from handling increasing flight movements
and more air travellers passing through the airport; this will po-
sitively affect an airport's efficiency.
For ‘percentage of international traffic’ the coefficient was ne-
gative; for every percentage increase in international passengers
handled by an airport, its efficiency reduced by 0.033 units. Im-
portantly, this finding appears to be consistent with Pathomsiri
et al. (2006), Tsui et al. (2014b), Ülku (2015), who claimed that the
handling of international passenger traffic has a negative impact
on an airport’s efficiency as larger airport infrastructure and fa-
cilities (e.g. check-in counters and baggage handling areas) need to
be built to serve international travellers comparing with domestic
passengers. This adverse effect also can be explained by the fact
that international traffic requires more sophisticated infra-
structure and raises the operational complexity and costs.
The remaining variables were not statistically significant and
carrying an implausible sign. This might be due to having a small
sample size, data limitation, and conceptual difficulties exist with
the construction of these variables. Although the ‘population
around the airport’ variable was not statistically significant, it was
reported as having the positive coefficient (0.038), which sug-
gested that if an airport in Turkey serves a larger hinterland po-
pulation, its efficiency would be only minimally increased. It also
implied that an airport that serves a larger population size is more
efficient than an airport that serves a smaller population size in
Turkey.
5. Concluding remarks
Evaluation of the operational performance of airports is im-
portant for ensuring efficiency in the wider aviation industry.
Recently, many airports around the world have been commercia-
lized and/or privatized in order to airports are operated more like
a business. However, the impact of commercialization or privati-
zation on productivity is still an open question in the related lit-
erature. In the present study, we evaluated the productivity evo-
lution, from 2009 through 2014, of the Turkey airports by applying
the Malmquist index (classical and bootstrapping) and its two
components: efficiency change (TECI) and technological change
(TCI) to a sample of 21 airports.
Turkey airports experienced total productivity growth, which
was shown by a geometric mean MPI score of 1.039 for boot-
strapping approach, suggesting that the average total productivity
growth of Turkey airports increased by 3.9% over the period
(shown Table 5). When we examined the detail of the MPI, for
bootstrapping approach the geometric means of the TECI and TCI
scores were 0.986 and 1.028. When we examined the Table 5, it is
seen that efficiency change was 0.986 in contrast to technological
change which was 1.028. It means that the total productivity im-
provements of Turkey airports were largely a result of technolo-
gical progress. Furthermore, the analysis of technological change
indicates that most of the future policy intervention should be
directed to enhancing the technological level of the Turkey airport
industry. By increasing passenger and load capacity with a good
management and planning, the current infrastructure capacity
should increase its rate of use. Technologically, there is an ad-
vancement. This status must be maintained so that MPI preserve
its increase in positive direction. Also, in terms of the Malmquist
productivity index, we found that the productivity of an airport
was influenced by a technological change index (TCI) rather than a
technical efficiency change index (TECI). The rationale being that a
technological change is greatly affected by external factors such as
shifts in government policies and technological advances, while
the technical efficiency change is influenced by an operational
change of the airport itself.
From the BCC and MPI results, Turkey airports experienced a
significant decline in the 2011–2012. According to the Boeing
World Air Cargo Forecast (WACF) 2014/2015 report, after re-
bounding more than 19% in 2010 over the depressed levels of
2009, world air cargo traffic stagnated from mid-2011 to early
2013. A weak world economy and slack trade growth also trig-
gered this regress. World air cargo traffic began to grow again in
the second quarter of 2013. The second reason for the decline
was the increase in the capacity of the Turkey airports in 2011-
2012. Turkey airports' infrastructure was strengthened and their
capacity increased two- or three-fold in this period. In the
meantime, due to the mismatch of the passenger and cargo
traffic increase with the amount of capacity increase, the per-
formance values declined. In reality, this should not be inter-
preted as a decline because of the huge increase in capacity.
After 2012, the passenger and cargo traffic improved rapidly and
met airports capacity. After government's decision about air-
ports modernization project, an improvement has been started
as of 2011 and it was determined that increase in positive di-
rection has been catched since 2013. It is understand that air-
port performance was more affected from out effects like air-
ports modernization projects, economic changing, increasing
social welfare, which are related to changing in government
politics. (DHMI, annual report 2012).
Two important factors were found to account for the identified
variations in airport efficiency among Turkey airports: (i) longer
airport operating hours triggered higher airport efficiency and (ii)
a higher share of international traffic has an adverse effect on the
performance.
Three potential limitations of this study were observed: (i) only
21 major Turkey airports (a total of 53 airports currently operating
in Turkey) were included in the study, which may have limited the
discriminating power; (ii) three airport inputs and three airport
outputs were selected when estimating the efficiency and total
productivity changes of Turkey airports. Unfortunately, the com-
monly used airport efficiency measurements (such as baggage
claim belts, work load units, boarding gates, and delays) could not
be included because data were not available for most Turkey
airports.
As an extension of this study, it may be meaningful to include
more data (when available) that may have a significant impact
on Turkey airports' efficiency and productivity such as full time
labor employment, delay flights, and work load units. Further
assessment of the efficiency and the total productivity changes
of Turkey airports will be necessary to confirm the findings of
this study.
Appendix
See appendix Fig. A1.
 H.H. Örkcü et al. / Transport Policy 48 (2016) 92–104 103

Output scatterplot (r correlation coefficient.)

Input scatterplot (r correlation coefficient.)

Fig. A1. xxx.

References
Abbott, M., Wu, S., 2002. Austr. Econ. Rev. 35 (3), 244–260.
Ahn, Y.-H., Min, H., 2014. Evaluating the multi-period operating efficiency of in-
ternational airports using data envelopment analysis and the Malmquist pro-
ductivity index. J. Air Transp. Manag. 39, 12–22.
Ar, I.M., 2012. Türkiye’deki Havalimanlarının Etkinliklerindeki Değişimin İn-
celenmesi: 2007-2011 Dönemi İçin Malmquist-TFV Endeksi Uygulaması. Iktis.
ve Idari Bilim. Derg., Atatürk Üniversitesi 26 (3–4), 143–160 (in Turkish with
English Summary).
Assaf, A., 2011. Bootstrapped Malmquist indices of Australian airports. Serv. Ind. J.
31 (5), 829–846.
Banker, R.D., Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W., 1984. Models for the estimation of tech-
nical and scale efficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Manag. Sci. 30,
1078–1092.
Barros, C.P., Sampaio, A., 2004. Technical and allocative efficiency in airports. Int. J.
Transp. Econ. 31 (3), 355–377.
Barros, C.P., Dieke, P.U.C., 2007. Performance evaluation of Italian airports: a data
envelopment analysis. J. Air Transp. Manag. 13, 184–191.
Barros, C.P., Dieke, P.U.C., 2008. Measuring the economic efficiency of airports: A
Simar–Wilson methodology analysis. Transp. Res. Part E 44, 1039–1051.
Barros, C.P., 2008a. Airports in Argentina: Technical efficiency in the context of an
economic crisis. Journal. Air Transp. Manag. 14, 315–319.
Barros, C.P., 2008b. Technical change and productivity growth in airports: A case
study. Transp. Res. Part A 42, 818–832.
Barros, C.P., Weber, W.L., 2009. Productivity growth and biased technological
change in UK airports. Transp. Res. Part E 45 (4), 642–653.
Barros, C.P., Assaf, A., 2009. Bootstrapped efficiency measures of oil blocks in An-
gola. Energy Policy 37 (10), 4098–4103.
Barros, C.P., Mangi, S., Yoshida, Y., 2010. Productivity growth and biased technolo-
gical change in Japanese airports. Transp. Policy 17 (4), 259–265.
104 H.H. Örkcü et al. / Transport Policy 48 (2016) 92–104
Barros, C.P., Garcia-del-Barrio, P., 2011. Productivity drivers and market dynamics in
the Spanish first division football league. J. Product. Anal. 35 (1), 5–13.
Boussofiane, A., Dyson, R.G., Thanassoulis, E., 1991. Applied data envelopment
analysis. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 52, 1–15.
Caves, D., Christensen, L., Diewert, W.E., 1982. The economic theory of index
numbers and the measurement of input, output, and productivity. Econome-
trica 50 (6), 1393–1414.
Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W., Rhodes, E., 1978. Measuring efficiency of decision
making unit. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2, 429–444.
Chi-Lok, A.Y., Zhang, A., 2009. Effects of competition and policy changes on Chinese
airport productivity: An empirical investigation. J. Air Transp. Manag. 15,
166–174.
Chow, C.K.W., Fung, M.K.Y., 2012. Estimating indices of airport productivity in
Greater China. J. Air Transp. Manag. 24, 12–17.
Curi, C., Gitto, S., Mancuso, P., 2011. New evidence on the efficiency of Italian air-
ports: a bootstrapped DEA analysis. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 45, 84–93.
Daraio, C., Simar, L., 2007. Advanced Robust and Nonparametric Methods in Effi-
ciency Analysis. Springer, US.
Doganis, R., 1992. The Airport Business. Routledge, London.
Doganis, R., Graham, A., 1987. Airport Management: The Role of Performance In-
dicators. Transport Studies Group, Polytechnic of Central London.
Doganis, R., Graham, A., Lobbenberg, A., 1995. The Economic Performance of Eur-
opean Airports. 3. Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK.
DHMI website, 〈www.dhmi.gov.tr〉, (last visit: September, 2015).
DHMI, İstatistik Yıllıkları (General Directorate of State Airports Authority Statistical
Reports, 2009–2014).
Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Norris, M., Zhang, Z., 1994. Productivity growth, technical
progress, and efficiency change in industrialized countries. Am. Econ. Rev. 84
(1), 66–83.
Fernandes, E., Pacheco, R.R., 2002. Efficient use of airport capacity. Transp. Res. Part
A Policy Pract. 36 (3), 225–230.
Fung, M.K.Y., Wan, K.K.H., Hui, Y.V., Law, J.S., 2008. Productivity changes in Chinese
airports 1995–2004. Transp. Res. Part E 44 (3), 521–542.
Gillen, D., Lall, A., 1997. Developing measures of airport productivity and perfor-
mance: an application of data envelopment analysis. Transp. Res. Part E Logist.
Transp. Rev. 33 (4), 261–273.
Gillen, D., Lall, A., 2001. Non-parametric measures of efficiency of US airports. Int. J.
Transp. Econ. 28 (3), 283–306.
Gitto, S., Mancuso, P., 2012. Bootstrapping the Malmquist indexes for Italian air-
ports. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 135, 403–411.
Hooper, P.G., Hensher, D.A., 1997. Measuring total factor productivity of airports- an
index number approach. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 33 (4), 249–259.
Kıyıldı, R.K., ve Karaşahin, M., 2006. Türkiye’deki Hava Alanlarının Veri Zarflama
Analizi ile Altyapı Performansının Değerlendirilmesi. Süleyman Demirel Üni-
versitesi Fen. Bilim. Enstitüsü Derg. 10 (3), 391–397.
Kirankabes, A., Arikan, F., 2011. Devlet Hava Meydanlarinin Etkinliginin Veri Zar-
flama Analizi (VZA) ile Ölcülmesi. In: Proceedings of the 12th International
Symposium on Econometrics Statistics and Operations Research, Pamukkale
University, 39–50. (in Turkish with English Summary).
Kocak, H., 2011. Efficiency examination of Turkish airports with DEA approach. Int.
Bus. Res. 4 (2), 204–212.
Lam, S.W., Low, J.M.W., Tang, L.C., 2009. Operational efficiencies of Asia Pacific
airports. Transp. Res. Part E 45 (4), 654–665.
Lozano, S., Gutiérrez, E., Moreno, P., 2013. Network DEA approach to airports per-
formance assessment considering undesirable outputs. Appl. Math. Model. 37,
1665–1676.
Martin, J.C., Roman, C., 2001. An application of DEA to measure the efficiency of
Spanish airports prior to privatization. J. Air Transp. Manag. 7 (3), 149–157.
Martín, J.C., Roman, C., Voltes-Dorta, A., 2009. A stochastic frontier analysis to es-
timate the relative efficiency of Spanish airports. J. Prod. Anal. 31 (3), 163–176.
Martín, J.C., Rodríguez-Déniz, H., Voltes-Dorta, A., 2013. Determinants of airport
cost flexibility in a context of economic recession. Transp. Res. Part E: Logist.
Transp. Rev. 57, 70–84.
Merkert, R., Mangia, L., 2012. Management of airports in extreme winter condi-
tions-some lessons from analysing the efficiency of Norwegian airports. Res.
Transp. Bus. Manag. 4, 53–60.
Merkert, R., Odeck, J., Brathen, S., Pagliari, R., 2012. A review of different bench-
marking methods in the context of regional airports. Transp. Rev. 32 (3),
379–395.
Murillo-Melchor, C., 1999. An analysis of technical efficiency and productive change
in Spanish airports using the Malmquist index. Int. J. Transp. Econ. 26 (2),
271–292.
Pacheco, R.R., Fernandes, E., 2003. Managerial efficiency of Brazilian airports.
Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 37 (8), 667–680.
Parker, D., 1999. The performance of BAA before and after privatization. J. Transp.
Econ. Policy 33 (2), 133–145.
Pathomsiri, S., Haghani, A., Dresner, M., Windle, R.J., 2006. Measuring and de-
termination of airport productivity in competitive markets. Paper presented at
the 85th Annual meeting of the Transport Research Board, Washington DC,
United States.
Pels, E., Nijkamp, P., Rietvle, P., 2001. Relative efficiency of European airports.
Transp. Policy 8, 183–192.
Peker, İ., ve Baki, B., 2009. Veri Zarflama Analizi ile Türkiye Havalimanlarında Bir
Etkinlik Ölçümü Uygulaması. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sos. Bilim. Enstitüsü Derg.
18 (2), 72–88.
Sarkis, J., 2000. An analysis of the operational efficiency of major airports in the
United States. J. Oper. Manag. 18 (3), 335–351.
Sarkis, J., Talluri, S., 2004. Performance-based clustering for benchmarking of US
airports. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 38, 329–346.
Simar, L., Wilson, P.W., 1999. Estimating and bootstrapping Malmquist indices. Eur.
J. Oper. Res. 115, 459–471.
Simar, L., Wilson, P.W., 2000. Statistical inference in nonparametric frontier models:
the state of the art. J. Product. Anal. 13, 49–78.
Simar, L., Wilson, P.W., 2007. Estimation and inference in two-stage, semi-para-
metric models of production processes. J. Econ.. 136, 31–64.
Simar, L., Wilson, P.W., 2008. Statistical inference in non-parametric frontier
models: recent developments and perspectives. In: Fried, H.O., Lovell, C.A.K.,
Schmidt, S.S. (Eds.), The Measurement of Productivity Efficiency and Pro-
ductivity Change. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 421–522.
Tone, K., 2004. Malmquist productivity index: efficiency change over time. In:
Cooper, W.W., Seiford, L.M., Zhu, J. (Eds.), The Handbook of Data Envelopment
Analysis. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Norwell, MA, pp. 203–227.
Tovar, B., Martin-Cejas, R.R., 2009. Are outsourcing and non-aeronautical revenues
important drivers in the efficiency of Spanish airports? J. Air Transp. Manag. 15,
217–220.
Tovar, B., Martin-Cejas, R.R., 2010. Technical efficiency and productivity changes in
Spanish airports: a parametric distance functions approach. Transp. Res. Part E
46, 249–260.
Tsekeris, T., 2011. Greek airports: efficiency measurement and analysis of de-
terminants. J. Air Transp. Manag. 17, 140–142.
Tsui, W.H.K., Gilbey, A., Balli, H.O., 2014a. Estimating airport efficiency of New
Zealand airports. J. Air Transp. Manag. 35, 78–86.
Tsui, W.H.K., Balli, H.O., Gilbey, A., Gow, H., 2014b. Operational efficiency of Asia-
Pacific airports. J. Air Transp. Manag. 40, 16–24.
Ulutaş, B. ve Ulutaş, B., 2009. An analytic network process combined data envel-
opment analysis methodology to evaluate the performance of airports in
Turkey. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on the Analytic
Hierarchy/Network Process, July 29–August 1, University of Pittsburgh Pitts-
burgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Ülkü, T., 2015. A comparative efficiency analysis of Spanish and Turkish airports. J.
Air Transp. Manag. 46, 56–68.
Voltes-Dorta, A., Pagliari, R., 2012. The impact of recession on airports' cost effi-
ciency. Transp. Policy 24, 211–222.
Wanke, P.F., 2012. Capacity shortfall and efficiency determinants in Brazilian air-
ports: evidence from bootstrapped DEA estimates. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 46,
216–229.
Wilson, P.W., 2008. FEAR: a software package for frontier efficiency analysis with R.
Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 42 (4), 247–254.
Wober, K.W., 2007. Data envelopment analysis. J. Travel Tour. Market. 21 (4),
91–108.
World Air Cargo Forecast, 2014–2015, http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing
dotcom/commercial/about-our-market/cargo-market-detail-wacf/download-re
port/assets/pdfs/wacf.pdf.
Yang, H.H., 2010. Measuring the efficiencies of Asia-Pacific international airports –
Parametric and non-parametric evidence. Comput. Ind. Eng. 59 (4), 697–702.
Xue, M., Harker, P.T., 1999. Overcoming the inherent dependency of DEA efficiency
scores: a bootstrap approach. Wharton Financial Institutions Center, University
of Pennsylvania, Unpublished Working Paper.