Port Competitiveness Criteria for Transshipment Container Market: A Turkish Port Industry Application
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29329/actanatsci.2023.353.04Keywords:
Container terminal, Line operator, Transshipment, Port selection, Business sustainabilityAbstract
Since the 1970s when the hub and spoke system entered commercial life, it becomes a major distribution pattern in the transshipment container market. Many feeder ports feed the mega-ports with containers, they are not large by size, but they have great capacity of being flexible, agile, and close to the shippers in the local hinterland. Although it is not enough to continuously feed the maritime transportation system with different ships, this must be continuously fed by the maritime and hinterland connection. However, the connectivity of the ports is not the only criterion to have sustainable port competitiveness for terminals. There are other criteria to be identified and measured which one is important for terminal operators and users. Therefore, this study aims to determine the criteria to be followed by container terminals and to sort them in order of importance to have a sustainable competitive advantage in the transshipment container market. For this purpose, a comprehensive literature review and a quantitative research process were carried out with container line and container terminal operators, the importance levels of these criteria were defined by the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method, which is a multi-criteria decision-making method. The study has not only defined competitive criteria for the transshipment market but also the opinions of both parties were compared. According to the results Port Infrastructure and Superstructure criterion is defined as the most important criterion for both parties.
References
Akbayirli, K., Deveci, D. A., Balcı, G., & Kurtuluş, E. (2016) Container port selection in contestable hinterlands. Journal of ETA Maritime Science, 4(3), 249-265. https://doi.org/10.5505/jems.2016.49369
Ayag, Z., & Ozdemir, R. G. (2006). A fuzzy AHP approach to evaluating machine tool alternatives. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 17(2), 179-190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-005-6635-1
Balci, G., Cetin, I. B., & Esmer, S. (2018). An evaluation of competition and selection criteria between dry bulk terminals in Izmir. Journal of Transport Geography, 69, 294-304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2018.05.011
Baştuğ, S., Altuntaş, C., Eriş, E. D., & Tuna, O. (2013). Türkiye’de lojistik sektörü: Epistemolojik doküman analiz tekniği ile stratejik bir değerlendirme. Beykoz Akademi Dergisi, 1(2), 7-24. https://doi.org/10.14514/BYK.m.21478082.2013.1/2.7-24 (In Turkish).
Bichou, K. (2014). Port operations, planning and logistics. 2 ed. Informa Law from Routledge.
Campbell, D. E., & Kelly, J. S. (1994). Trade-off theory. The American Economic Review, 84(2), 422-426.
Chang, D. Y. (1996). Applications of the extent analysis on fuzzy AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 95(3), 649-655. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(95)00300-2
Chou, C. C. (2009). An empirical study on port choice behaviors of shippers in a multiple-port region. Marine Technology Society Journal, 43(3), 71-77. https://doi.org/10.4031/MTSJ.43.3.7
Cullinane, K., Wang, T. F., Song, D. W., & Ji, P. (2006). The technical efficiency of container ports: Comparing data envelopment analysis and stochastic frontier analysis. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 40(4), 354-374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2005.07.003
Durán, O., & Aguilo, J. (2008). Computer-aided machine-tool selection based on a Fuzzy-AHP approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 34(3), 1787-1794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2007.01.046
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review. 14(1), 57-74. https://doi.org/10.2307/258191
Esmer, S. (2011). Liman İşletmelerinde Hizmet Pazarlaması. Detay Yayıncılık.
Frankel, E. G. (1987). Port planning and development. John Wily & Sons. Inc.
Guy, E., & Urli, B. (2006). Port selection and multi-criteria analysis: An application to the Montreal-New York alternative. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 8(2), 169-186. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100152
Hales, D., Lee Lam, J. S., & Chang, Y. T. (2016). The balanced theory of port competitiveness. Transportation Journal, 55(2), 168-189. https://doi.org/10.5325/transportationj.55.2.0168
Haralambides, H. E. (2019). Gigantism in container shipping, ports and global logistics: A time-lapse into the future. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 21(1), 1-60. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-018-00116-0
Herciu, M., & Ogrean, C. (2018). Business sustainable competitiveness a synergistic, long-run approach of a company’s resources and results. Studies in Business and Economics, 13(3), 26-44. https://doi.org/10.2478/sbe-2018-0033
Kavirathna, C., Kawasaki, T., Hanaoka, S., & Matsuda, T. (2018). Transshipment hub port selection criteria by shipping lines: the case of hub ports around the Bay of Bengal. Journal of Shipping and Trade, 3(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41072-018-0030-5
Kim, A. R. (2016). A study on competitiveness analysis of ports in Korea and China by entropy wight TOPSIS. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 32(4), 187-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2016.12.001
Kolk, A., & Pinkse, J. (2008). A perspective on multinational enterprises and climate change: Learning from “an inconvenient truth”?. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(8), 1359-1378. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2008.61
Kraus, A., & Litzenberger, R. H. (1973). A state-preference model of optimal financial leverage. The Journal of Finance, 28(4), 911-922. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1973.tb01415.x
Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage publications.
Liou, T. S., & Wang, M. J. J. (1992). Ranking fuzzy numbers with integral value. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 50(3), 247-255. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(92)90223-Q
Lirn, T. C., Thanopoulou, H. A., Beynon, M. J., & Beresford, A. K. C. (2004). An application of AHP on transshipment port selection: A global perspective. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 6(1), 70-91. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100093
Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2), 20. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-1.2.1089
McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22(3), 276-282.
Mittal, N., & McClung, D. (2016). Shippers’ changing priorities in port selection decision – A survey analysis using analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Journal of the Transportation Research Forum, 55(3), 65-81. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.262668
Munim, Z. H., Duru, O., & Ng, A. K. (2022). Transhipment port’s competitiveness forecasting using analytic network process modelling. Transport Policy, 124, 70-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2021.07.015
Notteboom, T. E., Parola, F., & Satta, G. (2019). The relationship between transhipment incidence and throughput volatility in North European and Mediterranean container ports. Journal of Transport Geography, 74, 371-381. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2019.01.002
Notteboom, T., & Winkelmans, W. (2002). Stakeholder relations management in ports: Dealing with the interplay of forces among stakeholders in a changing competitive environment. In Proceedings of the International Association of Maritime Economists Annual Conference 2002 (IAME 2002), Panama City, Panama.
Parola, F., Risitano, M., Ferretti, M., & Panetti, E. (2017). The drivers of port competitiveness: A critical review. Transport Reviews, 37(1), 116-138. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2016.1231232
Pham, T. Y., & Yeo, G. T. (2019). Evaluation of transshipment container terminals’ service quality in Vietnam: From the shipping companies’ perspective. Sustainability, 11(5), 1503. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11051503
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy. The Free Press.
Robinson, R. (2002). Ports as elements in value-driven chain systems: The new paradigm. Maritime Policy and Management, 29(3), 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088830210132623
Rother, E. T. (2007). Systematic literature review X narrative review. Acta Paulista de Enfermagem, 20(2), v-vi. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-21002007000200001
Saaty, T. L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(3), 234-281. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5
Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1), 83-98.
Saeed, N. (2009). An analysis of carriers’ selection criteria when choosing container terminals in Pakistan. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 11(3), 270-288. https://doi.org/10.1057/mel.2009.8
Sarfaraz, A., Mukerjee, P., & Jenab, K. (2007). Using fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (AHP) to evaluate web development platform. Management Science Letters, 2(1), 253-262.
Sayareh, J., & Alizmini, H. R. (2014). A hybrid decision-making model for selecting container seaport in the Persian Gulf. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 30(1), 75-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2014.04.004
Seuring, S., & Gold, S. (2012). Conducting content-analysis based literature reviews in supply chain management, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 17(5), 544-555. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598541211258609
Singh, P., & Kumar, B. (2012). Trade-off theory vs pecking order theory revisited: Evidence from India. Journal of Emerging Market Finance, 11(2), 145-159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972652712454514
Slack, B., & Wang, J. J. (2002). The challenge of peripheral ports: An Asian perspective. GeoJournal, 56(2), 159-166. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022452714114
Song, D. W., & Yeo, K. T. (2004). A competitive analysis of Chinese container ports using the analytic hierarchy process. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 6(1), 34-52. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100096
Tiwari, P., Itoh, H., & Doi, M. (2003). Shippers’ port and carrier selection behavior in China: A discrete choice analysis. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 5(1), 23-39. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100062
Tongzon, J. L., & Sawant, L. (2007). Port choice in a competitive environment: From the shipping lines’ perspective. Applied Economics, 39(4), 477-492. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840500438871
UNCTAD. (1995). Marketing promotion tools for ports. New York.
UNCTAD. (2019). Review of maritime transport. Genève.
Vaidya, O. S., & Kumar, S. (2006). Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 169(1), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2004.04.028
van Dyck, G. K., & Ismael, H. M. (2015). Multi-criteria evaluation of port competitiveness in West Africa using analytic hierarchy process (AHP). American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 5(6), 432-446. https://doi.org/10.4236/ajibm.2015.56043
Veldman, S. J., & Bückmann, E. H. (2003). A model on container port competition: An application for the West European container hub-ports. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 5(1), 3-22. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100058
Wang, L. (2011). Container seaport selection criteria for shipping lines in a global supply chain perspective: implications for regional port competition. [MSc Thesis. Erasmus University Rotterdam].
Watson, R. T., Corbett, J., Boudreau, M. C., & Webster, J. (2012). Computing ethics: An information strategy for environmental sustainability. Communications of the ACM, 55(7), 28-30. https://doi.org/10.1145/2209249.2209261
Yap, W. Y., Lam, J. S., & Notteboom, T. (2006). Developments in container port competition in East Asia. Transport Reviews, 26(2), 167-188. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441640500271117
Yeo, G. T., Roe, M., & Dinwoodie, J. (2008). Evaluating the competitiveness of container ports in Korea and China. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 42(6), 910-921. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2008.01.014
Yeo, H. J. (2010). Competitiveness of Asian container terminals. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 26(2), 225-246. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2092-5212(10)80003-3
Yuen, K. F., Thai, V. V., & Wong, Y. D. (2017). Corporate social responsibility and classical competitive strategies of maritime transport firms: A contingency-fit perspective. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 98, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.01.020
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Sedat Baştuğ, Soner Esmer, Enes Eminoğlu
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
