Acta Nat. Sci.   |  e-ISSN: 2718-0638
Acta Natura et Scientia
Acta Nat. Sci.

Original article | Acta Natura et Scientia 2023, Vol. 4(1) 27-46

Port Competitiveness Criteria for Transshipment Container Market: A Turkish Port Industry Application 

Sedat Baştuğ, Soner Esmer & Enes Eminoğlu

pp. 27 - 46   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/actanatsci.2023.353.04   |  Manu. Number: MANU-2211-23-0003.R1

Published online: February 17, 2023  |   Number of Views: 58  |  Number of Download: 360

Save PDF

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Container terminal, Line operator, Transshipment, Port selection, Business sustainability

How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Bastug, S., Esmer, S. & Eminoglu, E. (2023). Port Competitiveness Criteria for Transshipment Container Market: A Turkish Port Industry Application  . Acta Natura et Scientia, 4(1), 27-46. doi: 10.29329/actanatsci.2023.353.04

Harvard
Bastug, S., Esmer, S. and Eminoglu, E. (2023). Port Competitiveness Criteria for Transshipment Container Market: A Turkish Port Industry Application  . Acta Natura et Scientia, 4(1), pp. 27-46.

Chicago 16th edition
Bastug, Sedat, Soner Esmer and Enes Eminoglu (2023). "Port Competitiveness Criteria for Transshipment Container Market: A Turkish Port Industry Application  ". Acta Natura et Scientia 4 (1):27-46. doi:10.29329/actanatsci.2023.353.04.
References
  1. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  2. 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. [Google Scholar]
  3. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  4. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  5. 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). [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  6. Bichou, K. (2014). Port operations, planning and logistics. 2 ed. Informa Law from Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  7. Campbell, D. E., & Kelly, J. S. (1994). Trade-off theory. The American Economic Review, 84(2), 422-426. [Google Scholar]
  8. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  9. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  10. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  11. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  12. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review. 14(1), 57-74. https://doi.org/10.2307/258191 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  13. Esmer, S. (2011). Liman İşletmelerinde Hizmet Pazarlaması. Detay Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  14. Frankel, E. G. (1987). Port planning and development. John Wily & Sons. Inc. [Google Scholar]
  15. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  16. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  17. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  18. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  19. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  20. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  21. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  22. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  23. Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage publications. [Google Scholar]
  24. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  25. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  26. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  27. McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22(3), 276-282. [Google Scholar]
  28. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  29. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  30. 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 [Google Scholar]
  31. 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. [Google Scholar]
  32. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  33. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  34. Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy. The Free Press. [Google Scholar]
  35. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  36. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  37. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  38. Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1), 83-98. [Google Scholar]
  39. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  40. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  41. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  42. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  43. 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 [Google Scholar]
  44. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  45. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  46. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  47. UNCTAD. (1995). Marketing promotion tools for ports. New York. [Google Scholar]
  48. UNCTAD. (2019). Review of maritime transport. Genève. [Google Scholar]
  49. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  50. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  51. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  52. 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]. [Google Scholar]
  53. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  54. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  55. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  56. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  57. 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 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
Download
Metric
History
Related

Volume 4 Issue 1

June 2023

All Articles

Acta Natura et Scientia

Acta Nat. Sci..
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License.
Privacy policy     |     Terms of Use     |     Use of Cookies
Creative Commons Lisansı
© 2012 - 2024 - THDSoft e-Journal Management System.