Container Port Selection in Contestable Hinterlands

Kemal AKBAYIRLI, (Ordu Üniversitesi, Fatsa Deniz Bilimleri Fakültesi, Fatsa Ordu, Türkiye)
Durmuş Ali DEVECİ, (Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, Denizcilik Fakültesi, İzmir, Türkiye)
Gökçay BALCI, (Bursa Teknik Üniversitesi, Deniz Araştırmaları Fakültesi, Bursa, Türkiye)
Ercan KURTULUŞ (Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi, Sürmene Deniz Bilimleri Fakültesi, Trabzon, Türkiye)
Journal of Eta Maritime Science
3 1
Yıl: 2016 Cilt: 4 Sayı: 3 Sayfa Aralığı: 249 - 265 Metin Dili: Türkçe İndeks Tarihi: 29-07-2022

Container Port Selection in Contestable Hinterlands

Öz:
Gelişen hinterlant bağlantıları, liman inovasyonları, liman özelleştirme politikaları ve liman kullanıcılarının değişen özel beklentileri nedeniyle liman rekabeti her geçen gün daha çetin bir hal almaktadır. Bu rekabetçi ortam liman hinterlantlarının kazanılmış olmaktan çıkıp rekabete açık olmalarına yol açmıştır. Bu rekabete açık ve rekabetçi hinterlantlardan pay almak için hizmet kalitesinin düzeyinin ve servis çeşitliliğinin belirlenmesinde müşteri odaklı olmak elzemdir. Bu nedenle, bu çalışmanın amacı, rekabete açık hinterlantlardaki liman kullanıcılarının liman seçim kriterlerini araştırmak ve bu liman kullanıcılarının seçim kriterlerini ölçen bir model geliştirmektir. Rekabete açık hinterlantlarda liman seçimine ilişkin bir model geliştirmek için doğrulayıcı faktör analizi uygulanmıştır. Model 7 ana çatı ve toplam 32 kriterden oluşmaktadır. Model, rekabete açık alanlarda limanların rekabetçiliğinin sadece hizmet tabanlı etmenlerden etkilenmediğini ayrıca, limana uğrak yapan hatların sayısı ve sıklığı gibi dış faktörlerin de oldukça önemli olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır.
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Denizcilik

Rekabete Açık Hinterlantlarda Konteyner Limanı Seçimi

Öz:
Port competition has become fiercer with each passing day due to the developments in hinterland networks, port innovations at ports, port privatization policies and the changing specific service expectations of port users. This competitive environment has led to shifting the hinterland areas from captivity to contestability. The customer focus in determining the level of service quality and service diversity is crucial to gain a share from such contestable and competitive hinterlands. Therefore, the main aim of this study is to determine port selection criteria of port users and to develop a model for measuring selection criteria of port users in contestable hinterlands. A confirmatory factor analysis was applied to develop a model for port selection in a contestable hinterland. The model includes 7 main constructs and total 32 criteria. The model reveals that competitiveness of ports in contestable hinterlands is not only affected by ports' own services but external ones such as number and frequency of shipping lines calling at the port are also vital.
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Denizcilik
Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • [1] Robinson, R., 2002, Ports as elements in value-driven chain systems: The new paradigm. Maritime Policy and Management 29: 241-255.
  • [2] Notteboom, T, 2004, Inter-firm collaboration, learning and networks: An integrated approach. London: Routledge.
  • [3] Baird, A. J., 2002, Privatization trends at the world's top-100 container ports. Maritime Policy and Management, 29 (3), 271-284.
  • [4] De Langen, P. W., 2007, Port competition and selection in contestable hinterlands: The case of Austria. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 7 (1): 1-14.
  • [5] Tongzon, J. L., 2009, Port choice and freight forwarders, Transportation Research Part E, 45 (2009): 186-195.
  • [6] Bichou, K., 2009, Port Operations, Planning and Logistics. London: Informa.
  • [7] Ng, A. K. Y., 2009, Competitiveness of short sea shipping and the role of port: The case of North Europe. Maritime Policy and Management, 36 (4): 337- 352.
  • [8] Kim, J. K., 2014, Port user typology and representations of port choice behavior: Q-methodological study, Maritime Economics and Logistics, 16 (2): 165-166.
  • [9] Cullinane, K. and Talley, W. K., 2006, Port economics (Vol. 16). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  • [10] Meersman, H., Van de Voorde, E.and Vanelslander, T., 2010, Port competition revisited. Journal of Pediatric, Maternal and Family HealthChiropractic, 55 (2): 210.
  • [11] Talley, W. K., 2009, Port Economics. New York: Routledge.
  • [12] Hesse, M. and Rodrigue, J. P., 2004, The transport geography of logistics and freight distribution. Journal of Transport Geography, 12: 171-184.
  • [13] Zondag, B., Bucci, P., Gützkow, P. and De Jong, G., 2010, Port competition modeling including maritime, port, and hinterland characteristics. Maritime Policy and Management, 37 (3): 179-194.
  • [14] Van Der Horst, M. R. and De Langen, P. W., 2008, Coordination in hinterland transport chains: A major challenge for the seaport community. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 10 (1): 108- 129.
  • [15] Rodrigue, J. P. and Notteboom, T., 2007, Re-assessing port-hinterland relationships in the context of global commodity chains. In: Ports, Cities, and Global Supply Chains, edited by Wang. J, Olivier, D., Notteboom, T. and Slack, B. London: Ashgate, pp.51-66.
  • [16] Jafari, H. and Khosheghbal, B., 2013, Studying seaport's hinterlandforeland concepts and the effective factors on their development. International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences, ISSN, 1039-1046.
  • [17] Rodrigue, J. P. and Notteboom, T., 2006, Challenges in the maritimeland interface: Port hinterlands and regionalization. The Master Development Plan For Port Logistics Parks In Korea; Seoul: Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries: 333- 363.
  • [18] OECD, 2008. Port competition and hinterland connections, Paris: OECD/ ITF.
  • [19] De Langen, P. W. and Chouly, A., 2004, Hinterland access regimes in seaports. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 4: 361-380.
  • [20] Notteboom, T., 2002, Consolidation and contestability in the European container handling industry. Maritime Policy & Management 29 (3), 257- 269.
  • [21] Fraser, D. and Notteboom, T., 2012, Gateway and hinterland dynamics: The case of the Southern African container seaport system. African Journal of Business Management, 6 (44): 10807-10825.
  • [22] Cullinane, K. and Wang, Y., 2009, A Capacity-Based Measure of Container Port Accessibility. International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications, 12(2): 103-117.
  • [23] Van Der Horst, M. R. and Van Der Lugt, L. M., 2011, Coordination mechanisms in improving hinterland accessibility: Empirical analysis in the port of Rotterdam. Maritime Policy and Management, 38 (4): 415-435.
  • [24] Notteboom T, 1997, Concentration and load center development in the European container port system. Journal of Transport Geography, 5 (2): 99-115.
  • [25] Vermeiren, T. and Macharis, C., 2016, Intermodal land transportation system and port choice, an analysis of stated choice among shippersin the Rhine-Scheldt delta, Maritime Policy and Management, 43: 2-3.
  • [26] Saeed, N. and Aaby, B. C., 2013, An analysis of factors contributing as selection criteria for users of European container terminals. TRB 2013 Annual Meeting.
  • [27] Nazemzadeh, M. and Vanelslander, T., 2015, The container transport system: Selection criteria and business attractiveness for NorthEuropean ports, Maritime Economics and Logistics, 17 (2): 222.
  • [28] Lam, J. S. L. and Dai, J., 2012, A decision support system for port selection. Transportation Planning and Technology, 35 (4): 509-524.
  • [29] Ng, A. S. F., Sun, D., and Bhattacharjya, J., 2013, Port choice of shipping lines and shippers in Australia, Asian Geographer, 30 (2): 151-155.
  • [30] Yap, W. Y. and Notteboom, T., 2011, Dynamics of liner shipping service scheduling and their impact on container port competition, Maritime Policy and Management, 38 (5): 475- 483.
  • [31] Wiegmans, B. W., Van Der Hoest, A. and Notteboom, T., 2008, Port and terminal selection by deep-sea container operators, Maritime Policy and Management, 35 (6): 526-531.
  • [32] Kim, Y. S., Yur, Y. S. and Shin, C. H., 2009, Review of theoretical aspects on the studies of port selection criteria. Journal of Korean Navigation and Port Research, 33 (2): 135-141.
  • [33] Chang, Y. T., Lee, S. Y. and Tongzon, J. L., 2008, Port selection factors by shipping lines: Different perspectives between trunk liners and feeder service providers, Marine Policy, 32 (6): 877-885.
  • [34] Lu, C. S., 2003, The impact of carrier service attributes on shipper-carrier partnering relationships: A shipper's perpective, Transportation Research Part E, 39 (6): 399-415.
  • [35] Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E. and Tatham, R. L., 2010, Multivariate data analysis (Vol. 7) (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall).
  • [36] Tongzon, J. L. and Sawant, L., 2007, Port choice in a competitive environment: From the shipping lines' perspective, Applied Economics, 39: 477-492.
  • [37] Slack, B., 1985, Containerization, interport competition, and port selection, Maritime Policy and Management, 12 (4): 293-303.
  • [38] Tongzon, J. L., 2009, Port choice and freight forwarders, Transportation Research Part E, 45 (1): 186-195.
  • [39] Malchow, M. B., 2001, An analysis of port selection, Institute of Transportation Studies University of California, PhD Thesis.
  • [40] Malchow, M. B. and Kanafani, A., 2004, A disaggregate analysis of port selection, Transportation Research Part E, 40 (4): 317-337.
  • [41] Song, D. and Yeo, K., 2004, A competitive analysis of Chinese container ports using analytic hierarchy process, Maritime Economics and Logistics, 6: 34-52.
  • [42] Mangan, J., Lalwani, C. and Gardnder, B., 2002, Modeling port/ferry choice in ro-ro freight transportation, International Journal of Transport Management, 1 (1): 15-28.
APA AKBAYIRLI K, DEVECI D, BALCI G, KURTULUŞ E (2016). Container Port Selection in Contestable Hinterlands. , 249 - 265.
Chicago AKBAYIRLI Kemal,DEVECI DURMUS ALI,BALCI Gökçay,KURTULUŞ ERCAN Container Port Selection in Contestable Hinterlands. (2016): 249 - 265.
MLA AKBAYIRLI Kemal,DEVECI DURMUS ALI,BALCI Gökçay,KURTULUŞ ERCAN Container Port Selection in Contestable Hinterlands. , 2016, ss.249 - 265.
AMA AKBAYIRLI K,DEVECI D,BALCI G,KURTULUŞ E Container Port Selection in Contestable Hinterlands. . 2016; 249 - 265.
Vancouver AKBAYIRLI K,DEVECI D,BALCI G,KURTULUŞ E Container Port Selection in Contestable Hinterlands. . 2016; 249 - 265.
IEEE AKBAYIRLI K,DEVECI D,BALCI G,KURTULUŞ E "Container Port Selection in Contestable Hinterlands." , ss.249 - 265, 2016.
ISNAD AKBAYIRLI, Kemal vd. "Container Port Selection in Contestable Hinterlands". (2016), 249-265.
APA AKBAYIRLI K, DEVECI D, BALCI G, KURTULUŞ E (2016). Container Port Selection in Contestable Hinterlands. Journal of Eta Maritime Science, 4(3), 249 - 265.
Chicago AKBAYIRLI Kemal,DEVECI DURMUS ALI,BALCI Gökçay,KURTULUŞ ERCAN Container Port Selection in Contestable Hinterlands. Journal of Eta Maritime Science 4, no.3 (2016): 249 - 265.
MLA AKBAYIRLI Kemal,DEVECI DURMUS ALI,BALCI Gökçay,KURTULUŞ ERCAN Container Port Selection in Contestable Hinterlands. Journal of Eta Maritime Science, vol.4, no.3, 2016, ss.249 - 265.
AMA AKBAYIRLI K,DEVECI D,BALCI G,KURTULUŞ E Container Port Selection in Contestable Hinterlands. Journal of Eta Maritime Science. 2016; 4(3): 249 - 265.
Vancouver AKBAYIRLI K,DEVECI D,BALCI G,KURTULUŞ E Container Port Selection in Contestable Hinterlands. Journal of Eta Maritime Science. 2016; 4(3): 249 - 265.
IEEE AKBAYIRLI K,DEVECI D,BALCI G,KURTULUŞ E "Container Port Selection in Contestable Hinterlands." Journal of Eta Maritime Science, 4, ss.249 - 265, 2016.
ISNAD AKBAYIRLI, Kemal vd. "Container Port Selection in Contestable Hinterlands". Journal of Eta Maritime Science 4/3 (2016), 249-265.
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
22-04-2024 23:50

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları