Journal of Korea Port Economic Association (한국항만경제학회지)

The Korea Port Economic Association (한국항만경제학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Evaluating Global Container Ports' Performance Considering the Port Calls' Attractiveness

기항 매력도를 고려한 세계 컨테이너 항만의 성과 평가

  • Received : 2022.08.24
  • Accepted : 2022.09.30
  • Published : 2022.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Even after the improvement in 2019, UNCTAD's Liner Shipping Connectivity Index (LSCI), which evaluates the performance of the global container port market, has limited use. In particular, since the liner shipping connectivity index evaluates the performance based only on the distance of the relationship, the performance index combining the port attractiveness of calling would be more efficient. This study used the modified Huff model, the hub-authority algorithm and the eigenvector centrality of social network analysis, and correlation analysis for 2007, 2017, and 2019 data of Ocean-Commerce, Japan. The findings are as follows: Firstly, the port attractiveness of calling and the overall performance of the port did not always match. However, according to the analysis of the attractiveness of a port calling, Busan remained within the top 10. Still, the attractiveness among other Korean ports improved slowly from the low level during the study period. Secondly, Global container ports are generally specialized for long-term specialized inbound and outbound ports by the route and grow while maintaining professionalism throughout the entire period. The Korean ports continue to change roles from analysis period to period. Lastly, the volume of cargo by period and the extended port connectivity index (EPCI) presented in this study showed a correlation from 0.77 to 0.85. Even though the Atlantic data is excluded from the analysis and the ship's operable capacity is used instead of the port throughput volume, it shows a high correlation. The study result would help evaluate and analyze global ports. According to the study, Korean ports need a long-term strategy to improve performance while maintaining professionalism. In order to maintain and develop the port's desirable role, it is necessary to utilize cooperation and partnerships with the complimentary port and attract shipping companies' services calling to the complementary port. Although this study carried out a complex analysis using a lot of data and methodologies for an extended period, it is necessary to conduct a study covering ports around the world, a long-term panel analysis, and a scientific parameter estimation study of the attractiveness analysis.

2019년 개선 이후에도 글로벌 컨테이너 항만시장의 성과를 평가하는 UNCTAD의 정기선해운연계지수(LSCI)는 사용이 제한적이다. 특히 정기선해운연계지수는 관계의 거리만을 기준으로 성과를 평가하기 때문에 기항 매력을 결합한 성과지수가 더 효율적일 것이다. 본 연구에서는 일본 Ocean-Commerce사의 2007, 2017, 2019년 데이터에 수정된 Huff 모델, 소셜 네트워크 분석의 허브-권한 알고리즘 및 고유벡터 중심성, 그리고 상관관계 분석을 사용하였다. 연구 결과는 다음과 같다: 첫째, 기항 매력도와 항만의 전반적 성과가 항상 일치하지는 않았다. 기항 매력도 분석에 따르면 부산은 10위권 안에 머물렀다. 더불어 우리나라의 다른 항만에 대한 기항 매력도도 분석 기간 중 낮은 수준에서 서서히 개선됐다. 둘째, 글로벌 컨테이너항은 일반적으로 항로별로 반입항과 반출항 역할로 장기 특화되어 있으며, 전 기간에 걸쳐 전문성을 유지하면서 성장하고 있다. 그러나 우리나라의 항만은 분석 시기마다 역할이 계속 바꿨다. 마지막으로 본 연구에서 제시한 기간별 항만물동량과 확장항만연계지수(Extended Port Connectivity Index, EPCI)는 0.77에서 0.85사이의 상관관계를 보였다. 비록 대서양 자료가 EPCI 분석에 제외되고 항만물동량 대신 선박의 처리능력을 사용하였지만 둘은 높은 상관관계를 보였다. 이러한 결과는 글로벌 항만을 평가하고 분석하는 데 도움이 될 것이다. 연구에 따르면 한국의 항만은 전문성을 유지하면서 성과를 향상하기 위한 장기 전략이 필요하다. 특히 항만의 바람직한 역할을 유지·발전시키기 위해서는 보완항과의 협력과 파트너십을 활용하고 보완항에 기항하는 선사들의 서비스를 유치하는 것이 바람직하다. 본 연구가 장기간에 걸친 많은 데이터와 방법론을 사용한 복잡한 분석을 수행하였지만, 전세계 항만 대상의 연구, 장기적 패널 분석, 기항 매력도 분석에 대한 과학적 매개변수 추정이 수행되면 연구의 완성도가 더욱 높여질 것이다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

이 논문은 2019년 대한민국 교육부와 한국연구재단의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구임(NRF-2019S1A5A2A01035547)

References

  1. 곽기영(2017), 소녈 네트워크 분석, 2판, 도서출판 청람.
  2. 박병인(2016), 주요항만의 항만인센티브제도 분석, 물류학회지, 26(6), 61-78.
  3. 박병인(2018), 국제 컨테이너 선대 운항네트워크 변화와 우리항만의 전략, 한국항만경제학회지, 34(1), 133-158.
  4. 박찬규(2015), 사회네트워크 중심성 지표를 이용한 기업집단 소유네트워크 분석, 경영과학, 32(2), 15-35. https://doi.org/10.7737/KMSR.2015.32.2.015
  5. シッピングガイド編集局(2007, 2017, 2019), 「際輸送ハンドブック」,
  6. Angeloudis, P., Bichou, K., Bell, M., and Fisk, D.(2006), Security and reliability of the liner container shipping network: Analysis of robustness using a complex network framework, Presented to International Association of Maritime Economist Conference, Melbourne.
  7. Asturias, J. and Petty, S.(2012), A Model of Trade with Endogenous Transportation Costs(https://www.economicdynamics.org/paper_1095.pdf). Accessed December 10, 2021.
  8. Bartholdi, J. J., Jarumaneeroj, P., and Ramudhin, A.(2016), A new connectivity index for container ports, Maritime Economics & Logistics, 18 (3), 231-249.
  9. Bichou, K.(2004), The ISPS Code and the cost of port compliance: an initial logistics and supply chain framework for port security assessment and management, Maritime Economics & Logistics, 6, 322-348. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100116
  10. Bordoloi, S., Fitzsimmons, J., and Fitzsimmons, M. (2019), Service Management: Operations, Strategy, Information Technology, McGraw Hill.
  11. Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M. G., and Johnson, J. C.(2018), Analyzing Social Networks, 2nd ed., SAGE Publications Ltd.
  12. de Langen, P. W., Udenio, M., Fransoo, J. C., and Helminen, R.(2016), Port connectivity indices: an application to European RoRo shipping, Journal of Shipping and Trade, 1(6): doi 10.1186/s41072-016-0008-0.
  13. Deguchi, T., Takahashi, K., Takayasu, H., and Takayasu, M.(2014), Hubs and authorities in the world trade network using a weighted hits algorithm, PLoS ONE: DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0100338.g001.
  14. Fremont, A. and Parola, F.(2011), Carriers' Role in Opening Gateways: Experiences from Major Port Regions, in Hall, P., McCalla, R. J., Comtois, C., and Slack, B.(Eds.) Integrating Seaports and Trade Corridors, Ahsgate Farnham and Burlington, 47-63.
  15. Fugazza, M.(2015), Maritime Connectivity and Trade, Policy Issues in International Trade and Commodities. Geneva: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). Research Study Series, No. 70.
  16. Fugazza, M. and Hoffmann, J.(2016), Bilateral Liner Shipping Connectivity Since 2006, Policy Issues in International Trade and Commodities. Geneva: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). Research Study Series, No. 72.
  17. Fugazza, M. and Hoffmann, J.(2017), Liner shipping connectivity as determinant of trade, Journal of Shipping and Trade, 2(1): DOI 10.1186/s41072-017-0019-5.
  18. Fugazza, M., Hoffmann, J., and Razafinombana, J. (2013), Building a Dataset for Bilateral Maritime Connectivity, Region et Developpement, 41, 101-124.
  19. Hoffmann, J., Wilmsmeier, G., and Lun, G.(2017), Connecting the World Through Global Shipping Networks, Journal of Shipping and Trade : DOI 10.1186/s4l072-017-0020-z.
  20. Hoffmann, J., Saeed, N., and Sodal, S.(2020), Liner shipping bilateral connectivity and its impact on South Africia's bilateral trade flows, Maritime Economics & Loigistics, 22, 473-499. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-019-00124-8
  21. Hoffmann. J., Van Hoogenhuizen, J.-W., and Wilmsmeier, G.(2014), Developing an index for bilateral liner shipping connectivity, Presented at the International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME), Norfolk, United States.
  22. Huff, D. L. (1963), A probabilistic analysis of shopping center trade areas, Land Economics, 39, 81-90. https://doi.org/10.2307/3144521
  23. Huff, D. L.(1964), Defining and estimating a trading area, Journal of Marketing, 28, 34-38. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224296402800307
  24. Lloyd's List, One Hundred Ports, 각년호.
  25. Lun, Y. H. and Hoffmann, J.(2016), Connectivity and trade relativity: the case of ASEAN, Journal of Shipping and Trade, 1(11): DOI 10.1186/s41072-016-0015-1.
  26. McCalla, R., Slack, B., and Comtois, C.(2005), The Caribbean basin: Adjusting to global trends in containerization, Maritime Policy & Management, 32(3), 245-261. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088830500139729
  27. Mirshra, V. K., Dutta, B., Goh, M., and Figueira, J. R.(2021), A Robust Ranking of Maritime Connectivity: Revisiting UNCTAD's Liner Shipping Connectivity Index(LSCI), Maritime Economics & Logistics, 23, 424-443. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-021-00185-8
  28. Moura, T. G. Z.(2019), Analysis of the Relevance of Location for Port Activity, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Oviedo.
  29. Moura, T. G. Z., Garcia-Alonso, L., and Salas-Olmedo, M. H.(2017), Delimiting the scope of the hinterland of ports: proposal and case study, Journal of Transportation Geography, 65, 35-43: DOI 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.09.012.
  30. Newman, M. E. J.(2010), Networks : An Introduction, Oxford University Press.
  31. Notteboom, T. and Rodrigue, J. P.(2008), Containerisation, Box Logistics and Global Supply Chains: The Integration of Ports and Liner Shipping Networks, Maritime Economics & Logistics, 10(1-2), 152-174. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100196
  32. Notteboom, T., Pallis, A., and Rodrigue, J.-P.(2022), Port Economics, Management and Policy, Routledge, London.
  33. Reilly, W. J.,(1929). Methods for the Study of Retail Relationships, Bulletin 2944. University of Texas, Austin, Texas.
  34. Rodrigue, J. P. (1999), Globalization and the synchronization of transport terminals, Journal of transport geography, 7(4), 255-261. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0966-6923(99)00018-6
  35. Roy, J.R. and Thill, J.-C.(2004), Spatial interaction modelling, Papers in Regional Science, 83, 339-361: DOI 10.1007/s10110-003-0189-4.
  36. Sajedianfard, N., Hadian, E., Samadi, A. H., Shabani, Z., Sarkar, S., and Robonson, P. A.(2021), Quantitive analysis of trade networks: data and robustness, Applied Network Science, 6(46): DOI 10.1007/s41109-021-00386-3.
  37. Searoutes Developer Hub(classic.searoutes.com).
  38. UNCTAD(2019), Liner shipping connectivity index, quarterly. https://unctadstat.unctad.org/wds/TableViewer/summary.aspx. Accessed 03 December 2021.
  39. UNCTAD(2019), Review of Maritime Transport, 2019, UN.
  40. Wilmsmeier, G., and Hoffmann, J.(2008), Liner shipping connectivity and port infrastructure as determinants of freight rates in the Caribbean, Maritime Economics & Logistics, 10(1-2), 130-151. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100195
  41. Wilmsmeier, G., Hoffmann, J., and Sanchez, R. J. (2006), The impact of port characteristics on international maritime transport costs, Research in Transportation Economics, 16, 117-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0739-8859(06)16006-0
  42. Zhuang, J. and Yu, S. (2014), The hinterland spatial structure evolvement of competitive port based on ArcGIS, in: Wen, Z. and Li, T. (eds.), Practical Applications of Intelligent Systems, Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Springer-Verlag London, 1143-1153: DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-54927-4_109.