• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.17-28
• /
• 2016

This study examines the cruise course network structure in the Asian regions and the centrality of ports using social network analysis (SNA). For network analysis of Asian cruise courses, a data network of cruise courses was constructed using data on courses of cruise ships operating in Asian ports collected from the reports of the Cruise Lines International Associations.There are 249 nodes or ports of ship companies that provide cruise courses to Asia between from October 2015 to June 2016, and these nodes connect 545 ports. Density analysis based on ports where cruise ship companies operated cruise ships showed that, from October 2015 to June 2016, the density was 0.009, which was lower than the average of global port network density (2006 to 2011) and railroad network density. In addition, was calculated to be, which means that connection with all ports was possible through 2,180 steps. In the analysis of the Asian cruise course network centrality, Singapore ranked first in both out-degree and in-degree in connection centrality, followed by Hong Kong, Shanghai, Ho Chi Minh, and Keelung. Singapore also ranked first in the result betweenness centrality analysis, followed by Penang, Dubai, and Hong Kong. From October 2015 to June 2016, the port with the highest Eigenvector centrality was Hong Kong, followed by Ho Chi Minh, Singapore, Shanghai, and Danang. In the case of the domestic ports Incheon, Busan, and Jeju, connection centrality, betweenness centrality, and Eigenvector centrality all ranked lower than their competitor Chinese ports.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.41 no.3
• /
• pp.27-42
• /
• 2016

This study is to investigate seaport clustering by using meta-frontier and cross-efficiency models. Data covers the 13 Asian ports during 2009, 2010 and 2013 with 3 inputs(depth, total area, and number of cranes) and 1 output(TEU). Correlations coefficient from cross-efficiency matrix are used for measuring clustering dendrogram. After that, meta-frontier analysis for investigating whether the clustering using cross-efficiency method increases the meta-efficiency. Empirical main results are as follows: First, group efficiencies of Busan, Incheon, and Gwangyang ports are increased. Second, meta and group efficiencies of China ports are greater than those of Korean ports. Third, distortion of technology gap of Gwangyang is lower than that of Busan and Incheon. Fourth, Gwangyang, clustering with Ningbo, Chingtao, Tokyo and Caosung ports in 2009 and with Dubai port in 2013 can increase the efficiency. Fifth, to enhance the efficiency, Busan port should be clustered to group 2 in 2010 and group 1 in 2013, and Incheon port clustered to group 2 in 2010 and 2013. Fifth, it is empirically investigated that Busan, Incheon and Gwangyang ports can increase the efficiency by using Cross-efficiency and Meta-frontier models. Port policy planner should promote the clustering policy for Busan with Hong Kong, Shanghai, and Singapore, Incheon and Gwangyang with Chingtao, Nagoya, Ningbo, Tokyo, and Kaoshung ports.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.37 no.1
• /
• pp.31-70
• /
• 2021

The purpose of this paper is to measure the clustering change and analyze empirical results, and choose the clustering ports for Busan, Incheon, and Gwangyang ports by using Hierarchical clustering(single, complete, average, and centroid), Silhouette, and 2SCE[the Second Stage(Type II) cross-efficiency] matrix clustering models on Asian container ports over the period 2009-2018. The models have chosen number of cranes, depth, birth length, and total area as inputs and container TEU as output. The main empirical results are as follows. First, ranking order according to the efficiency increasing ratio during the 10 years analysis shows Silhouette(0.4052 up), Hierarchical clustering(0.3097 up), and 2SCE(0.1057 up). Second, according to empirical verification of the Silhouette and 2SCE models, 3 Korean ports should be clustered with ports like Busan Port[ Dubai, Hong Kong, and Tanjung Priok], and Incheon Port and Gwangyang Port are required to cluster with most ports. Third, in terms of the ASEAN, it would be good to cluster like Busan (Singapore), Incheon Port (Tanjung Priok, Tanjung Perak, Manila, Tanjung Pelpas, Leam Chanbang, and Bangkok), and Gwangyang Port(Tanjung Priok, Tanjung Perak, Port Kang, Tanjung Pelpas, Leam Chanbang, and Bangkok). Third, Wilcoxon's signed-ranks test of models shows that all P values are significant at an average level of 0.852. It means that the average efficiency figures and ranking orders of the models are matched each other. The policy implication is that port policy makers and port operation managers should select benchmarking ports by introducing the models used in this study into the clustering of ports, compare and analyze the port development and operation plans of their ports, and introduce and implement the parts which required benchmarking quickly.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.33 no.2
• /
• pp.53-82
• /
• 2017

The purpose of this study is to show the clustering trend and compare empirical results, as well as to choose the clustering ports for 3 Korean ports (Busan, Incheon, and Gwangyang) by using meta-frontier DEA (Data Envelopment Analysis) and integer models on 38 Asian container ports over the period 2005-2014. The models consider 4 input variables (birth length, depth, total area, and number of cranes) and 1 output variable (container TEU). The main empirical results of the study are as follows. First, the meta-frontier DEA for Chinese seaports identifies as most efficient ports (in decreasing order) Shanghai, Hongkong, Ningbo, Qingdao, and Guangzhou, while efficient Korean seaports are Busan, Incheon, and Gwangyang. Second, the clustering results of the integer model show that the Busan port should cluster with Dubai, Hongkong, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Ningbo, Qingdao, Singapore, and Kaosiung, while Incheon and Gwangyang should cluster with Shahid Rajaee, Haifa, Khor Fakkan, Tanjung Perak, Osaka, Keelong, and Bangkok ports. Third, clustering through the integer model sharply increases the group efficiency of Incheon (401.84%) and Gwangyang (354.25%), but not that of the Busan port. Fourth, the efficiency ranking comparison between the two models before and after the clustering using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test is matched with the average level of group efficiency (57.88 %) and the technology gap ratio (80.93%). The policy implication of this study is that Korean port policy planners should employ meta-frontier DEA, as well as integer models when clustering is needed among Asian container ports for enhancing the efficiency. In addition Korean seaport managers and port authorities should introduce port development and management plans accounting for the reference and clustered seaports after careful analysis.