Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Key factors of seaport competitiveness based on the stakeholder perspective: An Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) model

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Maritime Economics & Logistics Aims and scope

Abstract

In their decisions, seaport stakeholders internalize various factors that intervene in seaport competitiveness. The literature emphasizes that such seaport characteristics are important in the stakeholder choice of seaports. Given today’s competitive environment, it becomes imperative that seaport managers develop the ability to determine which factors stakeholders perceive as critical. This research aims to empirically study the key factors of seaport competitiveness from the perspective of Iberian seaports stakeholders by applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) model. The Delphi approach is deployed for the preliminary factor selection stages in an AHP context. Our initial results demonstrate that seaport users and seaport service providers differ in their understanding of the key factors of seaport competitiveness. From the seaport authorities and terminal operators’ perspective, seaport facilities and equipment is the most important factor followed by channel depth, intermodal links, vessel turnaround time and proximity to import/export areas. Vessel turnaround time is considered by ocean carriers as the most influential factor to competitiveness, followed by intermodal links, seaport facilities and equipment, proximity to import/export areas and channel depth.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Acosta, M., Coronado, D. and Cerban, M. (2007) Port competitiveness in container traffic from an internal point of view: The experience of the Port of Algeciras Bay. Maritime Policy and Management 34 (5): 501–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argenti, J. (1997) Stakeholders: The case against: Brief case. Long Range Planning 30 (3): 17–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beynon, M. (2002) An analysis of distributions of priority values from alternative comparison scales within AHP. European Journal of Operational Research 140 (1): 104–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodin, L. and Gass, S. (2003) On teaching the analytic hierarchy process. Computers and Operations Research 30 (10): 1487–1497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buck Consultants International (BIC). (2009) The Evolving Role of EU Seaports in Global Maritime Logistics – Capacities, Challenges and Strategies. Report by European Parliament’s Committee on Transport and Tourism, Belgium.

  • Castillo-Manzano, J., Castro-Nunes, M., Laxe, F., Lópes-Valpuesta, L. and Arevalo-Quijada, M. (2009) Low-cost port competitiveness index: Implementation in the Spanish port system. Marine Policy 33 (4): 591–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chwolka, A. and Raith, M. (2001) Group preference aggregation with the AHP: Implications for multiple issue agendas. European Journal of Operational Research 132 (1): 176–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, M. (1995) A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review 20 (1): 92–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Este, G. and Meyrick, S. (1992) Carrier selection in a RO/RO ferry trade. Part 1: Decision factors and attitudes. Maritime Policy and Management 19 (2): 115–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Langen, P. (2007) Port competition and selection in contestable hinterlands: The case of Austria. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research 7 (1): 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Degerlund, J. (2009) Containerization International Yearbook. 40th edn. London: Containerisation International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T. and Preston, L. (1995) The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence and implications. Academy of Management Review 20 (1): 65–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dooms, M., Macharis, C. and Verbeke, A. (2004) Proactive stakeholders management in the port planning process: Empirical evidence from the port of Brussels. ERSA Conference papers, ersa04p271, 25–29 August, 44th European Congress. University of Porto-Portugal: European Regional Science Associations.

  • Escobar, M., Aguarón, J. and Moreno-Jiménez, J. (2004) A note on AHP group consistency for the row geometric mean priorization procedure. European Journal of Operational Research 153 (2): 318–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, J. and Azevedo, S. (2010) Seaport Competitiveness Based on RBV and Stakeholders Approaches: The Case of Sines Seaport. Mauritius, Germany: LAMBERT Academic Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, D. and Baird, A. (1999) Some reflections on port competition in the United States and Western Europe. Maritime Policy and Management 26 (4): 383–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forgionne, G., Kohlib, R. and Jennings, D. (2002) An AHP analysis of quality in AI and DSS Journals. Omega 30 (3): 171–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. (1984) Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Marshfield, WI: Pittman Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frewer, L., Fischer, A., Wentholt, M., Marvin, B., Coles, D. and Rowe, G. (2011) The use of Delphi methodology in agrifood policy development: Some lessons learned. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 78 (9): 1514–1525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gass, S. (1998) T-ournaments, transitivity and pairwise comparison matrices. Journal of the Operational Research Society 49 (6): 616–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, C., Khan, M. and Badinelli, R. (1999) Use of the Delphi research technique to test a decision model in foodservice systems: A case study in food production. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 93 (11): 1307–1309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grundy, T. (2005) Business strategy re-engineering and the bid battle for Marks and Spencer. Strategic Change 14 (4): 195–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, U. and Clarke, R. (1996) Theory and applications of the Delphi technique: A bibliography (1975–1994). Technological Forecasting & Social Change 53 (2): 185–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guy, E. and Urli, B. (2006) Port selection and multicriteria analysis: An application to the Montreal-New York alternative. Maritime Economics and logistics 8 (2): 169–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R. and Black, W. (1995) Multivariate Data Analysis. 4th edn. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Internacional.

    Google Scholar 

  • INE. (2010a) Actividade dos Transportes. Lisbon, Portugal: Instituto Nacional de Estatística de Portugal.

  • INE. (2010b) Transporte y actividade conexas, comunicaciones. Madrid, Spain: Instituto Nacional de Estadística de Espanha.

  • Lai, V., Wong, B. and Cheung, W. (2002) Group decision making in a multiple criteria environment: A case using the AHP in software selection. European Journal of Operational Research 137 (1): 134–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landeta, J. and Barrutia, J. (2011) People consultation to construct the future: A Delphi application. International Journal of Forecasting 27 (1): 134–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linstone, H. and Turoff, M. (2011) Delphi: A brief look backward and forward. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 78 (6): 1712–1719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lirn, T.-C., Thanapoulou, H., Beresford, A. and Anthony, K. (2003) Transhipment port selection and decision-making behaviour: Analysing the Taiwanese case. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 6 (4): 229–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lirn, T.-C, Thanopoulou, H., Beynon, M. and Beresford, A. (2004) An application of AHP on transhipment port selection: A global perspective. Maritime Economics and Logistics 6 (1): 70–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Low, J., Lam, S. and Tang, L. (2009) Assessment of hub status among Asian ports from a network perspective. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Pratice 43 (6): 593–606.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malchow, M. and Kanafani, A. (2001) A disaggregate analysis of factors influencing port selection. Maritime Policy and Management 28 (9): 265–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maloni, M. and Jackson, E. (2007) Stakeholders contributions to container port capacity: A survey of port authorities. Journal of Transportation Research Forum 46 (1): 23–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magala, M. and Sammons, A. (2008) A new approach to port choice modelling. Maritime Economics and Logistics 10 (1–2): 9–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martilla, J. and James, J. (1977) Importance-performance analysis. The Journal of Marketing 41 (1): 77–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, P. and Daley, J. (1994) A comparative analysis of port selection factors. Transportation Journal 34 (1): 15–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ng, K. (2006) Assessing the attractiveness of ports in the North European container transhipment market: An agenda for future research in port competition. Maritime Economics and Logistics 8 (3): 234–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Notteboom, T. (2007) Strategic challenges to container ports in a changing market environment. Transportation Economics 17 (1): 29–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Notteboom, T. (2009) The relationship between seaports and the intermodal hinterland in light of global supply chains: European challenges. In:OECD/ITF(ed.) Port Competition and Hinterland Connections. Round Table no. 143, Paris, France: OECD/ITF, pp. 25–75.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Notteboom, T. and Winkelmans, W. (2002) Stakeholder relations management in ports: Dealing with the interplay of forces among stakeholders in a changing competitive environment. Paper presented at IAME 2002; 13–15 November, Panama City, Panama: IAME.

  • Oh, H. (2001) Revisiting importance-performance analysis. Tourism Management 22 (6): 617–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panayides, P. (2003) Competitive strategies and organizational performance in ship management. Maritime Policy & Management 30 (2): 123–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, C.-S. and Han, I. (2002) A case-based reasoning with the feature weights derived by analytic hierarchy process for bankruptcy prediction. Expert Systems with Applications 23 (3): 255–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, G. and Wright, G. (1999) The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: Issues and analysis. International Journal of Forecasting 15 (3): 353–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. (1977) A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 15 (3): 234–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. (1980) Multicriteria Decision Making: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. (2008) Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal Services Sciences 1 (1): 83–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saeed, N. (2009) An analysis of carrier selection criteria when choosing container terminals in Pakistan. Maritime Economics and Logistics 11 (3): 270–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, R. (1997) Managing Delphi surveys using nonparametric statistical techniques. Decision Sciences 28 (3): 763–774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, S. and Henriques, I. (2005) Stakeholder influences on sustainability practices in the Canadian forest products industries. Strategic Management Journal 26 (2): 159–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slack, B. (1985) Containerisation, inter-port competition and port selection. Maritime Policy and Management 12 (4): 297–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sohn, K., Yang, J. and Kang, C. (2001) Assimilation of public opinions in nuclear decision making using risk perception. Annals of Nuclear Energy 28 (6): 553–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, D.-W. and Yeo, K.-T. (2004) A competitive analysis of Chinese container ports using the analytic hierarchy process. Maritime Economics & Logistics 6 (1): 34–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talley, W. (2009) Port Economics. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teng, J., Huang, W. and Huang, M. (2004) Multicriteria evaluation for port competitiveness of eight East Asian container ports. Journal of Marine Science and Technology 12 (4): 256–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiwari, P., Itoh, H. and Doi, M. (2003) Shippers’ containerized cargo transportation behaviour in China: A discrete choice analysis. Journal of Transportation Economics and Statistics 6 (1): 71–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tongzon, J. (2007) Determinants of competitiveness in logistics: Implications for the ASEAN region. Maritime Economics e Logistics 9 (1): 67–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tongzon, J. (2009) Port choice and freight forwarders. Transportation Research Part E 45 (1): 186–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tongzon, J. and Heng, W. (2005) Port privation, efficiency and competitiveness: Some empirical evidence from container port (terminals). Transportation Research Part A 39 (5): 405–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tzeng, G.-H., Teng, M.-H., Chen, J.-J. and Opricovic, S. (2002) Multicriteria selection for a restaurant location in Taipei. International Journal of Hospitality Management 21 (2): 171–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ugboma, C., Ugboma, O. and Ogwude, I. (2006) An analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach to port selection decisions – Empirical evidence from Nigerian ports. Maritime Economics and Logistics 8 (3): 251–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verhoeff, J. (1981) Seaport competition: Government production of port services. In: J. Verhoeff (ed.) Transport and Port Economic: Between Action and Abstraction. Leyden, MA: Stenfert.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, Z. (2000) On consistency of the weighted geometric mean complex judgement matrix in AHP. European Journal of Operational Research 126 (3): 683–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeo, K. and Song, D. (2006) An application of the hierarchical fuzzy process to container port competition: Policy and strategic implications. Transportation 33 (4): 409–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Management and Economics Department and NECE Research Unit, University of Beira Interior, Pólo IV – Edifício Ernesto Cruz, Covilhã, 6200-209, Portugal

    Maria Rosa Pires da Cruz, João J Ferreira & Susana Garrido Azevedo

Authors
  1. Maria Rosa Pires da Cruz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. João J Ferreira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Susana Garrido Azevedo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Appendices

Appendix A

The AHP survey

QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY FORM

The purpose of this survey is to assess your opinion towards the relative importance of five factors related to the competitiveness of seaports in a pair-comparison approach. The five factors include vessel turnaround time, proximity to import/export area, port equipment and facility, channel depth and intermodal links, whose details are described below. In respect of the pair-comparison, you are requested to express which factor is more important and how important the factor is compared with its counterparts. It is just two questions and will take at most 7 min to complete it. The answers are treated confidentially. Thank you!

PART I. GENERAL INFORMATION

The five factors are extracted from the previous studies as the vital attributes to seaport competitiveness. The definition of each factor is given below for your reference before going through the questions.

Seaport facilities and equipment: Infrastructure and equipment including information technology.

Channel depth: Depth of water access.

Intermodal links: Port accessibility by land and sea including port access by rail, road and barge.

Vessel turnaround time: Berthing delay and loading/discharging rate.

Proximity to import/export area: Proximity to cargo origin or destination.

In making pair-comparison of the relative importance between any two factors above, the following nine scales are used.

(1) Equal importance in case of both factors having the same weight.

(3) Fair importance in case of a factor having slightly more weight than the other factor.

(5) Strong importance in case of a factor having more weight than the other factor.

(7) Very Strong importance in case of a factor having much more weight than the other.

(9) Absolute importance in case of a factor having the absolute weight over the other factor.

Note: (2), (4) (6) and (8) are in the middle of each relevant scale (for example, (2) is between (1) and (3)).

PART II. PAIR COMPARISON

Question 1 – Which factor is more important and how important is it?

illustration

figure b

Question 2 – Based on the five factors above, evaluate the performance of the following seaports using a 5-point Likert scale: 1 ‘poor’; 2 ‘fair’; 3 ‘average’; 4 ‘good’ and 5 ‘excellent’.

illustration

figure a

Appendix B

Table B1

Table B1 Interpretation of Kendall’s W
Full size table

Appendix C

Table C1

Table C1 Test of normality of the five factors
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rosa Pires da Cruz, M., Ferreira, J. & Garrido Azevedo, S. Key factors of seaport competitiveness based on the stakeholder perspective: An Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) model. Marit Econ Logist 15, 416–443 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1057/mel.2013.14

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/mel.2013.14

Keywords

Search

Navigation