Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Port user typology and representations of port choice behavior: A Q-methodological study

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

Abstract

Research has identified many criteria that contribute to selecting a sea port, yet not much is known about how port users look at these criteria and how they argue on the factors that contribute to their port choice behavior. This study uses the Q methodology to explore the typology of port choice in conjunction with the port users’ own representations of their choice behavior. We employ an in-depth methodology that incorporates both quantitative and qualitative methods for an investigation of port choice behavior among port users particularly in South Korea. The analysis revealed four main types: Service- and corporation-oriented; Location and cost saver; On-time and task achiever; and Capacity and infrastructure friendly type. The results provide some implications and guidance for formulating policies and effective strategies for improving the competitiveness of port authorities and port operators.

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.M. (2007) Port competitiveness in container traffic from an internal point of view: The experience of the port of Algeciras bay. Maritime Policy & Management 34 (5): 501–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahn, W., Lim, S. and Ahn, S. (2006) A study on analyzing bottlenecks of logistics in Incheon Port: Focused on container freight. Korean Research of Logistics 14 (2): 65–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baek, I. and Ha, C. (2006) A study on deciding a container feeder port development priority. Journal of Fisheries and Marine Sciences Education 18 (2): 172–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S.R. (1980) Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, R.M. (2005) Exploring attitudes: The case for Q methodology. Health Education Research 20 (2): 206–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cullinane, K., Song, D. and Gray, R. (2002) A stochastic frontier model of the efficiency of major container terminals in Asia: Assessing the influence of administrative and ownership structures. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 36 (8): 743–762.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, H.C. (1983) Regional port impact studies: A critique and suggested methodology. Transportation Journal 23 (2): 61–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ducruet, C., Lee, S. and Roussin, S. (2009) Local strength, global weakness: A maritime network perspective on South Korea as Northeast Asia’s logistics hub. International Journal of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries 1 (1): 32–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frantzi, S., Carter, N.T. and Lovett, J.C. (2009) Exploring discourses on international environmental regime effectiveness with Q methodology: A case study of the Mediterranean action plan. Journal of Environmental Management 90 (1): 177–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • French, R.A. (1979) Competition among selected Eastern Canadian ports for foreign cargoes. Maritime Policy & Management 6 (1): 5–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ha, M. (2003) A comparison of service quality at major container ports: Implications for Korean ports. Journal of Transport Geography 11 (2): 131–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heaver, T.D. (1995) The implications of increased competition among ports for port policy and management. Maritime Policy and Management 22 (2): 125–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hung, S., Lu, W. and Wang, T. (2010) Benchmarking the operating efficiency of Asia container ports. European Journal of Operational Research 203 (3): 706–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, H. (2008) Q Methodology: Scientific Philosophy, Theory, Analysis and Application. Seoul: Communication Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J. (2012) A study on learners’ perceptional typology and relationships among the learners’ type, characteristics, and academic achievement in a blended environment. Computer & Education 59 (2): 304–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, M.R. and Windahl, S. (1984) Audience activity and gratification: A conceptual clarification and exploration. Communication Research 11 (1): 51–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lirn, T., Thnopoulou, H.A. and Beresford, A.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 

  • Mangan, J., Lalwani, C. and Gardner, B. (2002) Modeling port/ferry choice in RORO freight transportation. International Journal of Transport Management 1 (1): 15–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKeown, B. and Thomas, D. (1988) Q Methodology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nir, A., Lin, K. and Liang, G. (2003) Port choice behaviour – From the perspective of the shipper. Maritime Policy & Management 30 (2): 165–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roh, Y. and Kim, S. (2007) A study on the activation strategies by competitiveness analysis of Pyeontack port. Korean Journal of Distribution and Management 10 (4): 5–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T.L. (1994) How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. Interfaces 24 (6): 19–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slack, B. (1985) Containerization, inter-port competition, and port selection. Maritime Policy & Management 12 (4): 293–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sletmo, G.K. and Holste, S. (1993) Shipping and the competitive advantage of nations: The role of international ship registers. Maritime Policy & Management 20 (3): 243–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, D. (2009) Global maritime transport and logistics: Recent developments and implications for Asian container ports. International Journal of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries 1 (2): 27–37.

    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 privatization, efficiency and competitiveness: Some empirical evidence from container ports. Transportation Research Part A 39 (5): 405–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tongzon, J. and Sawant, L. (2007) Port choice in a competitive environment: From the shipping line’s perspective. Applied Economics 39 (4): 477–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walter, A. (1975) Marginal cost pricing in ports. The Logistics and Transportation Review 11 (4): 297–308.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to the anonymous reviewers and the editor-in-chief of this journal for their useful and constructive comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of General Studies, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology, UNIST-gil 50, Ulsan, 689-798, Republic of Korea

    Jin-Young Kim

Authors
  1. Jin-Young Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kim, JY. Port user typology and representations of port choice behavior: A Q-methodological study. Marit Econ Logist 16, 165–187 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1057/mel.2013.26

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/mel.2013.26

Keywords

Search

Navigation