An Analysis of Traditional Storage Methods in Container Ports by Fuzzy AHP Method in the Context of Resource-Based View: A Systematic Recommendation

Abstract

With the increase in container traffic day by day, the need for container fields and ports is increasing at the same rate. In this context, back-storage problems, especially in container terminals, limit port capacities. Therefore, port capacity increases are needed. On the other hand, there are cases where new ports were built in more distant areas from industrial zones due to location problems. This situation both increases transportation costs and puts production facilities at a disadvantage in terms of carbon emissions. In addition, while determining the capacities in the back-storage areas, weather conditions, backyard stacking equipment height limitations and the self-lifting capacities of the containers should be taken into account. In this study, criteria defining the bottlenecks of conventional container stacking systems were determined and analyzed. The results show that the most important criterion is 'Equipment Limitations'. This causes the limitation in the stacking height that determines the port capacity. For this reason, determining a stacking system that can respond to the anticipated capacity increase in the future with appropriate strategic approaches is considered to be the most competitive approach in terms of resource-based view. In this context, highbay container storage-stacking systems will bring competitive advantage to ports trying to solve capacity problems in terms of advantages such as high storage capacities in limited port areas, high operational efficiency, green energy production and lower carbon footprint.

Keywords

• Container Ports
• High Bay Container Storage Systems
• Resource-Based View
• Fuzzy AHP

Konteyner Limanlarında Geleneksel İstifleme Yöntemlerinin Kaynak Temelli Yaklaşım Bağlamında Bulanık AHP Yöntemiyle Analizi: Sistemsel Bir Öneri

Öz

Konteyner trafiğinin her geçen gün artması ile konteyner sahalarına ve limanlarına olan ihtiyaç gün geçtikçe aynı oranda artmaktadır. Bu bağlamda, özellikle konteyner terminallerdeki geri saha problemleri liman kapasitelerini sınırlamaktadır. Bu nedenle, liman kapasite artışlarına ihtiyaç duyulmaktadır. Diğer taraftan, yeni limanların yer problemleri nedeni ile sanayi bölgelerinden daha uzak bölgelere inşa edilmesi durumları ortaya çıkmaktadır. Bu durum hem ulaşım maliyetlerini artırmakta hem de karbon emisyonları bakımından üretim tesislerini dezavantajlı duruma getirmektedir. Ayrıca, geri-depo sahalarında kapasiteler belirlenirken hava şartları, geri saha istif ekipman kat sınırlamaları ve konteynerlerin zati kaldırma kapasiteleri dikkate alınmalıdır. Bu çalışmada geleneksel konteyner istifleme sistemlerinin darboğazlarını tanımlayan kriterler belirlenmiş ve Bulanık AHP yöntemi ile analiz edilmiştir. Elde edilen sonuçlar en önemli kriterin ‘Ekipman Sınırlamaları’ olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Bu da liman kapasitesini belirleyen istifleme yüksekliğindeki sınırlamaya sebep olmaktadır. Bu nedenle, gelecekte ihtiyaç duyulması öngörülen kapasite artışına cevap verebilecek bir istifleme sisteminin uygun stratejik yaklaşımlarla belirlenmesi kaynak temelli yaklaşım açısından da en rekabetçi yaklaşım olması düşünülmektedir. Bu bağlamda, çok katlı konteyner istifleme sistemleri, kısıtlı liman sahasında yüksek istifleme kapasiteleri, yüksek operasyonel verimlilik, yeşil enerji üretimine olanak vermesi ve daha düşük karbon ayak izi gibi avantajları bakımından kapasite problemlerini gidermeye çalışan limanlar için rekabetçi avantaj getirecektir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Konteyner Limanları
• Yüksek Katlı Depolama Sistemleri
• Kaynak Temelli Yaklaşım
• Bulanık AHP

Kaynakça

1. Akar, O. And Esmer, S. (2015). Cargo Demand Analysis of Container Terminals in Turkey. Journal of ETA Maritime Science, 3 (2), 117-122.
2. Alexandri, I. O., Yuan, M., Zhou, C., ve Xue, L. (2022). Efficiency Analysis of a High-bay Container Storage System–BoxBay. Paper Presented in IEEE 18th International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE), Mexico City, Mexico, August 20-24, 2022.
3. Baird, A. J. (2002). The economics of container transhipment in Northern Europe. International Journal of Maritime Economics, 4(3), 249-280. Balcı, G., Cetin, I. B., ve Esmer, S. (2018). An evaluation of competition and selection criteria between dry bulk terminals in Izmir. Journal of Transport Geography, 69, 294-304.
4. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management 17 (1), 99–120.
5. Baştuğ, S., Haralambides, H., Esmer, S., ve Eminoğlu, E. (2022). Port competitiveness: Do container terminal operators and liner shipping companies see eye to eye?. Marine Policy, 135, 104866.
6. BOXBAY (2023). High Bay Storage System, https://www.boxbay.com/boxbay-high-bay-storage [Çevrimiçi] [Erişim Tarihi: 02.04.2023]
7. Bozhilov, N. (2021). The Potential Power Struggle Behind Logistics Electrification, The Logistics Point, http://www.thelogisticspoint.com/2021/02/15/the-potential-power-struggle-behind-logistics-electrification/[Çevrimiçi] [Erişim Tarihi: 30.05.2023]
8. Buckley, J. J. (1985). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy sets and systems, 17(3), 233-247.

9. Çelik, E. ve Akyuz, E. (2018). An interval type-2 fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS methods for decision-making problems in maritime transportation engineering: the case of ship loader. Ocean engineering, 155, 371-381.
10. Cho, H. ve Kim, S. (2015). Examining container port resources and environments to enhance competitiveness: a cross-country study from resource-based and institutional perspectives. The Asian journal of shipping and logistics, 31(3), 341-362.
11. Cho, H. ve Ha, Y. (2009). Determinants of FDI inflow in regional port with resource-based view and institutional theory: a case of Pohang-Yeongil port. The Asian journal of shipping and logistics, 25(2), 305-331.
12. Demirel, H., Balın, A., Çelik, E., ve Alarçin, F. (2018). A fuzzy AHP and ELECTRE method for selecting stabilizing device in ship industry. Brodogradnja: Teorija i praksa brodogradnje i pomorske tehnike, 69(3), 61-77.
13. Gordon, J. R., Lee, P. M., ve Lucas Jr, H. C. (2005). A resource-based view of competitive advantage at the Port of Singapore. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 14(1), 69-86.
14. Gümüş, A. T., Yayla, A. Y., Çelik, E., ve Yildiz, A. (2013). A combined fuzzy-AHP and fuzzy-GRA methodology for hydrogen energy storage method selection in Turkey. Energies, 6(6), 3017-3032.
15. JFE Engineering Corporation (2023). Container Hangar, chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.tptc.co.jp/cms/corporate/file/file2015/ContainerHangar.pdf. [Erişim Tarihi: 18.07.2023].
16. Kim, A. R., Lee, S. W., ve Seo, Y. J. (2022). How to control and manage vessels’ ballast water: The perspective of Korean shipping companies. Marine Policy, 138, 105007.
17. Kim, J., & Morrison, J. R. (2012). Offshore port service concepts: classification and economic feasibility. Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal, 24, 214-245.
18. Koroleva, E., Sokolov, S., Makashina, I., ve Filatova, E. (2020). Digital maritime container terminal-An element of digitalization of container transportation systems. Paper presented in E3S Web of Conferences, Blagoveshchensk, Russia, September 23-24, 2020.
19. Kurt, I., Aymelek, M., Boulougouris, E., & Turan, O. (2021). Operational cost analysis for a container shipping network integrated with offshore container port system: A case study on the West Coast of North America. Marine Policy, 126, 104400.
20. Kurt, I., Boulougouris, E., & Pachakis, D. (2023). Comparative technical-economic evaluation of offshore container port systems. Ships and Offshore Structures, 1-13.
21. Li, K. X., Lin, K. C., Jin, M., Yuen, K. F., Yang, Z., ve Xiao, Y. (2020). Impact of the belt and road initiative on commercial maritime power. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 135, 160-167.
22. Lirn, T. C., Thanopoulou, H. A., Beynon, M. J., ve Beresford, A. K. (2015). An application of AHP on transhipment port selection: a global perspective. Port Management, 314-338.
23. Magala, M. (2008). Modelling opportunity capture: a framework for port growth. Maritime Policy & Management, 35(3), 285-311.
24. Mollaoğlu, M., Bucak, U., ve Demirel, H. (2019). A quantitative analysis of the factors that may cause occupational accidents at ports. Journal of ETA Maritime Science, 7(4), 294-303.
25. Nazemzadeh, M., ve Vanelslander, T. (2015). The container transport system: Selection criteria and business attractiveness for North-European ports. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 17(2), 221-245.
26. Pachakis, D., Libardo, A., & Menegazzo, P. (2017). The Venice offshore-onshore terminal concept. Case studies on transport policy, 5(2), 367-379.
27. Robinson, R. (2002). Ports as elements in value-driven chain systems: the new paradigm. Maritime Policy & Management, 29(3), 241-255.
28. Schuler (2018). High Bay Storage System Could ‘Revolutionize’ Container Handling in Ports, https://gcaptain.com/high-bay-storage-system-could-revolutionize-container-handling-in-ports/. [Erişim Tarihi: 30.05.2023]
29. Subhan, M., Bashawir, A. ve Ghani A. (2008). Analyzing growth opportunity of port from the resource-based perspective. Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business, 10(3), 353-373.
30. Tseng, P. H., ve Cullinane, K. (2018). Key criteria influencing the choice of Arctic shipping: a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process model. Maritime Policy & Management, 45(4), 422-438.
31. TÜRKLİM (2022). Türkiye Limancılık Sektörü 2022 Raporu: Vizyon 2050. TÜRKLİM Yayınları: İstanbul.
32. Tokyo Port Terminal Corporation (2023). Enhancements of Terminal Functions (Development of innovative Container Hanger at Ohi Container Terminal No6), https://www.tptc.co.jp/cms/corporate/file/file2015/ContainerHangar.pdf [Çevrimiçi] [Erişim Tarihi: 02.04.2023]
33. Zaerpour, N., Gharehgozli, A., ve De Koster, R. (2019). Vertical expansion: A solution for future container terminals. Transportation Science, 53(5), 1235-1251.