A novel quantitative approach to the choice of transshipment container port in the Eastern Mediterranean basin

Abstract

In container transportation by sea, it is crucial to define the transshipment design. Liner operators desire not only to reduce operational costs but also to maximize customer satisfaction. Therefore, a transshipment hub port selection problem becomes at the front to gaining productive transshipment ability. The study aims to apply an alternative approach to determine the best transshipment hub port for a northbound container ship entering the Eastern Mediterranean basin through the Suez Channel. The proposed model consists of criteria that are weighted with the AHP method and numerical data regarding each criterion is used to rank the alternatives. Thus, as a decision-maker, the line operator can determine the transshipment port quickly using an easily applicable method upon determining the port calls and the schedules. The findings imply that connectivity is the most important criterion for the choice of transshipment hub port for containerized goods. The location was also found important for this choice, but to improve transshipment function, the proper way may be to draw beneficial strategies on maritime connectivity. On the other hand, capital investments such as superstructure improvement were found to be less important for an attractive transshipment hub.

Keywords

• Transportation
• Container
• Transshipment
• AHP
• TOPSIS

Doğu Akdeniz havzasında aktarma konteyner limanı seçimine yeni bir niceliksel yaklaşım

Abstract

Deniz yoluyla konteyner taşımacılığında aktarma tasarımının tanımlanması büyük önem taşımaktadır. Liner operatörleri sadece operasyonel maliyetleri azaltmak değil, aynı zamanda müşteri memnuniyetini de en üst düzeye çıkarmak istiyor. Bu nedenle, verimli aktarma yeteneğinin kazanılmasında aktarma merkezi limanı seçimi problemi ön plana çıkmaktadır. Çalışma, Süveyş Kanalı üzerinden Doğu Akdeniz havzasına giren kuzey yönlü bir konteyner gemisi için en iyi aktarma merkezi limanını belirlemek amacıyla alternatif bir yaklaşım uygulamayı amaçlamaktadır. Önerilen model, AHP yöntemiyle ağırlıklandırılmış kriterlerden oluşmakta ve alternatiflerin sıralanmasında her bir kritere ilişkin sayısal veriler kullanılmaktadır. Böylece karar verici olarak hat operatörü, liman uğraklarını ve tarifelerini belirleyerek, kolay uygulanabilir bir yöntem kullanarak aktarma limanını hızlı bir şekilde belirleyebilir. Bulgular, konteynerle taşınan mallar için aktarma merkezi limanının seçiminde bağlantının en önemli kriter olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu seçim için lokasyonun da önemli olduğu görüldü ancak aktarma işlevini geliştirmek için doğru yol, deniz bağlantısı konusunda faydalı stratejiler belirlemek olabilir. Öte yandan üstyapının iyileştirilmesi gibi sermaye yatırımlarının cazip bir aktarma merkezi için daha az önemli olduğu görülmüştür.

Keywords

• AHP
• TOPSIS
• Ulaşım
• Aktarma
• Konteynır

References

1. ASSAN PORT, (2023). Accessed Date: 26 November 2023, https://www.assanport.com.tr/tr-tr/kurumsal/hakkimizda is retrieved.
2. Ateş, A. (2010). Efficiency Analysis of Container Terminals at Turkey. Ph.D. Thesis. Atatürk University, Erzurum, Turkey.
3. Atak, E.C., Esmer, S. (2021). Ulaştırmada Altyapı Yatırımlarının Liman Hinterlandına Etkileri. Journal of Maritime Transport and Logistics, 2 (2), 72-81.
4. Ateş, A., Esmer, S. (2011). DEA with Efficiency Analysis of Turkey Container Terminals, 12th International Symposium on Econometrics Statistics and Operations Research, Denizli.
5. Aykar, D.A, Çetin, İ.B. (2019). Relative Efficiency Analysis of Container Terminals in Turkey, Fifth International Mediterranean Social Sciences Congress, Podgorica, Montenegro.
6. Baştuğ, S., Haralambides, H., Esmer, S., Eminoğlu, E. (2021). Port competitiveness: Do container terminal operators and liner shipping companies see eye to eye? Marine Policy, 135, 104866. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104866.
7. Bogetoft, P., Otto, L. (2022). Benchmarking with DEA and SFA, R package version 0.31.
8. Brian, S. (1985). Containerization: inter-port competition and port selection, Maritime Policy and Management, 12 (4), 293–303.

9. Bucak, U., Esmer, S. (2019). The Components of the Port Hinterland Performance: A Literature Review Study, III. Global Conference on Innovation in Marine Technology and the Future of Maritime Transportation.
10. Chou, C.C. (2007). A Fuzzy MCDM Method for Solving Marine Transshipment Container Port Selection Problems. Applied Mathematics and Computation 186 (1): 435-44. doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2006.07.125.
11. Ernst, G.F. (2001). Economics of transportation in container shipping logistics, in: Inaugural International Conference on Port and Maritime R&D and Technology, Singapore.
12. EUROGATE, (2023). EUROGATE Limassol Container Terminal. Accessed Date: 26 November 2023, https://www1.eurogate.de/en/Terminals/Limassol is retrieved.
13. Georgoulas, D., Koliousis, I., Papadimitriou, S. (2023). An AHP enabled port selection multi-source decision support system and validation: Insights from the ENIRISST project. Journal of Shipping and Trade, 8(1), 1-11. doi: 10.1186/s41072-023-00144-x.
14. Haktanır, E., Kahraman, C. (2024). Integrated AHP & TOPSIS Methodology Using Intuitionistic Z-Numbers: An Application on Hydrogen Storage Technology Selection. Expert Systems with Applications 239(2): 122382. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2023.122382.
15. Kavirathna, C., Kawasaki, T., Hanaoka, S., Matsuda, T. (2018). Transshipment hub port selection criteria by shipping lines: The case of hub ports around the Bay of Bengal, Journal of Shipping and Trade, 3(1), 4. doi: 10.1186/s41072-018-0030-5.
16. LIMAK PORT, (2023). LIMAK ISKENDERUN Container Port. Accessed Date: 26 November 2023, https://www.limakports.com.tr/tr/limakports/tarihce is retrieved.
17. Mary, B. (2000). Sea Change in Liner ShippingRegulation and Management Decision-making in a Global Industry, Elsevier Science Ltd., Oxford, UK.
18. Meng, Q., Wang, S. (2011). Liner shipping service network design with empty container repositioning. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 47(5), 695-708. doi: 10.1016/j.tre.2011.02.004.
19. Merk, O. Bagis, O. (2013). The Competitiveness of Global Port-Cities: the Case of Mersin - Turkey, OECD Regional Development Working Papers, 2013/01, OECD Publishing, doi: 10.1787/5k4c43014plt-en.
20. MIP, (2023). Mersin International Port. Accessed Date: 26 November 2023, https://www.mersinport.com.tr/tr/ hakkimizda/detay/hakkimizda/13/1/0 is retrieved.
21. Moschovou, T.P., Kapetanakis, D. (2023). A Study of the Efficiency of Mediterranean Container Ports: A Data Envelopment Analysis Approach. Civil Engineering, 4(3), 726–739. doi: 10.3390/civileng4030041.
22. Mu, E., Pereyra-Rojas, M. (2018). The Need for Another Decision-Making Methodology. In: Practical Decision Making using Super Decisions v3. SpringerBriefs in Operations Research. Springer, Cham. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-68369-0_1.
23. Munier, N., Hontoria, E. (2021). The hierarchical structure" in Uses and Limitations of the AHP Method: A Non-Mathematical and Rational Analysis, Springer International Publishing, 5-13.
24. Mulder, J., Dekker, R. (2017). Optimisation in container liner shipping. In: Geerlings H, Kuipers B, Zuidwijk R (eds) Ports and networks. Strategies, operations, and perspectives. Routledge, London, 181–203.
25. Notteboom, T., Satta, G., Persico, L., Vottero, B., Rossi, A. (2023). Operational productivity and financial performance of pure transhipment hubs versus gateway terminals: An empirical investigation on Italian container ports. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 47, 100967. doi: 10.1016/j.rtbm.2023.100967.
26. Rosa Pires da Cruz, M., Ferreira, J., Garrido Azevedo, S. (2013). Key factors of seaport competitiveness based on the stakeholder perspective: An Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) model. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 15, 416–443. doi: 10.1057/mel.2013.14.
27. Saaty, T.L. (2008). Decision Making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1, 83. doi: 10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590.
28. Saaty, T.L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York.
29. Saaty, T.L. (1990). How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48, 9-26. doi: 10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I.
30. Sternberg, R.W. (2000). The successful factors of an ocean transshipment center, the case study of one Italian port, The Journal of Chinese Ports, 29 (2), 13–18.
31. UNCTAD, (2023). United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Port Liner Connectivity Index. https://unctadstat.unctad.org/datacentre/dataviewer/US.PLSCI is retrieved.
32. UNCTAD (2017). Review of Maritime Transport, Maritime Transport Connectivity. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/rmt 2017ch6_en.pdf is retrieved.
33. Xiangda, L., Peng, Y., Guo, Y., Wang, W., Song. X. (2023). An Integrated Simulation and AHP-Entropy-Based NR TOPSIS Method for Automated Container Terminal Layout Planning. Expert Systems with Applications 225(3): 120197. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2023.120197.