Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Spatial Network Analysis of Container Port Operations: The Case of Ship Turnaround Times

  • Published:
Networks and Spatial Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This research investigates the determinants of ship turnaround times at about 2,300 container ports between 1977 and 2016, based on nearly 3 million daily vessel movements. It adopts a multilevel approach combining territorial and network indicators to characterize ports, and proposes a new methodology calculating shipping delays. Main results reveal that port connectivity, Gross Domestic Product per capita, the number of vessel calls, and island location foster efficient port operations. Conversely, urban population, voyage delays at sea, maximum ship size, and upstream location increase turnaround time. While average turnaround time and inter-port sailing time have both regularly declined, operational and technological changes in the ports and maritime sector - especially after the 2007/8 global financial crisis - accelerated intra-port time and slowed down inter-port time. This relational and spatial approach also underlines the geographic differentiation of ship times nationally and regionally, as it is far from being randomly distributed on the globe. ... Yutani, H.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to copyrights but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Notes

  1. The length of inter-port links is measured by the orthodromic (or “great-circle”, spherical) distance, namely the shortest distance between two connected ports at the surface of the Earth.

References

  • AbuAlhaol I, Falcon R, Abielmona R, Petriu E (2018) Mining port congestion indicators from big AIS data. Paper presented at the 2018 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), Rio de Janeiro, 8–13 July 2018

  • Alvarez JF (2012) Mathematical expressions for the transit time of merchandise through a liner shipping network. J Operational Res Soc 63:709–714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barthelemy M (2015) Spatial networks: tools and perspectives. In: Ducruet C (ed) Maritime Networks: Spatial Structures and Time Dynamics. Routledge, London and New York, pp 50–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernhofen DM, El-Sahli Z, Kneller R (2013) Estimating the effects of the container revolution on world trade. Lund University Working Paper 2013:4, Department of Economics, School of Economics and Management

  • Bird J (1963) The Major Seaports of the United Kingdom. Hutchinson, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark X, Dollar D, Micco A (2004) Port efficiency, maritime transport costs, and bilateral trade. J Dev Econ 75:417–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Langen PW, Nijdam M, van der Horst MR (2007) New indicators to measure port performance. J Marit Res 4:23–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Doi M, Tiwari P, Itoh H (2001) A computable general equilibrium analysis of efficiency improvements at Japanese ports. Rev Urban Reg Dev Stud 13(3):187–206

  • Ducruet C (2020) The geography of maritime networks: a critical review. J Transp Geogr 88:102824

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ducruet C, Itoh H, Berli J (2020a) Urban gravity in the global container shipping network. J Transp Geogr 85:102729

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ducruet C, Juhasz R, Nagy DK, Steinwender C (2020b) All aboard: the effects of port development. Natl Bureau Econ Res Work Pap 28148. https://www.nber.org/papers/w28148

  • Edmond ED, Maggs RP (1976) Container ship turnaround times at UK ports. Marit Policy Manag 4:3–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleming DK, Hayuth Y (1994) Spatial characteristics of transportation hubs: Centrality and Intermediacy. J Transp Geogr 2(1):3–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goss RO (1967) The turn-round of cargo liners and its effect upon sea-transport costs. Journal of Transport Economics 1:75–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Guerrero D, Rodrigue JP (2014) The waves of containerization: shifts in global maritime transportation. J Transp Geogr 35:151–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haddad EA, Hewings GJD, Perobelli FS, dos Santos RA (2010) Regional effects of port infrastructure: A spatial CGE application to Brazil. Int Reg Sci Rev 33:239–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hasheminia H, Jiang C (2017) Strategic trade-off between vessel delay and schedule recovery: an empirical analysis of container liner shipping. Marit Policy Manag 44(4):458–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayuth Y (1981) Containerization and the load center concept. Econ Geogr 57(2):160–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heaver TD, Studer TD (1972) Ship size and turnround time: Some empirical evidence. JTEP 6:32–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoyle BS (1989) The port-city interface: trends, problems, and examples. Geoforum 20(4):429–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hummels D (2001) Time as trade barrier. Purdue Cyber Working Paper 7, Purdue University, Krannert Graduate School of Management.

  • Itoh H (2002) Efficiency changes at major container ports in Japan: a window application of Data Envelopment Analysis. Rev Urban Reg Dev Stud 14(2):133–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Itoh H, Tiwari P, Doi M (2002) An analysis of cargo transportation behaviour in Kita Kanto (Japan). Int J Transport Econ 29:319–335

  • Jackson G (1985) History and Archaeology of British Ports. Littlehampton Book Services Ltd

  • Jones DA, Farkas JL, Bernstein O, Davis CE, Turk A, Turnquist MA, Nozick LK, Levine B, Rawls CB, Ostrowski SD, Sawaya W (2011) U.S. import/export container flow modeling and disruption analysis. Res Transp Econ 32:3–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le-Griffin HD, Murphy M (2006) Container terminal productivity: Experiences at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Paper presented at the METRANS National Urban Freight Conference. http://www.metrans.org/nuf/documents/Le-Murphy.pdf

  • Leachman RC, Payman J (2012) Estimating flow times for containerized imports from Asia to the United States through the Western rail network. Transp Res Part E 48:296–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ledger G, Roe M (1996) East European Change and Shipping Policy. Aldershot: Avebury

  • Levinson M (2006) The Box. Princeton University Press

  • Ma H, Zhu J (2021) Port congestion evaluation model based on ship Automatic Identification System. Paper presented at the 6th International Conference on Information Science, Computer Technology and Transportation, Xishuangbanna, China, 26–28 November 2021

  • Marnot B (2005) Interconnexion et reclassements : l’insertion des ports français dans la chaîne multimodale au XIXe siècle. Flux 59(1):10–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merk O, Hoffmann J, Haralambides H (2022) Post-COVID-19 scenarios for the governance of maritime transport and ports. Marit Econ Logist. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-022-00228-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moon DSH, Woo JK (2014) The impact of port operations on efficient ship operation from both economic and environmental perspectives. Marit Policy Manag 41(5):444–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordas HK, Pinali E, Grosso MG (2006) Logistics and time as a trade barrier. OECD Trade Policy Working Papers, No. 35, OECD Publishing

  • Notteboom TE (2006) The time factor in liner shipping services. Marit Econ Logist 8:19–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Notteboom TE (2016) The adaptive capacity of container ports in an era of mega vessels: The case of upstream seaports Antwerp and Hamburg. J Transp Geogr 54:295–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Notteboom TE, Cariou P (2013) Slow steaming in container liner shipping: is there any impact on fuel surcharge practices? Int J Logist Manage 24(1):73–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Notteboom TE, Pallis T, Rodrigue JP (2021) Disruptions and resilience in global container shipping and ports: the COVID-19 pandemic versus the 2008–2009 financial crisis. Marit Econ Logist 23:179–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nyema SM (2014) Factors influencing container terminals efficiency: A case study of Mombasa entry port. Eur J Logist Purchasing Supply Chain Manage 2(3):39–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Premathilaka WHV (2018) Determining the factors affecting the turnaround time of container vessels: a case study on Port of Colombo. Dissertation, Master of Science in Maritime Affairs, World Maritime University, Malmö, Sweden

  • Qi X, Song DP (2012) Minimizing fuel emissions by optimizing vessel schedules in liner shipping with uncertain port times. Transp Res Part E 48:863–880

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson R (1978) Size of vessels and turnround time: Further evidence from the port of Hong Kong. JTEP 12(2):161–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson R (2002) Ports as elements in value-driven chain systems: the new paradigm. Marit Policy Manag 29(3):241–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigue JP (1999) Globalization and the synchronization of transport terminals. J Transp Geogr 7(4):255–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigue JP, Notteboom TE (2010) Foreland-based regionalization: Integrating intermediate hubs with port hinterlands. Res Transp Econ 27(1):19–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saeed N, Larsen OI (2016) Application of queuing methodology to analyze congestion: A case study of the Manila International Container Terminal. Phil Case Stud Transport Policy 4(2):143–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saldanha JP, Russell DM, Tyworth JE (2006) A disaggregate analysis of ocean carriers’ transit time performance. Transp J 45:39–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez R, Hoffmann J, Micco A, Pizzolitto G, Sgut M, Wilmsmeier G (2003) Port efficiency and international trade: Port efficiency as a determinant of maritime transport cost. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 5, 199–218

  • Sequeira S, Djankov S (2008) On the waterfront: An empirical study of corruption in ports. MPRA Paper 21791, University Library of Munich, Germany

  • Slack B, Comtois C, Wiegmans B, Witte P (2018) Ships time in port. Int J Ship Transport Logist 10(1):45–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stergiopoulos G, Valvis E, Mitrodimas D, Lekkas D, Gritzalis D (2018) Analyzing congestion interdependencies of ports and container ship routes in the maritime network infrastructure. IEEE Access 6:63823–63832

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suarez-Aleman A, Trujillo L, Cullinane KPB (2014) Time at ports in short sea shipping: When timing is crucial. Marit Econ Logist 16:399–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talley WK, Ng M (2016) Port multi-service congestion. Transp Res Part E 94:66–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tiwari P, Itoh H, Doi M (2003) Shippers' port and carrier selection behaviour in China: a discrete choice analysis. Marit Econ Logist 5(1):23–39

  • Tongzon J (2001) Efficiency measurement of selected Australian and other international ports using Data Envelopment Analysis. Transp Res Part A 35A(2):107–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Tongzon J, Sawant L (2007) Port choice in a competitive environment: from the shipping lines’ perspective. Appl Econ 39:477–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vernimmen B, Dullaert W, Engelen S (2007) Schedule unreliability in liner shipping: Origins and consequences for the hinterland supply chain. Marit Econ Logist 9:193–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang S, Meng Q (2012) Liner ship route schedule design with sea contingency time and port time uncertainty. Transp Res Part B 46:615–633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilmsmeier G, Hoffmann J, Sanchez RJ (2006) The impact of port characteristics on international maritime transport costs. Res Transp Econ 16(1):117–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilmsmeier G, Tovar B, Sanchez RJ (2013) The evolution of container terminal productivity and efficiency under changing economic environments. Res Transp Bus Manag 8:50–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yan J, Sun X, Liu JJ (2009) Assessing container operator efficiency with heterogeneous and time-varying production frontiers. Transp Res Part B 43:172–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zondag B, Bucci P, Gützkow P, de Jong G (2010) Port competition modeling including maritime, port, and hinterland characteristics. Marit Policy Manag 37(3):179–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS), UMR 7235 EconomiX, Nanterre, France

    César Ducruet

  2. Kwansei Gakuin University, Nishinomiya, Japan

    Hidekazu Itoh

Authors
  1. César Ducruet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hidekazu Itoh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to César Ducruet.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that there is no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix 1 The results of influencing factors to ship turnaround time

Appendix 1 The results of influencing factors to ship turnaround time

Variables

a) ATT

b) ATT ratio

c) CVTT

pop ratio for yearly global average

0.024

***

0.023

***

-0.024

***

GDP per capita

-0.013

   

0.160

***

The share of trade value for GDP

0.106

***

0.126

***

0.021

***

Continental dummies

Africa

0.063

***

0.079

***

-0.020

***

East Asia

0.201

***

0.209

***

0.043

***

Latin America

0.039

***

0.044

***

0.008

 

North America

0.027

***

0.021

***

-0.009

*

Oceania

0.027

***

0.025

***

-0.040

***

West Asia

0.037

***

0.041

***

-0.033

***

Location dummies

island

-0.036

***

-0.038

***

0.056

***

upstream

0.064

***

0.073

***

-0.008

*

downstream

0.058

***

0.058

***

0.007

 

Total traffic (calls)

-0.086

***

-0.090

***

0.098

***

Vessel capacity (MAXDWT)

0.107

***

0.144

***

  

Degree centrality (K)

-0.209

***

-0.256

***

0.203

***

Betweenness centrality (BC)

0.084

***

0.101

***

-0.118

***

Inverse Clustering coefficient (invCC)

0.093

***

0.080

***

  

Link clustering coefficient (linkCC)

    

0.283

***

Average of shipping delay time

0.056

***

0.085

***

-0.014

***

Dispersion of shipping delay time

-0.077

***

-0.067

***

0.262

***

Adj. R2

0.105

0.140

0.678

  1. Parameters are standardized. “Europe” is baseline for continental dummy. “Coastal” is baseline for location dummy
  2. *10% significant
  3. **5% significant
  4. ***1% significant

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ducruet, C., Itoh, H. Spatial Network Analysis of Container Port Operations: The Case of Ship Turnaround Times. Netw Spat Econ 22, 883–902 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11067-022-09570-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11067-022-09570-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation