Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The effect of port and container terminal characteristics on terminal performance

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

Abstract

This study examines port and container terminal characteristics, and assesses how they affect performance. Little research has addressed the relationship between location, physical infrastructure (hard) and service (soft) characteristics, and container terminal performance. The present study fills this research gap. Performance is explained using a holistic perspective involving multivariate factors. A questionnaire sent to 12 container terminals in Portugal and Spain yielded 122 responses. Structural equation modelling confirmed the influence of port and terminal characteristics on container terminal performance. Performance was measured in terms of efficiency, activity and customer satisfaction. Five main characteristics were found to influence container terminal performance: regional and continental location, sea and land access, maritime shipping services, dynamism of port authorities, and terminal organization and logistics integration.

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

  • Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W. and Hunter, J.E. (1987) On the assessment of unidimensional measurement: Internal and external consistency, and overall consistency criteria. Journal of Marketing Research 24 (4): 432–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baird, A. (2006) Optimizing the container transhipment hub location in northern Europe. Journal of Transport Geography 14 (3): 195–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bichou, K. (2007) Review of port performance approaches and a supply chain framework to port performance benchmarking. In: M. R. Brooks and K. Cullinane (Eds.) Devolution, Port Governance and Port Performance. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 567–598.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bichou, K. and Gray, R. (2005) A critical review of conventional terminology for classifying seaports. Transportation Research Part A 39 (1): 75–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, K.A. (1989) Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, M. and Pallis, T. (2013) Considering the perspectives of port users. Port Technology International 60: 27–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruce, A. B. and Wesley, W. W. (2008) Port Efficiency and Trade Flows. Review of International Economics 16 (1): 21–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cachon, G. and Fisher, M. (2000) Supply chain inventory management and the value of shared information. Management Science 46 (8): 1032–1048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cahoon, S. (2007) Marketing communications for seaports: A matter of survival and growth. Maritime Policy and Management 34 (2): 151–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carbone, V. and De Martino, M. (2003) The changing role of ports in supply chain management: An impirtical analysis. Maritime Policy Management 30 (4): 305–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, Y., Lee, S. and Tongzon, J. (2008) Port selection factors by shipping lines: Different perspectives between trunk liners and feeder service providers. Journal of Marine Policy 32 (6): 877–885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheon, S. (2007) Evaluating Impacts of Institutional Reforms on Port Efficiency Changes Malmquist Productivity Index for World Container Ports. Berkeley, CA: Post-Doctoral research, University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheon, S. H., Dowall, D. E. and Song, D. W. (2010) Evaluating impacts of institutional reforms on port efficiency changes: Ownership, corporate structure, and total factor productivity changes of world container ports. Transportation Research Part E 46 (4): 546–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chou, C. C (2010) Application of FMCDM model to selecting the “hub” location in the marine transportation: A case study in southeastern Asia. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 51 (5-6): 791–801.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cochrane, R. A. (2008) The effects of market differences on the throughput of large container with similar levels of efficiency terminals. Maritime Economics and Logistics 10 (1-2): 35–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cullinane, K. and Wang, Y. (2009) Capacity-based measure of container port accessibility. International Journal of Logistics 12 (2): 103–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cullinane, K., Song, D.W., Ping, J. and Wang, T.F. (2004) An application of DEA windows analysis to container port production efficiency. Review of Network Economics 3 (2): 184–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Langen, P. (2004) Governance in seaport clusters. Maritime Economics & Logistics 6 (2): 141–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamantopoulos, A., Riefler, P. and Roth, K.P. (2008) Advancing formative measurement models. Journal of business research 61 (12): 1203–1218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dias, Q., Calado, F. and Mendonça, C. (2010) The role of European «ro-ro» port terminals in the automotive supply chain management. Journal of Transport Geography 18 (1): 116–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Estache, A., Perelman, S. and Trujillo, L. (2005) Infrastructure Performance and Reform in Developing and Transition Economies: Evidence from a Survey of Productivity Measures. World Bank Policy. Research Working Paper no. 3514. Washington DC.

  • Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1): 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeze, R. and Raschke, R.L. (2007) An Assessment of Formative and Reflective Constructs in IS Research. Paper presented at the ECIS, St. Gallen, Switzerland.

  • Garcia-Alonso, L. and Martin-Bofarull, M. (2007) Impact of port investment on efficiency and capacity to attract traffic in Spain: Bilbao versus Valencia. Maritime Economics and Logistics 9 (3): 254–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garver, M.S. and Mentzer, J.T. (1999) Logistics research methods: Employing structural equation modeling to test for construct validity. Journal of Business Logistics 20 (1): 33–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaur, P. (2005) Port Planning as a Strategic Tool: A Typology. Institute of Transport and Maritime Management. Antwerp, Belgium: University of Antwerp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez, M.M. and Trujillo, L. (2008) Reforms and infrastructure efficiency in Spain’s container ports. Transportation Research Part A 42 (1): 243–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, Jr. J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998) Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th edn. New York: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrera, S. and Pang, G. (2006) Efficiency of Infrastructure: The Case of Container Ports. Revista Economia 9 (1): 165–194.

    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 

  • Juang, Y. and Roe, M. (2010) Study on success factors of development strategies for intermodal freight transport systems. Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies 8: 722–732.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R.B. (2005) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd edn. New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Z. (1995) The comparative performance of public and private enterprises: the case of british ports, http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lonschool, The London School of Economics and Political Science, http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ubath. University of Bath.

  • Liu, W., Xu, H. and Zhao, X. (2009) Agile service oriented shipping companies in the container terminal. Transportation 24 (2): 143–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Notteboom, T. (2010) Concentration and the formation of multi-port gateway regions in the European container port system: An update. Journal of Transport Geography 18 (4): 567–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Notteboom, T. (2011) An application of multi-criteria analysis to the location of a container hub port in South Africa. Maritime Policy and Management 38 (1): 51–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Notteboom, T. and Rodrigue, J.P. (2009) The future of containerization: Perspectives from maritime and inland freight distribution. Geojournal 74 (1): 7–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Notteboom, T. and Rodrigue, J.P. (2011) Global networks in the container terminal operating industry part 2: The future direction of terminal networks. Port Technology International 50: 13–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Notteboom, T. and Winkelmans, W. (2004) Factual Report – Work Package 1: Overall Market Dynamics and Their Influence on the Port Sector. ITMMA, Belgium: European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO).

    Google Scholar 

  • Notteboom, T., Coeck, C. and Van Den Broeck, J. (2000) Measuring and explaining the relative efficiency of container terminals by means of Bayesian stochastic frontiers models. International journal of maritime economics 2 (2): 83–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onut, S., Tuzkaya, U. and Torun, E. (2011) Selecting container port via a fuzzy ANP-based approach: A case study in the Marmara Region, Turkey. Transport Policy 18 (1): 182–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panayides, P.M. and Song, D.W. (2009) Port integration in global supply chains: Measures and implications for maritime logistics. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 12 (2): 133–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pando, J., Araujo, A. and Maqueda, F.J. (2005) Marketing management at the world’s major ports. Maritime Policy and Management 31 (2): 93–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pardali, A. and Kounoupas, E. (2007) The application of marketing strategies in the container seaport market. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Maritime Transport and Maritime History, Barcelona, Spain.

  • Park, R.K. and De, P. (2004) An alternative approach to efficiency measurement of seaports. Maritime Economics and Logistics 6 (1): 53–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poitras, G., Tongzon, J. and Li, H. (1996) Measuring Port Efficiency: An Application of Data Envelopment Analysis. Department of Economics and Statistics, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Unpublished Working paper.

  • Robinson, R. (2002) Ports as elements in value-driven chain systems: The new paradigm. Maritime Policy and Management 29 (3): 241–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, M. J. and Yu, S. J. (2009) Performance based stratification and clustering for benchmarking of container terminals. Expert Systems with Applications 36 (3): 5016–5022.

    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 and Logistics 6 (1): 34–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2001) Using Multivariate Statistics, 4th edn. New York: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Talley, W.K. (2006) Port performance: An economics perspective. In: Devolution, port governance and port performance. Research in Transportation Economics 22: 499–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tongzon, J. (2002) Port choice determinants in a competitive environment. Paper presented at the Conference. IAME Panama 2002 Conference Proceedings, Panama.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Tongzon, J., Chang, Y. and Lee, S. (2009) How supply chain oriented is the port sector? International Journal of Production Economics 122 (1): 21–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trujillo, L. and Tovar, B. (2007) The European port industry: An analysis of its economic efficiency. Maritime Economics and Logistics 9 (2): 148–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, H., Windle, R. and Desner, M. (2004) North American container port productivity: 1984–1997. Transportation Research Part E 40 (4): 339–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veldman, S. J. and Buckmann, E. H. (2003) A model on container port competition: An application for the West-European container “hub”-ports. Maritime Economics and Logistics 5 (1): 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, T.F. and Cullinane, K. (2006) The efficiency of European container terminals and implications for supply chain management. Maritime Economics & Logistics 8 (1): 82–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiegmans, B. (2003) Performance conditions for container terminals. Maritime Economics & Logistics 6 (3): 276–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woo, S., Petit, S. and Beresford, A. (2011) Port evolution and performance in changing logistics environment. Maritime Economics & Logistics 13 (3): 250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yap, W. and Notteboom, T. (2011) Dynamics of liner shipping service. Maritime Policy and Management 38 (5): 471–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, X., Xie, J. and Zhang, W.J. (2002) The impact of information sharing and ordering coordination on supply chain performance. Supply Chain Management 7 (1): 24–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zohil, J. and Prijon, M. (1999) The MED rule: The interdependence of container throughput and “transhipment” amounts in the Mediterranean ports. Maritime Policy and Management 26 (2): 175–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Economics and Management, Technical University of Lisbon, Rua Miguel Lupi 20, Lisbon, 1249-078, Portugal

    J Augusto Felício

  2. School of Economics and Management, Centre of Studies and Management, Rua Miguel Lupi 20, Lisbon, 1249-078, Portugal

    Vítor Caldeirinha

  3. CEFAGE-UE, Évora University (UE), Largo dos Colegiais 2, 7004–516 Évora, Portugal

    Andreia Dionísio

Authors
  1. J Augusto Felício
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vítor Caldeirinha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andreia Dionísio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Felício, J., Caldeirinha, V. & Dionísio, A. The effect of port and container terminal characteristics on terminal performance. Marit Econ Logist 17, 493–514 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1057/mel.2014.33

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/mel.2014.33

Keywords

Search

Navigation