Abstract
The establishment of direct connections between countries in container shipping is largely driven by the underlying trade dynamics. It is also the joint result of various other contributing factors, ranging from land infrastructure to carrier strategies. The literature to date has only partially focused on some of the factors that in theory may affect the establishment of direct connections but has mainly focused on the positive impact that a direct connection between two countries may have on bilateral trade development. However, there has been only limited research on the systematic identification of the factors that should be in place, to promote or prevent the establishment of a direct link between countries in container shipping. This paper attempts to fill this gap by undertaking a Systematic Literature Review that examines the issue from various perspectives and classifies the previous research under five themes: (1) Shipping Network, (2) Connectivity, (3) Port Selection Criteria, (4) Trade and (5) Alternative Transport Modes. A framework is subsequently developed which identifies the set of factors that determine the establishment of direct container shipping connections between trading countries and the expected impact (positive, negative or ambiguous) of each factor. The insights from our research and the framework developed can be of use to interested stakeholders across the research and policy domains who have an interest in both the establishment and continuation of direct container shipping connections between trading countries.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Container shipping and the globalised container shipping network allow importers and exporters of intermediate and manufactured goods to trade with remote partners in foreign countries. Bilateral trade between countries may be supported by either a direct connection or a connection via a third country. Τhus, the quality of connectivity to international markets is of critical importance for the containerised trade of a country (Fugazza 2015; de Benedictis and Tajoli 2011). A direct connection between countries is defined as the shipping link which does not involve transhipment via a third country. In container shipping, vessels may stop at multiple ports en route and some containers may be loaded or discharged at each port. However, if a container remains onboard a vessel during its transportation between two countries, regardless of the number of port calls before it reaches its destination port, then this is still regarded as a direct connection (Fugazza et al. 2014). The existence of direct links can also promote trade, because they offer proximity to specific hinterlands with limited or no need for transhipment (Tran and Haasis 2018).
Ducruet and Notteboom (2012b) noted that although the shape of the shipping network follows the trade patterns, it is also characterised by other practical intricacies, comprising technological factors (e.g. infrastructure), as well as territorial factors (e.g. socio-economic developments). Fugazza and Hoffmann (2017) showed that the absence of a direct connection between two countries is correlated to lower export values, and additional transhipment is likely to be associated to 40% less bilateral exports value. Calatayud et al. (2017) showed that a shipping network does not perfectly overlap with the corresponding trade network: a reflection of a hub-and-spoke shipping network organisation which, however, ensures the continuous trade flow between countries. Ultimately, the connectivity of the nodes that form a shipping network is largely dictated by carrier strategies. Wilmsmeier and Notteboom (2011) identified four phases in the development of liner shipping networks: (1) direct services to serve local or regional needs; (2) intermediate hubs to serve the need for further connections overseas; (3) further access to the broader hub-and-spoke network by various ports; and (4) the volumes of several ports are large enough to attract the interest of shipping lines for direct connections to overseas regions. Consequently, the connection of two countries is a decision associated with the strategy of the shipping companies (i.e. network design) and affects operations. At the same time, this decision is largely driven by short-term choices on a tactical level and reflects the market responsiveness of the company (Meng et al. 2014).
In the context of this paper, the establishment of a direct connection refers to the initiation and continuation of an international shipping link between two trading countries. The existing literature has interchangeably used terms such as “countries”, “economies” and “partners” to describe the corresponding international trade relationships. In the context of this paper, the term “country” refers to territories with political independence (The World Bank 2022) controlled by their own government (Britannica 2022). The paper reports on a systematic literature review which was conducted to examine the different perspectives adopted in the relevant literature, with the intention to identify the factors that may encourage—or discourage—the establishment of a direct shipping connection between two trading countries. Specifically, the systematic literature review aims to answer the following Research Question: what are the factors that liner shipping companies consider in order to establish a direct shipping connection between two trading countries?
The paper is organised as follows: Sect. 2 describes the systematic literature review methodology employed; Sect. 3 details the results obtained; Sect. 4 discusses the findings in groups of distinct themes and summarises the use of the results; and finally, Sect. 5 concludes the paper and outlines recommendations for further research.
2 Systematic literature review (SLR)
2.1 Theoretical background and approach
A systematic literature review follows an audit structure which is clearly documented and includes all relevant decisions regarding the process and the outcome of the decisions made by the researcher (Cook et al. 1997). The method avoids the possible bias introduced by the implicit likings of the researcher, achieving thoroughness (Wang and Notteboom 2014) and thus making a decisive step towards scientific conclusions (Rousseau et al. 2008). In a systematic literature review, the collected evidence is summarised by a well-defined and explicit methodology and this ultimately differentiates the systematic approach from traditional approaches (Khan et al. 2003, Lavissière et al. 2020).
Following the approach outlined by Tranfield et al. (2003), the majority of systematic approaches to literature review are organised in discreet phases, either in broad stages (e.g. Parola et al. (2017) or in detailed steps [e.g. (Fruth and Teuteberg 2017; Lavissière et al. 2020; Raza et al. 2020; Wang and Notteboom 2014)]. In our SLR, we combine the 3-stage approach of Parola et al. (2017) with the respective 5-step structure applied by Wang and Notteboom (2014) (Fig. 1). The format followed by Parola et al. (2017) and Wang and Notteboom (2014) indicates that although these authors have followed two different approaches (the former in stages, the latter in steps) they share a similar rationale which can form a single framework. The stages outline the milestones of our methodology. The corresponding steps within stages outline the detailed actions taken in order to reach each of the milestones. The first stage relates to the Planning of the review and corresponds to the formulation of the Review Question (2.2). The second stage proceeds with the Execution of the review and includes the search and collection of the studies (2.3) as well as their evaluation and selection according to preset criteria (2.4). Finally, the third stage comprises the Reporting of the results. This starts with the Analysis and Synthesis of the findings (3.1) and—following the discussion of the results—concludes with the Use of the results (4.2).
2.2 Formulating review question
Routes in container shipping are organised as sequences of port calls which collectively form the container shipping network. The consideration towards establishing pairwise connections may be triggered by specific dynamics (e.g. the momentum of bilateral trade) but may ultimately depend on whether specific countries constitute good candidates in a carrier’s route sequence. Hence, the review was designed to include previous studies that have discussed routes in a container shipping network context, with a particular focus on direct connections.
Consequently, the SLR has been conducted as a structured deep-dive into the existing literature, with the intention to provide insights to the Research Question (SLR Step 1—Planning Stage) which, as already noted above, is: what are the factors that liner shipping companies consider in order to establish a direct shipping connection between two trading countries?
Thus, during the review of each publication, the researchers aimed to systemically identify references to factors that could promote or, respectively, prevent a direct shipping connection between two trading countries.
2.3 Searching/collecting studies
A core step of a systematic literature review is the identification of the search keywords in accordance with the scope of the study (SLR Step 2—Execution stage). We applied a series of queries which utilised relevant keywords in accordance with the study scope.
The body of the SLR was built by interrogating the Scopus database. However, the main research queries were also fed to Google Scholar, so as to broaden the research (Fruth and Teuteberg 2017), and possibly include other sources and publications, generated and published outside of the acknowledged academic channels, such as working papers or reports by national or international institutions (Calatayud et al. 2016).
Thus, Query 1 was input to Scopus and included the keywords of “route”, “network”, “container shipping” and “liner shipping”. The search was enriched with a set of Boolean (i.e. AND, OR) operators (Raza et al. 2020) and also allowed for possible variances (Fruth and Teuteberg 2017) of the utilised keywords (i.e. rout*, network*). The search was executed based on title, abstract and keywords:
Query 1: TITLE-ABS-KEY (“rout*” OR “network*” AND “container shipping” OR “liner shipping”).
Since the focus of the research is towards direct routes, the results of Query 1 were thoroughly studied with the aim to identify synonyms of “route” which have been used in the literature in conjunction with “direct”. This effort revealed a set of additional keywords, comprising “call”, “shipment”, “operation”, “delivery”, “service”, “connection”, “transport”, “link”, and “port” as well as their variances. The new set of keywords formed Query 2 which was also applied to the Scopus database as follows and yielded 57 additional publications:
Query 2: TITLE-ABS-KEY (“direct”) AND (“rout*” OR “call*”OR “ship*” OR “operation*” OR “deliver*” OR “service*” OR “connect*” OR “transport*” OR “link*” OR “port*”) AND (“container shipping” OR “liner shipping”).
As noted above, the research was extended to Google Scholar in order to widen the potential results. Thus, Query 3 was executed as a repeat of Query 1 and 2 on a Google Scholar search (full article):
Query 3: Query 1–2 on Google Scholar.
In order to explore any parallels and good practices with regard to routes for other transport modes, Query 1 was also applied to Scopus by substituting the shipping element with “rail freight” or “railfreight” or “air freight” or “airfreight”.
Query 4: TITLE-ABS-KEY (“rout*” OR “network*” AND (“rail freight” OR “railfreight”) OR (“air freight” OR “airfreight”)).
Finally, with the aim of accounting for any omitted relevant publications, we applied the Snowballing technique (Raza et al. 2020; Fruth and Teuteberg 2017) which allows a researcher to track additional literature by using a reviewed paper as a starting point.
2.4 Evaluating and selecting the relevant studies
Following the implementation of each query, a structured and standardised appraisal of the collected studies was conducted (SLR Step 3—Execution stage). This included a crucial classification of the collected studies based on their relevance to the review question, as well as their reliability (Wang and Notteboom 2014). The appraisal of the collected studies comprised two phases. In the first phase, the results of the queries were evaluated with regard to their relevance to the research scope and, in the second phase, with regard to their quality (Calatayud et al. 2016). The relevance evaluation was carried out based on title, abstract and keywords. For the quality evaluation, assessment forms such as the one suggested by the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) are commonly used (Campbell et al. 2003), although CASP has primarily focused on the training of healthcare professionals. For the inclusion of studies in the final list, we applied a modified version of the CASP checklist, as suggested by Wang and Notteboom (2014). A relevant sample is shown in the Appendix.
The conduction of the SLR led to the selection of 130 publications and the overall progression through the 3 stages/5 steps is illustrated in Fig. 2.
3 Results
3.1 Analysis/synthesis of the findings
The evaluation of the publications should be followed by the extraction of the relevant information from each publication through analysis, and the integration of the findings through synthesis (Wang and Notteboom 2014; Mulrow 1994) (SLR Step 4—Reporting stage).
The final list included 130 publications spanning from 1998 to 2021 and consisted of 114 journal articles and 16 publications from other sources (i.e. book sections, working papers and conference proceedings).
In accordance with Wang and Notteboom (2014) and since the reviewed studies included both quantitative and qualitative results, we adopted an integrative approach that allowed the aggregation of the results in a manner of “general sense from each study”. Wang and Notteboom (2014) noted that such an approach imitates a similar approach, previously adopted by Yin (1989). With regard to the identified factors, the SLR reports both enablers as well as possible barriers towards the establishment of a direct shipping connection between countries. Table 1 presents a brief description of the identified factors (see Sects. 4.1.1 to 4.1.5 below for detailed lists of references discussing each factor):
It is recommended (Tranfield et al. 2003) that, following on from the SLR, a thematic analysis is conducted. This aims to classify the reviewed publications into themes, on the basis of the discussed topics and problems (Raza et al. 2020), or the shared characteristics and perspectives (Calatayud et al. 2016). In our SLR, various factors have been identified that are pertinent to the establishment of direct connections by liner shipping companies. These factors can be categorised into 5 broad Themes: (1) Shipping Network: discussing how carriers’ decision to connect directly two countries may be influenced by certain shipping network characteristics as well as opportunities or considerations for the enhancement of the network; (2) Connectivity: discussing how carriers’ decision to connect directly two countries may be influenced by country-level connectivity characteristics; (3) Port Selection Criteria: discussing how carriers’ decision to connect directly two countries may be affected by specific port selection criteria; (4) Trade: discussing how carriers’ decision to connect directly two countries may be affected by trade dynamics and needs and (5) Alternative Transport Modes: discussing factors considered by the stakeholders of air freight and rail freight networks. The rationale of each Theme is further discussed in Sects. 4.1.1 to 4.1.5.
Our research analyses the factors that may determine the establishment of a direct connection in container shipping. A shipping connection is an integral element of the Shipping Network (Theme 1); it can be influenced by the characteristics of a country’s Connectivity (Theme 2); materialises if certain Port Selection Criteria are fulfilled (Theme 3); derives from the dynamics of Trade (Theme 4) between countries; and may generally share a number of similar features across Alternative Transport Modes (Theme 5). Thus, there is evidently an interaction between themes but each theme examines a given factor from a distinct perspective on the basis of the topic that each reviewed publication discussed.
Overall, 23 factors have been identified across the 5 Themes as potential drivers towards the establishment of a direct connection between trading countries in container shipping (see left axis of Fig. 3).
The values in the X axis in Fig. 3 correspond to the number of publications that discussed each factor in the SLR and do not imply the importance of the factor as such. Several factors are shared across the themes, although each theme has explored the reviewed topic from a distinct perspective.
4 Discussion
4.1 Themes
The decisive factors of a direct shipping connection have been considered by the literature from various angles. The thematic discussion of the SLR that follows has been organised by grouping the corresponding papers under each identified factor. The aggregation of the results aims to reveal the expected impact of each factor towards the establishment of a direct shipping connection between two countries based on the “general sense from each study” (Wang and Notteboom 2014).
4.1.1 Theme 1: Shipping network
The theme includes publications discussing how carrier decisions to connect directly two countries may be affected by (a) the characteristics of the current shipping network; (b) opportunities for its enhancement and (c) route design considerations and practices. Carriers may consider to establish those direct connections which can serve their deployment strategy in targeted markets. Moreover, carriers are expected to select those nodes which can broaden their maritime footprint and are supported by an efficient wider business network that allows access to the corresponding captive hinterlands. Finally, the decision-making process of the carriers regarding the addition of a certain country to their network may also consider operational aspects including costs and volumes, and promote countries which can be seamlessly integrated within an existing network.
The identified factors within the Shipping Network theme are summarised in Table 2. The notation in the last column (±) indicates the impact that each identified factor is expected to have towards the establishment of a direct connection according to the reviewed literature (e.g. the existence of an affiliated terminal at a country is expected to encourage (positive impact—“+”) more direct connections with other countries, while the establishment of an Emission Control Area (ECA) that includes the same country is expected to discourage (negative impact—“−”) direct connections with other countries).
4.1.2 Theme 2: Connectivity
Connectivity is a topic with a large body of literature. For instance, Yap and Zahraei (2018) underlined that a hub port in order to retain its connectivity should take into consideration the needs and preferences of all partners within a shipping alliance rather than accommodating only the needs of a single key carrier. Notteboom et al. (2021) discussed the negative impact of the COVID-19 crisis on aggregate liner shipping connectivity, although they indicated a regional variation on this trend. Saeed et al. (2021) assessed the likelihood of maritime connectivity improvements derived from infrastructure investments related to the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Wang et al. (2022) proposed a combination of “basic” connectivity (i.e. “the degree of difficulty of a port to connect to other ports in a global maritime network”) with centrality measures derived from network theory in order to evaluate the attractiveness of hub ports.
In the context of direct connections, the theme includes publications discussing how carrier decisions to connect directly two countries may be influenced by country-level connectivity characteristics. As defined in Table 1, connectivity in the context of this research reflects the degree of a country's integration into the container shipping network. A number of publications discuss connectivity explicitly as a standalone factor, whereas other publications refer to factors that impact connectivity such as macroeconomic as well as trade-related factors. Additionally, the SLR revealed that connectivity may be impacted not just by geographical (i.e. the relative position of a country regarding its partners and main trade routes) but also geopolitical factors. Finally, the connectivity of a country may also be affected by its proficiency to provide a business-friendly environment for maritime operations.
The identified factors within the Connectivity theme are summarised in Table 3:
4.1.3 Theme 3: Port selection criteria
Port Selection Criteria is also a topic with a large body of literature. For instance, Tiwari et al. (2003) suggested that shippers in China tend to select ports which are in proximity to their premises but are not congested and are equipped with adequate infrastructure (i.e. number of berths). Lirn et al. (2004) indicated that carriers and port operators largely share a common perspective on the attributes that are considered important for the selection of a port as a transhipment hub, but do not rank those attributes on an identical order. Baştuğ et al. (2022) also confirmed that port operators and carriers do not necessarily “see eye to eye” with each other regarding the factors that define port competitiveness. Guy and Urli (2006) assessed the drivers of choice between New York and Montreal and suggested that the latter would be preferred if access to the hinterland was considered a priority for carriers, coupled with a competitive advantage in cost and/or service. Chang et al. (2008) noted that deep-sea carriers tend to seek value-added services and are more price-sensitive compared to feeder operators when selecting a port as a hub. Garcia-Alonso and Sanchez-Soriano (2009) analysed the topic from a hinterland perspective and highlighted the importance of port’s proximity to cargo origin or destination as a port selection criterion in Spain. Caballé Valls et al. (2020) also evaluated the port selection criteria in Spain and concluded that a port’s proximity to cargo origin or destination, maritime distance from a specific world region, maritime connectivity and intermodal connectivity are influential in the port selection process.
In the context of direct connections, the theme includes publications discussing how carrier decisions to connect directly two countries may be affected by specific port selection criteria. Those criteria define the accessibility and the attractiveness of a port, both from a carrier and a cargo owner perspective. The accessibility (i.e. the ability of a port to be reached) and the attractiveness of a port are largely defined by its ability to accommodate maritime trade. Nevertheless, they can also be impacted by geographical criteria as well as the port’s capability to provide a secure and efficient operating environment. Ports are the ultimate facilitators of bilateral trade at country level and thus certain of their characteristics may play a central role in the establishment of a shipping connection between trading countries.
The identified factors within the Port Selection Criteria theme are summarised in Table 4:
4.1.4 Theme 4: Trade
The theme includes publications discussing how carrier decisions to connect directly two countries may be affected by trade dynamics and needs. Carriers may be encouraged to deploy shipping capacity between countries with existing bilateral trade exchanges. Such trading relationships are often underpinned by cultural aspects and bonds between specific countries, while geography may also be influential to a certain extent. The individual characteristics of a country regarding its ability to efficiently accommodate and sustain trade exchanges may also affect bilateral connectivity. Finally, bilateral trade flows are pivotal in order to attract the interest of a carrier, but shipping companies will also evaluate whether a connection serves their network and financial requirements.
The identified factors within the Trade theme are summarised in Table 5:
4.1.5 Theme 5: Alternative transport modes
The theme includes publications discussing factors that the stakeholders of air freight and rail freight networks tend to consider as contributors towards the establishment of connections among countries for the respective transport modes. The organisation of the network around the hub-and-spoke concept or, instead, through direct connections, is also a topic of discussion in the road transportation literature (e.g. Lumsden et al., 1999; Zhang et al., 2007). However, road transportation mostly serves domestic and last mile deliveries, while the focus of our (maritime) research is largely around international and overseas connections. Thus, the SLR has attempted to find parallels with air freight and rail freight networks only.
The identified factors within the Alternative Transport Modes theme are summarised in Table 6:
4.2 Use of results
Following on from our thematic analysis, a framework is subsequently developed which identifies the set of factors that determine the establishment of direct container shipping connections between trading countries. As illustrated in Fig. 4, the identified factors may have a positive, ambiguous, or negative impact, based on our interpretation of the reviewed publications (SLR Step 5—Reporting stage). The number of occurrences (i.e. the size of the circles) in Fig. 4 corresponds to the number of publications that discuss each factor in the SLR, and not to the magnitude of the factor.
For the majority of the identified factors, there is a strong convergence regarding their potential impact towards the establishment of a direct link between two trading countries. For instance, the reviewed literature unanimously suggests that a well-developed logistics network of a country is expected to have a positive impact (see Logistics Performance in Sects. 4.1.1 to 4.1.5), while security issues in one or both trading countries are expected to have a negative impact on the establishment of a direct connection between them (see Security Issues in Sects. 4.1.1, 4.1.3 and 4.1.5).
Within the reviewed literature, there was a small number of papers that did not agree with the consensus view—evidenced by other papers—regarding the impact of a particular factor:
-
Theme 1: Shipping Network—Affiliated Terminal: Despite the expected synergies between a carrier and an affiliated terminal, Parola and Veenstra (2008) did not find concrete evidence to support this hypothesis: i.e. that carriers tend to form their deployment strategy, taking into account terminal networks geographically compatible with their operating areas.
-
Theme 1: Shipping Network—ECA Routing: Although the establishment of an ECA is likely to invoke a possible tendency towards rerouting, this is not regarded as likely in all routes [Doudnikoff and Lacoste (2013), Schinas and von Westarp (2017), Dithmer et al. (2017)].
-
Theme 1: Shipping Network—Nautical Distance: Ducruet and Notteboom (2012a) underlined that although short-distance shipping connections are common, in the period 1996–2006 long-distance connections became more frequent. This was attributed to an increase in South–South compared to North–North and North–South connections. Thus, connections of short shipping distance remained the norm but this did not exclude the possibility of longer distance connections.
-
Theme 4: Trade—Common Language: Intuitively, cultural aspects such as common language should act as enablers of bilateral trade (Gong et al. 2018). However, the analysis of Saeed et al. (2020) did not reveal any statistical significance between common language and bilateral trade flows.
-
Theme 4: Trade—Trade Imbalance: Despite the broadly accepted principle that trade imbalances may harm the attractiveness of a route, this was not statistically confirmed by the analysis of Bertho et al. (2016) at a significant level.
The SLR also revealed some factors for which a general consensus has not been reached and their positive or negative impact towards the establishment of a direct link between two trading countries appears to be directly or indirectly questioned by some researchers. For instance, a divergence has been identified with regard to the following factors:
-
Theme 1: Shipping Network—Seasonality: the fluctuating demand for transportation may be a reason for the establishment of a service but some of the reviewed papers also implied that the same reason may equally lead to the periodical termination of a connection (Huang et al. 2015).
-
Theme 4: Trade—Colonial Ties: Although the relationship between two countries when one is a former colony of the other is largely regarded as a factor that promotes bilateral connectivity and trade, this can also be contradicting with the statistical analysis of certain samples pointing to the opposite direction (Saeed et al. 2020).
4.2.1 Limitations
The SLR also revealed that there are some factors which have not been included in the final list because of their unclear importance or untested impact but, nonetheless, they might be worthy of further research:
-
Port Costs: Carriers may consider port costs (dues for port services along with terminal handling charges) as a factor in their port selection decisions (Wiegmans et al. 2008). Based on a case involving Shenzhen versus Hong Kong, Wang et al. (2012) noted that the former port has managed to attract direct calls by carriers at the expense of the latter due to more competitive handling tariffs but also due to a range of other factors (e.g. developments in the ports’ hinterlands). Indeed, the traffic interplay between Hong Kong and nearby ports in the Pearl River Delta may be attributed to a wider a range of underlying economic forces (Li et al. 2022). According to Fraser et al. (2016), reasonable port tariffs could theoretically assist individual ports to attract more direct calls. However, the SLR did not provide clear evidence that port costs may have the same impact at national level and thus affect the attractiveness of a country as a whole regarding direct calls. In fact, Fraser et al. (2016) indicated that even if there can be collaboration agreements (i.e. interport cooperation on port tariffs), their impact at regional (or national) level remains unclear: competition between individual ports may even be harmed, eventually affecting their ability to entice more direct calls.
Overall, we believe that port costs (dues and handling charges) are seemingly a factor for consideration but regarding the selection between ports rather than countries. While there are port characteristics that may have an impact at country level (e.g. nations with obsolete port infrastructure that cannot accommodate some vessels), port costs have not emerged as a decisive factor for the exclusion of a country from a service rotation and its impact on the establishment of a direct connection between countries is likely to be discounted by carriers.Footnote 1
-
Corruption: Chen et al. (2020) studied the design of a container shipping network within the Asia–West Africa trade and commented that, although they did not take into account public corruption as part of their modelling effort, we believe that the latter may be an area of concern for carriers when designing their network.
-
Number of Common Direct Connections: Hoffmann, Van Hoogenhuizen, and Wilmsmeier (2014) proposed the development of the Liner Shipping Bilateral Connectivity Index (LSBCI) which accounts for both direct and indirect connections between countries. The authors aimed to compile an index based on fleet deployment data only, claiming that the index should include the following components: (1) the number of transhipments required to get from A to B; (2) the number of common direct connections; (3) the number of common connections with one transhipment; (4) the level of competition on services that connect country pairs and (5) the size of the largest ships on the weakest route (as an indicator of the infrastructure level and any opportunity for economies of scale). The second component of the LBSCI—the number of common direct connections between a country pair—is the total number of third countries that connect directly to both countries of an analysed pair. Hoffmann et al. (2014) utilised the example of LinkedIn and claimed that the number of common direct connections between a country pair would be the equivalent of the “shared” or “1st” common contact(s) between two people participating in this social network. The equivalent in the container shipping network would be the number of alternatives that a shipper would theoretically have in order to send a cargo between two countries with only one transhipment (ibid). Hoffmann et al. (2014) further argued that the more common direct connections, the higher the connectivity and trade potential between trading countries. The positive impact of increased common direct connections on the trade volume between countries was also discussed in other papers included in the SLR. Specifically, according to Fugazza and Hoffmann (2017), the addition of one extra common direct connection might explain approximately 5% of additional bilateral export value. According to Hoffmann et al. (2020), one extra common direct connection may result in an increase of 2.8% in exports and 2.4% in imports, respectively.
Thus, according to the reviewed literature, a comparatively high number of options to move cargo between two countries with a single transhipment may highlight an upcoming trade opportunity earlier than any other random flow between countries which connect with two or more transhipments. The reviewed literature however did not clearly propose that this may, respectively, trigger carriers to remove the transhipment leg between two particular trading countries, support them with a direct shipping connection and allow a promising bilateral flow to further flourish. Nevertheless, we believe that this is possibly another factor that may encourage a direct connection between countries and constitutes another dimension that is worth to be further explored.
5 Conclusions
We employed a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) to identify the factors that carriers may consider in their decision-making process towards the establishment of a direct connection between trading countries. The reviewed literature revealed 23 factors across 5 Themes: (1) Shipping Network, (2) Connectivity, (3) Port Selection Criteria, (4) Trade and (5) Alternative Transport Modes with some factors appearing across multiple Themes. For the majority of the identified factors, there is a strong convergence regarding their potential impact based on our interpretation. However, our analysis also revealed that for a few factors a general consensus has not been reached in the literature.
In the aftermath of COVID-19, the world witnessed an unprecedented disruption of global supply chains, prolonged bottlenecks and service shortages. Those developments underlined the increasing need for countries to reduce their dependence on specific trade partners and/or seek other sources of supply. Ongoing structural adaptations of global trade including concepts such as reshoring and nearshoringFootnote 2(Notteboom and Haralambides 2020) may be increasingly considered as strategies that can allow the increase of supply chain resilience (Notteboom et al. 2021). Hence, as global trade may reshape to follow the paradigm of a decentralised and largely multipolar network, the deeper understanding of the factors that may allow a country to directly connect with targeted trade partners can be of growing importance. We have identified and reconfirmed the importance of factors that have traditionally been regarded as important for the establishment of direct connections between countries (e.g. Trade Flow, Port Infrastructure, Connectivity, etc.). It is likely however that the shape of the future shipping network may be increasingly co-defined by environmental, geopolitical, cultural, and security-related characteristics of the shipping routes. Our effort has also highlighted those relevant factors (e.g. ECA Routing, MSR Routing, Common Language, Political Stability, etc.).
The identification and understanding of the various factors can help policy makers in their efforts to promote the establishment of a direct shipping connection between trading countries. The SLR, through its identification of the 23 factors and 5 Themes, also provides a platform for researchers to conduct further analysis into the relative roles of these factors—or others—in the establishment of direct shipping connections between trading countries. In turn, this can aid, for example, in predicting the future evolution of container shipping networks.
Notes
This point has been verified during an interview with one of the leading container shipping lines: if a country can offer an attractive volume of containers, port cost at national level will not be a reason to reject the option for a direct call. Indeed, a carrier will be selective between ports within a country (should there be competitive alternatives) or aim to make specific procurement arrangements with terminals within ports, but will not abstain from directly calling at a country as a whole because its ports are considered expensive. Ultimately, any potential savings from not calling directly at a country with a mother vessel will be diminished if a carrier ends up sending cargo to that country via transhipment.
Reshoring or backshoring refers to the “relocation to the home country” and nearshoring to the “relocation to the home region”, as opposed to the long-established concept of offshoring which refers to the “relocation to a region far away from the home one” (Merino, Di Stefano, and Fratocchi 2021).
References
Andersen, J., and M. Christiansen. 2009. Designing new European rail freight services. Journal of the Operational Research Society 60 (3): 348–360. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602559.
Bartholdi, J.J., III., P. Jarumaneeroj, and A. Ramudhin. 2016. A new connectivity index for container ports. Maritime Economics and Logistics 18 (3): 231–249. https://doi.org/10.1057/mel.2016.5.
Baştuğ, Sedat, Hercules Haralambides, Soner Esmer, and Enes Eminoğlu. 2022. Port competitiveness: Do container terminal operators and liner shipping companies see eye to eye? Marine Policy 135: 104866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104866.
Benedyk, I.V., and S. Peeta. 2018. A binary probit model to analyze freight transportation decision-maker perspectives for container shipping on the Northern Sea Route. Maritime Economics and Logistics 20 (3): 358–374. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-016-0046-4.
Bertho, F., I. Borchert, and A. Mattoo. 2016. The trade reducing effects of restrictions on liner shipping. Journal of Comparative Economics 44 (2): 231–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jce.2016.03.001.
Biermann, F. 2012. The impact of distance in seaborne trade: An analysis of bilateral container transport flows. HWWI Research Papers (134).
Boonekamp, T., and G. Burghouwt. 2017. Measuring connectivity in the air freight industry. Journal of Air Transport Management 61: 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2016.05.003.
Bottasso, A., M. Conti, P.C. de Sa Porto, C. Ferrari, and A. Tei. 2018. Port infrastructures and trade: Empirical evidence from Brazil. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 107: 126–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.11.013.
Britannica, Encyclopaedia. 2022. “The Britannica Dictionary.” Britannica Group. https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/country. Accessed 12 June 2022
Brouer, B.D., J.F. Alvarez, C.E.M. Plum, D. Pisinger, and M.M. Sigurd. 2014. A base integer programming model and benchmark suite for liner-shipping network design. Transportation Science 48 (2): 281–312. https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.2013.0471.
Caballé Valls, J., P.W. de Langen, L. García Alonso, and J.Á. Vallejo Pinto. 2020. Understanding Port Choice Determinants and Port Hinterlands: Findings from an empirical analysis of Spain. Maritime Economics and Logistics 22 (1): 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-019-00138-2.
Calatayud, A., J. Mangan, and R. Palacin. 2017. Connectivity to international markets: A multi-layered network approach. Journal of Transport Geography 61: 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.04.006.
Calatayud, A., R. Palacin, J. Mangan, E. Jackson, and A. Ruiz-Rua. 2016. Understanding connectivity to international markets: A systematic review. Transport Reviews 36 (6): 713–736. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2016.1157836.
Campbell, R., P. Pound, C. Pope, N. Britten, R. Pill, M. Morgan, and J. Donovan. 2003. Evaluating meta-ethnography: A synthesis of qualitative research on lay experiences of diabetes and diabetes care. Social Science & Medicine 1982 (56): 671–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00064-3.
Chang, S.M., Y.Y. Huang, K.C. Shang, and W.T. Chiang. 2020. Impacts of regional integration and maritime transport on trade: With special reference to RCEP. Maritime Business Review 5 (2): 143–158. https://doi.org/10.1108/MABR-03-2020-0013.
Chang, Y.T., S.Y. Lee, and J.L. Tongzon. 2008. Port selection factors by shipping lines: Different perspectives between trunk liners and feeder service providers. Marine Policy 32 (6): 877–885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2008.01.003.
Cheaitou, A., and P. Cariou. 2012. Liner shipping service optimisation with reefer containers capacity: An application to northern Europe-South America trade. Maritime Policy and Management 39 (6): 589–602. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2012.728726.
Chen, K., S. Xu, and H. Haralambides. 2020. Determining hub port locations and feeder network designs: The case of China-West Africa trade. Transport Policy 86: 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2019.12.002.
Chen, L., T.L. Yip, and J. Mou. 2018. Provision of Emission Control Area and the impact on shipping route choice and ship emissions. Transportation Research Part d: Transport and Environment 58: 280–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.07.003.
Cheng, Q., and C. Wang. 2021. Container liner shipping network design with shipper’s dual preference. Computers and Operations Research 128: 105187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2020.105187.
Chu, H.C. 2014. Exploring preference heterogeneity of air freight forwarders in the choices of carriers and routes. Journal of Air Transport Management 37: 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2014.02.002.
Clark, X., D. Dollar, and A. Micco. 2004. Port efficiency, maritime transport costs, and bilateral trade. Journal of Development Economics 75 (2): 417–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2004.06.005.
Cook, D.J., C.D. Mulrow, and R.B. Haynes. 1997. Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine 126 (5): 376–380. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-126-5-199703010-00006.
Cullinane, K., and Y. Wang. 2009. A capacity-based measure of container port accessibility. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 12 (2): 103–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/13675560902749340.
Dai, W.L., X. Fu, T.L. Yip, H. Hu, and K. Wang. 2018. Emission charge and liner shipping network configuration—An economic investigation of the Asia-Europe route. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 110: 291–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.12.005.
de Benedictis, L., and L. Tajoli. 2011. The World Trade Network. World Economy 34 (8): 1417–1454. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9701.2011.01360.x.
Deardorff, A. 1998. Determinants of bilateral trade: does gravity work in a neoclassical world?. In The regionalization of the world economy, 7–32. National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
Dithmer, P., L. Reinhardt, and C.A. Kontovas. 2017. The liner shipping routing and scheduling problem under environmental considerations: The case of emissions control areas.
Doudnikoff, M., and R. Lacoste. 2013. Abating carbon dioxide and sulfur oxides emissions from container shipping. Transportation Research Record. https://doi.org/10.3141/2326-02.
Ducruet, C. 2008. Hub dependence in constrained economies: The case of North Korea. Maritime Policy and Management 35 (4): 377–394. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088830802198241.
Ducruet, C. 2020. The geography of maritime networks: A critical review. Journal of Transport Geography 88: 102824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102824.
Ducruet, C., J. Berli, and M. Bunel. 2020. Geography versus topology in the evolution of the global container shipping network (1977–2016). In Geographies of maritime transport: Transport, mobilities and spatial change, 49–70.
Ducruet, C., S.W. Lee, and A.K.Y. Ng. 2008. Port competition and network polarization in the East Asian maritime corridor. Territoire En Mouvement 2: 60–74.
Ducruet, C., S.W. Lee, and A.K.Y. Ng. 2010a. Centrality and vulnerability in liner shipping networks: Revisiting the northeast asian port hierarchy. Maritime Policy and Management 37 (1): 17–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088830903461175.
Ducruet, C., C. Rozenblat, and F. Zaidi. 2010b. Ports in multi-level maritime networks: Evidence from the Atlantic (1996–2006). Journal of Transport Geography 18 (4): 508–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2010.03.005.
Ducruet, C., and T. Notteboom. 2012a. Developing liner service networks in container shipping. In Maritime logistics: A guide to contemporary shipping and port management, ed. D.W. Song and P. Panayides, 77–100. London: Kogan page.
Ducruet, C., and T. Notteboom. 2012b. The worldwide maritime network of container shipping: Spatial structure and regional dynamics. Global Networks 12 (3): 395–423. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0374.2011.00355.x.
Ducruet, C., and F. Zaidi. 2012. Maritime constellations: A complex network approach to shipping and ports. Maritime Policy and Management 39 (2): 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2011.650718.
Fagerholt, K., N. T. Gausel, J. G. Rakke, and H. N. Psaraftis. 2015. Maritime routing and speed optimization with emission control areas. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 52: 57–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2014.12.010.
Fang, Z., H. Yu, F. Lu, M. Feng, and M. Huang. 2018. Maritime network dynamics before and after international events. Journal of Geographical Sciences 28 (7): 937–956. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11442-018-1514-9.
Ferrari, C., F. Parola, and A. Tei. 2015. Determinants of slow steaming and implications on service patterns. Maritime Policy and Management 42 (7): 636–652. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2015.1078011.
Franc, P., and L. Sutto. 2014. Impact analysis on shipping lines and European ports of a cap- and-trade system on CO2 emissions in maritime transport. Maritime Policy and Management 41 (1): 61–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2013.782440.
Fraser, D.R., T. Notteboom, and C. Ducruet. 2016. Peripherality in the global container shipping network: The case of the Southern African container port system. GeoJournal 81 (1): 139–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-014-9610-6.
Fremont, A. 2007. Global maritime networks. The case of Maersk. Journal of Transport Geography 15 (6): 431–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2007.01.005.
Fremont, A., and F. Parola. 2016. Carriers’ role in opening gateways: experiences from major port regions. In Integrating seaports and trade corridors, 47–63.
Fruth, M., and F. Teuteberg. 2017. Digitization in maritime logistics—What is there and what is missing? Cogent Business and Management 4 (1): 1411066. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2017.1411066.
Fu, X., A.K.Y. Ng, and Y.Y. Lau. 2010. The impacts of maritime piracy on global economic development: The case of Somalia. Maritime Policy and Management 37 (7): 677–697. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2010.524736.
Fugazza, M. 2015. Maritime connectivity and trade. UNCTAD Policy Issues in International Trade and Commodities, Research Study Series 70.
Fugazza, M., and J. Hoffmann. 2017. Liner shipping connectivity as determinant of trade. Journal of Shipping and Trade 2 (1): 1–18.
Fugazza, M., J. Hoffmann, and Rado Razafinombana. 2014. Building a dataset for bilateral maritime connectivity.
Gadhia, H.K., H. Kotzab, and G. Prockl. 2011. Levels of internationalization in the container shipping industry: An assessment of the port networks of the large container shipping companies. Journal of Transport Geography 19 (6): 1431–1442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.07.016.
Garcia-Alonso, L., and J. Sanchez-Soriano. 2009. Port selection from a hinterland perspective. Maritime Economics and Logistics 11 (3): 260–269. https://doi.org/10.1057/mel.2009.9.
Gohomene, D.A., Z.L. Yang, S. Bonsal, E. Maistralis, J. Wang, and K.X. Li. 2016. The attractiveness of ports in West Africa: Some lessons from Shipping Lines’ Port Selection. Growth and Change 47 (3): 416–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/grow.12133.
Gong, Q., K. Wang, X. Fan, X. Fu, and Y.B. Xiao. 2018. International trade drivers and freight network analysis—The case of the Chinese air cargo sector. Journal of Transport Geography 71: 253–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.02.009.
González LaxeJesus Freire Seoane, F.M., and C. Pais Montes. 2012. Maritime degree, centrality and vulnerability: Port hierarchies and emerging areas in containerized transport (2008–2010). Journal of Transport Geography 24: 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.06.005.
Guerrero, D., G. Claude, and C. Ducruet. 2015. Explaining international trade flows with shipping-based distances. In Maritime networks. Spatial structures time dynamics, ed. César. Ducruet, 303–321. London: Routledge Studies in Transport Analysis.
Guy, E. 2003. Shipping line networks and the integration of South America trades. Maritime Policy and Management 30 (3): 231–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/0308883032000113271.
Guy, E., and B. Urli. 2006. Port selection and multicriteria analysis: An application to the Montreal-New York alternative. Maritime Economics and Logistics 8 (2): 169–186. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100152.
Halim, R.A., J.H. Kwakkel, and L.A. Tavasszy. 2015. The impact of the emergence of direct shipping lines on port flows. In Maritime networks: Spatial structures and time dynamics, ed. César. Ducruet. Abingdon: Routledge.
Hoffmann, J., N. Saeed, and S. Sødal. 2020. Liner shipping bilateral connectivity and its impact on South Africa’s bilateral trade flows. Maritime Economics and Logistics 22 (3): 473–499. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-019-00124-8.
Hoffmann, J., J. W. Van Hoogenhuizen, and G. Wilmsmeier. 2014. Developing an index for bilateral liner shipping connectivity. The Annual Conference of The International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME).
Hsu, W.K., S.H.S. Huang, W.J. Tseng, and D.F. Li. 2020. An assessment of the policy gap in port selection of liner shipping companies. Transportation Letters. https://doi.org/10.1080/19427867.2020.1724648.
Huang, Y.F., J.K. Hu, and B. Yang. 2015. Liner services network design and fleet deployment with empty container repositioning. Computers and Industrial Engineering 89: 116–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2015.01.021.
Hummels, D.L., and G. Schaur. 2013. Time as a trade barrier. American Economic Review 103 (7): 2935–2959. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.103.7.2935.
Hwang, C.C., and G.C. Shiao. 2011. Analyzing air cargo flows of international routes: An empirical study of Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport. Journal of Transport Geography 19 (4): 738–744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2010.09.001.
Imai, A., K. Shintani, and S. Papadimitriou. 2009. Multi-port vs. Hub-and-Spoke port calls by containerships. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 45 (5): 740–757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2009.01.002.
Islam, D.M.Z., T.H. Zunder, R. Jackson, N. Nesterova, and A. Burgess. 2013. The potential of alternative rail freight transport corridors between central europe and china. Transport Problems 8 (4): 45–57.
Jensen, A., and R. Bergqvist. 2011. The value of direct call services by container shipping lines in Northern Europe: Support model for strategic scenario development and case study. In International Handbook of Maritime Economics, 256–283.
Jeong, S.J., C.G. Lee, and J.H. Bookbinder. 2007. The European freight railway system as a hub-and-spoke network. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 41 (6): 523–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2006.11.005.
Jia, H., J.S. Lee Lam, and N.K. Tran. 2020. Spatial variation of travel time uncertainty in container shipping.
Jiang, J., L.H. Lee, E.P. Chew, and C.C. Gan. 2015. Port connectivity study: An analysis framework from a global container liner shipping network perspective. Transportation Research Part e: Logistics and Transportation Review 73: 47–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2014.10.012.
Jiang, X., H. Mao, Y. Wang, and H. Zhang. 2020. Liner shipping schedule design for near-sea routes considering big customers’ preferences on ship arrival time. Sustainability 12 (18): 7828. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU12187828.
Kang, D.J., and S.H. Woo. 2017. Liner shipping networks, port characteristics and the impact on port performance. Maritime Economics and Logistics 19 (2): 274–295. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-016-0056-2.
Khan, K.S., R. Kunz, J. Kleijnen, and G. Antes. 2003. Five steps to conducting a systematic review. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 96 (3): 118–121. https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.96.3.118.
Kreutzberger, E., and R. Konings. 2016. The challenge of appropriate hub terminal and hub-and-spoke network development for seaports and intermodal rail transport in Europe. Research in Transportation Business and Management 19: 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2016.05.003.
Lam, J.S.L., W.Y. Yap, and K. Cullinane. 2007. Structure, conduct and performance on the major liner shipping routes. Maritime Policy and Management 34 (4): 359–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088830701539149.
Lam, J.S.L., and W.Y. Yap. 2011. Dynamics of liner shipping network and port connectivity in supply chain systems: Analysis on East Asia. Journal of Transport Geography 19 (6): 1272–1281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.06.007.
Lavissière, A., R. Sohier, and M.C. Lavissière. 2020. Transportation systems in the Arctic: A systematic literature review using textometry. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 141: 130–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2020.09.003.
Lee, T.C., and P.T.W. Lee. 2012. South-South trade liberalisation and shipping geography: A case study on India, Brazil, and South Africa. International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics 4 (4): 323–338. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSTL.2012.049308.
Li, Q., J. Rezaei, L. Tavasszy, B. Wiegmans, J. Guo, Y. Tang, and Q. Peng. 2020. Customers’ preferences for freight service attributes of China Railway Express. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 142: 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2020.10.019.
Li, Shan, Hercules Haralambides, and Qingcheng Zeng. 2022. Economic forces shaping the evolution of integrated port systems—The case of the container port system of China’s Pearl River Delta. Research in Transportation Economics 94: 101183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2022.101183.
Li, Z., M. Xu, and Y. Shi. 2015. Centrality in global shipping network basing on worldwide shipping areas. GeoJournal 80 (1): 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-014-9524-3.
Lim, P.X., and S.S. Das. 2009. Entry in the global liner shipping industry: A population ecology study, 1996–2006. Maritime Policy and Management 36 (3): 197–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088830902868131.
Lin, C.L. 2015. Containerization in Australia: The formation of the Australia-Japan line. International Journal of Maritime History 27 (1): 118–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/0843871414565590.
Lin, D.Y., and K.L. Huang. 2017. An equilibrium-based network model for international container flows. Maritime Policy and Management 44 (8): 1034–1055. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2017.1371855.
Lirn, T.C., H.A. Thanopoulou, M.J. Beynon, and A.K.C. Beresford. 2004. An application of AHP on transhipment port selection: A global perspective. Maritime Economics and Logistics 6 (1): 70–91. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100093.
Lumsden, K., F. Dallari, and R. Ruggeri. 1999. Improving the efficiency of the Hub and Spoke system for the SKF European distribution network. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 29 (1): 50–66. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600039910253878
Malchow, M., and A. Kanafani. 2001. A disaggregate analysis of factors influencing port selection. Maritime Policy and Management 28 (3): 265–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088830110060840.
Meng, Q., S. Wang, H. Andersson, and K. Thun. 2014. Containership routing and scheduling in liner shipping: Overview and future research directions. Transportation Science 48 (2): 265–280. https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.2013.0461.
Merino, Fernando, Cristina Di Stefano, and Luciano Fratocchi. 2021. Back-shoring vs near-shoring: A comparative exploratory study in the footwear industry. Operations Management Research 14 (1): 17–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-020-00173-w.
Mulrow, C.D. 1994. Systematic reviews: Rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ 309 (6954): 597. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.309.6954.597.
Notteboom, T.E. 2004a. A carrier’s perspective on container network configuration at sea and on land. Journal of International Logistics and Trade 1 (2): 65–87. https://doi.org/10.24006/jilt.2004.1.2.65.
Notteboom, T.E. 2004b. Container shipping and ports: An overview. Review of Network Economics 3 (2): 86–106.
Notteboom, T.E. 2004c. The peripheral port challenge in container port systems. In International Maritime Transport: Perspectives, 154–167.
Notteboom, T.E. 2006. The time factor in liner shipping services. Maritime Economics and Logistics 8 (1): 19–39. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100148.
Notteboom, T.E. 2012a. Container shipping. In The Blackwell Companion to Maritime Economics, 230–262.
Notteboom, T.E. 2012b. Towards a new intermediate hub region in container shipping? Relay and interlining via the Cape route vs. the Suez route. Journal of Transport Geography 22: 164–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.01.003.
Notteboom, T.E., F. Parola, G. Satta, and A.A. Pallis. 2017. The relationship between port choice and terminal involvement of alliance members in container shipping. Journal of Transport Geography 64: 158–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.09.002.
Notteboom, T.E., and J.P. Rodrigue. 2008. Containerisation, box logistics and global supply chains: The integration of ports and liner shipping networks. Maritime Economics and Logistics 10 (1–2): 152–174. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100196.
Notteboom, T., T. Pallis, and J.P. Rodrigue. 2021. Disruptions and resilience in global container shipping and ports: The COVID-19 pandemic versus the 2008–2009 financial crisis. Maritime Economics and Logistics 23 (2): 179–210. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-020-00180-5.
Notteboom, Theo E., and Hercules E. Haralambides. 2020. Port management and governance in a post-COVID-19 era: Quo vadis? Maritime Economics & Logistics 22 (3): 329–352. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-020-00162-7.
Ojala, L., and D. Çelebi. 2015. The World Bank’s Logistics Performance Index (LPI) and Drivers of Logistics Performance. International Transport Forum.
Pan, J., M.G.H. Bell, K.F. Cheung, and S. Perera. 2020. Identifying container shipping network bottlenecks along China’s Maritime Silk Road based on a spectral analysis. Maritime Policy and Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2020.1841312.
Pan, J., M.G.H. Bell, K.F. Cheung, S. Perera, and H. Yu. 2019. Connectivity analysis of the global shipping network by eigenvalue decomposition. Maritime Policy and Management 46 (8): 957–966. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2019.1647587.
Panayides, P.M., and R. Wiedmer. 2011. Strategic alliances in container liner shipping. Research in Transportation Economics 32 (1): 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2011.06.008.
Parola, F., M. Risitano, M. Ferretti, and E. Panetti. 2017. The drivers of port competitiveness: A critical review. Transport Reviews 37 (1): 116–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2016.1231232.
Parola, F., and A.W. Veenstra. 2008. The spatial coverage of shipping lines and container terminal operators. Journal of Transport Geography 16 (4): 292–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2007.11.001.
Pham, T.Y., K.Y. Kim, and G.T. Yeo. 2018. The Panama Canal expansion and its impact on East-West liner shipping route selection. Sustainability 10 (12): 4353. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124353.
Pierre, C., P. Francesco, and N. Theo. 2019. Towards low carbon global supply chains: A multi-trade analysis of CO2 emission reductions in container shipping. International Journal of Production Economics 208: 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.11.016.
Prokopowicz, A.K., and J. Berg-Andreassen. 2016. An evaluation of current trends in container shipping industry, Very Large Container Ships (VLCSs), and port capacities to accommodate TTIP increased trade. Transportation Research Procedia.
Raza, Z., M. Svanberg, and B. Wiegmans. 2020. Modal shift from road haulage to short sea shipping: A systematic literature review and research directions. Transport Reviews 40 (3): 382–406. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2020.1714789.
Robinson, R. 1998. Asian hub/feeder nets: The dynamics of restructuring. Maritime Policy and Management 25 (1): 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839800000043.
Rodrigue, J.P., and A. Ashar. 2016. Transshipment hubs in the New Panamax Era: The role of the Caribbean. Journal of Transport Geography 51: 270–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.10.002.
Rousseau, D.M., J. Manning, and D. Denyer. 2008. Evidence in management and organizational science: Assembling the field's full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses. SSRN eLibrary.
Saeed, N., and K. Cullinane. 2021. Identifying the characteristics of China’s maritime trading partners on the basis of bilateral shipping connectivity: A cluster analysis. Maritime Policy & Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2021.1954256.
Saeed, N., K. Cullinane, V. Gekara, and P. Chhetri. 2021. Reconfiguring maritime networks due to the Belt and Road Initiative: Impact on bilateral trade flows. Maritime Economics and Logistics 23 (3): 381–400. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-021-00192-9.
Saeed, N., K. Cullinane, and S. Sødal. 2020. Exploring the relationships between maritime connectivity, international trade and domestic production. Maritime Policy and Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2020.1802783.
Schinas, O., and A.G. von Westarp. 2017. Assessing the impact of the maritime silk road. Journal of Ocean Engineering and Science 2 (3): 186–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joes.2017.08.002.
Schwartz, J., J. Guasch, and G. Wilmsmeier. 2009. The role of transport and logistics costs on food import. Sustainable Development Occasional Papers Series, World Bank.
Shibasaki, R., S. Tanabe, H. Kato, and P.T.W. Lee. 2019. Could Gwadar Port in Pakistan be a new gateway? A network simulation approach in the context of the Belt and Road initiative. Sustainability 11 (20): 5757. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205757.
Song, S.C., S.H. Park, and G.T. Yeo. 2019. Network structure analysis of a sub-hub-oriented port. Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics 35 (2): 118–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2019.06.004.
Tang, Loon Ching, Joyce M. W. Low, and Shao Wei Lam. 2011. Understanding port choice behavior—A network perspective. Networks and Spatial Economics 11 (1): 65–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11067-008-9081-8.
The World Bank. 2022. How does the World Bank classify countries? Accessed 12 June 2022.
Tiwari, P., H. Itoh, and M. Doi. 2003. Shippers’ Port and carrier selection behaviour in China: A discrete choice analysis. Maritime Economics and Logistics 5 (1): 23–39. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100062.
Tran, N.K. 2011. Studying port selection on liner routes: An approach from logistics perspective. Research in Transportation Economics 32 (1): 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2011.06.005.
Tran, N.K., and H.D. Haasis. 2014. Empirical analysis of the container liner shipping network on the East-West corridor (1995–2011). NETNOMICS: Economic Research and Electronic Networking 15 (3): 121–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11066-014-9088-x.
Tran, N.K., and H.D. Haasis. 2018. A research on operational patterns in container liner shipping. Transport 33 (3): 619–632. https://doi.org/10.3846/transport.2018.1571.
Tranfield, D., D. Denyer, and P. Smart. 2003. Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. British Journal of Management 14 (3): 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375.
Ugboma, C., O. Ugboma, and I.C. Ogwude. 2006. An Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) approach to port selection decisions—Empirical evidence from Nigerian Ports. Maritime Economics and Logistics 8 (3): 251–266. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100160.
Vidya, C.T., and F. Taghizadeh-Hesary. 2021. Does infrastructure facilitate trade connectivity? Evidence from the ASEAN. Asia Europe Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10308-021-00614-6.
Walcott, S.M., and Z. Fan. 2017. Comparison of major air freight network hubs in the U.S. and China. Journal of Air Transport Management 61: 64–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2016.06.006.
Walenciak, A., A.M. Constantinou, and M. Roe. 2001. Liner shipping between East and West Europe: Competitive developments in the Poland-United Kingdom trade. Maritime Policy and Management 28 (4): 323–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088830152580432.
Wang, Y., and K. Cullinane. 2008. Measuring container port accessibility: An application of the Principal Eigenvector Method (PEM). Maritime Economics and Logistics 10 (1–2): 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100192.
Wang, Y., and K. Cullinane. 2014. Traffic consolidation in East Asian container ports: A network flow analysis. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 61: 152–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.01.007.
Wang, C., X. Dou, and H. Haralambides. 2022. Port centrality and the Composite Connectivity Index: Introducing a new concept in assessing the attractiveness of hub ports. Maritime Economics and Logistics 24 (1): 67–91. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-022-00220-2.
Wang, W., S. Li, Y. Peng, X. Song, and Q. Ma. 2018. Optimization of refrigerated container shipping network considering transportation time constraint. Dalian Ligong Daxue Xuebao/Journal of Dalian University of Technology 58 (3): 254–260. https://doi.org/10.7511/dllgxb201803005.
Wang, S., Q. Meng, and C.Y. Lee. 2016. Liner container assignment model with transit-time-sensitive container shipment demand and its applications. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 90: 135–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2016.04.014.
Wang, S., and T. Notteboom. 2014. The adoption of liquefied natural gas as a ship fuel: A systematic review of perspectives and challenges. Transport Reviews 34 (6): 749–774. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2014.981884.
Wang, C., and J. Wang. 2011. Spatial pattern of the global shipping network and its hub-and-spoke system. Research in Transportation Economics 32 (1): 54–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2011.06.010.
Wang, C., J. Wang, and C. Ducruet. 2012. Peripheral Challenge in container port system: A case study of Pearl River Delta. Chinese Geographical Science 22 (1): 97–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11769-012-0517-1.
Wang, L., N. Zhang, F. Ye, Y.Y. Lau, and C. Ducruet. 2020. The complex network analysis of liner shipping networks: Lessons from the merger between COSCO and CSCL. Growth and Change 51 (4): 1877–1893. https://doi.org/10.1111/grow.12428.
Wiegmans, B.W., A.V.D. Hoest, and T.E. Notteboom. 2008. Port and terminal selection by deep-sea container operators. Maritime Policy and Management 35 (6): 517–534. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088830802469329.
Wilmsmeier, G., and J. Hoffmann. 2008. Liner shipping connectivity and port infrastructure as determinants of freight rates in the Caribbean. Maritime Economics and Logistics 10 (1–2): 130–151. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100195.
Wilmsmeier, G., and I. Martínez-Zarzoso. 2010. Determinants of maritime transport costs—A panel data analysis for Latin American trade. Transportation Planning and Technology 33 (1): 105–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/03081060903429447.
Wilmsmeier, G., I. Martinez-Zarzoso, and N. Fiess. 2011. Regional hub port development—The case of Montevideo, Uruguay. International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics 3 (4): 475–493. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSTL.2011.041138.
Wilmsmeier, G., and T. Notteboom. 2011. Determinants of liner shippping network configuration: A two-region comparison. GeoJournal 76 (3): 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-009-9333-2.
Wilmsmeier, G., and R.J. Sánchez. 2010. Evolution of shipping networks: Current challenges in emerging markets. Zeitschrift Fur Wirtschaftsgeographie 54 (3–4): 180–193.
Wong, P.C., H. Yan, and C. Bamford. 2008. Evaluation of factors for carrier selection in the China Pearl River delta. Maritime Policy and Management 35 (1): 27–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088830701848854.
Wu, X., M. Luo, and A. Zhang. 2017. Do larger ships visit fewer regions/ports?: An empirical analysis on global liners serving China. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 51 (3): 173–192.
Xu, M., Z. Li, Y. Shi, X. Zhang, and S. Jiang. 2015. Evolution of regional inequality in the global shipping network. Journal of Transport Geography 44: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.02.003.
Xu, M., Q. Pan, H. Xia, and N. Masuda. 2020. Estimating international trade status of countries from global liner shipping networks: Shipping network and International trade. Royal Society Open Science 7 (10): 200386. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.200386rsos200386.
Yang, S.H., C.C. Chung, and H.S. Lee. 2014. Containership flag selection: The opening of direct shipping between Taiwan and China. Mathematical Problems in Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/425808.
Yap, W.Y. 2019. Container trade and shipping connectivity of Vietnam: Implications of comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-pacific partnership and 21st century Maritime Silk Road. International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics 11 (1): 94–116. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSTL.2019.096873.
Yap, W.Y., J.S.L. Lam, and T. Notteboom. 2006. Developments in container port competition in East Asia. Transport Reviews 26 (2): 167–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441640500271117.
Yap, W.Y., and T. Notteboom. 2011. Dynamics of liner shipping service scheduling and their impact on container port competition. Maritime Policy and Management 38 (5): 471–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2011.597451.
Yap, W.Y., and S.M. Zahraei. 2018. Liner shipping alliances and their impact on shipping connectivity in Southeast Asia. Maritime Business Review 3 (3): 243–255. https://doi.org/10.1108/MABR-05-2018-0018.
Yeo, Gi-Tae., Michael Roe, and John Dinwoodie. 2008. Evaluating the competitiveness of container ports in Korea and China. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 42 (6): 910–921. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2008.01.014.
Yin, R.K. 1989. Case studies research: Design and methods, 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications.
Zhang, J., Y. Wu, and P. Liu. 2007. Routing Problem for Hybrid Hub-and-spoke Transportation Network: a Case Study of a LTL Carrier. In 2007 IEEE International Conference on Automation and Logistics, 18–21. Aug. 2007
Acknowledgements
The assistance of the John Prime Foundation in sponsoring the lead author’s doctoral research, upon which this paper is based, is gratefully acknowledged.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
A sample of studies (20) evaluated by the modified CASP Checklist as suggested by Wang and Notteboom (2014).
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Tsantis, A., Mangan, J., Calatayud, A. et al. Container shipping: a systematic literature review of themes and factors that influence the establishment of direct connections between countries. Marit Econ Logist 25, 667–697 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-022-00249-3
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-022-00249-3