Advertisement

Research Methodology for Container Port Security

  • Xufan ZhangEmail author
  • Michael Roe
Chapter

Abstract

The choice of research strategy and analysis is always determined by the research objectives as well as the relevant literature. It is important to use a suitable methodology by which the impacts of port security measures including the Container Security Initiative (CSI) on EU container seaport competition will be determined. In choosing the methodology for data collection, the available and applicable methods need to be considered first. Whether these techniques suit the research aim and objectives is another substantial consideration. The methodology for data collection and analysis will be discussed and presented in this chapter.

References

  1. Abdel-Fattah, N. (1997). Privatisation of the Road Freight Industry in Egypt and Hungary (PhD thesis). University of Plymouth, UK.Google Scholar
  2. Acosta, M., Coronado, D., & Cerban, M. M. (2007). Port competitiveness in container traffic from an internal point of view: The experience of the Port of Algeciras Bay. Maritime Policy and Management, 34(5), 501–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akkermans, H. A., Bogerd, P., Yucesan, E., & van Wassenhove, L. N. (2003). The impact of ERP on supply chain management: Exploratory findings from a European Delphi study. European Journal of Operational Research, 146(2), 284–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aligica, P. D., & Herritt, R. (2009). Epistemology, social technology, and expert judgement: Olaf Helmer’s contribution to future research. Futures, 41(5), 253–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Allen, N. H. (2006). The container security initiative costs, implications and relevance to developing countries. Public Administration and Development, 26(5), 439–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aronietis, R., Van de Voorde, E., & Vanelslander, T. (2010). Port Competitiveness Determinants of Selected European Ports in The Containerised Cargo Market. International Association of Maritime Economists Conference IAME (Vol. 10). Lisbon, Portugal.Google Scholar
  7. Banomyong, R. (2005). The impact of port and trade security initiatives on maritime supply chain management. Maritime Policy and Management, 32(1), 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barbour, R. (2007). Doing Focus Groups. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beech, B. F. (1997). Studying the future: A Delphi survey of how multi-disciplinary clinical staff view the likely development of two community mental health centres over the course of the next two years. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25, 331–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bennett, A. C., & Chin, Y. Z. (2008). 100% Container Scanning: Security Policy Implications for Global Supply Chains (Master of Science Dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  11. Berg, B. (1995). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. London: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  12. Bichou, K. (2005). Maritime Security: Framework, Methods and Applications (Report to UNCTAD). Geneva: UNCTAD.Google Scholar
  13. Bichou, K. (2008a). Security and Risk-Based Models in Shipping and Ports: Review and Critical Analysis, in ITF. Terrorism and International Transport: Towards Risk-based Security Policy. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  14. Bichou, K. (2008b). Security of ships and shipping operations. In Talley, W. (Ed.), Ship Piracy and Security (pp. 73–88). London: Informa.Google Scholar
  15. Bichou, K. (2011). Assessing the impact of procedural security on container port efficiency. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 13(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bird, J., & Bland, G. (1988). Freight forwarders speak: The perception of route competition via seaports in the European Communities Research Project. Part 1. Maritime Policy and Management, 15(1), 35–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bleicher, J. (2011). Scenario Methods as a Means for Enhancing Organisational Learning: A Delphi Study (Proquest, Umi Dissertation Publishing).Google Scholar
  18. Bolger, F., Stranieri, A., Wright, G., & Yearwood, J. (2011). Does the Delphi process lead to increased accuracy in group-based judgmental forecasts or does it simply induce consensus amongst judgmental forecasters? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(9), 1671–1680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Brett, V., & Roe, M. (2010). The potential for the clustering of the maritime transport sector in the Greater Dublin Region. Maritime Policy and Management, 37(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Briouig, M. (2013). Risk Management in Liquefied Natural Gas Ports and Marine Terminals Supply Chains (PhD thesis). Plymouth University, UK.Google Scholar
  21. Brooks, M. (1985). An alternative theoretical approach to the evaluation of liner shipping—Part 2: Choice criteria. Maritime Policy and Management, 12(2), 145–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Campbell, S., Cantrill, J., & Roberts, D. (2000). Prescribing indicators for UK general practice: Delphi consultation study. British Medical Journal, 321, 425–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Campbell, S. M., Shield, T., Rogers, A., & Gask, L. (2004). How do stakeholder groups vary in a Delphi technique about primary mental health care and what factors influence their ratings? QualSaf Health Care, 13(6), 428–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. CBP. (2006). Container Security Initiative: Strategic Plan 2006–2011. Available at http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/trade/cargo_security/csi/csi_strategic_plan.ctt/csi_strategic_plan.pdf. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  26. CBP. (2011). Container Security Initiatives in Summary. Available at https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/csi_brochure_2011_3.pdf. Accessed 7 August 2016.
  27. CBP. (2014). CSI: Container Security Initiatives. Available at https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/ports-entry/cargo-security/csi/csi-brief. Accessed 27 August 2016.
  28. Clayton, M. J. (1997). Delphi: A technique to harness expert opinion for critical decision-making tasks in education. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 17(4), 373–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Cooper, J. C. (1994). Logistics Futures in Europe—A Delphi Study. Centre for Logistics and Transportation, Cranfield University, UK.Google Scholar
  30. Cottam, H. (2012). An Analysis of Eastern European Liner Shipping During the Period of Transition (PhD thesis). Plymouth University, UK.Google Scholar
  31. Cottam, H., & Roe, M. (2004). The impact of transitional changes on maritime transport in Central and Eastern Europe. Maritime Policy and Management, 31(4), 287–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Cottam, H., Roe, M., & Challacombe, J. (2004, January). Outsourcing of trucking activities by relief organisations. Journal of Humanitarian Assistance, 1–26.Google Scholar
  33. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  34. Crisp, J., Pelletier, D., Duffield, C., Adams, A., & Nagy, S. (1997). The Delphi method? Nursing Research, 46(2), 116–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Cullinane, K., Song, D. W., & Gray, R. (2002). A stochastic frontier model of the efficiency of major container terminals in Asia: Assessing the influence of administrative and ownership structures. Transportation Research Part A, 36, 743–762.Google Scholar
  36. Cullinane, K., Wang, T., Song, D., & Ji, P. (2005). The technical efficiency of container ports: Comparing data envelopment analysis and stochastic frontier analysis. Transportation Research Part A, 40(4), 354–374.Google Scholar
  37. Dalkey, N., & Helmer, O. (1963). An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Management Science, 9(3), 458–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Dalkey, N. C., Rourke, D. L., Lewis, R., & Snyder, D. (1972). Studies in the Quality of Life. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  39. Dallimore, C. (2008). Securing the Supply Chain: Does the Container Security Initiative Comply with WTO Law? (Dissertation). University of Muenster. Available at https://www.wwu-customs.de/fileadmin/downloads/pdfs/diss_dallimore.PDF. Accessed 30 January 2016.
  40. Davidson, P., Merritt-Gray, M., Buchanan, J., & Noel, J. (1997). Voices from practice: Mental health nurses identify research priorities. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, XI(6), 340–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Day, J., & Bobeva, M. (2005). A generic toolkit for the successful management of Delphi studies. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methodology, 3(2), 103–116.Google Scholar
  42. De Langen, P. W. (2007). Port competition and selection in contestable hinterlands: The case of Austria. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 7(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
  43. De Martino, M., & Morvillo, A. (2008). Activities, resources and inter-organisational relationships: Key factors in port competitiveness. Maritime Policy and Management, 35(6), 571–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. De Meyrick, J. (2003). The Delphi method and health research. Health Education, 103, 7–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Dekker, S., & Stevens, H. (2007). Maritime security in the European Union-empirical findings on financial implications for port facilities. Maritime Policy and Management, 34(5), 458–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Delbecq, A. L., Van de Ven, A. H., & Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Group Techniques for Program Planning: A Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi Processes. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.Google Scholar
  47. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  48. Dinwoodie, J., Tuck, S., & Rigot-Müller, P. (2013). Maritime oil freight flows to 2050: Delphi perceptions of maritime specialists. Energy Policy, 63(3), 553–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Dinwoodie, J., Landamore, M., & Rigot-Muller, P. (2014). Dry bulk shipping flows to 2050: Delphi perceptions of early career specialists. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 88, 64–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Donner, M., & Kruk, C. (2009). Supply Chain Security Guide. The World Bank/DFID, 1, pp. 1–107. Available at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPRAL/Resources/SCS_Guide_Final.pdf. Accessed 20 April 2016.
  51. Elgarhy, A. M. (2016). An Analysis of Policy Making for Dry Port Location Capacity: A Case Study on Alexandria (PhD thesis). University of Plymouth, UK.Google Scholar
  52. Flick, U. (2009). Managing Quality in Qualitative Research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  53. Fowles, J. (1978). Handbook of Futures Research. Westport, CO: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  54. Frankel, E. G. (1992). Hierarchical logic in shipping policy and decision-making. Maritime Policy and Management, 19(3), 211–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Geist, M. R. (2010). Using the Delphi method to engage stakeholders: A comparison of two studies. Evaluation and Programme Planning, 33(2), 147–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Gibbs, G. (2008). Analysing Qualitative Data (Qualitative Research Kit). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  57. Gnatzy, T., Warth, J., der Gracht, Von, & Darkow, I.-L. (2011). Validating an innovative real-time Delphi approach—A methodological comparison between real-time and conventional Delphi studies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(9), 1681–1694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Goluchowicz, K., & Blind, K. (2011). Identification of future fields of standardisation: An explorative application of the Delphi methodology. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(9), 1526–1541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Goodman, C. M. (1987). The Delphi technique: A critique. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 12, 729–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Greatorex, J., & Dexter, T. (2000). An accessible analytical approach for investigating what happens between the rounds of a Delphi study. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32(4), 1016–1024.Google Scholar
  61. Green, B., Jones, M., & Hughes, D. (1999). Applying the Delphi technique in a study of GPs information requirement. Health and Social Care in the Community, 7(3), 198–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Grix, J. (2004). The Foundations of Research. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  63. Grosso, M., & Monteiro, F. (2008). Relevant Strategic Criteria When Choosing a Container Port—The Case of the Port of Genoa. European Transport Conference 2008.Google Scholar
  64. Gupta, U. G., & Clarke, R. E. (1996). Theory and applications of the Delphi technique: A bibliography (1975–1994). Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 53(2), 185–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Guy, E., & Urli, B. (2006). Port selection and multi criteria analysis: An application to Montreal-New York alternative. Maritime Economic and Logistics, 8(2), 169–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Ha, M. S. (2003). A comparison of service quality at major container ports: Implications for Korean ports. Journal of Transport Geography, 11, 131–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Haezendonck, E., & Notteboom, T. (2002). The competitive advantage of seaports. In M. Huybrechts, et al. (Eds.), Port Competitiveness: An Economic and Legal Analysis of the Factors Determining the Competitiveness of Seaports (pp. 67–87). De Boeck: Antwerp.Google Scholar
  68. Hanafin, S. (2004). Review of Literature on the Delphi Technique. Available at https://www.dcya.gov.ie/documents/publications/Delphi_Technique_A_Literature_Review.pdf. Accessed 26 April 2018.
  69. Hannes, K., & Lockwood, C. (2012). Synthesizing Qualitative Research: Choosing the Right Approach (Vol. 1). London: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  70. Hasson, F., Keeney, S., & Mckenna, H. (2000). Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32(4), 1008–1015.Google Scholar
  71. Hsu, C. C., & Sandford, B. A. (2007). The Delphi technique: Making sense of consensus. Practical Assessment Research and Evaluation, 12(10), 2.Google Scholar
  72. Hussler, C., Muller, P., & Ronde, P. (2011). Is diversity in Delphi panellist groups useful? Evidence from a French forecasting exercise on the future of nuclear energy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(9), 1642–1653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Iqbal, S., & Pipon-Young, L. (2009). The Delphi method. Psychologist, 22(7), 598–601.Google Scholar
  74. Islam, D. M. Z., Dinwoodie, J., & Roe, M. (2006). Promoting development through multimodal freight transport in Bangladesh. Transport Reviews, 26(5), 571–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Kapoor, P. (1987). A Systems Approach to Documentary Maritime Fraud (PhD thesis). University of Plymouth, UK.Google Scholar
  76. Keeney, S., Hasson, F., & Mckenna, H. P. (2001). A critical review of the Delphi technique as a research methodology for nursing. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 38, 195–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Kent, P., & Ashar, A. (2001). Port competition regulation: A tool for monitoring for anticompetitive behaviour. International Journal of Maritime Economics, 3, 27–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Koch, C. (2002). Testimony Before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Available at http://www.house.gov/transportation/cgmt/03-13-02/koch.html. Accessed 13 March 2016.
  79. Kumar, S., & Rajan, V. (2002). An analysis of intermodal transport carrier selection criteria for Pacific-Rim imports to New England. Journal of Transportation Management, 13(1), 19–27.Google Scholar
  80. Lai, V. S., Wong, B. K., & Cheung, W. (2002). Group decision-making in a multiple criteria environment: A case using the AHP in software selection. European Journal of Operational Research, 137, 134–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Landeta, J., Barrutia, J., & Lertxundi, A. (2011). Hybrid Delphi: Methodology to facilitate contribution from experts in professional contexts. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(9), 1629–1641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Leachman, R. C. (2008). Port and modal allocation of waterborne containerized imports from Asia to the United States. Transportation Research Part E, 44(2), 313–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Liimatainen, H., Kallionpää, E., Pöllänen, M., Stenholm, P., Tapio, P., & McKinnon, A. (2014). Decarbonizing road freight in the future—Detailed scenarios of the carbon emissions of Finnish road freight transport in 2030 using a Delphi method approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 81(1), 177–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Limao, N., & Venables, A. J. (2001). Infrastructure, geographical disadvantage, transport costs and trade. The World Bank Economic Review, 15(3), 451–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (2002). The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications. Available at http://is.njit.edu/pubs/delphibook/delphibook.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2013.
  86. Lirn, T. C., Thanopoulou, H. A., Beynon, M. J., & Beresford, A. K. C. (2004). An application of AHP on transhipment port selection: A global perspective. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 6(1), 70–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Lloyd’s List. (2014). Top 20 European Ports. Available at https://www.lloydslist.com/ll/incoming/article431990.ece. Accessed 25 May 2015.
  88. Ludwig, B. (1997). Predicting the future: Have you considered using the Delphi methodology? Journal of Extension, 35(5), 1–4.Google Scholar
  89. Machalaba, D. (2001, July 9). US Ports Are Losing the Battle to Keep Up with Overseas Trade. The Wall Street Journal. 2001. Available at http://www.nc.gsu.edu/_ecojxm/7030/notes/articles/w070901.htm. Accessed 2 December 2016.
  90. Makukha, K., & Gray, R. (2004). Logistics partnerships between shippers and logistics service providers: The relevance of strategy. International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications, 7(4), 361–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Malchow, M., & Kanafani, A. (2001). A disaggregate analysis of factors influencing port selection. Maritime Policy and Management, 28(3), 265–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Malchow, M. B., & Kanafani, A. (2004). A disaggregate analysis of port selection. Transportation Research Part E, 40, 317–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Mangan, J., Lalwani, C., & Gardner, B. (2002). Modelling port/ferry choice in RoRo freight transportation. International Journal of Transport Management, 1(1), 15–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Martonosi, S. E., Ortiz, D. S., & Willis, H. H. (2005). Evaluating the viability of 100 percent container inspections at America’s ports, in Richardson, H. W., Gordon, P., & Moore, J. E. II (Eds.), The Economic Impacts of Terrorist Attacks. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  95. Mason, K. J., & Alamdari, F. (2007). EU network carriers, low cost carriers and consumer behaviour: A Delphi study of future trends. Journal of Air Transport Management, 13(5), 299–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. McKenna, H. (1994). The Delphi technique: A worthwhile research approach for nursing? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 19, 1221–1225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Meersman, H., Pauwels, T., Van de Voorde, E., & Vanelslander, T. (2008). The Relation Between Port Competition and Hinterland Connections: The Case of the ‘Iron Rhine’ and the ‘Betuweroute’, International Forum on Shipping, Ports and Airports (IFSPA 2008)—Trade-Based Global Supply Chain and Transport Logistics Hubs: Trends and Future Development, Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  98. Metaparti, P. (2010). Rhetoric, rationality and reality in post-9/11 maritime security. Maritime Policy and Management, 37(7), 723–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Millar, G. (2001). The development of indicators for sustainable tourism: Results of a Delphi survey of tourism researchers. Tourism Management, 22, 351–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Murphy, P. R., & Daley, J. M. (1994). A framework for applying logistical segmentation. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 24(10), 13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Murphy, P. R., Daley, J. M., & Dalenberg, D. R. (1992). Port selection criteria: An application of a transportation research framework. Logistics and Transportation Review, 28, 237–255.Google Scholar
  102. Myers, M. D. (2008). Qualitative Research in Business and Management. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  103. Neuman, W. L. (2011). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Boston, MA: Allyn & Baker.Google Scholar
  104. Nir, A., Lin, K., & Liang, G. (2003). Port choice behaviour-from the perspective of the shipper. Maritime Policy and Management, 30(2), 165–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Notteboom, T. (2012). Dynamics in Port Competition in Europe: Implications for North Italian Ports. Workshop ‘I porti del Nord’-Milan, 18 April.Google Scholar
  106. Notteboom, T., & Yap, W. Y. (2012). Port competition and competitiveness, in Talley, W. (Ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Maritime Economics (pp. 549–570). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Nowack, M., Endrikat, J., & Guenther, E. (2011). Review of Delphi-based scenario studies: Quality and design considerations. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(9), 1603–1615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. OECD. (2003). Maritime Transport Committee Security in Maritime Transport: Risk Factors and Economic Impact. Available at https://www.oecd.org/newsroom/4375896.pdf.
  109. Okoli, C., & Pawlowski, S. D. (2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: An example, design considerations and applications. Information & Management, 42, 15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Parente, R., & Anderson-Parente, J. (2011). A case study of long-term Delphi accuracy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(9), 1705–1711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Parliament of Australia. (2003). The US Container Security Initiative and Its Implications for Australia. Available at http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/CIB/cib0203/03cib27.
  112. Parsons, J., Dinwoodie, J., & Roe, M. (2011). Northern opportunities: A strategic review of Canada’s Arctic icebreaking services. Marine Policy, 35(4), 549–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Piecyk, M. I., & McKinnon, A. (2009). Environmental Impact of Road Freight Transport in 2020: Full Report of a Delphi Survey. Edinburgh: Heriot-Watt University.Google Scholar
  114. Polit, D. F., Beck, C. T., & Hungler, B. P. (2001). Essentials of Nursing Research: Methods, Appraisal, and Utilization (5th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.Google Scholar
  115. Powell, C. (2003). The Delphi technique: Myths and realities. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 41(4), 376–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Rowe, G., & Wright, G. (2011). The Delphi technique: Past, present and future prospects. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(9), 1487–1490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Rowe, G., Wright, G., & McColl, A. (2005). Judgment change during Delphi-like procedures: The role of majority influence, expertise and confidence. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72, 377–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Rubie-Davies, C. M. (2007). Classroom interactions: Exploring the practices of high and low expectation teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 289–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Sackman, H. (1975). Delphi Critique. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  120. Saldanha, J., & Gray, R. (2002). The potential for British coastal shipping in a multimodal chain. Maritime Policy and Management, 29(1), 77–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Sanchez, R., Hoffmann, J., Micco, A., Pizzolitto, G., Sguti, M., & Wilmsmeier, G. (2003). Port efficiency and international trade: Port efficiency as a determinant of maritime transport costs. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 5, 199–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Schuckmann, S. W., Gnatzy, T., Darkow, I., & von der Gracht, H. A. (2012). Analysis of factors influencing the development of transport infrastructure until the year 2030—A Delphi based scenario study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(8), 1373–1387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Seuring, S., & Müller, M. (2008). From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15), 1699–1710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Sharkey, S. B., & Sharples, A. (2003). The impact on work-related stress of mental health teams following team-based learning on clinical risk management. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 10(1), 73–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Shintani, K., Imai, A., Nishimura, E., & Papadimitriou, S. (2007). The container shipping network design problem with empty container repositioning. Transportation Research Part E, 43(1), 39–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Silverman, D. (2011). Interpreting Qualitative Research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  127. Sindi, S. H. O. (2016). Development of a Multi-Dimensional Matrix for Supply Chain Management (PhD thesis). Plymouth Uiversity, UK.Google Scholar
  128. Slack, B. (1985). Containerisation inter-port competition and port selection. Maritime Policy and Management, 12(4), 293–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Song, D. W., & Yeo, K.-T. (2004). A competitive analysis of Chinese container ports using the analytic hierarchy process. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 6, 34–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Sumsion, T. (1998). The Delphi technique: An adaptive research tool. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61(4), 153–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Thai, V. V. (2007). Impacts of security improvements on service quality in maritime transport: An empirical study of Vietnam. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 9(4), 335–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Tiwari, P., Itoh, H., & Doi, M. (2003). Shippers’ port and carrier selection behaviour in China: A discrete choice analysis. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 5(1), 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Tongzon, J. (1995). Determinants of port performance and efficiency. Transportation Research Part A, 29(3), 245–252.Google Scholar
  134. Tongzon, J. L. (2009). Port choice and freight forwarders. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 45(1), 186–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Tongzon, J., & Heng, W. (2005). Port privatisation, efficiency and competitiveness: Some empirical evidence from container ports (terminals). Transportation Research Part A, 39(5), 405–424.Google Scholar
  136. Tongzon, J. L., & Sawant, L. (2007). Port choice in a competitive environment: From the shipping lines’ perspective. Applied Economics, 39, 477–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Turoff, M., & Hiltz, S. R. (1996). Computer based Delphi processes. In M. Adler & E. Ziglio (Eds.), Gazing into the Oracle: The Delphi and Its Application to Social Policy and Public Health. London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
  138. Tzeng, G., Teng, M., Chen, J., & Opricovic, S. (2002). Multicriteria selection for a restaurant location in Taipei. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 21, 171–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Ugboma, C., Ugboma, O., & Ogwude, I. C. (2006). An Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) approach to port selection decisions—Empirical evidence from Nigerian ports. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 8(3), 251–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. UNCTAD. (2003, February 24–28). Report on the Expert Meeting on Efficient Transport and Trade Facilitation to Improve Participation by Developing Countries in International Trade: Problems and Potential for the Application of Current Trade Facilitation Measures by Developing Countries. Trade and Development Board. Commission on Enterprise, Business Facilitation and Development Seventh session, Geneva, pp. 2–9.Google Scholar
  141. van Zolingen, S. J., & Klaassen, C. A. (2003). Selection processes in a Delphi study about key qualifications in senior secondary vocational education. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 70(4), 317–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Veldman, S., & Buckmann, E. H. (2003). A model on container port competition: An application for the West European container hub-ports. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 5, 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. von der Gracht, H. A. (2008). The Future of Logistics: Scenarios for 2025. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Wang, C. C., Wang, Y., Zhang, K., Fang, J., Liu, W., Luo, S., et al. (2003). Reproductive health indicators for China’s rural areas. Social Science and Medicine, 57(2), 217–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Warner, L. (2014). Using the Delphi Technique to Achieve Consensus: A Tool for Guiding Extension Programmes. Department of Agricultural Education and Communication, UF/IFAS Extension, AEC521.Google Scholar
  146. Watkins, J. (2011). Shaping the Future of Northeast Michigan: Utilising the Delphi Method to Inform Planning Scenario Construction. Milton Keynes, UK: Lightning Source UK Ltd.Google Scholar
  147. Wechsler, W. (1978). Delphi-Methode, Gestaltung und Potential für betriebliche Prognoseprozesse. Schriftenreihe Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Forschung und Entwicklung, München. p. 23.Google Scholar
  148. Wengraf, T. (2004). Qualitative Research Interviewing: Biographic Narrative and Semi-Structured Methods. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  149. Whitman, N. (1990). The committee meeting alternative: Using The Delphi technique. Journal of Nursing Administration, 20(7), 30–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Wiegmans, B. W., Van Der Hoest, A., & Notteboom, T. E. (2008). Port and terminal selection by deep-sea container operators. Maritime Policy and Management, 35(6), 517–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. Williams, P., & Webb, C. (1994). The Delphi technique: A methodological discussion. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 19, 180–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Yap, W., & Lam, J. (2006a). Competition dynamics between container ports in East Asia. Transportation Research Part A, 40(1), 35–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. Yap, W., & Lam, J. (2006b). A measurement and comparison of cost competitiveness of container ports in South East Asia. Transportation, 33, 641–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. Yeo, G. T. (2007). Port Competitiveness in North East Asia: An Integrated Fuzzy Approach to Expert Evaluations (PhD thesis). Plymouth University, UK.Google Scholar
  155. Yeo, G., Pak, J., & Yang, Z. (2013). Analysis of dynamic effects on seaports adopting port security policy. Transportation Research Part A, 49, 285–301.Google Scholar
  156. Zeedick, D. (2011). The Modified Delphi Method to Analyse the Application of Instructional Design Theory to Online Graduate Education (Proquest, Umi Dissertation Publishing).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LogisticsBeijing WuZi UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.Graduate School of ManagementPlymouth UniversityPlymouthUK

Personalised recommendations