Advertisement

The Implications for Container Port Security

  • Xufan ZhangEmail author
  • Michael Roe
Chapter

Abstract

The aim of this chapter is to discuss the findings from the secondary data collected in the literature review and the primary data from the Delphi survey. It starts with a discussion of the Delphi technique and then gives a critical analysis of its implementation. The conceptual model will be discussed to establish if it has succeeded in capturing the complexities and relations among the variables identified in the current maritime security area, namely maritime transport risk; maritime security regimes; implementation of the CSI and EU container seaport competition, and integrating with the results of the Delphi study. The discussion will make specific reference to the five conceptual assumptions developed in Chapter  4. This chapter also takes into consideration any changes that have continued to occur in maritime security.

References

  1. Alexander, J., & Kroposki, M. (1999). Outcomes for community health nursing practice. Journal of Nursing Administration, 29, 49–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Altiok, T. (2011). Port security/safety, risk analysis, and modelling. Annals of Operations Research, 187, 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. American Shipper. (2014). CSI’s Evolution. Available at http://www.americanshipper.com/main/news/csis-evolution57536.aspx?taxonomy=Security. Accessed 10 December 2016.
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. Bichou, K. (2004). The Isps Code and the cost of port compliance: An initial logistics and supply chain framework for port security assessment and management. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 6, 322–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bichou, K. (2008). 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
  10. Bichou, K. (2011). Assessing the impact of procedural security on container port efficiency. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 13(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bosk, L. B. (2006). Port and supply chain security initiatives in the United States and Abroad. The University of Texas at Austin Policy Research Report, 150, 1–192.Google Scholar
  12. Bove, V., Elia, L., & Sekeris, P. (2014). US security strategy and the gains from bilateral trade. Review of International Economics, 22(5), 863–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2011). Business Research Methods (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Caldwell, S. L. (2007). Maritime Security: Observations on Selected Aspects of the SAFE Port Act: GAO-07-754T (GAO Reports), p. 1.Google Scholar
  16. CBP. (2003a). Container Security Initiative: Update. United States Department of Homeland Security 2003. Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/. Accessed 17 October 2014.
  17. CBP. (2003b). Enforcement of 24 Hour Rule Begins February 2. Available at http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/newsroom/news_releases/archives/cbp_press_releases/012003/01302003.xml. Accessed 30 July 2013.
  18. Ceriotto, L. (2004). Buscantecnologia china para la aduana. Available at www.clarin.com. Accessed 30 October 2014.
  19. Chang, C., & Thai, V. (2016). Do port security quality and service quality influence customer satisfaction and loyalty? Maritime Policy and Management, 43(6), 720–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Clark, X., Dollar, D., & Micco, D. (2004). Port efficiency, maritime transport costs and bilateral trade (NBER Working Paper No. 10353). Available at http://www.nber.org/papers/w10353.pdf. Accessed 4 January 2017.
  21. Congressional Budget Office. (2016). Scanning and Imaging Shipping Containers Overseas: Costs and Alternatives. Available at http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/51478-Shipping-Containers.pdf. Accessed 10 March 2017.
  22. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of Qualitative Research (4th ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Cornick, P. (2006). Nitric oxide education survey—Use of a Delphi survey to produce guidelines for training neonatal nurses to work with inhaled nitric oxide. Journal of Neonatal Nursing, 12(2), 62–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cottam, H. (2012). An Analysis of Eastern European Liner Shipping During the Period of Transition (PhD thesis). Plymouth University, UK.Google Scholar
  25. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. 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
  27. 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, Ill.: Scott, Foresman.Google Scholar
  28. 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
  29. Diop, A., Hartman, D., & Rexrode, D. (2007). C-TPAT Partners Cost/Benefit Survey. Washington, DC: CBP.Google Scholar
  30. 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.
  31. Drost, E. A. (2011). Validity and reliability in social science research. Education Research and Perspectives, 38(1), 105–123.Google Scholar
  32. Engels, T. C. E., & Kennedy, H. P. (2007). Enhancing a Delphi study on family-focused prevention. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74(4), 433–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fiander, M., & Burns, T. P. (1998). Essential components of schizophrenia care: A Delphi approach. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 98, 400–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Fleming, D. K., & Baird, A. J. (1999). Some reflections on port competition in the United States and Western Europe. Maritime Policy and Management, 26(4), 383–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Fowles, J. (1978). Handbook of Futures Research. Westport, CO: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  36. Fung, K. F. (2001). Competition between the ports of Hong Kong and Singapore: A structural vector error correction model to forecast the demand for container handling services. Maritime Policy and Management, 27(1), 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. GAO. (2003). Container Security: Expansion of Key Customs Programs Will Require Greater Attention to Critical Success Factors 2003 (United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) Reports), p. 1. Accessed 28 October 2016.Google Scholar
  38. Hasson, F., & Keeney, S. (2011). Enhancing rigour in the Delphi technique research. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(9), 1695–1704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hasson, F., Keeney, S., & McKenna, H. (2000). Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32(4), 1008–1015.Google Scholar
  40. Haynes, J., Hough, P., Malik, S., & Pettiford, L. (2011). World Politics. London: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
  41. Hill, K. Q., & Fowles, J. (1975). The methodological worth of the Delphi forecasting technique. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 7, 179–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Holmes, J. L. (2004). The container security initiative. Fleet Equipment, 30, 15.Google Scholar
  43. Hsu, C. C., & Sandford, B. A. (2007). The Delphi technique: Making sense of consensus. Practical Assessment Research and Evaluation, 12(10), 2.Google Scholar
  44. Huybrechts, M., Meersman, H., Van de Voorde, E., Van Hooydonk, E., Verbeke, A., & Winkelmans, W. (Eds.). (2002). Port Competitiveness: An Economic and Legal Analysis of the Factors Determining the Competitiveness of Seaports. Antwerp: De Boeck Ltd.Google Scholar
  45. Jeon, I.-S., Kim, H.-S., & Kim, B.-J. (1993). Strategy for Improvement of Competitive Power in Korea Container Port. Seoul: Korea Maritime Institute.Google Scholar
  46. Kim, H.-S. (1993). Decision Components of Shippers’ Port Choice in Korea. Seoul: Korea Maritime Institute.Google Scholar
  47. Kumar, R. (2010). Research Methodology: A Step-By-Step Guide for Beginners (3rd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  48. Lehtinen, U., & Lehtinen, J. R. (1991). Two approaches to service quality dimensions. The Service Industries Journal, 11(3), 287–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Limao, N., & Venables, A. J. (2001). Infrastructure, geographical disadvantage, transport costs and trade. The World Bank Economic Review, 15(3), 451–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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.
  51. Ludwig, B. G. (1994). Internationalizing Extension: An Exploration of the Characteristics Evident in a State University Extension System That Achieves Internationalization (PhD thesis). The Ohio State University, Columbus.Google Scholar
  52. Marchais-Roubelat, A., & Roubelat, F. (2011). The Delphi method as a ritual: Inquiring the Delphic Oracle. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(9), 1491–1499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Martonosi, S. E., Ortiz, D. S., & Willis, H. H. (2005). Evaluating the viability of 100 percent container inspections at America’s ports. In H. W. Richardson, P. Gordon, & J. E. Moore (Eds.), The Economic Impacts of Terrorist Attacks. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  54. McCalla, R. (1999). Global change, local pain: Intermodal seaport terminals and their service areas. Journal of Transport Geography, 7, 247–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Metaparti, P. (2010). Rhetoric, rationality and reality in post-9/11 maritime security. Maritime Policy and Management, 37(7), 723–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Miller, J. (2007, October 25). New shipping law makes big waves in foreign ports. Wall Street Journal.Google Scholar
  57. Mitchell, V. (1996). Assessing the reliability and validity of questionnaires: An empirical example. Journal of Applied Management Studies, 5(2), 199–207.Google Scholar
  58. Neuman, W. L. (2011). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Boston: Allyn & Baker.Google Scholar
  59. Nijdam, M., de Jong, O., van der Horst, M., van den Bossche, M., de Swart, L., & Buckmann, E. (2014). Level Playing Field: Study on Distorted Cross-Border Competition Between Seaports, RHV-Erasmus University/Ecorys, Available at https://www.government.nl/binaries/government/documents/reports/2014/02/01/level-playing-field/level-playing-field-eindrapport-engels.pdf+&cd=1&hl=zh-CN&ct=clnk&gl=uk. Accessed 4 March 2016.
  60. Notteboom, T., & Yap, W. Y. (2012). Port competition and competitiveness. In W. Talley (Ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Maritime Economics (pp. 549–570). Blackwell: Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. OECD. (2003). Maritime Transport Committee Security in Maritime Transport: Risk Factors and Economic Impact. Available at https://www.oecd.org/newsroom/4375896.pdf.
  62. Oksenberg, L., Cannell, C., & Kalton, G. (1991). New strategies for presenting survey questions. Journal of Official Statistics, 7(3), 349–365.Google Scholar
  63. Orient Overseas Container Line. (2016). Local Surcharges. Available at http://www.oocl.com/netherlands/eng/localinformation/localsurcharges/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed 15 September 2016.
  64. Pantouvakis, A. (2006). Port-service quality dimensions and passenger profiles: An exploratory examination and analysis. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 8(4), 402–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Parola, F., Risitano, M., Ferretti, M., & Panetti, E. (2017). The drivers of port competitiveness: A critical review. Transport Reviews, 37(1), 116–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Port of Rotterdam. (2015). Port of Rotterdam Statistics. Available at https://www.portofrotterdam.com/en/downloads/factsheets-brochures/port-statistics-2015. Accessed 14 February 2017.
  67. Punch, K. (2005). Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  68. Ritchie, J., & Lewis, J. (2003). Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  69. Rowe, G., & Wright, G. (2011). The Delphi technique: Past, present and future prospects. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(9), 1487–1490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Saunders, M., Thornhill, A., & Lewis, P. (2012). Research Methods for Business Students (6th ed.). London: Prentice Hall Publishing.Google Scholar
  71. Sekaran, U. (2003). Research Methods for Business (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  72. 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
  73. Sumsion, T. (1998). The Delphi technique: An adaptive research tool. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61(4), 153–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 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
  75. Thai, V. V. (2009). Effective maritime security: Conceptual model and empirical evidence. Maritime Policy and Management, 36(2), 147–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Thibault, M., Brooks, M., & Button, K. (2006). The response of the US maritime industry to the new container security initiatives. Transportation Journal, 45(1), 5–15.Google Scholar
  77. 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
  78. 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
  79. Van de Voorde, E., & Winkelmans, W. (2002). A general introduction to port competition and management. In M. Huybrechts, H. Meersman, E. Van de Voorde, E. Van Hooydonk, A. Verbeke, & W. Winkelmans (Eds.), Port Competitiveness (pp. 1–15). De Boeck: Antwerp.Google Scholar
  80. 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
  81. Von der Gracht, H. A. (2008). The Future of Logistics: Scenarios for 2025. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wilson, B. (1990). Systems: Concepts, Methodologies and Applications (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  83. Witkin, B. R., & Altschuld, J. W. (1995). Planning and Conducting Needs Assessment: A Practical Guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  84. WSC. (2007). Statement Regarding Legislation to Require 100% Container Scanning. http://www.worldshipping.org/pdf/wsc_legislation_statement.pdf.
  85. Yang, Y. C. (2011). Risk management of Taiwan’s maritime supply chain security. Safety Science, 49(3), 382–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Yeo, G. T. (2007). Port Competitiveness in North East Asia: An Integrated Fuzzy Approach to Expert Evaluations (PhD thesis). Plymouth University, UK.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