• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.41 no.3
• /
• pp.27-42
• /
• 2016

This study is to investigate seaport clustering by using meta-frontier and cross-efficiency models. Data covers the 13 Asian ports during 2009, 2010 and 2013 with 3 inputs(depth, total area, and number of cranes) and 1 output(TEU). Correlations coefficient from cross-efficiency matrix are used for measuring clustering dendrogram. After that, meta-frontier analysis for investigating whether the clustering using cross-efficiency method increases the meta-efficiency. Empirical main results are as follows: First, group efficiencies of Busan, Incheon, and Gwangyang ports are increased. Second, meta and group efficiencies of China ports are greater than those of Korean ports. Third, distortion of technology gap of Gwangyang is lower than that of Busan and Incheon. Fourth, Gwangyang, clustering with Ningbo, Chingtao, Tokyo and Caosung ports in 2009 and with Dubai port in 2013 can increase the efficiency. Fifth, to enhance the efficiency, Busan port should be clustered to group 2 in 2010 and group 1 in 2013, and Incheon port clustered to group 2 in 2010 and 2013. Fifth, it is empirically investigated that Busan, Incheon and Gwangyang ports can increase the efficiency by using Cross-efficiency and Meta-frontier models. Port policy planner should promote the clustering policy for Busan with Hong Kong, Shanghai, and Singapore, Incheon and Gwangyang with Chingtao, Nagoya, Ningbo, Tokyo, and Kaoshung ports.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.33 no.2
• /
• pp.53-82
• /
• 2017

The purpose of this study is to show the clustering trend and compare empirical results, as well as to choose the clustering ports for 3 Korean ports (Busan, Incheon, and Gwangyang) by using meta-frontier DEA (Data Envelopment Analysis) and integer models on 38 Asian container ports over the period 2005-2014. The models consider 4 input variables (birth length, depth, total area, and number of cranes) and 1 output variable (container TEU). The main empirical results of the study are as follows. First, the meta-frontier DEA for Chinese seaports identifies as most efficient ports (in decreasing order) Shanghai, Hongkong, Ningbo, Qingdao, and Guangzhou, while efficient Korean seaports are Busan, Incheon, and Gwangyang. Second, the clustering results of the integer model show that the Busan port should cluster with Dubai, Hongkong, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Ningbo, Qingdao, Singapore, and Kaosiung, while Incheon and Gwangyang should cluster with Shahid Rajaee, Haifa, Khor Fakkan, Tanjung Perak, Osaka, Keelong, and Bangkok ports. Third, clustering through the integer model sharply increases the group efficiency of Incheon (401.84%) and Gwangyang (354.25%), but not that of the Busan port. Fourth, the efficiency ranking comparison between the two models before and after the clustering using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test is matched with the average level of group efficiency (57.88 %) and the technology gap ratio (80.93%). The policy implication of this study is that Korean port policy planners should employ meta-frontier DEA, as well as integer models when clustering is needed among Asian container ports for enhancing the efficiency. In addition Korean seaport managers and port authorities should introduce port development and management plans accounting for the reference and clustered seaports after careful analysis.

• Asia-pacific Journal of Multimedia Services Convergent with Art, Humanities, and Sociology
• /
• v.9 no.6
• /
• pp.757-772
• /
• 2019

The purpose of this paper is to measure the clustering change and analyze empirical results, and choose the clustering ports for Busan, Incheon, and Gwangyang ports by using Artificial Neural Network, Social Network, and Tabu Search models on 38 Asian container ports over the period 2007-2016. The models consider number of cranes, depth, birth length, and total area as inputs and container throughput as output. Followings are the main empirical results. First, the variables ranking order which affects the clustering according to artificial neural network are TEU, birth length, depth, total area, and number of cranes. Second, social network analysis shows the same clustering in the benevolent and aggressive models. Third, the efficiency of domestic ports are worsened after clustering using social network analysis and tabu search models. Forth, social network and tabu search models can increase the efficiency by 37% compared to that of the general CCR model. Fifth, according to the social network analysis and tabu search models, 3 Korean ports could be clustered with Asian ports like Busan Port(Kobe, Osaka, Port Klang, Tanjung Pelepas, and Manila), Incheon Port(Shahid Rajaee, and Gwangyang), and Gwangyang Port(Aqaba, Port Sulatan Qaboos, Dammam, Khor Fakkan, and Incheon). Korean seaport authority should introduce port improvement plans by using the methods used in this paper.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.37 no.1
• /
• pp.31-70
• /
• 2021

The purpose of this paper is to measure the clustering change and analyze empirical results, and choose the clustering ports for Busan, Incheon, and Gwangyang ports by using Hierarchical clustering(single, complete, average, and centroid), Silhouette, and 2SCE[the Second Stage(Type II) cross-efficiency] matrix clustering models on Asian container ports over the period 2009-2018. The models have chosen number of cranes, depth, birth length, and total area as inputs and container TEU as output. The main empirical results are as follows. First, ranking order according to the efficiency increasing ratio during the 10 years analysis shows Silhouette(0.4052 up), Hierarchical clustering(0.3097 up), and 2SCE(0.1057 up). Second, according to empirical verification of the Silhouette and 2SCE models, 3 Korean ports should be clustered with ports like Busan Port[ Dubai, Hong Kong, and Tanjung Priok], and Incheon Port and Gwangyang Port are required to cluster with most ports. Third, in terms of the ASEAN, it would be good to cluster like Busan (Singapore), Incheon Port (Tanjung Priok, Tanjung Perak, Manila, Tanjung Pelpas, Leam Chanbang, and Bangkok), and Gwangyang Port(Tanjung Priok, Tanjung Perak, Port Kang, Tanjung Pelpas, Leam Chanbang, and Bangkok). Third, Wilcoxon's signed-ranks test of models shows that all P values are significant at an average level of 0.852. It means that the average efficiency figures and ranking orders of the models are matched each other. The policy implication is that port policy makers and port operation managers should select benchmarking ports by introducing the models used in this study into the clustering of ports, compare and analyze the port development and operation plans of their ports, and introduce and implement the parts which required benchmarking quickly.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.29-58
• /
• 2016

The purpose of this paper is to show the clustering trend and the comparison of empirical results and is to choose the clustering ports for 3 Korean ports(Busan, Incheon and Gwangyang Ports) by using the bootstrapped DEA(Data Envelopment Analysis) and game Cross-efficiency models for 38 Asian ports during the period 2003-2013 with 4 input variables(birth length, depth, total area, and number of cranes) and 1 output variable(container TEU). The main empirical results of this paper are as follows. First, bootstrapped DEA efficiency of SW and LT is 0.7660, 0.7341 respectively. Clustering results of the bootstrapped DEA analysis show that 3 Korean ports [ Busan (6.46%), Incheon (3.92%), and Gwangyang (2.78%)] can increase the efficiency in the SW model, but the LT model shows clustering values of -1.86%, -0.124%, and 2.11% for Busan, Gwangyang, and Incheon respectively. Second, the game cross-efficiency model suggests that Korean ports should be clustered with Hong Kong, Shanghi, Guangzhou, Ningbo, Port Klang, Singapore, Kaosiung, Keelong, and Bangkok ports. This clustering enhances the efficiency of Gwangyang by 0.131%, and decreases that of Busan by-1.08%, and that of Incheon by -0.009%. Third, the efficiency ranking comparison between the two models using the Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test was matched with the average level of SW (72.83 %) and LT (68.91%). The policy implication of this paper is that Korean port policy planners should introduce the bootstrapped DEA, and game cross-efficiency models when clustering is needed among Asian ports for enhancing the efficiency of inputs and outputs. Also, the results of SWOT(Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, and Threat) analysis among the clustering ports should be considered.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.34 no.3
• /
• pp.17-52
• /
• 2018

The purpose of this paper is to measure the clustering change and analyze empirical results. Additionally, by using k-means, hierarchical, and mixed models on Asian container ports over the period 2006-2015, the study aims to form a cluster comprising Busan, Incheon, and Gwangyang ports. The models consider the number of cranes, depth, birth length, and total area as inputs and container twenty-foot equivalent units(TEU) as output. Following are the main empirical results. First, ranking order according to the increasing ratio during the 10 years analysis shows that the value for average linkage(AL), mixed ward, rule of thumb(RT)& elbow, ward, and mixed AL are 42.04% up, 35.01% up, 30.47%up, and 23.65% up, respectively. Second, according to the RT and elbow models, the three Korean ports can be clustered with Asian ports in the following manner: Busan Port(Hong Kong, Guangzhou, Qingdao, and Singapore), Incheon Port(Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka, Manila, and Bangkok), and Gwangyang Port(Gungzhou, Ningbo, Qingdao, and Kasiung). Third, optimal clustering numbers are as follows: AL(6), Mixed Ward(5), RT&elbow(4), Ward(5), and Mixed AL(6). Fourth, empirical clustering results match with those of questionnaire-Busan Port(80%), Incheon Port(17%), and Gwangyang Port(50%). The policy implication is that related parties of Korean seaports should introduce port improvement plans like the benchmarking of clustered seaports.