This paper aims to evaluate the investment environment in container terminals (CTs) in one seaport from the attitudes of both terminal operators (TOs) and port companies (PCs). Evaluation criteria (ECs) regarding the investment environment in CTs are first created based on the prior literature and the CTs’ operational characteristics. A knowledge gap model based on an improved fuzzy AHP approach is then developed to assess the perceived differences on the ECs between TOs and PCs, by which the PCs managers could formulate practical policies to improve their investment environment in CTs. As an empirical study, the Taiwan International Port Corporation (TIPC) and its terminal operators in Kaohsiung port are examined to verify the research model. Results indicate that ECs with higher knowledge gap for TIPC include: Intra-port coopetition, Number of shipping carriers, and Business tax. Based on the result, theoretical and managerial implications are discussed.
ChenJBianWWanZ, et al. Identifying factors influencing total-loss marine accidents in the world: analysis and evaluation based on ship types and sea regions. Ocean Eng2019; 191: 106495.
2.
ZhuL. The role of sea ports in the belt and road strategy. In: ZouK (ed.) The belt and road initiative and the law of the sea. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill Nijhoff, 2020, pp.96–113.
3.
SeoY-JParkJS.The role of seaports in regional employment: evidence from South Korea. Reg Stud2018; 52: 80–92.
4.
HsuWKKLianS-JHuangS-HS.An assessment model based on a hybrid MCDM approach for the port choice of liner carriers. Res Transp Bus Manag2020; 34: 100426.
5.
TalleyWK.Port economics. London: Routledge, 2017.
6.
TsengP-HPilcherN.Port governance in Taiwan: how hypocrisy helps meet aspirations of change. Res Transp Bus Manag2017; 22: 38–48.
7.
ParasuramanABerryLLZeithamlVA.Perceived service quality as a customer-based performance measure: an empirical examination of organizational barriers using an extended service quality model. Hum Resour Manage1991; 30: 335–364.
8.
ZeithamlVAParasuramanABerryLL, et al. Delivering quality service: balancing customer perceptions and expectations. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1990.
9.
AhmedAHusseinAMohammedA, et al. Determination of quality gap for educational services in undergraduate medical education. Saudi Med J2019; 40: 595–600.
10.
AliSSBasuAWareN.Quality measurement of Indian commercial hospitals – using a SERVQUAL framework. Benchmarking2018; 25: 815–837.
11.
PaleseBUsaiA.The relative importance of service quality dimensions in E-commerce experiences. Int J Inf Manag2018; 40: 132–140.
12.
RajanDKSAzizFSBAManabNBA.Service quality of social insurance industry and customer satisfaction from Malaysian perspective: customer knowledge as a moderator. Int Acad Res J Bus Technol2018; 4: 1–7.
13.
HuangS-HSHsuWKK. A knowledge gap model for improving service quality of international distribution centers. Marit Econ Logist2016; 18: 476–495.
14.
AliMRazaSA.Service quality perception and customer satisfaction in Islamic banks of Pakistan: the modified SERVQUAL model. Total Qual Manag Bus Excell2017; 28: 559–577.
15.
HuangS-HSTsengW-JHsuWKK.An assessment of knowledge gap in service quality for air freight carriers. Transp Policy2016; 50: 87–94.
16.
MengQWengJSuyiL.Impact analysis of mega vessels on container terminal operations. Transp Res Procedia2017; 25: 187–204.
17.
NotteboomT.The adaptive capacity of container ports in an era of mega vessels: the case of upstream seaports Antwerp and Hamburg. J Transp Geogr2016; 54: 295–309.
18.
KaysiINehmeN.Optimal investment strategy in a container terminal: a game theoretic approach. Marit Econ Logist2016; 18: 250–263.
19.
BaikJS.The study on impacts of mega container ships on ports. Pan-Pacific J Supply Chain Manag2017; 1: 22–40.
20.
WuSLiKXShiW, et al. Influence of local government on port investment: implications of China’s decentralized port governance system. Marit Pol Manage2016; 43(7): 777–797.
21.
GaoPGaoXLiuG.Government-controlled enterprises in standardization in the catching-up context: case of TD-SCDMA in China. IEEE Trans Eng Manag2021; 68: 45–58.
22.
WuPWangZHuangY. Environmental regulation effect on FDI research – based on the perspective of local government competition. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international symposium on Social Science (ISSS 2016), China, May 2016, pp.85–88. Beijing: Atlantis Press.
23.
RodrigueJ-PNotteboomTPallisAA.The financialization of the port and terminal industry: revisiting risk and embeddedness. Marit Pol Manage2011; 38: 191–213.
24.
FraserDMpikeleliTNotteboomT.A valuation approach of port funding strategies with application to a container terminal concession in Sub-Saharan Africa. Marit Bus Rev2021; 6(2): 147–172.
25.
NotteboomTRodrigueJ-P.The corporate geography of global container terminal operators. Marit Pol Manage2012; 39: 249–279.
26.
ParolaFNotteboomTSattaG, et al. Analysis of factors underlying foreign entry strategies of terminal operators in container ports. J Transp Geogr2013; 33: 72–84.
27.
YangZHeYZhuH, et al. China’s investment in African ports: spatial distribution, entry modes and investor profile. Res Transp Bus Manag2020; 37: 100571.
28.
TanLY.Research on G2G. “EPC + F” business model. Int Proj Contract Lab Serv2016; 7: 49–51.
29.
ChenKXuSHaralambidesH.Determining hub port locations and feeder network designs: the case of China-West Africa trade. Transp Policy2020; 86: 9–22.
30.
LiuZSchindlerSLiuW.Demystifying Chinese overseas investment in infrastructure: port development, the belt and road initiative and regional development. J Transp Geogr2020; 87: 102812.
31.
MarekR.The evaluation of the attractiveness of marine container terminal sector: analysing the polish sector. SHS Web Conf2018; 58: 01018.
32.
MahbubTJongwanichJ.Determinants of foreign direct investment (FDI) in the power sector: a case study of Bangladesh. Energy Strategy Rev2019; 24: 178–192.
33.
CamareroMMontolioLTamaritC.What drives German foreign direct investment? New evidence using Bayesian statistical techniques. Econ Model2019; 83: 326–345.
34.
HoangHHGoujonM.Determinants of intra-region and extra-region foreign direct investment inflow in ASEAN: a spatial econometric analysis. Appl Spat Anal Policy2019; 12: 965–982.
35.
AmbrosinoDSciomachenA. Investment evaluation in seaports for increasing the rail split modality in multimodal freight networks. In: 2017 IEEE international conference on service operations and logistics, and informatics (SOLI), Bari, Italy, 18–20 September 2017, pp.181–186. New York: IEEE.
36.
KaliszewskiAKozowskiADąbrowskiJ, et al. Key factors of container port competitiveness: a global shipping lines perspective. Mar Pol2020; 2020: 103896.
37.
DushenkoMTherie BjorbekCSteger-JensenK.Application of a sustainability model for assessing the relocation of a container terminal: a case study of Kristiansand port. Sustainability2019; 11: 87.
38.
RozoLFBAssisLF. The viability of implementing a container terminal at port of Açu–a preliminary analysis. In: Proceedings of the VI international ship design & naval engineering congress and XXVI Pan-American Congress of naval engineering, Maritime Transportation and Port Engineering, Colombia, 2019, pp.233–245. Cham: Springer.
39.
BalciGCetinIBEsmerS.An evaluation of competition and selection criteria between dry bulk terminals in Izmir. J Transp Geogr2018; 69: 294–304.
40.
HsuWKKHuangS-HSWuSW.A 3D continuous risk matrix for the assessment of operational safety in inland container terminals. Proc IMechE, Part M: J Engineering for the Maritime Environment2021; 2021: 14750902211051466.
41.
KadaifciCAsanUSerdarasanS, et al. A new rule-based integrated decision making approach to container transshipment terminal selection. Marit Pol Manage2019; 46(2): 237–256.
42.
YeoG-TRoeMDinwoodieJ.Evaluating the competitiveness of container ports in Korea and China. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract2008; 42: 910–921.
43.
YuenC-LAZhangACheungW.Port competitiveness from the users’ perspective: an analysis of major container ports in China and its neighboring countries. Res Transp Econ2012; 35: 34–40.
44.
HairJFBlackWCBabinBJ, et al. Multivariate data analysis, vol. 6. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006.
45.
KoranJ.Indicators per factor in confirmatory factor analysis: more is not always better. Struct Equ Modeling2020; 27: 765–772.
46.
BandalosDLFinneySJ.Factor analysis: exploratory and confirmatory. In: HancockGRStapletonLMMuellerRO (eds) The reviewer’s guide to quantitative methods in the social sciences. New York, NY: Routledge, 2018, pp.98–122.
47.
SaatyTL.The analytic hierarchy process. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1980.
48.
HuangS-HSHsuWKKChenJ-W.A safety evaluation system based on a revised fuzzy AHP for dangerous goods in airfreights. J Transp Saf Secur2020; 12: 611–627.
49.
HsuW-KHuangS-HSTsengW-J, et al. An assessment of the policy gap in port selection of liner shipping companies. Transp Lett2021; 13: 273–281.
50.
GaviaoLOSant’AnnaAPLimaGBA, et al. Selecting a cargo aircraft for humanitarian and disaster relief operations by multicriteria decision aid methods. IEEE Trans Eng Manag2020; 67: 631–640.
51.
BuckleyJJ.Ranking alternatives using fuzzy numbers. Fuzzy Sets Syst1985; 15(1): 21–31.
52.
GaoSZhangZCaoC. New methods of estimating weights in AHP. In: Proceedings of the 2009 international symposium on information processing (ISIP 2009), Huangshan, P.R. China, 21–23 August 2009, pp.201–204. Oulu, Finland: Academy Publisher.
53.
ChangD-Y.Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. Eur J Oper Res1996; 95: 649–655.
54.
WangY-MChinK-S.A linear goal programming priority method for fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and its applications in new product screening. Int J Approx Reason2008; 49: 451–465.
55.
CyertRMMarchJG. A behavioral theory of the firm. Cambridge: Wiley-Blackwell, 1992. pp.169–187.
56.
MinHAhnS-BLeeH-S, et al. An integrated terminal operating system for enhancing the efficiency of seaport terminal operators. Marit Econ Logist2017; 19: 428–450.
KavirathnaCAKawasakiTHanaokaS.Intra-port coopetition under different combinations of terminal ownership. Transp Res E Logist Transp Rev2019; 128: 132–148.
