The objective of this article is to discuss the feasibility and implementation of an agent-based computational framework for game-theoretical port competition. There are many different determinants which influence the competitive position of a seaport at any time. And as a consequence of this complexity, simple calculations or solution methods are not possible. This article elaborates a generic and modular framework for modeling and simulating the competition between multiple, heterogeneous port players. First, the article briefly detects some elements that are useful and necessary to develop a meaningful agent-based framework. Priority elements are determined and it is considered which elements can be passed on to extensions of the framework. Second, some important aspects of the application of the agent-based methodology for the port sector are explained. Third, a limited number of examples of modules of the proof of concept are developed. Particular attention is paid to the modularity and extensibility of the agent-based framework in order to allow the users of the framework to fine-tune the choices in their simulation model. Finally, in a fourth part of this article, recommendations are formulated for the further development and enrichment of the framework.
AndersonC. M.ParkY.-A.ChangY.-T.YangC.-H.LeeT.-W.LuoM. (2008). A game-theoretic analysis of competition among container port hubs: The case of Busan and Shanghai. Maritime Policy & Management, 35(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088830701848680
2.
BalciO. (1997). Verification validation and accreditation of simulation models. In Proceedings of the 29th Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), Atlanta [Georgia, USA], 7-10 December 1997,135–141.
3.
BalliauwM.MeersmanH.Van de VoordeE.VanelslanderT. (2019). Towards improved port capacity investment decisions under uncertainty: A real options approach. Transport Reviews, London, 39(4), 531–552. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2018.1556228
4.
BartonK.LawryshynY. (2010). Reconciling real option models: An approach to incorporate market and private uncertainties. University of Toronto, Department of Chemical Engineering and Applied Chemistry.
5.
BehdaniB. (2012). Evaluation of paradigms for modeling supply chains as complex socio-technical systems. In Proceedings of the 2012 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), Berlin, 9-12 December 2012 (pp. 1–15). https://doi.org/10.1109/wsc.2012.6465109
6.
CaschiliS.MedaF. R. (2012). A review of the maritime container shipping industry as a complex adaptive system. Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems, 10(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.7906/indecs.10.1.1
7.
DatarV.MathewsS.JohnsonB. (2007). A practical method for valuing real options: The Boeing approach. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 19(2), 95-104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6622.2007.00140.x.
8.
DoomsM.VerbekeA. (2006). An integrative framework for long-term strategic seaport planning: An application to the port of Antwerp. In Ports are more than piers. Antwerp (pp. 173–192).
9.
European Commission (2014). Guide to cost-benefit analysis of investment projects, economic appraisal tool for cohesion policy 2014-2020 (p. 364). European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional and Urban policy.
10.
GabszewiczJ. and ThisseJ. (1986). Spatial competition and the location of firms. Université Catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE), LIDAM Reprints CORE. No 713.
11.
García-MoralesR. M.BaquerizoA.LosadaM. Á. (2015). Port management and multiple-criteria decision making under uncertainty. Ocean Engineering, 104(8), pp. 31–39. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2015.05.007
12.
HamillL.GilbertN. (2016). Agent-based modelling in economics. John Wiley & Sons (p. 256).
13.
Hidalgo-GallegoS.Núñez-SánchezR.Coto-MillánP. (2017). Game theory and port economics: A survey of recent research. Journal of Economic Surveys, 31(3), 854–877. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12171
14.
IshiiM.LeeP. T.-W.TezukaK.ChangY.-T. (2013). A game theoretical analysis of port competition. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 49(1), 92–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2012.07.007
15.
IzquierdoS.IzquierdoL. (2015). The “win-continue, lose-reverse” rule in oligopolies: Robustness of collusive outcomes. Advances in Complex Systems, 676(6), 1550013. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219525915500137
16.
KirmanA.VriendN. (2001). Evolving market structure: An ACE model of price dispersion and loyalty. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 25(3–4), 459–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0165-1889(00)00033-6
17.
KochanskiT. (2009). An agent-based Cournot simulation with innovation: Identifying the determinants of market concentration. MPRA Paper 16539. University Library of Munich.
18.
LagoudisI. N.TheotokasI.BroumasD. (2017). A literature review of port competition research. International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics, 9(6), 724–762. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijstl.2017.086940
19.
LuoM.LiuL.GaoF. (2012). Post-entry container port capacity expansion. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 46(1), 120–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2011.09.001
20.
MeersmanH.NazemzadehM. (2017). The contribution of transport infrastructure to economic activity: the case of Belgium. WCTR Society, Case Studies on Transport Policy, 5(2), 316–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2017.03.009
21.
MeersmanH.Van de VoordeE. (2014). Port capacity extension. A trade-off between public investment and shipping companies' times losses. University of Antwerp, Department of Transport and Regional Economics, Research Paper.
22.
MeersmanH.Van de VoordeE.VanelslanderT. (2010). Port competition revisited. Review of Business and Economics, LV(2), 210–232.
23.
MeersmanH.Van de VoordeE.VanelslanderT. (2014). Future challenges for the port and shipping sector (p. 174). The Grammenos Library.
24.
MillerE. (2008). An assessment of CES and Cobb-Douglas production functions. In Working paper 2008-05 (p. 32). Congressional Budget Office.
25.
Ming-JunJ.Yan-LingC. (2012). Optimization for hub-and-spoke port logistics network of dynamic hinterland. Physics Procedia, 33, 827–832. htttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.phpro.2012.05.141
26.
MunimZ. H.SchrammH.-J. (2018). The impacts of port infrastructure and logistics performance on economic growth: The mediating role of seaborne trade. Journal of Shipping and Trade, 3(1), 1–19. htttps://doi.org/10.1186/s41072-018-0027-0
27.
NelsonR.WinterS. (1982) An evolutionary theory of economic change. Harvard University Press, (XI, p. 437).
28.
NisanN.RoughgardenT.TardosE.VaziraniV. (Eds.). (2007). Algorithmic game theory. Cambridge University Press, 778.
PPIAF / Public-Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility. (2007). The evolution of ports in a competitive world. In Port Reform Toolkit (2nd edition, Module 2, p. 384). World Bank.
31.
PujatsK.GoliasM.KonurD. (2020). A review of game theory applications for seaport cooperation and competition. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 8(2), 100. htttps://doi.org/10.3390/jmse8020100
RixinM.WeigandJ. (2014). Agent-based simulation of policy induced diffusion of smart meters. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 85(C), 153–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.08.011
SchoemakerP. J. H. (1998). In FaheyL.RandallR. (eds), Twenty common pitfalls in scenario planning. learning from the future. John Wiley & Sons. (pp. 422–431). Chapter 25.
36.
ShohamY.Leyton-BrownK. (2008). Multiagent systems: Algorithmic, game-theoretic, and logical foundations. Cambridge University Press, 496.
37.
SmitH. T. J. (2003). Infrastructure investment as a real options game: The case of European airport expansion. Financial Management, 32(4), 27–57. htttps://doi.org/10.2307/3666135
38.
SuttonR.BartoA. (2018). Reinforcement learning - an introduction. Second edition, MIT Press, 552.
39.
SysC. (2010). Inside the box: Assessing the competitive conditions, the concentration and the market structure of the container liner shipping industry. PhD.thesis, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Applied Economics (p. 244).
40.
TesfatsionL. (2003). Agent-based computational economics: Modeling economies as complex adaptive systems. Information Sciences, 149(4), 262–268. htttps://doi.org/10.1016/s0020-0255(02)00280-3
41.
TovarB.Jara-DíazS.TrujilloL. (2003). Production and cost functions and their application to the port sector: A literature survey. In: Policy research working paper series 3123. The World Bank (p. 32).
42.
TrigeorgisL. (1991). A log-transformed binomial numerical analysis method for valuing complex multi-option investments. The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 26(3), 309–326. htttps://doi.org/10.2307/2331209
43.
Van de VoordeE.VanelslanderT. (2009). Market power and vertical and horizontal integration in the maritime shipping and port industry. In OECD, International Transport Forum. OECD/ITF Joint Transport Research Centre Discussion Papers.
44.
Van de VoordeE.WinkelmansW. (2002). A general introduction to port competition and management. In HuybrechtsM.MeersmanH.Van de VoordeE.Van HooydonkE.VerbekeA.WinkelmansW. (eds), Port competitiveness. an economic and legal analysis of the factors determining the competitiveness of seaports. De Boeck Ltd (pp. 1–16).
45.
VanelslanderT. (2005). The economics behind co-operation and competition in sea-port container handling. PhD.thesis, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Applied Economics (p. 241).
WerkerC.BrennerT. (2004). Empirical calibration of simulation models. Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, Eindhoven Centre for Innovation Studies. Working Paper 04.13.
48.
WilenskyU. (1999). NetLogo software. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University. NetLogoversion 6.2.0 is used in this article, http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/
49.
WilmsmeierG.HoffmannJ.SanchezR. J. (2006). The impact of port characteristics on international maritime transport costs. Research in Transportation Economics, 16(1), 117–140. htttps://doi.org/10.1016/s0739-8859(06)16006-0
50.
ZondagB.BucciP.GützkowP.de JongG. (2010) Port competition modeling including maritime, port, and hinterland characteristics. Maritime Policy & Management (37(3), pp. 179–194). htttps://doi.org/10.1080/03088831003700579
