DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Research Trends Analysis on Port Hinterland Using SNA Method

SNA 분석을 활용한 항만배후지 연구동향 분석에 관한 연구

  • Song, Shi-cheng (Graduate school of Logistics, Incheon National University) ;
  • Nguyen, Tuan-hiep (Graduate school of Logistics, Incheon National University) ;
  • Park, Sung-hoon (Graduate school of Logistics, Incheon National University) ;
  • Yeo, Gi-Tae (Graduate school of Logistics, Incheon National University)
  • 송시성 (인천대학교 동북아 물류대학원) ;
  • 완준협 (인천대학교 동북아 물류대학원) ;
  • 박성훈 (인천대학교 동북아 물류대학원) ;
  • 여기태 (인천대학교 동북아 물류대학원)
  • Received : 2018.08.20
  • Accepted : 2018.11.20
  • Published : 2018.11.28

Abstract

In this paper, the research trends of port hinterland from 1990 to 2018 were analyzed periodically using the Social Network Analysis (SNA) method. The data were collected from major academic journals and totally 116 papers were identified for analysis. The results of the analysis showed that in the first period (1990-1999), keywords can be listed as "containerization", "transport infrastructure" and developed countries related keywords like "Italy", "Canada" and "Germany". The results of the second period (2000-2009) were originated from keywords such as "regionalization", "competitiveness", "Asian consolidation" and "technology". In the third period (2010-2018), the results were derived from keywords such as "intermodal transport", "dry port", "container" and container related keywords and "shipping" and shipping related keywords. We could see the studies of port hinterland are becoming more systematic and integrated. This study provides some important implications for both academic, and industrial viewpoints, and it is helpful to understand the research concentration.

Keywords

Port;Hinterland;SNA;Research trends analysis;Research keywords

DJTJBT_2018_v16n11_17_f0002.png 이미지

Fig. 1. Research Flow

DJTJBT_2018_v16n11_17_f0003.png 이미지

Fig. 2. Result of visualizing keywords in 1990-1999

DJTJBT_2018_v16n11_17_f0004.png 이미지

Fig. 3. Result of visualizing keywords in 2000-2009

DJTJBT_2018_v16n11_17_f0005.png 이미지

Fig. 4. Result of visualizing keywords in 2010-2018

Table 1. Normalized data of 3 centrality (1990-1999)

DJTJBT_2018_v16n11_17_t0001.png 이미지

Table 2. Normalized data of 3 centrality 2000-2009

DJTJBT_2018_v16n11_17_t0002.png 이미지

Table 3. Normalized data of 3 centrality 2010-2018

DJTJBT_2018_v16n11_17_t0003.png 이미지

References

  1. X. Shi & H. Li. (2016). Developing the port hinterland: Different perspectives and their application to Shenzhen Port, China. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 19, 42-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2016.05.004
  2. Ming-Jun, J. &Yan-Ling, C. (2012). Optimization for hub-and-spoke port logistics network of dynamic hinterland. Physics Procedia, 33, 827-832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phpro.2012.05.141
  3. G. Blauwens. & E. Van de Voorde. (1988). The valuation of time savings in commodity transport. International Journal of Transport Economics/Rivista internazionale di economia dei trasporti, 77-87.
  4. T. Notteboom. (2008). The relationship between seaports and the inter-modal hinterland in light of global supply chains.
  5. C. Ferrari, F. Parola & E. Gattorna. (2011). Measuring the quality of port hinterland accessibility: The Ligurian case. Transport Policy, 18(2), 382-391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2010.11.002
  6. H. E. Haralambides. (2002). Competition, excess capacity, and the pricing of port infrastructure. International journal of maritime economics, 4(4), 323-347. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ijme.9100053
  7. T. Kramberger, B. Rupnik, G. Strubelj & K. Prah. (2015). Port Hinterland modelling based on port choice. PROMET-Traffic&Transportation, 27(3), 195-203. https://doi.org/10.7307/ptt.v27i3.1611
  8. O. Merk & T. Notteboom. (2015). Port hinterland connectivity. International Transport Forum Discussion Paper.
  9. V. Roso. (2008). Factors influencing implementation of a dry port. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 38(10), 782-798. https://doi.org/10.1108/09600030810926493
  10. G. Giuliano & T. O'Brien. (2008). Extended gate operations at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach: a preliminary assessment. Maritime Policy & Management, 35(2), 215-235. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088830801956854
  11. J. Monios & B. Lambert. (2013). Intermodal freight corridor development in the United States. Dry Ports-A Global Perspective, Challenges and Developments in Serving Hinterlands, 197-218.
  12. W. Y. Yap, J. S. Lam & T. Notteboom. (2006). Developments in container port competition in East Asia. Transport Reviews, 26(2), 167-188. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441640500271117
  13. T. E. Notteboom & J. P. Rodrigue. (2005). Port regionalization: towards a new phase in port development. Maritime Policy &Management, 32(3), 297-313. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088830500139885
  14. H. A. Van Klink & G. C. van Den Berg. (1998). Gateways and intermodalism. Journal of transport geography, 6(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0966-6923(97)00035-5
  15. R. Robinson. (2002). Ports as elements in value-driven chain systems: the new paradigm. Maritime Policy & Management, 29(3), 241-255. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088830210132623
  16. F. Iannone. (2012). The private and social cost efficiency of port hinterland container distribution through a regional logistics system. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 46(9), 1424-1448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2012.05.019
  17. R. A. Halim, J. H. Kwakkel & L. A. Tavasszy. (2016). A strategic model of port-hinterland freight distribution networks. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 95, 368-384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2016.05.014
  18. R. A. Halim, J. H. Kwakkel & L. A. Tavasszy. (2016). A scenario discovery study of the impact of uncertainties in the global container transport system on European ports. Futures, 81, 148-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2015.09.004
  19. T. Y. Tan. (2007). Port cities and hinterlands: A comparative study of Singapore and Calcutta. Political Geography, 26(7), 851-865. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2007.06.008
  20. A. Woodburn. (2013). Effects of rail network enhancement on port hinterland container activity: a United Kingdom case study. Journal of Transport Geography, 33, 162-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.10.010
  21. V. Roso., J. Woxenius & K. Lumsden. (2009). The dry port concept: connecting container seaports with the hinterland. Journal of Transport Geography, 17(5), 338-345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2008.10.008
  22. G. Wilmsmeier, J. Monios & B. Lambert. (2011). The directional development of intermodal freight corridors in relation to inland terminals. Journal of Transport Geography, 19(6), 1379-1386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.07.010
  23. J. P. Rodrigue & T. Notteboom. (2012). Dry ports in European and North American intermodal rail systems: Two of a kind?. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 5, 4-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2012.10.003
  24. J. S. L. Lam & Y. Gu. (2013). Port hinterland intermodal container flow optimisation with green concerns: a literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics, 5(3), 257-281. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSTL.2013.054190
  25. J. A. Barnes. (1954). Class and committees in a Norwegian island parish. Human relations, 7(1), 39-58. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700102
  26. L. C. Freeman. (1978). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social networks, 1(3), 215-239. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7
  27. C. S. Wang, I. H. Ting & Y. C. Li. (2011, July). Taiwan academic network discussion via social networks analysis perspective. In Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM), 2011 International Conference on (pp. 685-689). IEEE.
  28. L. C. Freeman. (1978). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social networks, 1(3), 215-239. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7
  29. M. Glanzer & R. Glaser. (1961). Techniques for the study of group structure and behavior: II. Empirical studies of the effects of structure in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 58(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0041302
  30. L. C. Freeman. (1977). A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry, 35-41.
  31. Y. Hayuth. (1985). Seaports: the challenge of technological and functional changes. Ocean Yearbook Online, 5(1), 79-101. https://doi.org/10.1163/221160085X00069
  32. M. Barke. (1986). Transport and trade. Oliver & Boyd.
  33. A. J. Sargent. (1938). Seaports & Hinterlands. A. and C. Black.
  34. R. D. Neufville & K. Tsunokawa. (1981). Productivity and returns to scale of container ports. Maritime Policy and Management, 8(2), 121-129. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088838100000033
  35. Y. Zhang & J. S. L. Lam. (2016). Estimating economic losses of industry clusters due to port disruptions. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 91, 17-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.05.017
  36. P. E. Kent & A. Hochstein. (1998). Port reform and privatization in conditions of limited competition: the experience in Colombia, Costa Rica and Nicaragua. Maritime Policy & Management, 25(4), 313-333. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839800000056
  37. M. R. St-Onge, D. J. Scott & N. Wodicka (2001). Terrane boundaries within Trans-Hudson Orogen (Quebec-Baffin segment), Canada: changing structural and metamorphic character from foreland to hinterland. Precambrian Research, 107(1-2), 75-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-9268(00)00155-8
  38. S. W. Lee, D. W. Song & C. Ducruet. (2008). A tale of Asia's world ports: the spatial evolution in global hub port cities. Geoforum, 39(1), 372-385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.07.010
  39. Y. Zhang & J. S. L. Lam. (2016). Estimating economic losses of industry clusters due to port disruptions. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 91, 17-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.05.017