• 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.30 no.4
• /
• pp.151-168
• /
• 2014

The purpose of this paper is to show the brief efficiency and clustering measurement way by using the game cross-efficiency model which is newly introduced in this paper for 13 container ports during 3 years(2009, 2010, and 2013) with 3 input variables(depth, total area, and number of crane) and 1 output variable(container TEU). The main empirical results are as follows. First, the average rankings of game cross-efficiency model are Ningbo, Hongkong, Shanghai, Dubai, Singapore, Qingdao, Kaosiung, Busan, Tokyo, Incheon, Nagoya, Manila, Gwangyang ports in order. Second, according to ANOVA analysis, three models show the similar results in terms of the efficiency rankings. Third, in the clustering analysis using dendrogram, group A(Shangahi and Busan), group B(Ningbo and Nagoya), and group C(Incheon and Manila) show the common clustering ports during 3 or 2 years. The policy implication of this paper is that Korean port policy planner should introduce the game cross-efficiency method when measuring the individual port efficiency. Also port authority should consider the merits of the clustering ports for improving the port management and operations.

• 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.