Journal of Transport Geography 11 (2003) 131–137

www.elsevier.com/locate/jtrangeo

A comparison of service quality at major container

ports: implications for Korean ports q
Myung-Shin Ha *

Department of International Commerce, PuKyong National University, Busan, South Korea

Abstract
This paper presents a comparative evaluation of service quality factors at 15 major container ports in the world. From previous
studies and from personal interviews and questionnaires directed to containership operators and logistics managers, the important
service quality factors are identified and comparisons among container ports are made. Duncan test analyses suggest that service
quality at Northeast Asian ports lags behind that of well-developed major ports elsewhere. The implications of this survey for
Korean port development are considered.
Ó 2003 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

Keywords: Major container ports; Comparison of service quality; Duncan test

1. Introduction
The globalization of business and trade relationships
and the communications revolution have transformed
the world economy. In particular, the advent of the in-
ternet has had a significant impact on businessmen, fi-
nancial institutions, international traders, producers and
consumers, and on governments agencies, thus causing
every party to operate in an increasingly competitive
market. International transport operators are not ex-
ceptions to this struggle for market share. They are
making concerted efforts to meet customersÕ needs by
upgrading service quality and hopefully reducing costs
in the internet age. They are deploying huge container-
ships on mainline trade routes to capitalize on econo-
mies of scale. They are increasing service frequency
through strategic alliances with other ship operators and
providing feeder service networks on a regional basis,
thus meeting the geographically extensive needs of the
shippers. They are establishing hub and spoke systems
for distributing seaborne containers (OÕKelly, 1998).
Their customers, the shippers, are also focusing the lo-
gistics functions of cargo collection, consolidation, ware-
housing and inventory management at several hub
q so, what steps Korean ports should take to strengthen
This work was supported by Korea Research Foundation Grant
(KRF-2000-041-C00362).
*
Tel.: +82-51-620-6530; fax: +82-51-622-6326.
E-mail address: msinha@pknu.ac.kr (M.-S. Ha).
ports. These trends for ship operators and shippers also
stimulate fierce competition of container ports to be-
come hub centers. In North America, New York/New
Jersey and Los Angeles/Long Beach have assumed ma-
jor roles as hub centers while Rotterdam, Hamburg,
Antwerp, Felixstowe, Le Havre stand out as prominent
hubs in Europe and Singapore and Hong Kong in
Southeast Asia. Similarly, Japanese, Korean and Chi-
nese ports compete for the containerized cargoes of
ChinaÕs northeastern region. Kaohsiung in Taiwan
strives to handle both northern and southern Chinese
cargoes at their transshipment facilities.
Considering the new trends and technologies of the
global trading systems, the ports are obliged to meet the
ship operatorsÕ requirements with all sorts of modern
facilities and services in order to retain a competitive
advantage (Fleming, 1997). The quality of services has
become a major factor affecting the customersÕ choice of
terminals and ports and especially, main hubs to be used.
This paper seeks to identify the major factors of ser-
vice quality in container ports and make a compara-
tive evaluation of the top container ports in terms of
these service qualities. Ultimately the question is asked
whether there are differences in service quality factors
between Korean container ports and other ports and, if
their competitive position. The selected container ports
in this study are New York, Long Beach (part of the Los
Angeles/Long Beach port complex), Seattle (part of the

0966-6923/03/$ - see front matter Ó 2003 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

doi:10.1016/S0966-6923(02)00069-8
132 M.-S. Ha / Journal of Transport Geography 11 (2003) 131–137
Seattle/Tacoma complex) in North America, Rotterdam,
Hamburg, Felixstowe and Valencia in Europe and Sin-
gapore, Hong Kong, Osaka, Kobe, Kaohsiung,
Kwangyang, Busan and Shanghai in Asia.
2. Service quality factors: a review of past research
Previous studies of container ports have tended to
focus on facility development, port management, port
privatization, terminal operating costs and schemes to
remove physical constraints to efficient operations.
There has been little attention so far to service quality.
However, the attainment of quality in products and
services has become a pivotal marketing concern in the
past two decades (Frankel, 1993; Parasuraman et al.,
1985). While quality in tangible goods is not difficult to
describe and measure, quality in services can be rather
difficult to pin down (Cronin and Steven, 1992; Bolton
and Drew, 1991).
Foster surveyed the traffic and distribution managers
of manufacturing companies in the United States to
identify the main criteria for decisions made on ports to
be used. He carried out two studies; He first contacted
some 2000 shippers believed to be active in exporting
but receiving nearly 500 replies to his questions (Foster,
1978). His survey indicated that shippers are swayed by
service frequency and quality, convenience and habit. It
is not surprising that proximity to the port was the
leading selection criterion. One major finding of this
study was that service considerations were more im-
portant than cost factors and the managers themselves
rarely compared costs between ports. A second survey
also investigated what shippers want most in a port and
why they chose the ports they use (Foster, 1979). Foster
mailed surveys to more than 5000 traffic managers
drawing only 234 replies. Transfer charges to/from the
port and port charges emerged as the leading selection
criteria. Proximity of the port to the shipperÕs location
was not a primary selection criterion although transfer
charges to/from the port serve as a surrogate variable for
proximity. Service factors, such as number of sailings,
available equipment and supporting services, level of
congestion, quality of customs handling, amount of free
time allowed for cargo, and security and port reputa-
tions scored lower. Although these two surveys suggest
some ambiguity in the nature of the questions and the
type of responses expected, they give a useful indication
of the range of criteria employed by a particular group
of decision makers––i.e. the corporate traffic managers.
Willingale (1981) analyzed a port-routing pattern for
short-sea shipping services. Specific illustration was
drawn from the Britain–France passenger and freight
markets, using a macro port-routing model. It provided
a simplified understanding of the development of market
routing preferences over time. He identified the factors
influencing the development of the port-routing pattern
and the selection of ports as follows: relative levels of
port pricing, differential pricing practices, the quality of
seaward and landward accessibility to a port, the nature
of terminal working arrangements including shift-work
agreements, the stability of a portÕs labour position, the
different attitudes expressed by the alternative port au-
thorities to the proposed service ventures, the exclusive
or priority usage of a particular berth at a particular
scheduled time and personal factors. He concludes that
these factors play a significant role in a ship-operating
companyÕs final selection.
Slack (1985) investigated the criteria shippers employ
in the port selection process. He reviewed the factors
considered by exporters and freight forwarders by fo-
cusing on the containerized traffic between the North
American Mid-West and Western Europe. He provided
respondents with a list of 11 possible factors, from
which they were invited to select up to five. The factors
listed were: port security, size of port, inland freight
rates, port charges, quality of customs handling, free
time, congestion, port equipment, number of sailings,
proximity of port, and the possibility of intermodal
links. He suggested that decision makers are influenced
more by the price and service considerations of land and
ocean carriers than by perceived differences in the ports
of entry and exit. He also indicated that port infra-
structures do not play an important role in the routing
decisions in the North Atlantic container trade.
Murphy et al. (1987) suggested a new framework
focusing on the specific decisions and the respondentÕs
role in analyzing port choice. They used both univariate
and multivariate analyses to identify port selection fac-
tors. They found that port selection factors were eval-
uated differently by various participants in international
commerce. More specifically, they looked at the selec-
tion of water ports for international shipments from the
perspectives of different parties involved in that deci-
sion––(1) international seaports, (2) international ocean
carriers, (3) international freight forwarders, (4) larger
US shippers(revenues of greater than $500 million), and
(5) smaller US shippers(revenues less than $500 million).
They tried to find whether there were differences in the
weights of port selection factors across the five groups.
The factors they selected were: (1) available loading and
unloading facilities for large and /or odd-sized freight,
(2) accommodation for large volume shipments, (3) low
freight for handling shipments, (4) low frequency of
cargo loss and damage, (5) equipment availability, (6)
convenient pickup and delivery times, (7) ready avail-
ability of information concerning shipments, (8) assis-
tance in claims handling, (9) flexibility in meeting special
handling requirements. A 1 (very unimportant) to 5 (very
important) scale was used.
Ha (2001) comparatively evaluates the service quality
on major container ports in North East Asian region
 M.-S. Ha / Journal of Transport Geography 11 (2003) 131–137
and suggests strategies for cooperation among the ports.
He selected nine major container ports of Kobe, Osaka,
Kaohsiung, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Tianjin, Busan,
Kwangyang and Inchon. Based on those ports, service
quality factors are classified into seven key categories
and are perceived by a 1–7 scale from the shipping
companiesÕ viewpoints. The factors are comparatively
evaluated by Duncan test technique to learn whether
there are significant differences in the perceptions of
service quality at individual container ports in Asian
region.
These studies give a useful indication of the range of
criteria employed by a particular group of decision
makers. This said, each of the studies also had impor-
tant limitations. First, the low response rate to the
questionnaire surveys is a common shortcoming of the
mail survey approach and raises concerns about the re-
liability of the results. Second, little work has been done
on the service quality in the port selection process. Most
studies seem to have focused more on the physical in-
frastructure of the port such as facility, availability and
terminal size and then on pricing (Fleming, 2000;
Fleming and Baird, 1999; Notteboom, 1997; Robinson,
1998). Survey results revealed that transport costs and
port charges emerged as the leading selection criteria
while service quality factors scored lower. Service qual-
ity considerations are, however, becoming more im-
portant than other factors. Thirdly, in the intermodal
era, container lines themselves are becoming increas-
ingly active in the landward movement of goods (Mur-
phy et al., 1991), stressing door to door service and
arranging the transfers by inland transport modes (by
truck, rail or barge). Because shipping lines obviously
route cargoes through the ports they serve, they, not the
shippers and their traffic managers surveyed, are the
most relevant decision-makers influencing port choice
and itineraries. The services provided by many ports
have been designed with an eye to attracting ocean
carriers (Ha and Kim, 2000) and with the shippersÕ
cargo shipments. This is because shipping lines are the
key routing decision makers.
3. Methodology
This paper complements the studies cited above but
focuses mostly on service quality factors at container
ports. Seven factors are identified: ready information
availability of port-related activities, port location, port
turnaround time, facilities available, port management,
port costs and customer convenience. All of these fac-
tors, even port location, have a bearing, direct or indi-
rect, on service quality. In order to evaluate the service
quality factors that shipping operators and logistics
managers (not the shippers and their traffic managers)
consider important in the selection of ports on their
133
global itineraries, personal interviews and questionnaire
surveys were utilized. The interviews were designed first
to obtain a general corroboration and understanding
of the significant service quality factors. Respondents
would then be asked to rank in importance choosing
from the seven factors mentioned above (derived from
the studies cited above). The container ports included in
the study number 15 and include Singapore, Hong
Kong, Kaohsiung, Kobe, Osaka, Kwangyang, Shang-
hai, Busan in Asian region and Rotterdam, Hamburg,
Felixstowe, Valencia in Europe and LongBeach, Seattle,
New York in America.
Approximately 250 questionnaires requesting per-
sonal interviews were sent to Korean and foreign ship-
ping operators in June 2000. Major container lines
contacted included Hanjin, Huyndai, Maersk-Sea Land,
Evergreen, P&O Nedlloyd, MISC, APL, COSCO, ZIM,
NYK, CMA-CGM, Yangming, OOCL, Hapag-Lloyd,
K-Line, and MOL. They are prominent operators in
container trades all over the world. Those specifically
contacted in the survey were mainly ship masters, chief
officers, second mates and logistics managers who had
direct experience with overseas container port opera-
tions. Nearly 120 responses were received, some of them
replying that they were not involved in container move-
ments at those ports which were part of the study group.
In July Hanjin shipping company agreed to list the ques-
tionnaire on the companyÕs homepage. At the same time,
other steamship lines were approached by telephone and
in appropriate cases, personal interviews accomplished.
In most cases the respondents were enthusiastic and co-
operative. 157 replies were finally received, a 63% re-
sponse rate. Both analysis of variance and Duncan test
techniques were then used to learn whether there are
significant differences in the perceptions of service qual-
ity factors at individual container ports.
4. Results
The responses to the questionnaire survey provide a
basis for comparison of the relative levels of service
quality among the major container ports around the
world. Out of a possible 2355 choices (157  15), 941
were used. This study has employed a CronbachÕs alpha
to verify a validity between the service quality factors
and the results show relatively high levels, between
0.7047 and 0.8774 (Table 1). Both port facility and costs
groups emerged as the highest followed by customer
convenience, information and location. Port turnaround
time appears to be the lowest below 0.71. However, if
CronbachÕs alpha generally appears to be above 0.6 in
social science, it would be deemed to be a somewhat high
validity (Chae, 1991). Despite a little difference noted, it
must be stressed that there is considerable concordance
between the service quality factors evaluated by the
134 M.-S. Ha / Journal of Transport Geography 11 (2003) 131–137

Table 1
Analysis of the validity of the service quality factors
Groups Factors CronbachÕs a
Ready information availability of port-related activities (1) Efficient operation and quality of customs clearance 0.8396
(2) Efficient establishment of EDI system
(3) Provision of port-related information through Internet
(4) Provision of cargo tracing system
Port location (1) Suitable location in main trunk routes 0.7967
(2) Effective location as the transshipment center
(3) Convenient entry/exit of ultra-large container ships

Port turnaround time (1) Ship congestion in port 0.7047

(2) Free dwell time for containers
(3) On-dock handling of containers
Facilities available (1) Provision of vessel traffic system 0.8774
(2) Provision of effective approaching channel
(3) Establishment of intermodal transport systems
(4) Availability of enough container yards and backup facilities
(5) Availability of container handling equipment
(6) Procurement of extra container berths for an unexpected
circumstances
(7) Automation of cargo-handling systems

Port management (1) Port laborersÕ performance 0.7918

(2) Port workersÕ safety rules
(3) Port authorityÕs sales activities and marketing advertisement
(4) Port workersÕ foreign language skills
Port costs (1) Port charges 0.8759
(2) Terminal handling charges (THC)
(3) Pilotage
(4) Towage
Customer convenience (1) Ready procedure for port use 0.8656
(2) Reflection of container port usersÕ opinions and requirements
(3) Immediate handling of container port usersÕ dissatisfaction
(4) Settlement of accident claims in port
(5) Favors and benefits to the regular shipping operators

respondents. One surprising finding is that although port Table 2

turnaround time is an important consideration in this Summary of the results of ANOVA
intermodal era (Sun and Wang, 2000), respondents re- Dependent variable F -value Pr > F
gard it lower than others. Ready information availability of 22.93 0.0001
port-related activities
Port location 21.15 0.0001
Port turnaround time 15.48 0.0001
5. Interpretation Facilities available 20.24 0.0001
Port management 22.61 0.0001
5.1. Variance analysis Port costs 8.47 0.0001
Customer convenience 13.58 0.0001
This study carried out variance analysis to find
whether there is any difference on the service quality
factors among the selected major ports. Table 2 shows what degree of difference there is for the service quality
that there are statistically significant differences among factors among the selected ports.
the major ports on all the service quality factors, with Table 3 shows comparative results of the Duncan test
significance levels of 0.0001. on ready information availability of major container
ports in the world. Singapore emerges at the top while
5.2. Duncan test Shanghai and the Korean ports lag behind in this cate-
gory. Singapore, Long Beach, Seattle, Hong Kong, New
Results of the variance analysis reveal the significant York, Rotterdam and Osaka show little significant dif-
difference among major container ports. It was decided ference in the A group but all of these except Singapore
to perform a Duncan multiple range test to confirm are also in the same B group. Of the northeast Asian
 M.-S. Ha / Journal of Transport Geography 11 (2003) 131–137 135

Table 3 Table 5
A comparative analysis on ready information availability of port- A comparative analysis on port turnaround time
related activities
Duncan grouping Mean Port
Duncan grouping Mean Port
A 5.9119 Singapore
A 6.1711 Singapore B A 5.8155 Seattle
B A 6.0357 Long Beach B A 5.7619 Rotterdam
B A C 5.9732 Seattle B A 5.7586 Long Beach
B A C 5.9643 Hong Kong B A C 5.7190 New York
B A C 5.9167 New York B A C 5.6429 Kaohsiung
B A C 5.8400 Rotterdam B D A C 5.5752 Hong Kong
B A C 5.8163 Osaka B D A C 5.5733 Hamburg
B D C 5.7402 Kobe B D C 5.5290 Osaka
D C 5.6275 Hamburg B D C 5.4667 Kobe
D C 5.6059 Kaohsiung D C 5.3623 Valencia
E D 5.4000 Felixstowe D 5.2789 Felixstowe
E F 5.1250 Valencia E 4.7244 Kwangyang
G F 4.9708 Kwangyang E 4.7157 Busan
G 4.7396 Busan E 4.5870 Shanghail
H 4.2959 Shanghai

container ports only Osaka and Kobe rank fairly high in
the information category.
Table 4 indicates a comparative analysis of the loca-
tion category. Singapore is perceived as having the most
favorable location while Shanghai has the least. Singa-
pore serves as a premier of transshipment hub and
SingaporeÕs intramodal ship to ship transshipment vol-
ume is notably high (JOC week, 2001). The range be-
tween number two on the list (Long Beach) and number
14 (Valencia) is rather small but notably Shanghai lags
behind and the Korean ports are not highly ranked in
this category despite the Korean governmentÕs an-
nounced intention of developing the Korean peninsula
and Korean ports as a major focus for logistics serving
Northeast Asia and beyond.
A comparative analysis of port turnaround time
factor, subsuming such variables as congestion in port,
free dwell time and on-dock operations all of which
impact the carrierÕs port time are reflected in Table 5.
The ranges are rather small in this category. Singapore
ranks the highest while Shanghai the lowest. Kwang-
yang, Busan and Shanghai, all in northeast Asia, are the
only ports in the lowest E group, scoring considerably
behind the others.
Table 6 illustrates perceptions of facility availability
and some of the tangible port infrastructure features.
This includes the provision of vessel traffic system and
effective approaching channel, established intermodal
transport systems, availability of adequate container
yards and back-up facilities, availability of container
handling equipment, adequate container berths for un-
expected circumstances, and automated cargo-handling
systems. Singapore, Long Beach, Hong Kong and
Seattle, all highly developed container ports, are in the A
group. Major container ports in northeast Asia, espe-
cially, Kwangyang, Shanghai and Busan lag behind.
Obviously the facilities and equipment in these ports
need upgrading.

Table 4 Table 6
A comparative analysis of port location A comparative analysis on the facilities available of major ports
Duncan grouping Mean Port Duncan grouping Mean Port
A 6.6138 Singapore A 6.1032 Singapore
B 6.1422 Long Beach A 6.1004 Long Beach
C B 6.0909 Hong Kong B A 5.8324 Hong Kong
C B D 5.9947 Kaohsiung B A 5.8157 Seattle
C B D 5.9692 Seattle B 5.7015 New York
C B D 5.9138 Rotterdam B C 5.6307 Rotterdam
C E D 5.7701 New York B C 5.5314 Hamburg
E D 5.7202 Kobe B C D 5.4937 Kaohsiung
F E 5.4733 Osaka E C D 5.3032 Felixstowe
F 5.3695 Kwangyang E C D 5.2974 Kobe
F 5.3636 Hamburg E D 5.1756 Valencia
F 5.2658 Busan E D 5.1726 Osaka
F 5.2500 Felixstowe E 5.0152 Kwangyang
F 5.1389 Valencia F 4.5957 Shanghai
G 4.4940 Shanghai F 4.5105 Busan
136 M.-S. Ha / Journal of Transport Geography 11 (2003) 131–137

The results of a comparative analysis of the man- Table 9

agement of major container ports are given in Table 7. A comparative analysis of customer convenience
These include port laborersÕ performance, port workersÕ Duncan grouping Mean Port
safety rules, port authorityÕs sales activities and mar- A 5.8240 Singapore
keting advertisement, and port workersÕ foreign lan- B A 5.7250 Long Beach
guage skills, etc. Singapore records the highest service B A C 5.4784 New York
level and Busan the lowest. There is no significant range B C 5.4240 Hong Kong
B C 5.3957 Rotterdam
of difference between middle-ranked ports on the list but B C 5.3957 Osaka
once again Shanghai and the two Korean ports lag be- B C 5.3702 Kobe
hind. B C 5.3321 Kaohsiung
Table 8 shows comparative results from costs ana- B C 5.3200 Seattle
lyses of major container ports. These costs include C 5.2333 Hamburg
C 5.1319 Felixstowe
port charges, terminal handling charges, pilotage and C 5.1000 Valencia
towage. Singapore indicates the highest service level in D 4.6361 Kwangyang
terms of cost efficiency and Japanese ports have the low- D 4.3576 Busan
est. It means that Osaka and Kobe have the higher port D 4.3067 Shanghail
charges. The range between Seattle (number 2) and
Busan (number 13) is rather small. Actually Kwang-
yang, which opened in 1998, purposely levied relatively low port dues and charges to attract more ship opera-
tors.
Convenience factor results are given in Table 9. The
sub-variables are related to applications and procedures
Table 7 for port use, consideration of port usersÕ requirements,
A comparative analysis of port management settlement of container port usersÕ dissatisfaction, treat-
Duncan grouping Mean Port ment of accident claims in port and favors to the regular
customers, etc. Singapore, Long Beach and New York
A 6.0865 Singapore
B A 5.7625 Long Beach
have the highest rankings and again Kwangyang, Busan
B 5.7157 Rotterdam and Shanghai have the lowest. Major ports in A and B
B 5.6467 Osaka group are adopting a variety of strategies to attract
B C 5.6273 Kaohsiung customers as reflected by the results of this survey.
B C 5.5880 New York
B C 5.5763 Seattle
B C 5.5750 Hong Kong
B C D 5.5208 Hamburg 6. Conclusion
B C D 5.5053 Kobe
C D 5.2450 Felixstowe
D 5.1793 Valencia
This study has compared and evaluated the service
E 4.7603 Kwangyang quality factors of major container ports from the view-
F 4.2500 Shanghai points of ship operators and logistics managers. The
F 4.1061 Busan factors of importance are separated into 7 groups. The
questionnaires focusing on these factors are processed
using validity, ANOVA and Duncan test analysis.
Table 8
One of the significant findings is that Singapore is the
A comparative analysis of port costs
top level in all service sections, followed by Long Beach,
Duncan grouping Mean Port
Hong Kong, New York, Seattle and Rotterdam while
A 5.3364 Singapore Busan, Kwangyang and Shanghai rank lowest in the
B A 5.1318 Seattle respondentsÕ opinions. These results are fairly consistent
B A C 5.0000 Hong Kong
in all areas of the survey. No significant differences are
B A C 4.9949 Hamburg
B A C 4.9598 Long Beach evident between ship operators and logistics managers.
B D C 4.9271 Rotterdam Most respondents contacted in this study did not give
B D C 4.8941 Kaohsiung high rankings to the northeast Asian major container
B D C 4.8922 New York ports in service quality factors. Many container ports in
B D C 4.8404 Felixstowe
the region need to seriously redefine their corporate
D C 4.6927 Shanghai
D C 4.6576 Valencia missions. In todayÕs global internet trade era, ports are
D C 4.6250 Kwangyang no longer merely ‘‘goods handlers’’; rather, they strive to
D 4.5107 Busan become efficient and comprehensive container logistics
E 3.9674 Osaka centers. While one aspect of goods distribution is goods
E 3.9663 Kobe
handling, the surveys in this paper and other recent
 M.-S. Ha / Journal of Transport Geography 11 (2003) 131–137
studies suggest that many ports need to improve their
service quality, notably by improving the quantity and
quality of information flows and data availability.
With specific reference to Korea and northeast Asia,
this study indicates that Busan and Kwangyang if they
are to improve their competitive position in the con-
tainer trades of northeast Asia need to upgrade the
service quality in various service categories. Port man-
agers must ask themselves whether they are truly re-
sponding to the desires of port users. In particular, the
marketing efforts and information flows of port-related
activities should benefit not only port authorities but
should be undertaken with the cooperation of the ship-
ping lines and other port users bearing in mind their
particular needs. Obviously port facilities in Busan can
be upgraded and this means that improving BusanÕs
service level will result in an improved competitive
position, which may lead to increased market share.
Among the benefits of these improvements might be
general trade growth but the Korean ports may find the
most tangible benefits simply in increased port activities
through the attraction of more customers offering more
frequent and globally extensive service.
The present study did not take into account the
opinions of international freight forwarders who take a
significant role in a global internet trade era. This will be
a subject for further study.
References
Bolton, R.N., Drew, J.H., 1991. A multistage model of customersÕ
assessments of service quality and value. Journal of Consumer
Research 17, 375–384.
Chae, S.I., 1991. Methodology for Research Investigation, 1991, p.
251.
Cronin Jr., J.J., Steven, A.T., 1992. Measuring service quality: a
reexamination and extension. Journal of Marketing 56, 56–68.
137
Fleming, D.K., 1997. The meaning of port competition, Plenary Session
Paper for IAME conference, London, September 22, pp. 2–3.
Fleming, D.K., 2000. A geographical perspective of the transhipment
function. International Journal of Maritime Economics 2 (3), 163–
176.
Fleming, D.K., Baird, A.J., 1999. Some reflections on port competition
in the United States and western Europe. Maritime Policy and
Management 26 (4), 383–394.
Foster, T.A., 1978. Ports: what shippers should look for. Distribution
Worldwide, 41–48.
Foster, T.A., 1979. WhatÕs important in a port. Distribution World-
wide, 32–36.
Frankel, E.G., 1993. Total quality management in liner shipping.
Marine Policy, 41–50.
Ha, M.S., 2001. A study on the evaluation on service quality of major
container ports in North-East Asian region and their cooperative
scheme. Korea International Commerce Review 16 (1), 143–171.
Ha, M.S., Kim, J.C., 2000. A study on the schemes of competitiveness
improvements in busan container terminals. Journal of Japanese
Shipping Economics 34, 125–126.
JOC week, 2001, WorldÕs Top 50 Container Ports, July 9–15.
Murphy, P.R., Daley, J.M., Dalenberg, D.R., 1987. Port selection
criteria: an application of a transportation research framework.
Logistics and Transportation Review 28 (3), 237–255.
Murphy, P.R., Daley, J.M., Dalenberg, D.R., 1991. Some ports lack
shipper focus. Transportation and Distribution 32 (2), 43–50.
Notteboom, T.E., 1997. Concentration and load centre development in
the European container port system. Journal of Transport Geog-
raphy 5 (2), 99–115.
OÕKelly, M.E., 1998. A geographerÕs analysis of hub and spoke
networks. Journal of Transport Geography 6 (3), 171–186.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., 1985. A conceptual
model of service quality and its implications for future research.
Journal of Marketing, 41–50.
Robinson, R., 1998. Asian hub/feeder nets: the dynamics of restruc-
turing. Maritime Policy and Management 25 (1), 21–40.
Slack, B., 1985. Containerization, inter-port competition, and port
selection. Maritime Policy and Management 12 (4), 293–303.
Sun, G., Wang, J., 2000. Discussion on competition and cooperation
among container ports in North East Asia, in: Proceedings of the
15th International Conference on Port Economics, Tianjin China,
pp. 71–85.
Willingale, M.C., 1981. The port-routeing behaviour of short-sea
operators; theory and practice. Maritime Policy and Management
8 (2), 109–120.