A Study on Competitiveness in Shipping Transport by

G G G G ɿ Volume 31 Number 1 March 2015 pp. 001-020 ɿ

Comparing International Transport Routes between Korea and EU
G
A Study on Competitiveness of Sea Transport by
Comparing International Transport Routes
between Korea and EU

Dae-seop MOON* · Dong-jin KIM** · Eun-kyung LEE***

Contents
I. Introduction
IV. Analysis on the Transport Routes
II. Literature Review by Each Factor

III. Analysis on Competitiveness of the V. Conclusion

International Transport Routes with TOPSIS

Abstract

This study analyzes competitiveness of the six Korea-Europe transport routes.

For the criteria of analysis, the quantitative factors (total transport distance, total
transport time, and total transport cost) and the qualitative factors (transport service,
safety, and awareness) were selected and weighed. The factors were then applied
to the TOPSIS technique to rank the routes based on their competitiveness. The
result of TOPSIS analysis showed the priority in the routes as follows:
Route 1 (Trans Korea Railway(TKR) and Trans Siberia Railway(TSR))> Route
6 (Arctic Route)>Route4(Busan-Vanino-TSR)>Route2(Busan-Vostochny-TSR)>
Route3 (Busan-Vladivostok-Vostochny-TSR)> Route 5 (Suez Canal Route).
Route 1 was found the most competitive, and Route 5, the most widely used
sea way was ranked the lowest. In addition, the new transport routes, Route 1 and
6 are shown to be more competitive than the currently available routes, Route 2, 3
and 4. However, these routes need national level supports (rail construction for
Route 1 and subsidy plan for Route 6) for the commercial use in the future.

Key Words : TOPSIS, Multi Criteria, Route Selection, Improvement Policy,

Fuzzy Number
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
Copyright གྷ 2015, The Korean Association of Shipping and Logistics, Inc. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.
All rights Reserved. Peer review under responsibility of the Korean Association of Shipping and Logistics, Inc.

* Korea Railroad Research Institute, Korea, Email : dsmoon@krri.re.kr

**Professor, Pusan National University, Korea, Email : ssskdj@hanmail.net (Corresponding Author)
***Oglaend-System Korea, Korea, Email : cheerupek@naver.com

1
G
 A Study on Competitiveness in Shipping Transport by
Comparing International Transport Routes between Korea and EU

I. Introduction

Increase in international trading raised the importance of international

transport, and the traditional single mode transport systems have changed
into a multimodal transport system that uses two or more modes of transport. In
addition, while the international transport networks become more
complicated in such processes as creating new paths and removing existing
ones, it is becoming more important to select efficient transport routes.
Since the cargo volume of transport between Korea and Europe is
expected to increase as the Korea–EU FTA came into effect, the
expectation for realization of the Trans-Korea Railway (TKR) and the
national interest in the Arctic route call for developing new alternative
transport routes. Recent efforts by the Korean Government pose greater
expectation for connecting the TKR and the Trans-Asian Railway and test
operation of Korean transporters on the Arctic route expedites realization
of this new route.
Therefore, being prepared for the realization of new Korea–Europe
transport routes requires review on such new transport routes and study on
strategies and plans for developing a competitive transport system.
Particularly seeing that the majority of freight between Korea and Europe
is being carried mainly by sea transport through the Suez Canal (Route 5),
it is highly needed to assess the competitiveness of the Arctic route (Route
6) which can be an alternative to Suez route, the intermodal routes by sea
and railway (Route 2, 3, 4), and the new rail route of TKR and TSR (Route 1).
In addition, a systematic study is required to determine more efficient
choice among many alternative transport routes. Many of existing studies
(see II. Literature Review) consist of the assessment of single transport
routes or analysis on some factors, but there are not enough studies that
consider various factors all together for route selection.
The purpose of the study is three fold: (1) Introduce and apply the
multi-criteria decision making technique to consider the critical factors
(quantitative and qualitative) simultaneously for more objective route
selection. (2) Determine the overall ranks in the order of competitiveness
and analyze the strength and weakness of each route. (3) Based on (1) and
(2), the improvement plans for routes are proposed with which the
decision maker can choose the proper options depending on surroundings
or preference.
2G
G
 A Study on Competitiveness in Shipping Transport by
Comparing International Transport Routes between Korea and EU
G
Therefore, this study is intended to complement the limits in existing
studies, and assesses the competitiveness of6 major transport routes
between Korea and Europe. In this regard, first, we analyze quantitative
and qualitative factors for international transport routes and rank the routes
by applying the TOPSIS technique using the triangular fuzzy number.
Second, by considering quantitative and qualitative factors separately the
priorities of routes are compared in more detail. Third, focusing on the
characteristics of individual routes, the competitiveness of the sea
transport and the railway transport is discussed.

II. Literature Review

A majority of studies on Korea–Europe transport routes focused on the
Trans-Asian Railway routes connected with TKR, the Suez Canal route,
and the Arctic route. Entering into the year 2000, studies on railway
transport actively were made to analyze the effectiveness of transporting
via the TKR as the TKR project progressed and drew public attention.
Recently, the Government’s support for the Eurasia railway project raised
the possibility of the realization of the TKR.
Lee and Kim (2007) and Kim and Jung (2005)studied the Trans-Asian
Railway connected with TKR and proposed plans for developing the
Trans-Asian Railway transportation. Lee et al. (2011) and Han (2011)
analyzed the economic feasibility for using the Arctic sea route. Choi et al.
(2012) and Lee et al. (2013) analyzed competitiveness of the railway
transport interconnecting the TKR and the TSR, and the sea transport
using the Suez Canal and the Arctic route.
Recently, with the hope of the commercial voyage through Arctic sea,
studies on feasibilities and economic aspects of Arctic route have been
performed. Verny and Grigentin (2009) compared 5 routes(Suez, Arctic,
TSR, Sea & Air, Air) based on the container transport cost per TEU
between Hamburg and Shanghai and showed the Arctic would be a
competitive alternative to Suez. Liu and Kronbak (2010) compared Arctic
with Suez considering economic factors (icebreaker fee, shipping season,
bunker oil) and the competitiveness of Arctic over Suez between
Rotterdam and Yokohama was performed with sensitive analysis by
changing the factors; For further reference, see Han (2011).Otsuka et al.
3
G
 A Study on Competitiveness in Shipping Transport by
Comparing International Transport Routes between Korea and EU

(2013) performed feasibility study with 3 cargo types and showed Arctic
route is cheaper way to save cost.
The <Table 1> below shows a summary of studies that analyzed
competitiveness and economic advantage for the Korea–Europe transport
routes considering various factors and methodologies.

<Table 1> Studies on transportation routes between Korea and EU

Transport
Researcher Factors Method Objective
routes
geographical
importance,
Comparative
transport distance,
Brown- analysis
Ha · TKR, TCR, frequency,
Gibson · Critical factor
(2002) TSR, TAR transport cost,
Procedures · Objective factor
port service,
· Subjective factor
port cost,
reliability
· Sea transport
cost,
Kim and Jung · Sea-Rail Transportation mode
quality, AHP
(2005) transport choice using AHP
time
· Rail
· TKR-TSR transport distance,
analysis on the
Choi et al. · Sea(Suez) transport time, Comparison
economic validity of
(2012) · Sea + TSR transport cost, by factors
transport routes
· Sea(Arctic) additional cost
type of ship
shipping distance analysis on the
Han · Sea(Suez) ship speed Comparison economic feasibility
(2011) · Sea(Arctic) cargo capacity of ship by factors of the northern sea
cost of ship route
construction

· TKR-TSR selection of priority

Transport distance
Lee et al. · Sea(Suez) Entropy about transport
Transport time
(2013) · Sea + TSR -TOPSIS routes using
Transport cost
· Sea(Arctic) Entropy-TOPSIS

As shown in <Table 1>, many of the studies compared routes by factors

but failed to consider the factors (criteria) simultaneously. The
Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) is an efficient decision making
technique that considers multiple criteria and chooses the optimal
alternative, which is used in decision making in various circumstances.
Typical techniques include Entropy, AHP, TOPSIS, ELECTRE, and
PROMETHEE. AHP and Entropy methods are generally used for
4G
G
 A Study on Competitiveness in Shipping Transport by
Comparing International Transport Routes between Korea and EU
G
weighing the importance of criteria. Kim and Lee (2010) used AHP to
solve the problem of selecting a third party logistics company by
quantifying qualitative data, and Park et al. (2012) assessed the efficiency
of container ports using a combined method of the Entropy and DEA. Kim
and Kim (2012) determined a priority in work recovery in the emergency
recovery process of a port information system, and Kim and Na (2011) found a
solution to selecting a supplier considering such factors as quality, price, and
delivery. Lee et al. (2013) used the Entropy-TOPSIS technique in evaluating the
criteria for selecting transport routes and ranked them based on their
competitiveness. Liu and Qiu (2010), Akyene (2012), and Shahroudi (2012)
used TOPSIS for making decisions on distribution and procurement.
The MCDM has been used in making decisions on various problems in
logistics industry including the selection of a supplier, a location, and a
transport route, etc. However, few studies on transport routes have been
made compared to those on other logistics areas.
Therefore, this study can be distinguished from others by 1) taking
account of both the quantitative factors such as cost and time and the
qualitative factors such as service and awareness, 2) reflecting the
uncertainty of the decision makers’ subjective judgment by applying the
triangular fuzzy numbers to the TOPSIS technique, and 3) reviewing the
new Arctic route and the TKR railway transport by analyzing
characteristics (the weakness and strength) of each factor. Based upon the
results, the competitiveness of the Suez and the Arctic route is visualized
by comparing with existing transport routes.

III. Analysis on Competitiveness of the International

Transport Routes with TOPSIS

1. Analyzing Factors

1) Selecting Factors
To analyze competitiveness of the routes in the international transport
network, we first select the major factors that affect the efficiency of a
transport route.
By considering studies on the factors for transportation and consulting experts
on trade, major factors were hierarchically classified as shown in <Fig. 1>.
5
G
 A Study on Competitiveness in Shipping Transport by
Comparing International Transport Routes between Korea and EU

The factors related to transport route selection were classified into

quantitative factors represented by numerical data and qualitative factors
that reflect decision makers˅ personal opinions. The quantitative factors
are cost, time, and distance, whereas qualitative factors consist of three
major factors such as transport service, safety, and awareness, which are
further classified into sub-factors. See <Table 2>.

2) Weighing Factors
To determine the weight of each factor, a survey of 22 transport workers
and experts was conducted. Characteristics of respondents based on their
length of service are shown in the <Table 3>.

<Figure 1> Factors for international multi-modal transport routes selection

International multi-modal transport routes selection

Quantitative factors Qualitative factors

Transport Transport Transport Transport

Safety Awareness
distance time cost Service

freight transport transport

transport transport freight
reliability flexibility information route mode
frequency safety safety
service awareness awareness

Alternative
Route Route Route … Route
1 2 3 N

<Table2> The definitions of multi-criteria

Criteria Definition
Transport distance total distance required for transportation
Transport time total time required for transportation
Transport cost total cost required for transportation
reliability
on-time delivery of transport mode
ability to react to a change in environment of freight
Transport flexibility
transportation
service
transport frequency transport frequency within a certain period
freight information service providing real-time information in freight transport
transport safety ability to prevent accidents on transport mode and routes
Safety
freight safety ability to prevent damage or theft of freight
transport route awareness degree to which the transport route is perceived
Awareness
transport mode awareness degree to which the transport mode is perceived
6G
G
 A Study on Competitiveness in Shipping Transport by
Comparing International Transport Routes between Korea and EU
G
<Table3>Characteristics of respondents
Experience (years) Number of respondents Remarks
1~5 years 8
railway and sea transport
6~10 years 7
workers and experts
Over 10 years 7

Quantitative factors were taken from data of existing studies. To take

account of the uncertainty of the respondents’ personal opinions into the
qualitative factors, the survey employed the linguistic expression of
Aminand Razmi (2009) which was converted into the triangular fuzzy
numbers (TFNs). <Figure 2> shows the conversion of seven linguistic
expressions, VL, L, ML, M, MH, H, and VH, into TFNs.

<Figure 2> Linguistic expressions and the fuzzy numbers

<Table4> shows TFNs corresponding to individual linguistic representations.

For example, if a factor is low, it can be converted into (0, 1, 3).

<Table4> Linguistic variables

linguistic variablesG TFNG(triangular fuzzy number)G
VLG Very LowG (0,0,1)G
LG LowG (0,1,3)G
MLG Medium LowG (1,3,5)G
MG MediumG (3,5,7)G
NHG Medium HighG (5,7,9)G
HG HighG (7,9,10)G
VHG Very HighG (9,10,10)G
Source: Aminand Razmi (2009)
Based on the answers from respondents and <Table 4>, the linguistic
variables of the qualitative factors are converted into TFNs, which were
defuzzifiedto single numbers using the following Equation (1).

7
G
 A Study on Competitiveness in Shipping Transport by
Comparing International Transport Routes between Korea and EU

Defuzzified Number =

where, ( ) is Triangular Fuzzy Number.

To calculate the weights of the factors, the following Equation (2) was
used, and the results were shown in <Table 5>.

Weight of a factor j (Wj) =

where, Wij= weight of decision maker i on factor j and k is the number of

decision makers.

The result shows that the weights of the factors are in the order of
transport cost > transport time > transport service = safety > transport
distance > awareness.

<Table5> The importance weights of factors (criteria)

Quantitative factors Qualitative factors
Transport service Safety Awareness
Criteria Transport Transport Transport
freight transport transport
distance time cost transport information transport freight route mode
reliability flexibility frequency service safety safety awareness awareness
(0.05) (0.04) (0.04) (0.04) (0.09) (0.08) (0.06) (0.06)

Weight 0.15 0.19 0.20 0.17 0.17 0.12

2. Analysis of Competitiveness of KoreaˀEurope Transport Routes

1) TOPSIS Method
The TOPSIS was used to determine the order of competitiveness of
individual transport routes. The symbols for TOPSIS are defined as
follows:
n: The number of routes
m : The number of factors(criteria)
Ai: Routei
Ci:factor(criterion) j

8G
G
 A Study on Competitiveness in Shipping Transport by
Comparing International Transport Routes between Korea and EU
G
Eij: The value ofCi fromAi
Wj: The weight of a factor j
Nij: The normalization value of Eij
Vij: The weighted normalized performance rating
V+: The best solution(value)
V-: The worst solution(value)
: The distance of V+

: The distance of V-

: The final preference value

Firstly, normalize the value of the factorj of a routei as shown in the

Equation (3).

Apply the weights of factors to the normalized matrix to get the weighted
normalized performance rating as shown in the Equation (4).

Using Vij, determine the best solution and the worst solution to each
factor as shown in the Equation (5).

where, B is benefit related factors and C is cost related factors.

Calculate the distances of the best solution and the worst solution as
shown in the Equation (6) and (7).

9
G
 A Study on Competitiveness in Shipping Transport by
Comparing International Transport Routes between Korea and EU

Finally, the preference value of each alternative routeis obtainedusing

Equation (8) and the route with the largest value is ranked first.

2) Selecting Routes

The 6 different transport routes used in the study are from Choi et al.
(2012), where Busan of Korea and Berlin of Germany are the start and the
end point for each route. Details of individual routes are as shown in the
<Table 6>.

<Table6> The transport routes from Busan to Berlin

Mode of transportationG Transport routesG
RailG Route 1 TKR - TSR
Route 2 Busan - Vostochny Port - TSR
Sea+RailG Route 3 Busan - Vladivostok Port - Vostochny - TSRG
Route 4 Busan - Vanino Port - TSR
Route 5 Busan - Suez - Europe
SeaG
Route 6 Busan - Arctic Ocean - Europe

Route 1 interconnects TKR and TSR, which draws public attention due
to its higher efficiency than the existing routes. Route 2, 3, and 4 are
sea–railway combined transport routes that go through Russian ports to
TSR. Route 5 is a sea route passing through the Suez Canal that covers the
most of Korea–Europe transport and Route 6 is the Arctic route. The main
problem for Route 6 is the availability of about 3 months a year for
transport due to the glacier on the way and icebreakers needed. However,
because of the distance and the time shorter than those of the Suez route,
10G
G
 A Study on Competitiveness in Shipping Transport by
Comparing International Transport Routes between Korea and EU
G
Arctic route is a very attractive alternative sea way to Suez. Individual
routes are shown on a map as follows:

<Figure 3> International transport routes between Busan and Berlin

For the calculation of each route˅s competitiveness, the data for the
distance, time, and cost are used from Choi et al. (2012) and Lee et al.
(2011) (See Table 7).G

<Table 7> Quantitative data of criteriaG

TotalG TotalG TotalG
Transportation routesG transport distance transport time transport costG
(km)G (days)G (USD/20ft)G
Route 1G TKR - TSRG 12,481G 26G 4,200G

Route 2G Busan - Vostochny- TSRG 12,002G 46.5G 5,016G

Route 3G Busan - Vladivostok - Vostochny - TSRG 12,004G 47.5G 5,016G

Route 4G Busan - Vanino - TSRG 11,981G 33G 5,416G

Route 5G Busan - Suez - Europe - BerlinG 20,945G 35G 5,665G

Route 6G Busan - Arctic Ocean - Europe - BerlinG 12,645G 20G 5,995G

11
G
 A Study on Competitiveness in Shipping Transport by
Comparing International Transport Routes between Korea and EU

3) Analysis Result

Using the TOPSIS technique on the six routes considering both the
quantitative and qualitative factors the overall ranks are Route 1 > Route
6> Route 4 > Route 2 > Route 3 > Route 5 (see Figure 4). That is, the
trans-continent railway transport using TKR–TSR shows the highest
competitiveness, while the most frequently used Sea transport passing
through the Suez Canal shows the lowest competitiveness. Route 6 using
the Arctic route is ranked second in competitiveness. Regardless of
practical restraints in realizing the routes, Route 1 and 6 showed the
highest competitiveness among other existing routes(Route 2, 3, 4, and 5).
Of the sea–railway combined transports, Route 4 that passes Vanino
Port is ranked top, followed by Route 2 passing Vostochny Port, and
Route 3 passing Vladivostok and Vostochny Ports.

<Figure4> The result of TOPSIS (V*)

IV. Analysis on the Transport Routes by Each Factor

1. The Comparison by Quantitative and Qualitative Factors

In this section, the routes analyzed and ranked in two ways: (1) by
considering the quantitative factors only and (2) by considering the
qualitative factors only. Firstly, competitiveness analysis of the routes by
considering only the quantitative factors ranked the routes in the order of

12G
G
 A Study on Competitiveness in Shipping Transport by
Comparing International Transport Routes between Korea and EU
G
Route 1 > Route 6> Route 4 > Route 2 > Route 3 > Route 5, which shows
the same results as the case where all factors are considered (see Fig. 4).
On the other hand, when considering only the qualitative factors, the
results showed that, except Route 1, all routes were ranked differently. As
shown in <Table 8>the Route 5(Suez) is ranked second, which implies that
it greatly surpasses the other routes in qualitative factors.

<Table 8> Comparison by factorsG

Quantitative G
RoutesG Quantitative factors Qualitative factors
+ Qualitative factors G

Route 1G 0.8280 (1)*G 0.8365 (1)G 0.7283 (1)G

Route 2G 0.4173 (4)G 0.4278 (4)G 0.3762 (3)G

Route 3G 0.4088 (5)G 0.4189 (5)G 0.3634 (4)G

Route 4G 0.5892 (3)G 0.6025 (3)G 0.1780 (6)G

Route 5G 0.3442 (6)G 0.3237 (6)G 0.6981 (2)G

Route 6G 0.6987 (2)G 0.7018 (2)G 0.2552 (5)G

NOTE: figure = V*, ( ) = priorityG

Route 6 (Arctic route), previously second, is now ranked as low as

fifth when considering the qualitative factors, which shows that it has the
strength in quantitative factors. Although Route 5 is uncompetitive in
terms of the quantitative factors, it at present enjoys the largest share of
transport market because it meets the high standard of qualitative factors.

2. The Relative Comparison by Each Factor

The above section analyzed competitiveness by grading the routes based

on factor types (qualitative and quantitative ones). This section examines
competitiveness of the routes by each factor and shows the rank on a
single factor basis. For this purpose, using Equations (3), (9), and (10)
evaluate the routes based on the relative comparison for each factor as
shown below.
In case of the quantitative factors, the lower the value is, the higher the
competitiveness is (Cost factors). In case of the qualitative factors, the
13
G
 A Study on Competitiveness in Shipping Transport by
Comparing International Transport Routes between Korea and EU

higher the value is, the higher the competitiveness is (Benefit factors).

1) Quantitative Factors
G
The relative comparison of routes for quantitative factors is represented
in <Figure 5>. Transport distance shows that competitiveness of sea- rail
transport (Routes 2, 3, 4) is higher than others, while transport time shows
that Arctic sea (Route 6) is much higher than others. Finally,
competitiveness of railway transport (Route 1) is highest on transport cost.

<Figure 5> The relative comparison in routes (quantitative factors)

2) Qualitative Factors

- Transport Service
In case of transport service, competitiveness of railway transport (Route
1) is highest on three factors; reliability, transport frequency, freight
information service, and for flexibility sea transport (Route 5) is highest.

14G
G
 A Study on Competitiveness in Shipping Transport by
Comparing International Transport Routes between Korea and EU
G
<Figure6> The relative comparison in routes (transport service)

- Safety
Transport safety shows railway transport (Route 1) is highest, but
freight safety shows sea transport (Route 5) is highest.

<Figure7> The relative comparison in routes (safety)

- Awareness
In case of awareness, sea transport (Route 5) and railway transport
(Route 1) are higher than others.
15
G
 A Study on Competitiveness in Shipping Transport by
Comparing International Transport Routes between Korea and EU

<Figure8> The relative comparison in routes (awareness)

Below is the summary of characteristics of routes based on the above

analyzed results.
-Route 1: This trans-continent railway transport route has
competitiveness in most of factors.
- Route 2 and 3: Of the sea–railway combined transport routes, Route 2
and 3 show strength in transport distance, transport cost, and safety in
transit, but have weakness in transport time, flexibility, and freight
information service.
- Route 4: Having lower transport mode awareness than that of Route 2
and 3, this route receive slow grades in transport frequency and safety
among the sea–railway combined transport routes. Therefore, if Route 1 is
implemented, Route 2, 3, and 4 will require improved transport service,
safety, and raised awareness.
- Route 5: Using the most widely used path (the Suez Canal), this route
is competitive in qualitative factors such as reliability, flexibility, freight
safety, and awareness, but weak in the quantitative factors such as
transport distance, time, and cost when compared with other routes. The
high evaluation of the credibility in flexibility of transport and freight
safety may come from the fact that this route is the most widely used at
present, with a highly positive awareness of the route. Maintaining Route
5’s transport market share requires establishing a transport system that
covers its weakness described above.
- Route 6: The new Arctic route, compared with Route 5, has strength in
transport distance and the transport time, but has weakness in cost and all
of the qualitative factors. Especially, the cost and safety are shown to be
the lowest of other routes.

16G
G
 A Study on Competitiveness in Shipping Transport by
Comparing International Transport Routes between Korea and EU
G
V. Conclusion

This study analyzed competitiveness of the six Korea–Europe transport

routes. For the analysis, the quantitative factors (transport distance,
transport time, and transport cost) and the qualitative factors (transport
service, safety, and awareness) are considered and weighed.
The weighted factors were applied to the TOPSIS technique considering
various criteria simultaneously to rank the routes based on their
competitiveness.
The result of TOPSIS analysis showed the priority in the routes: Route 1
> Route 6> Route 4 > Route 2 > Route 3 > Route 5 in order. Route 1 using
TKR–TSR was found the most competitive, whereas Route 5, the Suez
was ranked lowest. In addition, the new transport routes, Route 1 and 6 are
more competitive than the currently available routes, Route 2, 3, and 4.
This suggests that the new routes will create positive effect as alternatives
to existing routes.
Also, by conducting sensitivity analysis to the quantitative and
qualitative factors, we could see the ranking of competitiveness changed.
Considering the quantitative factors only resulted in the same ranking of
competitiveness as the one with all factors taken into consideration.
Analyzing with the qualitative factors only changed the ranks of all routes
except Route 1. With these results, we can identify positive and negative
factors of individual transport routes and enhance their competitiveness.
Route 1 has the highest competitiveness and thus may become an
excellent alternative to existing transport routes when realized in the future.
However, for the use of the Route 1, two Koreas (South and North) should
improve the political relations and the North bound railway construction
needs to be supported at the national level by South Korea.
Route 2 to Route 4 are basically Russia’s far east ports-TSR routes,
where cargo handling capability of the ports is beyond their capacity due
to increased import/export cargo volume and old aged equipments. Russia,
as a way of solving this problem, started the Najin- Hasan project in 2006
connecting Najin port of North Korea to Hasan of Russia with railway and
finished in 2013. With the completion of the project Russia is expecting
the cargo from East-Pacific region as well as the Far East countries, i.e.,
Two Koreas, Japan, China, etc. to be transported on TSR route through

17
G
 A Study on Competitiveness in Shipping Transport by
Comparing International Transport Routes between Korea and EU

Najin port. Along this plan the common weaknesses (reliability, flexibility,
and awareness) of these routes are also expected to be overcome.
Route 5, using the Suez Canal is the most well known and highly
competitive in qualitative factors such as service and awareness, but weak
in quantitative factors such as long distance and high cost. However, to
survive the competition, time and cost should be greatly resolved to
maintain competitive edge over the routes.
The Arctic route (Route 6)is the newest and strong alternative to replace
the Route 5 in the future to come with advantages in time and distance
over Route 5. It, on the other hand, has many constraints in transporting
and is uncompetitive due to weakness in safety, frequency of transport, and
awareness. Especially, with the inherent disadvantage of limited shipping
period (summer time) and high Russia’s ice breaker escort fee, the
commercial use of the route requires more time and cost reduction.
Recently, Korean government issued subsidy policy for the ship owners
using the route which may move up the time for Arctic sea operation. Thus,
as a potential transport route in the future, the qualitative factors need
improvement.
For further research, the scope of the study may be expanded by
considering more realistic alternative routes such as China routes(TCR,
TMGR routes) and routes with different origins-destinations, establishing
transportation model to determine the optimal transport quantity, and
applying better weighing method to measure the weights of criteria in
more objective way. Also, more criteria should be selected for complicated
transport network. *

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a 2-Year Research Grant of Pusan National

University (2014)

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
QGDate of Contribution ; August 15, 2014
Date of Acceptance ; March 1, 2015

18G
G
 A Study on Competitiveness in Shipping Transport by
Comparing International Transport Routes between Korea and EU
G
References

AKYENE, T. (2012), “Cell phone evaluation base on Entropy and TOPSIS”,

Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business, Vol.1, No.12, pp.9-15.

AMIN, S. H. and RAZMI, J. (2009),“An integrated fuzzy model for supplier

management: A case study of ISP selection and evaluation”, Expert Systems with
Applications, Vol.36, No.4, pp.8639–8648.

CHOI, K. H., PARK, G. K , LEE, R. and YOON, D. G. (2012), “A study on the

Economic Validity of TSR Connection TKR”, Journal of the Korean Society of
Marine Environment & Safety, Vol.18, No.4, pp.345-351.

HA, Y. S. (2002), “Comparative analysis on the economic efficiency of the Eurasian

railway transportation routes between Asia and Europe”, The Asian journal of
shipping and Logistics, Vol.36, pp.47-65.

HAN, C. H. (2011), “Economic feasibility on the Northern Sea Route: The case of
container shipping”, The Journal of Shipping and Logistics, Vol.27, No.4, pp.583-605.

KIM, D. J. and LEE, S. B. (2010), “An optimal selection on 3rd party company
using integrated analytic hierarchy process and multi criteria goal programming”, The
Journal of Productivity, Vol.24, No.2, pp.109-129.

KIM, K. Y. and KIM, D. H. (2012), “Disaster recovery priority decision of total

information system for port logistics: Fuzzy TOPSIS approach”, The Journal of
Korea IT service, Vol.11, No.3, pp.1-16.

KIM, K. Y. and NA, G. S. (2011), “Fuzzy TOPSIS approach for supplier selection”,
Korea Corporation Management Associate, Vol.18, No.2, pp.143-159.

KIM, S. K and JUNG, H. Y. (2006), “A pilot study of transportation mode choice in

between Asia and Europe route considering the Eurasian railway”, The Journal of
Shipping and Logistics, Vol.44, pp.139-165.

LEE, E. K., KIM, D. J. and MOON, D. S. (2013), “A Study on competitiveness

analysis of international transportation routes between Korea and EU with
Entropy-TOPSIS”, The Journal of Productivity, Vol.27, No.4, pp.123-149.

LEE, J. H. and KIM, D. H. (2007), “Utilization of trans-continental railways by

Koran freight forwarders and possibility of connecting them with TKR”, Korea
Logistics Review, Vol.17, No.2, pp.35-59.

19
G
 A Study on Competitiveness in Shipping Transport by
Comparing International Transport Routes between Korea and EU

LEE, S. W., SUNG, J. M. and OH, Y. S. (2011), “Shipping & port condition changes
and throughput prospects with opening of the Northern Sea Route”, Korea Maritime
Institute, 2011-04.

LIU, M. and KRONBAK, J. (2010), “The potential economic viability of using the
Northern Sea Route as an alternative route between Asia and Europe”, Journal of
Transport Geography, Vol.18, pp.434-444.

LIU, M. and QUI, W. (2010), “The choice of enterprise logistics outsourcing

strategies based on improved TOPSIS”, International Conference on E-Business and
E-Government, pp.3455-3458.

OTSUKA, N., IZUMIYAMAK, and FURUICHIM (2013),” Study on feasibility of

the Northern Sea Route from recent voyages,” Proceedings of the 22nd International
Conference on Port Ocean Engineering under Arctic Conditions.

PARK, H., KIM, D. J. and WANG, J.(2012), “Efficiency analysis of world's top 20
container ports using Shannon’s entropy & DEA”, The Journal of Productivity, Vol.26,
No.4, pp.193-214.

SHAHROUDI, K. (2012), “Application of TOPSIS method to supplier selection in

IRAN auto supply chain”, Journal of Global Strategic Management, Vol.12,
pp.123-131.

VERNY, J., and GRIGENTIN, C. (2009),”Container shipping on the northern sea

route”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol.122, No.1, pp. 107-117.

20G
G