1. Introduction
The choice of the optimal port management model represents one of the fundamental principles for business organization and contributes to the future main purpose and operational range of ports. The port management model can impact the efficiency and effectiveness of port operations and the ability of the port to achieve its key objectives. Therefore, it is important to carefully consider the various management models and select one that meets the needs of the port and the surrounding community. The role of ports has changed and evolved over the years; they are no longer merely trade and shipping centers, but now serve the socioeconomic development of port cities and regions. Adapting the port system and its functionality to the changes observed in the maritime industry is a prerequisite for the competitive position of the port [
1]. The contemporary port management model should consider the port’s hinterland and the port as a hub for adding value to goods, as well as the port’s position in the transportation chain [
2].
With appropriate programs and legislative measures, the government can strengthen or weaken the development of ports and the systems [
3]. In addition, all programs implemented by seaports are often planned in cooperation with central, regional, or local governments. Setting programs and objectives would not be possible without a dialogue with port stakeholders [
4]. Therefore, it is necessary to develop viable communication between the ports and their stakeholders, which should also include the residents of the port cities [
5]. Port development programs and legislative measures indirectly affect the local population by creating social benefits such as employment opportunities and better shore–island ferry connections. The role of port management and governance in port development programs and legislative actions is to provide a framework for planning, organizing, and implementing these initiatives to maximize their benefits and minimize their negative impacts. A well-designed and appropriately implemented port management model can help ensure that port development programs and legislative actions are coordinated, efficiently implemented, and contribute to the overall goals of the port and its surrounding communities. In the context of the specific impacts mentioned above, a port management model can create employment opportunities and improve shore–island ferry connections by defining the roles and responsibilities of various stakeholders, establishing performance goals and benchmarks, and establishing policies and procedures for resource allocation and decision-making. As such, port management options can be viewed as a multidirectional link between the various port stakeholders at the global, national, and local levels in terms of legal, economic, environmental, and social aspects of management [
6].
Various port management models are used worldwide, considering different factors determining the scope of port activity. These models are often classified as follows: (a) by ownership and governance structure, and (b) by type of administrative management [
7]. With respect to ownership and governance structure, management models include national (i.e., state-owned) ports, ports managed by cities or regions, autonomous ports, public–private partnership ports, and private ports [
7,
8,
9,
10,
11]. Administrative management models, on the other hand, include public service ports, tool ports, landlord ports, and fully privatized ports [
7,
11,
12,
13].
Croatian legislation divides ports according to their purpose into ports for public traffic and ports for particular purposes, both of which may be open to international or domestic traffic, governed by special regulations. Depending on their size and importance to the Republic of Croatia, ports open for public traffic are divided into ports of special (international) economic interest, ports of regional significance, and ports of local importance [
14]. There are 22 regional port authorities [
15] and 66 ports of regional significance open to public traffic [
16,
17] in Croatia. Ports of regional significance are geographically distributed among the regions and fall under the jurisdiction of the port authority of the respective region [
16,
17].
The port management model provides a starting point for port system functionality and future potential development opportunities, while serving as a tool for solving complex business processes [
18]. Several factors determine the optimal type of port organization and management model, including port policy, location, port tradition, and the port’s size and type of traffic [
7]. The institutional laws and legislation based on which the regional port management models are formed are the “Law on Maritime Domain and Seaports” and the “Law on Institutions”. Legislators should consider introducing port management models based on the “Law on Maritime Domain and Seaports”. As mentioned above, the law regulates the port authority’s organization, planning, and operation. The “Law on Institutions” is considered auxiliary in this context [
19].
This study aims to investigate the effectiveness and efficiency of the management models of regional ports in the Republic of Croatia, and to evaluate the specific criteria for selecting the management model. According to the National Plan [
16], regional port authorities in the Republic of Croatia can implement one of four management models: decentralized, coordinated decentralized, centralized port management, or management of one port authority with several subsidiaries. These models offer different approaches to the organization and operation of regional ports, as discussed in more detail in
Section 3. By conducting a survey on a group of experts in the field of port management and applying the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and fuzzy AHP methods, data on the optimal management model and fundamental criteria for deciding on implementing the appropriate model were obtained. The research problem relates to the ways in which the regional seaports are managed. The existing management models in the Republic of Croatia differ mainly according to the criterion of territorial organization, without the previous creation of an analytical framework that would determine the optimal model according to the defined parameters of business performance. The legal framework for port management in Croatian regions may allow for the establishment of multiple port authorities within a single region, which may lead to subjective and autonomous decision-making processes that do not consider development indicators. This can have a negative impact on the efficiency and effectiveness of port operations, the overall purpose and goals of the port, and the wellbeing of its residents. For this reason, it was necessary to conduct primary research considering publicly available parameters and the views of a group of experts directly and indirectly involved in managing regional seaports
This paper consists of five sections, starting with an introduction. The second section contains a literature review divided into two subsections: The first subsection provides an overview of the main features of port management models worldwide. The second subsection provides an overview of the management models applicable to the Croatian regional port system. This is followed by the Materials and Methods section, which briefly explains the criteria and alternatives (models) used in the study and presents the flowchart of the research process. This section also describes the AHP and fuzzy AHP methods. The fourth section presents the results of the research, with each subsection dedicated to the criteria and alternatives (models), as well as the results of the AHP and fuzzy AHP methods. The final section, entitled “Discussion and Conclusions”, outlines the study’s main contributions in the context of existing research and highlights the study’s limitations.
3. Materials and Methods
A flowchart was created to define and select the optimal regional seaport management model using the AHP and fuzzy AHP methods (see
Figure 1). According to the National Plan for the Development of Ports Open to Public Traffic of Regional and Local Significance, the necessary criteria crucial for the determination of the optimal regional seaport management model are as follows [
16]:
The economic-financial criterion manifests itself by increasing the intensity of the net financial income of a given management system for the budget of the seaport. In the case of the port system, this refers to the increase in its revenues based on the collection of port fees and other forms of revenue, such as concessions, as well as the reduction in various costs.
The functionality criterion can be analyzed based on its four most important aspects:
The ability to perform the fundamental tasks of port management and the functionality of the port, focusing on technological/technical sub-criteria in the form of investment in port infrastructure, standardization of methods and criteria, quality of port service, achievement of the desired traffic volume, technical conditions, and existing and planned transport infrastructure;
Impacts on the social and cultural aspects of the local community refer to the overall positive impact of a particular management system on the local community;
Economic development impacts are analyzed in terms of the overall multiplicative effect of the management model on accelerating and increasing the economic development of a particular region;
Impacts on entrepreneurship development are reflected in the promotion of the seaport’s focus on businesses and trades in seaport-related activities.
The prioritization/necessity criterion is reflected in the consistency with basic strategy and policy documents. It refers to the coherence of the selected port management model with the national and European strategic documents, public policy documents, national legal framework, and European legal documents, as swell as the acquis communautaire of the European Union.
The success criterion represents the possibility of creating benefits for end users and possible negative impacts for existing users. The possibility of creating benefits for end users is reflected in the intensity of the advantages achieved, such as potential cost savings.
When implementing the port management model, the positive impact intensity should undoubtedly exceed that of the negative impacts.
Based on research and legislation, four main port management models can be adopted by regional port authorities in the Republic of Croatia [
16,
21]:
A decentralized (i.e., several port authorities) seaport management system implies the establishment of independent port authorities capable of performing all tasks independently. The port authorities are established according to the principle of territorial units. This model has been adopted by the Primorsko-goranska, Dubrovnik-Neretva, and Istria regions. The differences between the regions lie in the number of port authorities. The advantage of the decentralized model over other models is the permanent presence of port authority employees in the ports.
Coordinated decentralized management (i.e., several port authorities sharing corporate technical services) is based on a legal provision that each region may establish multiple port authorities to manage, construct, and utilize seaports of regional significance that are open to public traffic. This port management model is similar to the current decentralized models in the Istria, Primorsko-goranska, and Dubrovnik-Neretva regions. The difference lies in mutual technical services for all port authorities, aiming to direct all tasks of port authorities to normative and planning activities as a prerequisite for all future port operations.
Centralized management (i.e., a central port authority) means that operations are concentrated in a central location, while decision-making processes and management authority are based on the organization’s hierarchy. In port management, the centralized model means that a central port authority based in the region’s capital is responsible for all ports of importance.
The management of one port authority and several subsidiaries represents a model with business units such as branches, institutes, and regional centers, organized according to territorial principles and located on the islands and/or coast. The number of business units would be determined through field research, considering the interests of local governance structures. This model allows for the benefits of a centralized port management system while introducing some of the benefits of decentralization.
When choosing a management model, in addition to valid criteria, a functional approach to port management should be considered based on the multiplicative effects of the port. The principle of the seaport manifests multiplicative effects as a generator of the region’s socioeconomic development [
16].
The AHP and fuzzy AHP methods are widely accepted and used in various research areas. It should also be mentioned that these methods are often criticized.
Table 1 shows the advantages and disadvantages of the methods used. The authors’ decision to use the AHP and fuzzy AHP methods for this research was based on the following facts: The need to fill the literature gap, as the authors discussed in the literature review consider the multi-criteria decision-making method to be beneficial for adopting criteria and models for regional port systems. Arguably, the stakeholders’ subjective assessments can also be considered a strength, given their expertise in regional port management systems. To overcome the obstacle of possible biased judgments, fuzzy set theory (the fuzzy AHP method) was applied in this research to deal with the uncertainty of inaccurate judgments. The methods are explained in detail in the following sections.
3.1. AHP Method
Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) is a discipline that analyzes decisions to select the optimal one with respect to different criteria related to a specific goal. This process allows for solving decision-making problems by comparing the alternatives to reach a conclusion about their priorities [
24].
The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is a multi-criteria analysis method that was introduced and developed in the 1970s by Thomas L. Saaty [
25]. The AHP method allows for defining the most appropriate decision for the goal, simplifying the complex problem through a system of hierarchies [
26]. The hierarchy components are goals, criteria, and alternatives [
27], and they are connected in a multilevel model—a hierarchical structure, as shown in
Figure 1. The other important feature of the multi-criteria AHP method is the mathematical model used to calculate the priorities of the elements on the same hierarchy level. The fundamental mathematical tool is represented by matrices [
27].
The application of the AHP method can be explained by the following steps [
28]:
Develop a hierarchical structure of decision problems with the goal at the top, the criteria in the middle, and the alternatives at the lowest level;
At each level of the hierarchical structure, the elements of a given level are compared in pairs, with the decision-maker’s choices expressed by Saaty’s scale of relative importance (
Table 2), which has five degrees and four intermediate degrees of the described intensities, and corresponding numerical values from 1 to 9;
From the estimates of the relative importance of the elements at the levels of the hierarchical structure, the local priorities of criteria and alternatives are calculated using a mathematical model—the matrix—synthesizing the results into the overall priorities of alternatives;
The overall priority of a given alternative is calculated by adding the local priorities, weighted by the higher-level element;
The analysis is performed.
Saaty introduced the consistency index (CI) and consistency ratio (CR), which are calculated with the following formulae [
29]:
where
represents a weighting factor, while the number of elements is determined by the n index, and
The consistency ratio (CR) is calculated by dividing the consistency index (CI) by the random index (RI) [
26]. As described by Saaty, the value of the random index (RI) was obtained from randomly generated comparison matrices (
Table 3) [
30].
The value of CR is acceptable if the value is less than 0.1. Otherwise, the choice may be unreliable and needs to be recalculated [
31].
3.2. Fuzzy AHP Method
The fuzzy AHP multi-criteria decision-making method is used when there is some uncertainty in the decision-making, e.g., when the decision-maker is unsure of their subjective judgment. Another reason may be that the decision-maker needs more information about the criteria, or that the information is incomplete or unavailable [
26]. The fuzzy AHP method is used when the decision-maker’s preference is not explicitly defined due to its unclear nature [
32].
In the fuzzy AHP method, the values are expressed as necessary or possible actions. This method is suitable for qualitative modeling criteria and can be used in various areas, such as forecasting, decision-making, evaluation, planning, and development [
26].
Figure 2 shows the calculation process of the fuzzy AHP method based on the following six steps [
33]:
Structure the problem—a hierarchical structure of goals, criteria, and alternatives are created;
Create the fuzzy pairwise comparison matrix;
Synthesize the judgments—if there are several experts, aggregate their opinions. As shown in the
Figure 3, it takes place either before or after calculating the fuzzy weights, i.e., synthesizing the pairwise comparisons (labelled by number 1 in
Figure 3) or the fuzzy weights (labeled by number 2);
Calculate the fuzzy weights of the criteria—in this step, aggregate several fuzzy sets in the matrix into a single fuzzy set;
Defuzzify the fuzzy weights—this is an additional step compared to the AHP method, which maps a fuzzy set to a crisp value for further comparison;
Check for consistency.
Lofti A. Zadeh introduced the fuzzy set theory (FST) to determine uncertainty and vagueness. The fuzzy set (FS) represents a class of objects with continuous valuations. The given set is characterized by a membership function that assigns each object with a membership value in the range between zero and one. The triangular fuzzy number (TFN) is denoted by l, m, and u. The above parameters indicate the smallest and largest possible values that describe the fuzzy event. The TFN function is shown in
Figure 3 [
26].
Saaty’s scale for the fuzzy AHP method looks different from the scale of the AHP method described earlier. Two more numbers are added for each value, representing the smallest and largest values [
26] (
Table 4).
As in the non-fuzzy AHP method, the consistency index (CI) and consistency ratio (CR) for the matrix
are calculated using Formulae (1) and (2). If CR < 0.1 is valid, the analyzed fuzzy elements of the comparison matrix and the obtained eigenvalues and eigenvectors are accepted [
29].
5. Discussion and Conclusions
In the Republic of Croatia, there are currently two implemented models for managing regional ports: centralized and decentralized. According to the National Plan for the Development of Ports Open to Public Traffic of Regional and Local Significance, the decentralized management model is the predominant Croatian port management system [
16], applied in the Istria, Primorje-Gorski Kotar, Lika-Senj, and Dubrovnik-Neretva regions. The centralized management model is characteristic of the southern regions, except for the Dubrovnik-Neretva region. It is implemented by Zadar, Šibenik-Knin, and Split-Dalmatia regions [
16]. The results of our research show that the experts consider a coordinated decentralized model to be optimal for managing the regional ports. The chosen model should enable better and more efficient management of seaports and more efficient operation, considering the following conclusions according to the National Plan [
16]: the diversity of entities managing the port, inconsistent collection methods and criteria for the ports’ revenue sources, the risk of unintended use of funds, inadequate prioritization of investments, imbalances in management, and inefficiencies.
As noted in the National Plan’s analysis, the Split-Dalmatia region has the greatest coastal and marine area and the longest coastline. The Split-Dalmatia region applies a centralized system for managing seaports through a single regional port authority. Other regions with a smaller coastal and maritime areas and shorter coastlines, such as the Istria, Primorje-Gorski Kotar, and Lika-Senj regions, have established two or more port authorities for the management of their seaports. Hence, the Istria, Primorje-Gorski Kotar, and Lika-Senj regions, with five, eight, and two regional port authorities, respectively, apply decentralized management models. Regardless of the administrative methods, the Split-Dalmatia, Primorje-Gorski Kotar, and Istria regions generate higher revenues than the other regions. At the same time, the Primorje-Gorski Kotar region achieves the highest total and own income. The way in which the Primorje-Gorski Kotar region conducts its business testifies to a certain independence from regional and state subsidies [
16,
17].
Regions with a few port authorities also have higher expenditures for salaries and other services, such as accounting, legal services, and travel, which correlate with the number of employees. The costs are higher in the regional port authorities that have implemented centralized management systems—such as the Šibenik-Knin and Split-Dalmatia regions—than in regions with decentralized management models, e.g., Istria, Primorje-Gorski Kotar, and Dubrovnik-Neretva. Port authorities in regions that have opted for decentralized management models have significantly higher operating costs than regions with centralized management systems, which could be related to the number of port authorities in decentralized management systems. Seaports with centralized models have the highest revenue from operations, while the decentralized management models afford lower income [
16].
Seaports with centralized management models generate higher revenues from the provision of services but also have higher costs per employee. Port authorities with centralized management models have fewer employees than those with decentralized management models. However, the higher cost per employee results precisely from the need for more staffing to perform the various business processes and procedures of port operations at a high level of quality. For this reason, port authorities with centralized management models are forced to hire external stakeholders—especially service providers [
16].
Concerning the facts in the National Plan, it is significant to emphasize that the Split-Dalmatia, Primorje-Gorski Kotar, and Istria regions derive part of their revenues from nautical berths. The Istria region derives more of its revenues from municipal than from nautical berths [
16]. This is significant in terms of the functionality criterion—which refers to the tourist season and the increase in tourist supply and demand—and the success criterion concerning the nautical and municipal berths.
According to the National Plan, the choice of the model should be based on economic-financial and social criteria [
16]. The authors of [
21] preferred the service quality criterion in the selection of the management model. Conversely, the analysis of the results obtained by the AHP and fuzzy AHP methods from the survey of the port industry experts suggests that the model of choice should be based on the functionality criterion. According to the National Plan, the model of one port authority with several business units should be preferred over other models of regional seaport management [
16]. However, experts in the port industry opted for a coordinated decentralized management model as optimal. This result coincides to some extent with the authors’ findings in [
19]—that a decentralized and regional approach is best for regional port management. Due to the different advantages and disadvantages of each model with respect to the various requirements of the regional port authorities, the choice of a universal model would not be appropriate. The management model unification of the region’s ports should be sought to an acceptable extent, as proposed in the working version of the Law on Maritime Domain and Seaports [
35]. A management model of one port authority with several business units is proposed in the working version of the Law on Maritime Domain and Seaports [
35] and the National Plan [
16].
Considering the arguments and guidelines listed in the working version of the Law on Maritime Domain and Seaports [
35] and the National Plan [
16], it is important to emphasize the need to implement an efficient management model for the regional seaports based on the management model of a port authority with several business units. Such a model would allow for the benefits of both centralized and decentralized management models [
16]. As proposed in the working version of the Law on Maritime Domain and Seaports [
35], the port authority could maintain branch offices if needed. In addition, the implemented model should allow for the assignment of responsibilities, and the decision-making of regional seaports’ founders should be coherent and based on financial parameters and metrics related to staff salaries, revenues, various forms of compensation, costs, and the like. Furthermore, a contemporary port management model and port authority should provide incentives for the five functional activities of the port: ship traffic, cargo handling and storage, port expansion, intermodal connections, and port industrial activities [
36]. In any case, the implemented model should make it impossible to create a mechanism of political power or social policy in the port authorities of regional seaports. Additionally, the new management model should establish a control mechanism for business processes and activities to enable the seaports’ sustainable development and prevent possible fraud related to concessions, various forms of remuneration, and business strategies. Systematic analysis of all relevant parameters affecting the selection of a management model at the national level enables the selection and implementation of an appropriate unified management model that could be applied to the entire seaport system in the country. The systematic analysis should involve all relevant stakeholders and experts involved in the work of seaports and port authorities of regional significance, to identify the determinants for the approach to developing the management model.
The research presented in this paper makes an important contribution to the field of port management, particularly with respect to regional seaports in the Croatian port system. Through scientific methods and analysis, new empirical knowledge was gained that can improve the efficiency and productivity of port management. In addition, this research enhances and refines the general knowledge of management models and their effectiveness through a science-based approach. These contributions can ultimately increase the overall success of the business and the satisfaction of all stakeholders involved in managing regional seaports. The study of port management models at the global and regional levels in Croatia reveals the existence of various models that port operators can choose. The selection of a particular management model depends on the specific requirements and needs of port users and the market. The possible port management models that can be implemented within the Croatian regional port system are regulated and defined by the National Development Plan of Ports Open to Public Transport of Regional and Local Significance [
16]. An analysis of the management models implemented worldwide and those implemented in the Croatian regional port system shows that the current regional port management models in the Republic of Croatia have some similarities with management models where the port is under the administration of the port city or region. It is noteworthy that the management models prevailing at the global level are primarily focused on larger ports, while the management models for smaller ports—such as the regional ports in Croatia—are derived from the port management models prevailing in individual countries.
Limitations were identified in conducting this study, related to the small sample size (10 completed questionnaires compared to 30 sent questionnaires), the criteria and management models adopted from the National Plan, and limited data on port business drivers. It is necessary to investigate the relevance of other possible criteria and/or conduct broader research on the ones used in this research. There is a need to investigate different management models in contemporary seaports worldwide that could possibly be implemented in the Croatian regional port system. Further criteria analysis should involve stakeholders and experts complementing the determinants of the management model and investigating the relevance of other norms or supplementing the existing ones. A potential limitation of using the AHP and fuzzy AHP methods in a study is the subjectivity of the decision-making process. The analysis results may be influenced by the personal preferences and biases of the individuals involved in the decision-making process. It is important to carefully consider the limitations of these methods and use them in conjunction with other techniques to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the decision problem.