Evaluating the Service Capacity of Port-Centric Intermodal Transshipment Hub
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- What are PCITHs, and what are their distinguishing features?
- How about dividing the service capability evaluation dimensions and establishing an evaluation indicator system?
- How do we identify urgent areas for improvement in the current service capabilities of PCITHs?
2. Literature Review
2.1. Port-Centric Intermodal Transshipment Hubs
2.2. Service Capability Evaluation Indicators in the Field of Transportation
2.3. Common Evaluation Methods
2.4. Review Summaries
3. Service Capability Evaluation Methodology
3.1. G1 Weighting Method
3.2. Improved CRITIC Method
3.3. Determining the Combined Optimal Weights Based on a Game Theory Approach
3.4. Fuzzy Matter Element Model
3.5. Barrier Degree Model of Service Capability
4. Indicator System for Evaluating the Service Capacity of PCITHs
4.1. Theories Related to the Service Capacity of PCITHs
Operation of Sea–Rail Intermodal Transportation in PCITHs
- It is the intersection of multiple transport lines passing through or connecting in the intermodal transportation network and is the general part of the comprehensive transportation system, connecting the flow of goods and information in the network.
- It is in the process of intermodal transportation for at least two modes of transportation interface, and the traffic conditions are relatively perfect in the vital port, an important distribution center for goods.
- It undertakes the gathering and integrating of goods at the location, transit, centralized distribution, and traffic operations outside the region, among other things.
4.2. Design of Evaluation Indicators
4.2.1. Radiation Scale Capacity
- Container sea–rail transportation volume: The container sea–rail transportation volume is completed through the hub, measuring the PCITHs’ radiation scale capacity of one of the essential indications. In a sense, the larger the container sea–rail transportation volume is, the more extensive the intermodal transportation hub’s radiation scale, its attraction, and service customer groups are, which can drive the expansion of the hub transportation network, improve its transportation services radiation area, and increase transportation radiation capacity. Furthermore, as the volume of intermodal container transportation by sea and rail increases, so will economies of scale, the network effect, and the development of adjacent sectors. Furthermore, this indicator can show whether the PCITHs have enough storage, loading and unloading, transportation, and other facilities and equipment to satisfy the flow of goods.
- Sea–rail container handling capacity: The sea–rail container handling capacity is related to the container handling capacity in the sea–rail intermodal transportation business, which reflects the degree of cargo aggregation and the handling efficiency of PCITHs. Because the container handling capacity directly affects the quantity of cargo handled by PCITHs and the operation capacity, the sea–rail container handling capacity will directly affect the service quality and operational efficiency of PCITHs. If PCITHs have a high sea–rail container handling capacity, they can handle many containers quickly and efficiently to improve transportation efficiency and quality. This also indicates its large transportation scale capacity and extensive radiation of transportation services.
- Number of productive berths of 10,000 tons and above. The total number of productive berths equipped at the hub that can take container vessels weighing 10,000 tons or more reflects the hub’s capacity and degree of service in the large container vessel market. The number of berths is proportional to the port or terminal’s cargo throughput and shipping capacity. More berths of 10,000 tons or more mean that the hub can accommodate larger vessels and handle more cargo, which plays an important role in improving the intermodal hub’s operational scale, increasing the service capacity of large vessels, meeting more logistics needs, and increasing cargo throughput and efficiency. Production berths are dedicated to ship loading and unloading operations and are essential to realize the port’s production function. The construction of such berths is the material basis for the development of mega-ship transport and the improvement of port throughput capacity, and its role is to support the efficient loading and unloading of ships and high port output. The classification of productive berths is not directly linked to the deadweight of a ship. It is mainly judged by the berth’s ability to meet the berthing and handling requirements of the ship. Therefore, the more enormous the ship’s tonnage is, the higher the berthing requirements are; the specific berthing requirements for ships in the same tonnage range may vary depending on the ship type, cargo type, and loading/unloading mode. In light of the functions of PCITHs and the examination of sea–rail intermodal transportation, this paper chooses the radiation scale function, transportation connection function, and resource integration function as the evaluation index selection dimensions. The total service level may be correctly assessed by evaluating the performance of various functions, and targeted improvement plans can then be developed. This creates a theoretical and practical foundation for advancing the development of PCITHs. If the number of berths is insufficient, difficulties such as stranded goods and waiting for loading and unloading may occur, resulting in a reduction in the operational scale capacity of PCITHs.
- Number of sea–rail transportation lines: The number of sea–rail transportation lines operated by PCITHs refers to the number of rail lines connecting the port to the rail network for the operation of intermodal trains and indicates the scale and capacity of the hub in the intermodal container transport market. The operation of sea–rail intermodal lines can connect PCITHs to other ports or regions, allowing for faster transshipment and consolidation of cargo. The opening of more lines expands the transportation network of PCITHs, thus increasing the radius of their transportation services and improving their transportation capacity. As a result, more freight options are available to meet the needs of different customers, generating more freight demand, improving freight efficiency, increasing freight throughput, and promoting the growth of PCITHs.
- Mechanical equipment service level: The level of service of mechanical equipment refers to the performance and operating condition of mechanical equipment in PCITHs and the effectiveness and reliability of mechanical equipment provided for the cargo interchange, aggregation, and interconnection of different transportation modes. Mechanical equipment includes various kinds of equipment, such as cranes, loading and unloading equipment, and vehicles. Mechanical equipment is the basis for the operation of PCITHs. Advanced and perfect mechanical loading and unloading equipment can complete a more significant cargo transfer and handling in a shorter period and improve cargo handling capacity. High-performance and intelligent mechanical handling equipment allow the hub to quickly and efficiently realize the connection between maritime and railroad transport, thus allowing for the hub to access a broader range of maritime and railroad lines, expanding the intermodal network, and increasing the possibilities and opportunities for intermodal transportation. The machinery and equipment level reflects the equipment’s sophistication and adaptability to the business process. In PCITHs, machinery and equipment have the characteristics of large quantity and many types, and a statistical analysis of the quantity or type of machinery and equipment alone cannot explain the use of machinery and equipment and the benefits to PCITHs, so this paper chooses to evaluate the level of machinery and equipment services.
4.2.2. Transportation Connection Capacity
- Connecting time: The time it takes for products to move from one form of transportation to another is referred to as connecting time. The articulation time in the sea–rail hub refers to the time it takes for commodities to be connected between numerous modes of transportation, from the time they enter the hub until they are completed. For example, when switching from trucking to train transportation, the connection time comprises unloading, boxing, transporting, unloading, and loading. The short connection time can increase cargo transportation efficiency and transit capacity, minimize cargo detention and waiting time, reduce cargo loss and transportation costs, and improve logistics accuracy and reliability. At the same time, it can increase cargo turnover and customer satisfaction in intermodal transportation hubs while also improving service capacity. When expressed in terms of vessel time in port, this indication can focus on the overall efficiency of port facilities and equipment, pilotage, dispatching, loading and unloading, marshaling and port clearance, and so on.
- Connection costs: In the hub, as it involves the connection between different transportation modes, the assessment and control of the connection costs can indicate the current situation of the sea–rail hub in regard to providing connection services. The higher the connection cost, the higher the time and cost loss borne by the shipper in the hub for intermodal transit, resulting in a reduction in the cargo attraction of the hub and a decrease in the transportation connection capacity. The high connection cost will inhibit ports and railroads from further open sea–rail intermodal transportation channels and increase the density of the shuttle bus enthusiasm, affecting the formation of a wide range of intermodal transport network hubs and limiting its ability to cover a wider area. In addition, high connection costs mean that the connection between maritime and railroad transportation at the hub is poor, and the cargo transit process is more complicated and takes longer, weakening the continuity of transportation and affecting the overall transportation efficiency and the transportation connection capacity of the hub.
- Vessel at berth time: The vessel at berth time is the overall length of time from the ship’s arrival at the berth for loading and unloading operations to the completion of operations away from the berth, demonstrating the hub’s technical level and efficiency in container ship handling and transit. The shorter the berthing time, the greater the hub’s transportation connection capacity, meaning that more frequent ship loading and unloading and intermodal railway transportation can be achieved, thus accelerating the development of port services, storage and transit, railway freight, and other related industries. Ships that remain at berth for an extended period of time cause port congestion and disrupt the berthing and departure of other ships, thus limiting the PCITHs’ transportation connection capacity. This indicator primarily represents the efficiency of port loading and unloading activities while berthing.
- Port rail dedicated line mileage: This is the length of the rail line connecting the port to the rail network, and it is a crucial measure of infrastructure investment in the hub and the density of the rail network. Suppose that the calculation is based on the entire length of railroad lines in the port area. In that case, it may include the length of non-productive function railroads, resulting in inaccurate total mileage, which is difficult to reflect the intermodal railroad conditions truly. For calculating port rail dedicated line mileage, only the length of the railroad lines directly related to the main sea–rail terminals and container operation areas of the port are selected and summed up as the mileage of the port rail dedicated line. The mechanism of the port rail line to the hub is to realize the infrastructure connection of intermodal transportation, expand the coverage of the transportation network, reduce the barrier of cargo transfer, and promote more transportation flow convergence in the hub. The construction of port rail dedicated line mileage also creates conditions for the hub to further connect with more transportation modes and expand its service network, thus allowing the hub’s transportation connection function to be continuously improved.
4.2.3. Resource Integration Capacity
- Degree of resource integration: The degree of resource integration determines whether PCITHs can efficiently collect and integrate diverse intermodal elements. Different types of resources in PCITHs have differences and contradictions that must be integrated and coordinated so that these resources can operate together to maximize their benefits. When integrating multiple resources in PCITHs, the degree of resource integration can be defined as the degree of coordination and integration between different types of resources, representing the depth of resource allocation and coordination in the hub. Goods, cars, people, facilities, technology, and so on are examples of resources. The degree of resource integration represents the PCITHs’ capabilities and amount of resource integration. The level of resource integration has a direct impact on the PCITHs’ service capacity and operational efficiency. A high level of resource integration enables more efficient and coordinated operation of the hub’s numerous resources, potentially reducing duplication of operations and resource waste. A low level of resource integration suggests inefficient resource allocation, idle equipment, or other issues that hinder the intermodal hub’s service capacity and efficiency.
- The level of informatization: The level of information construction can be defined as the hub’s level of investment and development in information technology and systems, and this level reflects the hub’s digital and intelligence level. The level of information construction entails the development of information systems, the gathering, and processing of data, and the sharing and exchange of information. Informatization will be an unavoidable tendency in the development of PCITHs in the future. Technology and information technology play a vital supportive role in the operation and management of PCITHs. Information technology plays a critical role in resource allocation and resource integration. The greater the level of informatization, the greater the hub’s potential to achieve resource digitization and effective integration of digital resources, thus helping to improve the precision and coordination of resource allocation and strengthens the ability to integrate resources. Higher-informatization hubs offer more significant potential for digital operation and service innovation. To maintain its competitive edge, PCITHs must accelerate the process of informatization, build smart ports and intelligent logistics, establish a data center and operational ecosystem, and promote the transformation of the traditional business into a digital business.
- Level of inter-port cooperation: The level of inter-port cooperation of PCITHs can be understood as the degree of cooperation between the hub and other ports in other regions regarding resource sharing, information exchange, and business collaboration, which reflects the hub’s ability to expand its cooperation network and improve resource utilization. A higher level of inter-port cooperation indicates that the hub can integrate port resources on a broader scale, which helps the hub to continuously expand the scale of resource integration, improve the comprehensive effect of resource allocation, and enhance its resource integration capability. A high level of inter-port cooperation also means that it is possible to create synergies between resources and markets in the broader area, which is conducive to hubs working with neighboring ports to change regional market patterns, building a more comprehensive coverage transportation network with neighboring ports, and achieving synergies between resources and business on a larger scale, which is conducive to hubs generating more significant economies of scale.
- Resource utilization efficiency: Resource utilization efficiency refers to a specific period of time, the hub of various types of resources in the production and operation activities generated by the advantages. It is a key metric for assessing the extent and efficiency of resource utilization. A high level of resource utilization efficiency indicates that the hub’s various resources have had a high synergistic effect on the production and operation process, which is conducive to the hub’s continuous deepening of resource integration, improving the scientific nature of resource allocation and efficiency of resource utilization, and enhancing resource integration capacity. The operating-revenue-to-operating-cost ratio of each research object in 2021 is employed in this work. Improving resource utilization efficiency in PCITHs can effectively boost the resource integration capacity and operational scale capacity.
4.3. Data Sources
5. Results and Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
13.42 | 0 | 20.19 | 21.83 | 19.73 | |
20.39 | 0 | 16.61 | 22.62 | 20.16 | |
0 | 24.94 | 16.66 | 14.72 | 12.27 | |
21.89 | 18.52 | 0 | 5.15 | 15.88 | |
0 | 4.64 | 9.17 | 4.88 | 4.10 | |
8.90 | 5.28 | 6.58 | 0.92 | 0 | |
0.93 | 0.53 | 0 | 0.56 | 0.94 | |
4.52 | 7.52 | 15.09 | 0 | 2.08 | |
25.21 | 33.55 | 0 | 17.38 | 17.19 | |
0 | 3.14 | 3.10 | 3.30 | 1.39 | |
0 | 0 | 2.02 | 2.15 | 0 | |
0 | 1.88 | 1.86 | 1.98 | 1.66 | |
4.74 | 0 | 8.71 | 4.51 | 4.59 |
References
- Lin, C.-C.; Lin, S.-W. Two-stage approach to the intermodal terminal location problem. Comput. Oper. Res. 2016, 67, 113–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, B.; Wan, M.; Zhou, Y.; Su, Y. Evaluation of multimodal transport in China based on hesitation fuzzy multiattribute decision-making. Math. Probl. Eng. 2020, 2020, 1823068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mathisen, T.A.; Hanssen, T.-E.S. The academic literature on intermodal freight transport. Transp. Res. Procedia 2014, 3, 611–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vidović, M.; Zečević, S.; Kilibarda, M.; Vlajić, J.; Bjelić, N.; Tadić, S. The p-hub model with hub-catchment areas, existing hubs, and simulation: A case study of Serbian intermodal terminals. Netw. Spat. Econ. 2011, 11, 295–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, J.; Jiang, Y.; Shen, Y.; Pantelous, A.A.; Liu, Y.; Huang, C.; Mei, L. Intermodal hub-and-spoke logistic network design with differentiated services: The case of China Railway Express. Inf. Sci. 2022, 612, 796–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.-j.; Zhou, R.; Zhu, L.-q. Multi-modal Transport International Experience and Reference to China. In Proceedings of the 2022 41st Chinese Control Conference (CCC), Hefei, China, 25–27 July 2022; pp. 7526–7531. [Google Scholar]
- Zhaoa, S.; Ashrafb, M.A. Study on optimization of multimodal transportation of marine container considering carbon emission. Desalination Water Treat. 2021, 219, 84–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abu Aisha, T.; Ouhimmou, M.; Paquet, M.; Montecinos, J. Developing the seaport container terminal layout to enhance efficiency of the intermodal transportation system and port operations—Case of the Port of Montreal. Marit. Policy Manag. 2022, 49, 181–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, G.; Cheung, W.; Chu, S.-C.; Xu, L. Transshipment hub selection from a shipper’s and freight forwarder’s perspective. Expert Syst. Appl. 2017, 83, 396–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez-López, A.; Chica González, M. Articulating intermodal chains through short-sea shipping: A method for assessing the performance of East African ports. Marit. Policy Manag. 2023, 50, 235–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Yang, Y.; Sun, D. Multimodal Transport Hub and Developing Situation in China. China Transp. Rev. 2016, 38, 42–45+54. [Google Scholar]
- Bouchery, Y.; Woxenius, J.; Fransoo, J.C. Identifying the market areas of port-centric logistics and hinterland intermodal transportation. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2020, 285, 599–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, G.W.; Zeng, Q.; Li, K.; Yang, J. Port connectivity in a logistic network: The case of Bohai Bay, China. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2016, 95, 341–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nan, Y. Discussion on countermeasures for the development of port container rail-water intermodal transportation in China under the new situation. Railw. Transp. Econ. 2021, 43, 35–41. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, C.; Geng, Y.; Wu, H.; Yuan, Z.; Ge, B.; Li, Y.; Wang, R.; Xu, X.; Geng, Z. Build a Path of Integrated and Intelligent Low-Carbon Waterway Transportation System. In Advances in Intelligent Systems, Computer Science and Digital Economics IV; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2023; Volume 158, pp. 558–572. [Google Scholar]
- Yu, N.; Jiao, W. Comparative study on reasonable proportion of container rail-water intermodal transport between China and America. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Internet of Things and Smart City (IoTSC 2022), Xiamen, China, 18–20 February 2022; pp. 936–941. [Google Scholar]
- Teye, C.; Bell, M.G.H.; Bliemer, M.C.J. Urban intermodal terminals: The entropy maximising facility location problem. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 2017, 100, 64–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, H.; Liu, G. Container sea-rail transport volume forecasting of Ningbo port based on combination forecasting model. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances in Energy, Environment and Chemical Engineering, Changsha, China, 26–27 September 2015; pp. 449–454. [Google Scholar]
- Pencheva, V.; Asenov, A.; Sladkowski, A.; Ivanov, B.; Georgiev, I. Current Issues of Multimodal and Intermodal Cargo Transportation. In Modern Trends and Research in Intermodal Transportation; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; pp. 51–124. [Google Scholar]
- Nam, H.-S.; Song, D.-W. Defining maritime logistics hub and its implication for container port. Marit. Policy Manag. 2011, 38, 269–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, X.; Cao, C.; Chen, Z.; Chen, W.; Ni, L.; Ji, Z.; Gan, J. Using mixed methods to design service quality evaluation indicator system of railway container multimodal transport. Sci. Prog. 2020, 103, 0036850419890491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, H.; Wang, Y. Hierarchical Multimodal Hub Location Problem with Carbon Emissions. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ližbetin, J. Methodology for determining the location of intermodal transport terminals for the development of sustainable transport systems: A case study from Slovakia. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jakara, M.; Brnjac, N. Foliated Transport Networks in Intermodal Freight Transport. Sustainability 2023, 15, 7384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, L.; Wang, J.; Wang, H.; Jin, X.; Du, L. Intermodal transportation hub location optimization with governments subsidies under the Belt and Road Initiative. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2023, 231, 106414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Basallo-Triana, M.J.; Vidal-Holguín, C.J.; Bravo-Bastidas, J.J. Planning and design of intermodal hub networks: A literature review. Comput. Oper. Res. 2021, 136, 105469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mokhtar, H.; Redi, A.P.; Krishnamoorthy, M.; Ernst, A.T. An intermodal hub location problem for container distribution in Indonesia. Comput. Oper. Res. 2019, 104, 415–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rodrigue, J.-P.; Ashar, A. Transshipment hubs in the New Panamax Era: The role of the Caribbean. J. Transp. Geogr. 2016, 51, 270–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Low, J.M.; Lam, S.W.; Tang, L.C. Assessment of hub status among Asian ports from a network perspective. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2009, 43, 593–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Y.-C.; Chen, S.-L. Determinants of global logistics hub ports: Comparison of the port development policies of Taiwan, Korea, and Japan. Transp. Policy 2016, 45, 179–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Angelini, A.; Elias, D.; Hauger, G.; Nadler, B.; Nadler, F. Assessment System for the Optimization of Logistical, Operational and Administrative Processes at Multimodal Hubs. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 471, 062003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, H.; Li, L.; Zhao, X.; Cook, D. A model of integrated regional logistics hub in supply chain. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 2018, 12, 1308–1335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liao, Z.; Zhou, Z. A Study on Classification of Guangxi Multimodal Transport Hub Based on Cluster Analysis. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Mechatronics, Computer and Education Informationization (MCEI 2016), Shenyang, China, 11–13 November 2016; pp. 208–212. [Google Scholar]
- Huber, S.; Klauenberg, J.; Thaller, C. Consideration of transport logistics hubs in freight transport demand models. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 2015, 7, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kreutzberger, E.; Konings, R. The challenge of appropriate hub terminal and hub-and-spoke network development for seaports and intermodal rail transport in Europe. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2016, 19, 83–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alumur, S.A.; Kara, B.Y.; Karasan, O.E. Multimodal hub location and hub network design. Omega Int. J. Manag. Sci. 2012, 40, 927–939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wan, M.; Kuang, H.; Yu, Y.; Zhang, R. Evaluation of the competitiveness of the container multimodal port hub. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 19334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, L.; Qu, S.; Dai, J. Port capability evaluation from the perspective of supply chain. Discret. Dyn. Nat. Soc. 2021, 2021, 7633202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, T.Q.; Ngo, L.T.T.; Huynh, N.T.; Quoc, T.L.; Hoang, L.V. Assessing port service quality: An application of the extension fuzzy AHP and importance-performance analysis. PloS ONE 2022, 17, e0264590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xia, Y. Study on Evaluation of Port Logistics Service Capability of Qinhuangdao. In Proceedings of the 2nd Asia-Pacific Conference on Image Processing, Electronics and Computers, Dalian, China, 14–16 April 2021; pp. 268–272. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, M. Research on the Comprehensive Capacity Evaluation of Multimodal Transportation in China’s Ports Under the Background of Railway Transportation. In Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Wireless Communications and Smart Grid (ICWCSG), Qingdao, China, 12–14 June 2020; pp. 282–291. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, Q.; Wu, J.; Su, B. Study on function evaluation and development directions of Chinese ports. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 688, 044001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chuanlei, W.; Chunmeng, Z.; Yin, D. Research on Quality Construction of National Logistics Hub in Yangtze River Delta Based on DPSIR Model. Int. J. Data Sci. Technol. 2022, 8, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ren, J.; Dong, L.; Sun, L. Competitiveness prioritisation of container ports in Asia under the background of China’s Belt and Road initiative. Transp. Rev. 2018, 38, 436–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ji, G.; Wang, W.; Feng, W. A study on service competence and competitiveness of port logistics. In Proceedings of the 2010 7th International Conference on Service Systems and Service Management, Tokyo, Japan, 28–30 June 2010; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Abramović, B.; Lovrić, I.; Stupalo, V. Analysis of intermodal terminals service quality in the republic of Croatia. Promet-Traffic Transp. 2012, 24, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agatić, A.; Kolanović, I. Improving the seaport service quality by implementing digital technologies. Pomorstvo 2020, 34, 93–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ge, J.; Wang, X.; Shi, W.; Wan, Z. Investigating the practices, problems, and policies for port sea—Rail intermodal transport in China. Transp. Res. Rec. 2020, 2674, 33–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, X.J.; Fan, X.J.; Zhang, Y.; Jiang, L.P. Sensitivity analysis on key factors of sea-rail intermodal transport system of dry bulk. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2014, 641, 715–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schönemann, R. Integrating railway services into the supply chain at the last mile of the transshipment interface seaport-rail. Logistyka 2010, 4, CD-CD. [Google Scholar]
- Dotoli, M.; Fanti, M.P.; Mangini, A.M.; Stecco, G.; Ukovich, W. The impact of ICT on an Intermodal Transportation System: An analysis by Petri Nets. In Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering, Bangalore, India, 22–25 August 2009; pp. 513–518. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, S.-Y.; Tongzon, J.L.; Chang, Y.-T. Assessing port service quality by process component: The case of Korean and Chinese ports. Int. J. Shipp. Transp. Logist. 2013, 5, 137–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, T.-C.; Pham, Y.T.H. An Application of Cluster Analysis Method to Determine Vietnam Airlines’ Ground Handling Service Quality Benchmarks. J. Adv. Transp. 2020, 2020, 4156298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Ona, J.; de Ona, R.; Lopez, G. Transit service quality analysis using cluster analysis and decision trees: A step forward to personalized marketing in public transportation. Transportation 2016, 43, 725–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, H.; Li, Y.; Gu, Y. Research on evaluation of airport service quality based on improved AHP and Topsis methods. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Transp. 2021, 174, 267–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, M.-J.; Huang, W.-C.; Teng, J.-Y.; Wu, S.-C. Competitiveness evaluation for Eastern Asian container ports by using grey relational analysis method. J. Grey Syst. 2002, 14, 139–150. [Google Scholar]
- Hu, X.; Chen, X.; Zhao, J.; Yu, K.; Long, B.; Dai, G. Comprehensive Service Quality Evaluation of Public Transit Based on Extension Cloud Model. Arch. Transp. 2022, 61, 103–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lv, H.; Guan, X.; Meng, Y. Comprehensive evaluation of urban flood-bearing risks based on combined compound fuzzy matter-element and entropy weight model. Nat. Hazards 2020, 103, 1823–1841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, W.; Shuai, B.; Sun, Y.; Wang, Y.; Antwi, E. Using entropy-TOPSIS method to evaluate urban rail transit system operation performance: The China case. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2018, 111, 292–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiaoning, Z.; Xiudan, L. Multi-hierarchy Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation for Quality of Station Freight Service Based on AHP. In Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference on Intelligent System Design and Engineering Application, Changsha, China, 13–14 October 2010; pp. 972–975. [Google Scholar]
- Yan, B.; Zhu, X.; Lee, D.-H.; Jin, J.G.; Wang, L. Transshipment operations optimization of sea-rail intermodal container in seaport rail terminals. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2020, 141, 106296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rao, C.; Goh, M.; Zhao, Y.; Zheng, J. Location selection of city logistics centers under sustainability. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2015, 36, 29–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tao, J.; Sun, X.-H.; Cao, Y.; Ling, M.-H. Evaluation of water quality and its driving forces in the Shaying River Basin with the grey relational analysis based on combination weighting. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 18103–18115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, J.; Pang, W.; Wang, L.; Pang, X.; Yokoyama, R. Synthetic Evaluation of Steady-state Power Quality Based on Combination Weighting and Principal Component Projection Method. CSEE J. Power Energy Syst. 2017, 3, 160–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gang, L.; Jianping, L.; Xiaolei, S.; Meng, Z. Research on a combined method of subjective-objective weighing and the its rationality. Manag. Rev. 2017, 29, 17–26+61. [Google Scholar]
- Dou, J.; Ma, H.; Yang, J.; Zhang, Y.; Guo, R. An Improved Power Quality Evaluation for LED Lamp Based on G1-Entropy Method. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 111171–111180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shuqiang, Z.; Shanfa, T. Comprehensive evaluation of transmission network planning scheme based on improved analytic hierarchy process, CRITIC method and TOPSIS. Electr. Power Autom. Equip. 2019, 39, 143–148. [Google Scholar]
- Feng, Y.; Lang, K.; Zhang, Y.; Xing, S. Optimal selection model for life emergency rescue ship based on game theory and VIKOR method. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Electromechanical Control Technology and Transportation (ICECTT 2021), Chongqing, China, 14–16 May 2022; pp. 1039–1048. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, M.; Fu, S. Comprehensive evaluation and research of the rural logistics capability in Hebei province. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Logistics, Informatics and Service Sciences (LISS), Barcelona, Spain, 27–29 July 2015; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Jing, L.; Yao, W. A safety assessment of China’s crude oil import Based on G1 method. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 96, 1738–1744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lu, H.; Zhao, Y.; Zhou, X.; Wei, Z. Selection of agricultural machinery based on improved CRITIC-entropy weight and GRA-TOPSIS method. Processes 2022, 10, 266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, D.; Wang, R.; Duan, J.; Cheng, W. Comprehensive weight method based on game theory for identify critical transmission lines in power system. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2021, 124, 106362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, H.; Li, H.; Zhang, K. Urban Water Ecosystem Health Evaluation Based on the Improved Fuzzy Matter-Element Extension Assessment Model: Case Study from Zhengzhou City, China. Math. Probl. Eng. 2019, 2019, 7502342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, Y.; Wang, J.; Gao, J.; Jialing, R. Evaluation and obstacle factor diagnoses of low carbon transport development based on DPSIR: A case study of Beijing. Ecol. Econ. 2020, 4, 13–18. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, D.; Li, Y.; Yang, X.; Zhang, Z.; Gao, S.; Zhou, Q.; Zhuo, Y.; Wen, X.; Guo, Z. Evaluating urban ecological civilization and its obstacle factors based on integrated model of PSR-EVW-TOPSIS: A case study of 13 cities in Jiangsu Province, China. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 133, 108431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, G.; Sun, W.; Jiang, J. Research on the current situation and development measures of rail-water intermodal transport in Guangzhou Port Group. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 782, 052003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, W.; Gong, X. Factor cluster analysis of qingdao port logistics competitiveness. Logistics 2020, 4, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, X. Research on logistics service innovation of international major ports under marine economic strategy. J. Coast. Res. 2020, 115, 283–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Categories | Methods | Advantages | Disadvantages | Source |
---|---|---|---|---|
Mathematical and statistical analysis | Factor analysis method | Reducing redundant information; reducing the relevance of indicators; quantifying the degree of influence of indicators on the composite factor. | There are cases where information has not been extracted and data accuracy is required; there are certain requirements for the quantity and quality of data; the extracted results may not be intuitive. | [52] |
Cluster analysis method | Automatic identification of the optimal number of categories without predetermining the number of categories; identification of commonalities and differences between different transportation services through the results of cluster analysis. | Sensitive to the initial value of the sample data; distance-based metric, sensitive to correlation and weighting between indicators. | [53,54] | |
Systems engineering | TOPSIS | High applicability; low loss of information and quantifiable and objective results. | The method of standardizing indicator data is sensitive; if there are non-linear relationships or interactions between indicators, this may affect the accuracy of the results. | [55] |
Grey correlation analysis | Good adaptability to complex evaluation factors and incomplete information on indicators. | Highly subjective; optimal values are difficult to determine. | [56] | |
Fuzzy mathematics | Cloud models | It can overcome the ambiguity and randomness of evaluation results and can quantify the qualitative indicators, which can deal with uncertainty and random data well. | Difficulties in interconversion of qualitative and quantitative indicators for cloud model discrimination. | [57] |
Fuzzy matter element method | Converting indicator measures into affiliations; dealing effectively with incompatibilities. | The application of AHP to determine the weights is more subjective. | [58] | |
Combination methods | Entropy weights–TOPSIS | Overcomes the problem of subjective weighting and enhances comparative analysis between indicators. | Clear and complete data are required; there is a problem with the reverse order of the new program. | [59] |
AHP–fuzzy comprehensive evaluation | The combination of qualitative description and quantitative analysis, taking full account of uncertainties, makes the evaluation more comprehensive. | The determination of weights is highly subjective. | [60] |
Meaning of the Assignment | |
---|---|
1.0 | Indicator is as important as indicator |
1.2 | Indicator is slightly more important than indicator |
1.4 | Indicator is more important than indicator |
1.6 | Indicator is much more important than indicator |
1.8 | Indicator is extremely more important than indicator |
Primary Indicators | Secondary Indicators | Indicators Measurement | Property | Source |
---|---|---|---|---|
Radiation scale capacity, | Container sea–rail transportation volume, | Number of containers handled by sea–rail transportation in the year (million TEU) | + | [2,30,40,41] |
Sea–rail container handling capacity, | Ratio of the annual volume of sea–rail containers handled to the total volume of containers handled in the year (%) | + | [2,41,76] | |
Number of productive berths of 10,000 tons and above, | Number of productive berths of 10,000 tons or above owned by the port (pcs) | + | [41] | |
Number of sea–rail transportation lines, | The number of sea–rail liner lines opened at the port (pcs) | + | [30,13,77] | |
Mechanical equipment service level, | Measurement of the performance of machinery and equipment and the level of operation of machinery and equipment | + | [40] | |
Transportation connection capacity, | Connection time, | The total time between the arrival of a ship at its anchorage in port and its departure from its berth after completion of loading and unloading operations (day) | − | [40,41] |
Connection cost, | Cost of loading and unloading a 20 ft fully loaded TEU (yuan) | − | [30] | |
Vessel at berth time, | Total time between arrival at berth for loading and unloading operations and completion of operations and departure from berth (day) | − | [40] | |
Port rail dedicated line mileage, | Length of railroad lines directly related to the main sea–rail terminals and container operation areas of the port (km) | + | [41] | |
Resource integration capacity, | Degree of resource integration, | The degree of matching and coordinated operation between the resources integrated in PCITHs when integrating various resources | + | [78] |
Level of information construction, | The extent to which the hub has invested in and developed information technology and systems applications | + | [43,50,51] | |
Level of inter-port cooperation, | The extent of cooperation with other ports in other regions in terms of resource sharing, information exchange, and operational collaboration | + | [40] | |
Resource utilization efficiency, | Economic benefits gained through resource consumption over a certain period of time and operating revenue/operating costs | + | [78] |
Primary Indicators | Secondary Indicators | Ningbo Zhoushan Port | Qingdao Port | Tianjin Port | Guangzhou Port | Xiamen Port |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Radiation scale capacity | Container sea–rail transportation volume/million TEU | 120.44 | 181.9 | 100.1 | 15.6 | 3.17 |
Sea–rail container handling capacity/% | 3.88 | 7.67 | 4.94 | 0.68 | 0.26 | |
Number of productive berths of 10,000 tons and above/pcs | 198 | 93 | 127 | 80 | 81 | |
Number of sea–rail transportation lines/pcs | 21 | 27 | 44 | 35 | 11 | |
Mechanical equipment service level | 9 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 | |
Transportation connection capacity | Connection time/day | 2.16 | 1.77 | 1.88 | 1.49 | 1.35 |
Connection cost/yuan | 490 | 480 | 470 | 490 | 510 | |
Vessel at berth time/day | 1.07 | 1.17 | 1.50 | 0.85 | 1.05 | |
Port rail dedicated line mileage/km | 56.85 | 46.58 | 120 | 47.6 | 34.8 | |
Resource integration capacity | Degree of resource integration | 8 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 7 |
Level of information construction | 8 | 8 | 7.5 | 7 | 8 | |
Level of inter-port cooperation | 8 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 7 | 7 | |
Resource utilization efficiency | 1.23 | 1.47 | 1.08 | 1.09 | 1.01 |
1.4 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1.0 | 1.4 | 1.2 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 1.2 | 1.4 |
0.1222 | 0.0849 | 0.1018 | 0.1711 | 0.1222 | 0.0849 | 0.0164 | 0.0606 | 0.1222 | 0.0316 | 0.0197 | 0.0505 | 0.0119 | |
0.1813 | 0.1897 | 0.1110 | 0.1378 | 0.0269 | 0.0350 | 0.0075 | 0.0599 | 0.1563 | 0.0239 | 0.0157 | 0.0108 | 0.0440 | |
0.1754 | 0.1792 | 0.1101 | 0.1412 | 0.0365 | 0.0400 | 0.0084 | 0.0600 | 0.1529 | 0.0247 | 0.0161 | 0.0148 | 0.0408 |
First Barrier Factor | Second Barrier Factor | Third Barrier Factor | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Factor | Barrier Degree (%) | Factor | Barrier Degree (%) | Factor | Barrier Degree (%) | |
Ningbo-Zhoushan Port | 25.21 | 21.89 | 20.39 | |||
Qingdao Port | 33.55 | 24.94 | 18.52 | |||
Tianjin Port | 20.19 | 16.66 | 15.09 | |||
Guangzhou Port | 22.62 | 21.83 | 17.38 | |||
Xiamen Port | 20.16 | 19.73 | 17.19 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Liu, T.; Wang, H. Evaluating the Service Capacity of Port-Centric Intermodal Transshipment Hub. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1403. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse11071403
Liu T, Wang H. Evaluating the Service Capacity of Port-Centric Intermodal Transshipment Hub. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering. 2023; 11(7):1403. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse11071403
Chicago/Turabian StyleLiu, Tian, and Haiyan Wang. 2023. "Evaluating the Service Capacity of Port-Centric Intermodal Transshipment Hub" Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 11, no. 7: 1403. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse11071403