동북아 컨테이너 환적항만 선정에 관한 연구

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to select a container transshipment port in Northeast Asia by applying the AHP technique from a global shipping company perspective. For this, we deduced evaluation factors and a detailed evaluation from preliminary research and information from port experts, and established an analytic hierarchy model based on the results. Through a questionnaire survey of global shipping company experts using major ports in northeast Asia, the study deduced the importance of hierarchy using the AHP technique. As a result of evaluation factor analysis of hierarchy 2, port volume demonstrated the highest priority. As a result of detailed evaluation factor analysis of hierarchy 3, import and export cargo in the port volume valuation factors, container handling costs in port cost evaluation factors, feed network establishment level in port service valuation factors, number of berths and length in port facility evaluation factors, and distance to circumnavigate port location evaluation factors, showed high priority. As a result of alternative analysis of hierarchy 4, Port of Shanghai was selected for detailed factors in import and export cargo, and Busan Port for transshipped volume, respectively; Busan Port was selected also for comprehensive port cargo valuation factors. In the detailed factors of container handling costs, Busan Port was selected as an alternative, as well as for the detailed factors of incidental expense related to transshipment. Additionally, Busan Port was selected for the alternative evaluation for comprehensive port cost valuation factors. Tokyo Port was selected fore detailed factors of port human resources, and Busan Port was selected as an alternative factor for feed network as well as a factor for comprehensive port service. Busan Port was selected as a factor for front of pier depth, and Shanghai Port for detailed factor of the number of berths and length. Shanghai Port was also selected in an alternative evaluation for comprehensive port facility factors. Busan Port was selected as the detailed factor for circumnavigation and as an alternative for the detailed factor of distance in the feeder port. Busan Port was also selected in an alternative evaluation for comprehensive port location factor. Busan Port was selected as an alternative for transshipment volume, container handling costs, incidental costs related to transshipment, level of feed network establishment, front pier depth, distance in feeder port and circumnavigation. Shanghai Port was selected as an alternative for import and export cargo and number of berths and length factors. The Port of Tokyo was selected as an alternative for port human resource level factor. The results of all hierarchies of the comprehensive importance of each alternative showed the order as follows: Busan Port (0.340), Port of Shanghai (0.223), Port of Kaohsiung (0.168), Port of Tokyo (0.143), and Ningbo Port (0.126), with Busan Port selected as a transshipment port of Northeast Asia.