Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Contents
I. Introduction
IV. Analysis on the Transport Routes
II. Literature Review by Each Factor
Abstract
1
G
A Study on Competitiveness in Shipping Transport by
Comparing International Transport Routes between Korea and EU
I. Introduction
(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.
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
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>.
Alternative
Route Route Route … Route
1 2 3 N
7
G
A Study on Competitiveness in Shipping Transport by
Comparing International Transport Routes between Korea and EU
Defuzzified Number =
To calculate the weights of the factors, the following Equation (2) was
used, and the results were shown in <Table 5>.
The result shows that the weights of the factors are in the order of
transport cost > transport time > transport service = safety > transport
distance > awareness.
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-
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).
9
G
A Study on Competitiveness in Shipping Transport by
Comparing International Transport Routes between Korea and EU
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>.
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:
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
- 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
16G
G
A Study on Competitiveness in Shipping Transport by
Comparing International Transport Routes between Korea and EU
G
V. Conclusion
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
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
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 NA, G. S. (2011), “Fuzzy TOPSIS approach for supplier selection”,
Korea Corporation Management Associate, Vol.18, No.2, pp.143-159.
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.
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.
20G
G