Abstract
The growth of containerisation and the increase in ship size have resulted in a greater need for transhipment hubs. Hence, some peripheral ports are upgrading to become secondary hub ports. However, it remains unclear why these ports would move towards this strategic direction. The aim of this study is to investigate stakeholders’ perceptions on the importance of peripherality, so as to understand their willingness to invest in secondary hub ports. Stakeholders from the Indonesian port and maritime industry were chosen as the focus of the present study, representing a connected network of peripheral and hub ports at a country level. The study used a mixed-methods approach. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 46 respondents, while quantitative data were collected through an online survey, involving 171 respondents. The data were subsequently analysed through exploratory factor analysis and correlation tests. Results show a pattern in stakeholder behaviour, explaining their reasoning, locational decisions, their perceptions on the importance of peripheral locations and their willingness to invest. It is believed that these findings will prove of value both for governments and the private sectors of international shipping and port operations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Source: Authors
Source: Authors
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Particularly in the period between 1970 and 1990.
References
Bohm, P. 1972. Estimating demand for public goods: An experiment. European Economic Review 3: 111–130.
Chang, Y.T., et al. 2008. Port selection factors by shipping lines: Different perspectives between trunk liners and feeder service providers. Marine Policy 32 (1): 877–885.
De Langen, P.W. 2007. Stakeholders, conflicting interests and governance in port clusters. In Devolution, port governance and port performance, ed. M.R. Brooks and K. Cullinane. Oxford: Elsevier Ltd.
Debrie, J., et al. 2007. Port devolution revisited: the case of regional ports and the role of lower tier governments. Journal of Transport Geography 15: 455–464.
Ducruet, C. 2008. Hub dependence in constrained economies: the case of North Korea. Maritime Policy & Management 35 (4): 377–394.
Ducruet, C., et al. 2009. Going west? Spatial polarization of the North Korean port system. Journal of Transport Geography 17 (1): 357–368.
Dunbar-Nobes, A.C. 1984. Port problems and small-island economies: The case of the South-West Pacific. In Seaport systems and spatial change, ed. B. Hoyle and D. Hilling, 81–97. Suffolk: Wiley.
Field, A. 2018. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics, 5th ed. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Guy, E., and B. Urli. 2006. Port selection and multicriteria analysis: an application to the Montreal-New York alternative. Maritime Economics & Logistics 8 (1): 169–186.
Hair, J.F.J., et al. 2010. Multivariate data analysis, 7th ed. New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.
Hayuth, Y. 1981. Containerization and the load center concept. Economic Geography 57 (2): 160–176.
Jansen, M., et al. 2018. Exploring the conditions for inclusive port development: the case of Indonesia. Maritime Policy & Management 45 (7): 924–943.
Johansen, L. 1977. The theory of public goods: misplaced emphasis? Journal of Public Economics 7: 147–152.
Johnson, R.B., and A.J. Onwuegbuzie. 2004. Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher 33 (7): 14–26.
Lee, P.T., and M. Flynn. 2011. Charting a new paradigm of container hub port development policy: the Asian doctrine. Transport Reviews 31 (6): 791–806.
Lin, S.M. 2015. An exploration of relationship structures, their integration and value in maritime logistics networks. PhD Thesis in Cardiff University.
Lindner, J.R., et al. 2001. Handling nonresponse in social science research. Journal of Agricultural Education 42 (4): 43–53.
Lirn, T.C., et al. 2004. An application of ahp on transhipment port selection: a global perspective. Maritime Economics & Logistics 6 (1): 70–91.
Miles, M.B., and A.M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Inc.
Monios, J. 2017. Cascading feeder vessels and the rationalisation of small container ports. Journal of Transport Geography 59: 88–99.
Monios, J., and G. Wilmsmeier. 2012. Port-centric logistics, dry ports and offshore logistics hubs: strategies to overcome double peripherality? Maritime Policy & Management 39 (2): 207–226.
Murphy, P.R., et al. 1992. Port selection criteria: an application of a transportation. Logistics and Transportation Review 28 (3): 237–255.
Nazemzadeh, M., and T. Vanelslander. 2015. The container transport system: selection criteria and business attractiveness for North-European ports. Maritime Economics & Logistics 17 (2): 221–245.
Notteboom, T. 1997. Concentration and load centre development in the European container port system. Journal of Transport Geography 5 (2): 99–115.
Pallant, J. 2016. SPSS survival manual, 6th ed. Berkshire: Open University Press.
Samuelson, P.A. 1954. The pure theory of public expenditure. The Review of Economics and Statistics 36 (4): 387–389.
Slack, B., and J. Wang. 2002. The challenge of peripheral ports: an Asian perspective. GeoJournal 56 (2): 159–166.
Song, D.W., and K.T. Yeo. 2004. A competitive analysis of Chinese container ports using the analytic hierarchy process. Maritime Economics & Logistics 6: 34–52.
Talley, W.K. 2014. Maritime transport chains: Carrier, port and shipper choice effects. International Journal of Production Economics 151 (1): 174–179.
Tongzon, J.L., and L. Sawant. 2007. Port choice in a competitive environment: from the shipping lines’ perspective. Applied Economics 39 (4): 477–492.
Wang, J.J. 1998. A container load center with a developing hinterland: a case study of Hong Kong. Journal of Transport Geography 6 (3): 187–201.
Wang, J., and A.K.Y. Ng. 2011. The geographical connectedness of Chinese seaports with foreland markets: a new trend? Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 102 (2): 188–204.
Wang, J.J., and B. Slack. 2004. Regional governance of port development in China: a case study of Shanghai International Shipping Center. Maritime Policy & Management 31 (4): 357–373.
Wilmsmeier, G., et al. 2014. Port system evolution—the case of Latin America and the Caribbean. Journal of Transport Geography 39 (1): 208–221.
Wilmsmeier, G., and J. Monios. 2013. Counterbalancing peripherality and concentration: an analysis of the UK container port system. Maritime Policy & Management 40 (2): 116–132.
Wilmsmeier, G., and J. Monios. 2016. Institutional structure and agency in the governance of spatial diversification of port system evolution in Latin America. Journal of Transport Geography 51 (1): 294–307.
Wiradanti, B., et al. 2018. Ports, peripherality and concentration—Deconcentration factors: a review. Maritime Business Review 3 (4): 375–393.
Acknowledgements
This study is based on a PhD thesis sponsored by the Indonesia Port Corporation (PT Pelabuhan Indonesia II). An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Logistics Research Network (LRN) Conference 2017 in Southampton, UK. The thesis was awarded the 3rd Prize at the Maritime Economics and Logistics (MEL) Palgrave Macmillan Best PhD Award 2019, at a ceremony which took place in Genoa, Italy, on 21st June 2019.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wiradanti, B., Pettit, S., Potter, A. et al. Willingness to invest in peripheral ports: perceptions of Indonesian port and maritime industry stakeholders. Marit Econ Logist 22, 699–714 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-020-00147-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-020-00147-6