COM7 Terminal productivity Tongzon, 2009; Low et al., 2009

COM8 Cargo handling speed Imai et al., 2013; Yeo et al., 2008; Stopord, 2009

COM9 Supply chain cooperation Cheon and Deakin, 2010; Low et al., 2009

COM10 Simplification of procedure Tongzon, 2009

COM11 Total transport costs per container Ishii, 2013; Tongzon, 2009; Yeo et al., 2008

COM12 Trans-shipment costs Imai et al., 2013

COM13 Port charges Ishii, 2013; Tongzon, 2009; Murphy et al., 1989

COM14 Cargo handling charges Yeo et al., 2011, 2008; Murphy et al., 1992, 1989

COM15 Port service costs Yeo et al., 2011, 2008; Tongzon, 2009; Murphy et al., 1992

COM16 Reliability of service performance Cho et al., 2010; Tongzon, 2009

COM17 Safety and security Hall, 2007; Cho et al., 2010

COM18 Application of IT Yeo et al., 2011, 2008

COM19 Quick response to port user’s needs Tongzon, 2009; Cho et al., 2010

COM20 Low congestion in a port Imai et al., 2013; Yeo et al., 2008

COM21 Service differentiation Tongzon, 2009; Cho et al., 2010

Source: Tabulated by Author

Note: COM: competitiveness

3. Research Method

3.1. Overview of Research Design

This paper aims to investigate the structure of port competitiveness analysing multi-measurement items, based on hub ports striving to be a regional gateway in new hub-and-spoke networks featured in NEA. A questionnaire survey examined 21 multi-measurement items in container port operations derived from the available literature using items, each anchored by five-point Likert scales (1– strongly disagree to 5– strongly agree). Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using SPSS 21 was deployed to identify the sub-dimensions of port competitiveness and eliminate potentially superfluous items and based on the results, target ports were compared.

To enhance the external validity of findings, after translating the questionnaire into three different versions (Chinese including Mandarin and Cantonese, Korean) questionnaires were distributed to the major container ports in NEA: Shanghai (1st), Hong Kong (3rd) and Busan (5th), each vying for regional gateway status (Low et al., 2009).

3.2. Data Collection

Prior to collecting data in 2013 a pilot survey was conducted by email. Thirty respondents included a group of researchers and experts who were selected as practitioners working in a container port. Based on pre-tests, a revised questionnaire was compiled. In total 2000 questionnaires were distributed to port stakeholders in the container ports of Shanghai, HongKong and Busan; 104 were returned as non-deliverable. Two weeks after an initial mailing a cover letter was despatched along with reminder emails to all potential respondents, ahead of a final email, two weeks later. The final response of 203 gave an effective response rate of 10.7% (203/1896). The total response rate of each port was: 48 from Shanghai (10.7 %), 53 from Hong-Kong (11.0 %), and 102 from Busan (10.6 %), respectively.